Who gives a shit what Dannatt says?

Since when has retired General Richard Dannatt become an expert on Britain's military needs? He was the head of the Army 2006-09, during which time it was booted out by the Iraqi government ("the mission substantially done") and made such a poor showing in Helmand that the Americans had to take over.

He also played politics so ineptly that he lost his Buggin's turn as Chief of the Defence Staff, leaving Sir Jock Strap in place for another couple of years. So, naturally, Dannatt gets to pontificate in the Telegraph.

There is no strict military necessity for air power to be deployed from platforms at sea in support of British operations, although the option to project power is alluring. Also, Nato will remain the principal guarantor of our collective security, and the US will remain our principal bilateral defence partner.

Bull-shit. The alternative is land bases in neighbouring countries, which will not always be available, take a long time to make operational and require a large military presence to secure. Carriers are an all-in-one package. It's not "alluring" - it's a simple matter of military fact. The RAF cannot even cover the North Atlantic.

Ah, but why go on? It's just another special interest bleat. Why save half the non air-portable main battle tanks and heavy artillery? No reason - it's just sleight-of-hand to seem reasonable, offering to cut the fat from the Army while amputating vital parts of the other services.

What the British armed forces need is a LOT less generals, admirals and marshals.