Letter: Wider consultation needed in Government defence review
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Letter: Wider consultation needed in Government defence review
Sir: Polly Toynbee, in her polemical attack on the defence review ("A Boy Scout motto: prepared for what?", 14 July), is correct to identify, amongst all too many senior officials, a continuing cold-war mindset and a reluctance, verging on a refusal, to open their minds generally. She is completely wrong, however, to believe that we can secure a better and fairer life at home and do good in the world without having effective, fully equipped military capabilities.
Sir Michael Alexander (letter, 16 July) can fairly and properly defend ministers' intentions to make the review process as open as possible and bring in contributions from all with something to contribute. But the lists of those actually invited to the two seminars held so far undermine his implicit claim that participation was fully representative.
It was, in fact, highly selective, largely composed of a particular favoured few, amounting to less than 5 per cent of the 150-200 academics doing serious work on defence and security issues in this country and almost entirely ignoring those working on strictly military issues - which is what the review is actually about.
Officials (and ex-officials like Sir Michael) will have to do much better than this if the review process is to justify the open government objectives to which ministers rightly attach such importance.
HUMPHRY CRUM EWING
Research Fellow
Centre for Defence and International Security Studies
Lancaster University
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments