The UK government's defence review has slipped into a depressing rhythm. The public debate is being shaped by who shouts the loudest. The army's insistence on keeping boots on the ground collides with the air force's addiction to fast jets; the navy's obsession with new aircraft carriers promises to leave nothing for the defence of cyberspace.
Such arguments are important, not least for those ready to put themselves in harm's way in the nation's defence. The size and structure of the armed forces will determine Britain's security posture for a generation. The problem is that the process is back to front.
While generals, admirals and aviators argue about the merits of the infantry versus carriers and jets, the prior strategic question has been sidelined. Money will always be a constraint, but Britain's military reach should bear some proximate relationship to the likely threats and to a sense of its place in the world. Instead, the choices have been shrouded in strategic fog.