Have a Good NEWS

We face too many threats to allow military matters to remain the preserve of the same old â€" mostly male â€" voices

At the weekend I walked into another world: one I have never seen, touched, talked about, written about or shown much interest in; a world generally kept for male columnists and "specialists". I was invited to watch the trooping of the colour, surrounded by soldiers in immaculate and ornate uniforms parading to magnificent music, and I felt myself an immigrant just off the boat from Planet Civilian.

Some of us on the centre-left think the military matters. There is a strong old Labour tradition of deep respect, even reverence, for the army, exemplified under the last governments by people such as George Robertson, John Hutton and John Reid. But the general view is reflexively anti-military or, at the least, bored-indifferent.

We get very aerated by particular wars, such as the appalling Iraq aggression, but this rarely spills over into a close interest in defence. Many, including myself, are anti-Trident and deeply dislike the business of selling military hardware all over the globe. Others are straightforward pacifists or, like Simon Jenkins, want the complete abolition of army, navy and air force. But few people engage directly in the questions now throbbing through Whitehall about what "defence" should mean and be.

Of all the great public issues, defence seems the one most divided up into mutually uncomprehending villages. Health, education, policing, social services â€" these touch almost everyone. Defence is different.

There are the military families and those with special links to a regiment or service. There are the anti-military campaigners. And in the middle there is a blur. I felt the contrast, leaving Horseguards Parade, full of one kind of people, and almost immediately passing the "peace village" or protest camp mushrooming in Parliament Square. It seemed a vivid, worrying metaphor.

Why worrying? Because when you come face to face with mutilated soldiers and bereaved parents, you have your face rubbed in the reality behind the pomp and the politics. The young men under the huge bearskins in bright tunics are the very same Grenadier Guardsmen who came back from Afghanistan, mourning their dead only a few weeks ago. The most poignant sight of all was one young Guardsman, who had lost both legs in Afghanistan, sitting ramrod straight in his wheelchair. The pride and dignity he showed watching his colleagues parade was humbling. Whatever your view of the war, these are remarkable people who deserve more support, sympathy and help than they are getting.

The decisions being taken on our behalf by the usual cliques of men are hugely important. Liam Fox, in between sacking Jock Stirrup as chief of defence staff , has promised a "radical" and "unsentimental" defence review that would "look beyond defence in the traditional sense". It would, he promised, deal with a new world in which "transnational terrorism, nuclear proliferation, cyberspace battles and the effects of climate change are all playing a part in destabilising the equilibrium of global security".

On that he's surely right, and such a review is welcome. We can't pretend that there are no violent threats ahead. Simply ending all defence spending and crossing our fingers doesn't seem to me plausible or realistic. Across the Middle East and parts of the former Soviet Union there is a vast population boom, with millions of workless, radicalised and often angry young men looking for something to do. Water wars and mass migrations are likely to form Africa's future. China, still controlled by a secretive and repressive state, is targeting the British government and businesses with cyber-spying. A few people with a dirty bomb getting to central London in Olympics year, or to a Manchester shopping centre any year, is not hard to imagine.

"Defence" is a proper and serious subject for politically interested people of all views. It's one of the first duties governments have. It's completely appropriate for centre-left parties to argue about â€" and yet it's somehow inevitable that, so far, Labour's leadership debate has barely mentioned the subject beyond Trident. Health, schools, even immigration â€" yes. But this? No.

It's hard to claim that the current spending plans match the changed threats. Why are we still committed to a massive nuclear response? If, in the final analysis, Iran produced a nuclear weapon and started sounding menacing, or Pakistan came under Taliban-style control, is there anyone who would support annihilating Tehran or Lahore? We are no longer in the age of mutually assured destruction or a global stand-off between the armed camps of communism and capitalism. While watching the meticulous theatre of trooping the colour, I reflected that these were skills that saw off Napoleon. In new times, in its way, Trident is as equally outdated (and less fun to watch, and of rather less value in boosting tourism).

Look into the details of defence, and you find that the two "Queen Elizabeth class" aircraft carriers currently promised are planned to be three times bigger than today's carriers, with crews of up to 1,500 and enough air power to refight the Battle of Britain over Borneo, or Canada, or wherever you choose. The cost is astronomical: up to £5bn, and you have to ask: why? Other countries, led by the US, have super-carriers, but what is the likelihood of sea battle for them? Is this really a national priority? Even if there are big cancellation costs for the first carrier â€" the hull has been partly built â€" they would be a lot less than actually buying them.

The same goes for the 120 joint strike fighter aircraft for the RAF and navy â€" costing at least £10bn â€" which are not even quite good enough to shoot down the latest Russian jets. One can see the case for some fighters, I suppose: but 120? If Fox means what he says about radical and unsentimental decisions, these ought to be questioned.

In their place, we will need a small, better-equipped, flexible and cleverer army, with the helicopters, assault ships and vehicles to get them anywhere quickly. It's going to be a world for special forces, multilingual and well-educated troops with political intelligence and popular backing, used sparingly. We need to be putting money into spying on radical groups overseas, protecting ourselves against the disruption of cyber-attacks, and clever diplomacy to nip problems in the bud. That kind of military defence seems right to me.

But what do I know? I'm a woman, and only just learning about Planet Soldier. And that's really my point. Defence is too important and too expensive to left to the specialists, and the boys whose detailed knowledge of "kit" verges on the alarming. This defence review matters for all of us, and it's time to get serious about it now.