Brown's Battleground.(World Affairs)(Gordon Brown, British armed forces)

Byline: William Underhill

Tony Blair dispatched the British military to the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East. But now defense spending is down, and the generals are speaking out.

For the British military, it's a long-established rule: serving officers don't criticize their political masters--at least in public. But circumstances test the oldest conventions. With soldiers heavily committed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, commanders fear the armed forces are dangerously close to the breaking point, and these days they're starting to speak out. Last week the chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, told journalists in London: "We are simply not geared up for two operations on this scale." According to the country's senior officer, the military was "stretched beyond the capabilities we have."

If the language remains civil, the message to the politicians is clear. Over the past 11 years, Labour governments have been ready enough to send troops into combat. As prime minister, Tony Blair authorized deployments in the Balkans and Sierra Leone, as well as the Middle East and Afghanistan. But the government has failed to match those additional roles with extra spending. As a fraction of GDP, the [pounds sterling]32 billion defense budget now stands at just 2.5 percent--less than half the level reached at the height of the cold war. Spending is still far higher than most other European nations. NATO members spend an average of 1.8 percent of GDP; France comes close to the British figure but has stayed away from Iraq and has thus far taken little active role in the fighting in Afghanistan. But in Britain, an Army of 155,000 in 1989 has shrunk to an official strength of 102,000 today, and its leaders say an effective military needs more resources--and soon.

The lack of resources is due in large part to a failure to imagine the kind of military needs Britain would have in the current era. The last major review of defense policy back in 1998, the basis for today's armed forces, foresaw occasional lengthy overseas missions but not large-scale simultaneous indefinite deployments. "What was never envisaged were two cases of regime change where Britain has a moral responsibility to stay for as long as it's needed," says Michael Codner of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank. Today there are 4,000 British troops in Iraq, and the number in Afghanistan--the largest single NATO contingent after the United States--will soon top 8,000.

What particularly irks the military are not the extra tasks; it's the failure to meet the new financial realities. Some government departments--notably health and education--have seen their budgets increase by more than 150 percent over the past decade of Labour rule. By contrast, defense has seen an equivalent rise of just 10 percent in real terms, according to the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA), formed in 2005 to press for higher military spending. "Every politician says, 'Defense is our first priority'--and then immediately disproves it," says John Muxworthy of the defense association, which includes three former chiefs of the Defense Staff among its patrons, as well as senior politicians from outside government. According to the association, a budget hike of up to 40 percent is needed. Rises that merely keep close to the inflation rate are of little use when the cost of equipment continues to climb at 8 percent or more annually.

The first victims of underfunding are on the front line, where overstretched manpower means extra duty for the troops and a strain on morale. "The government is trading on the sheer professionalism and good will of the average soldier," says Patrick Mercer, a Conservative M.P. and former Army officer. Soldiers returning home from Iraq or Afghanistan may find themselves back in combat zones in barely ...