David Cameron has warned of a "generational struggle" against the Islamic State (Isis). He has said he fears it is a struggle that would last "the rest of my political lifetime". He promised that Britain would use all its "military prowess" against it.
Yet what is the country's military prowess, and what are the implications for Britain's armed forces of this projected long-term struggle?
Little has been said or written about the potential consequences for the army, navy, and airforce, and their budgets, even taking into account the prevailing view that military action alone, and certainly not air strikes, will defeat Isis.
Indeed, very little was said by the two main parties at their party conferences about spending on the military.
On the eve of the Tory conference, the Ministry of Defence made a big deal of its decision to award £3.2bn worth of contracts relating to navy bases.
Lord West of Spithead (former first sea lord and Labour security minister) describes the way the contracts were announced as "very naughty...politicking at its worst".
He points out that without the contracts Britain's fleet would be stuck in port. The money is needed simply to pay for existing running costs, nothing more.
Political leaders promise to increase spending on the NHS, but defence is not ring-fenced, it is not protected from cuts.
Cameron has promised only to increase the military equipment budget in real terms by 1% in next year's spending review
A big chunk of this will be eaten up by building a new fleet of Trident submarines to carry nuclear weapons - not a weapon that will be used against Britain's enemies or relevant to Cameron's "generational struggle".
(Another big chunk is being eaten up by to the navy's two large aircraft carriers being assembled in Scotland. How many increasingly expensive American F35 jets for them Britain will be able to afford is far from clear.)
The past two weeks have already pointed to existing deficiencies in Britain's most basic "military prowess".
The RAF has pretty accurate Brimstone missiles but its most modern aircraft - the Eurofighter Typhoon - cannot yet carry them.
So the RAF has to rely on its Tornados, some of which are 30 years old. As I revealed last week a squadron due to be scrapped next year has been reprieved.
The defence budget is ripe for further cuts.
"The fear", says Jonathan Shaw, former head of Britain's special forces, in Britain in a Perilous World (just published by Haus Curiosities) is that Defence is a painless place to cut in the short term, with more votes in welfare, health and education..."
In a recent paper, The Financial Context for the 2015 SDSR [Strategic Defence and Security Review] professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute thinktank, suggests that the defence budget will be cut further next year with UK spending falling below the 2% of GDP benchmark demanded by Nato (though honoured by only a handful of Nato countries).
Shaw's short book is a scathing attack on Whitehall, its culture and lack of lateral thinking. The scope of the 2015, post general election, SDSR needs to be "wide and thorough", Shaw writes. It must take into account "counter terrorism, cyber security, disaster relief and environmental catastrophe".
This should point to more investment in drones, and other intelligence-gathering systems, and special forces.
It also raises questions about the large amounts, estimated to be £100bn over the next 30 years or so - over the next generation - spent on the Trident nuclear weapons ballistic missile system.
