BRITAIN’S special forces are rightly venerated as being among the world’s best fighting forces.

So why have successive Governments sent them into battle with inadequate support?

In the last two campaigns alone, UK Armed Forces had to cope with poorly protected Land Rovers, Nimrod spy planes that leaked fuel, and a shortage of night sights for rifles, among a litany of other problems.

The battlefield has changed totally since the end of the Cold War and, in particular, the events of 9/11.

Despite incessant tinkering by politicians, Britain still has an army set up for a Cold War-style conflict.

Why else do we maintain several hundred main battle tanks, which are unsuited to the kind of operations our soldiers are carrying out in Afghanistan?

And why is the Government so committed to spending billions on replacing the Trident nuclear submarine fleet, when other military equipment budgets are facing severe cutbacks?

Nuclear missile submarines are weapons platforms from a different era. We thank God they were never used, and can see no reason for spending £20bn on their replacements.

These projects are based on outdated thinking, which is no longer applicable in a war on terror.

We welcome today’s announcement of a “major rebalancing” of the Armed Forces, but hope yet another defence review will not be used by politicians as a smokescreen for further equipment cuts.

How many more times must we ask our soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs?