Should economic reality trump military necessity?

These have to be the happiest of days for pacifists. With a growing sense of disillusionment with our wars and our ability to fight wars, the Strategic Defence and Security Review just heaps joy upon joy for them. Now the Royal Navy is to be saddled with two massive aircraft carriers, useless without aircraft and which the Navy must scrap much of its surface fleet to pay for. The Army and the Royal Air Force, both apparently clinging to the need to defend Northern Europe from a Soviet Pact invasion, a threat that vanished decades ago, have sacrificed everything else to keep that dream alive. All of which leaves brave men and women fighting in the front line to pay the ultimate price for years of neglect.

Who should the finger of blame point towards? The last government appointed some of the most breathtakingly incompetent ministers in our history, but if they are given no leadership from above, and they are never held to account in Parliament, is it their fault for being useless or ours for letting them get away with it? And if the Ministry of Defence is run by clowns, have our top generals and admirals been moulded by their environment or are they equally culpable for the mismanagement of the department over many years? It’s hard to imagine how any senior officer who puts the case for military need above that of political expediency can further his career.

And that is a large part of the problem. We have far too many senior officers scrambling up the greasy pole to collect more stars before retiring to a comfortable job in the defence industry which is  milking and bilking the defence budget. We already have more admirals than ships even before the planned round of cutbacks. But the bloated empire that is Whitehall will not be scaled back accordingly. It will be the soldier, the sailor, and the airman who will again bear the brunt of economic cutbacks. There will be fewer of them, with poorer equipment, and less of it. All of which ignores the fact that we are in a hot, shooting war with al Qaeda.

We need to confront terrorism everywhere. We need to tackle its radicalising influence here in the UK, and we need to be capable of responding to terrorist incidents or preferably of detecting and preventing them beforehand. We need to be tracking them down to their training camps and flushing them out of their safe havens, worldwide. That’s why we were in Afghanistan originally, that’s why we should be in the North West Provinces if the Pakistan government won’t assist. Hot spots of radial Islam in Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia and elsewhere also need to be brought into the equation and we need to deal with those politically if at all possible but militarily if not.

To do this we need more military resources, not fewer. We need more armed police or territorial army manpower ready to deal with a Mumbai-style attack wherever it might occur. That means more soldiers and army camps across Britain. We need sufficient emergency resources to cope with casualties after a bomb attack, again wherever it might occur which means more ambulances, hospitals and medics across the country. And we need intelligence gathering to tell us what the terrorists are planning. We also need to engage with moderate Moslems, to counter the extremist views being put across by radical clerics, and to reassure them that this isn’t a war against Islam.

But we also need to be able to deploy an independent army to any location in the world. Fully equipped, fully trained, and fully supported on land, sea and in the air. We should not require support from any other country to do this, but we should be ready and willing to support others should we be called upon to do so. Finally, and most important, we need the political will. Defence expenditure is not something to be weighed against other peace-time budgetary considerations. It’s not a choice between a new warship or a cross-rail link. We either spend the money and defend ourselves adequately, or we have no need for budgets for anything. This is a matter of survival, plain and simple. We are at war.

These may not be happy days for pacifists after all.  White Poppy, anyone?

The Sikh Regiment – has the time come?

I posted this on MyTel about three years ago, but with a Coalition government now in office and Cameron visiting India at present, I wonder if it’s the right time to raise the issue again?

The MoD liked the idea then, do they now? The CRE hated the idea then, isn’t it about time they were told where to go?

The original post:

I love the Sikhs. Of all the troubles we read about in today’s religion-obsessed world, none of them are caused by Sikhs. To my knowledge they stand for principles, loyalty, honour, family values and service to the community, plus whatever other qualities you can think to name. They have also served the British Crown loyally and valiantly for more than a century. You would think the Ministry of Defence would be delighted to be approached by leaders of the Sikh community with the suggestion of forming a Sikh regiment and the assurance they would have no trouble finding 700 willing volunteers. And the MoD were delighted. Delighted that is, until they spoke to the Commission for Racial Equality who vetoed the idea.

Sikh soldiers in the Indian Army

The CRE, which itself has a dreadfully racist record of employment, has a vested interest in perpetuating the race relations industry and saddling this country with insane policies. It is also highly selective in its approach. Saying “the creation of a separate regiment according to ethnicity would be segregation, which amounts to discrimination under the Race Relations Act” is to defy common sense. The British Army has for centuries formed regiments along ethnic lines, and why? Because they work. Society is entirely happy with the idea of the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards and the Welsh Guards. They take recruits on ethnic grounds from all across the UK. There is no conceivable reason why the Sikhs cannot do the same.

I hope common sense will prevail and Sikh leaders and the Ministry of Defence will decide to ignore the CRE and go ahead with this inspiring proposal.

I’ve copied my post above to save you all a little trouble and to start a fresh stream of comments, here is the link to it:

Another skirmish in the race relations war

Remembering the brave boys of Bomber Command

War is an ugly, horrible business as anyone who has been involved will tell you, whether combatant or civilian. And while time heals all but the deepest wounds and former adversaries can meet again in peace, that’s not to say we should forget those wounds because I can’t think of a single war fought between two sides who were both the “good guys”. Inevitably, wars are between good and evil and in the interests of celebrating the triumph of good over evil, the good guys should be remembered and they deserve to have their sacrifices honoured.

That doesn’t always happen, and it hasn’t happened yet in the case of 55,000 courageous young men who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives for our freedom. They served in the RAF’s Bomber Command and had a worse chance of survival than a world war one infantry officer. 55,000 killed out of 125,000 aircrew is a devastating loss ratio, yet those who survived one raid went back out on the next one. They received no Campaign Medal for their extraordinary bravery, and they still do not have an official memorial. Dresden is often cited as the reason.

This weekend marks the 65th anniversary of the bombing of Dresden. Over the course of two nights, 1300 heavy bombers dropped 3900 tons of bombs resulting in a firestorm that claimed up to 25,000 mostly civilian lives, and it remains one of the most controversial acts of world war two. I lament any death, but what is special about Dresden? Other cities had a worse pounding, don’t their dead count for anything? Or is it okay if civilians are only killed in ones and twos? Is it because they died in a firestorm and some other method of killing them would have been okay?

We should remember the loss of all civilians killed in the war, and not single out the unfortunate residents of Dresden and forget the rest. So why do we do that? Quite simply, Dresden remains controversial because of the enduring effect of Nazi propaganda during the war, and Soviet propaganda after it. The Nazis and the Soviets both wanted to demonise us. Würzburg was bombed a month later and suffered more devastation, even though far fewer bombers were involved in one brief air raid. Why do we not remember those poor victims the same way? Is it because “only” 5,000 residents were killed? No, it’s not about the people, Dresden is a touchstone for pacifists while Würzburg didn’t have the benefit of Soviet propaganda.

The propaganda machine continues to crank away, only with different hands working the handle. War is an ugly, horrible business; there is no “nice” way to kill people. But sometimes it is necessary and all that had to happen to prevent Dresden was that Germany had to stop fighting. Yet even children were put into uniform and armed and sent to fight the advancing allies. Is there a practical pacifist response to a ruthless and desperate totalitarian system? The war against the Nazis was necessary, and pacifism was tried first, sincerely and earnestly.

We didn’t choose to go to war lightly and frivolously. We were still weary after the first world war, “the war to end all wars.” But we were confronted with a ruthless, aggressive Germany the Nazis had motivated ready to fight a total war. That included purging Germany of all Jews, Gypsies and the mentally and physically disabled. The good burghers of Dresden were as thorough as any other town or city in sending all their Jews and others to the concentration camps.

Here is the eyewitness account of a Jewish slave worker:

Roman Halter, now 82, was working as munitions worker in Dresden at the time of the attack. A Polish Jew, he had survived the Lodz Ghetto and selections at the death camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

He says, “There were cartwheels of fire chasing oxygen and we had to throw ourselves down on the tarmac. The tarmac was already hot. And as we went through people were jumping from buildings.

“People were jumping around with flame. It was horrendous this vision. We had more sympathy for these people than the SS who only cared about guarding us.

“But we felt really that they started the war. We knew that England was bombed, that Coventry was bombed and they deserved whatever they’re getting.”

After the war, Mr Halter came to London and received schooling from former Bomber Command pilots. Inspired by the beauty of Dresden, he became an architect. He says, “Fifty five thousand of them were killed. Everyone of them should have been honoured because they did their duty.

“They didn’t protest; they felt that if Hitler wins, Europe and the world will be thrown into a darkness for a thousand years. And if it had not been for Churchill and the RAF boys we would not have won.”

The contribution of Bomber Command to the war effort was fully understood by the Nazis too. Albert Speer, minister of armaments wrote this after the war:

“The real importance of the air war consisted in the fact that it opened a second front long before the invasion in Europe … Defence against air attacks required the production of thousands of anti-aircraft guns, the stockpiling of tremendous quantities of ammunition all over the country, and holding in readiness hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who in addition had to stay in position by their guns, often totally inactive, for months at a time … No one has yet seen that this was the greatest lost battle on the German side.”

Roman Halter and Albert Speer are both right. And Bomber Command should have its memorial, for without their sacrifice the Nazis would have given us a thousand more Dresdens.


A lesson in accountability from America

What a contrast we see in the way the military is run in this country compared with the USA. Here, General Dannatt is being praised for his bravery in first speaking out about the abysmal housing our servicemen are expected to live in, and now for the near-poverty levels of pay for those in the lower ranks. He is holding his political masters to account. Over in America, however, the hobnailed boot is on the other foot. Secretary of Defense, Robert M Gates, has just sacked the four-star Air Force Chief of Staff and the civilian Air Force Secretary for “a pattern of poor performance” over control of nuclear weapons and parts. Last year he sacked a two-star general and the civilian Army Secretary over the shocking standards of accommodation at a top US military hospital.

Here’s what the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee had to say: “Secretary Gates’ focus on accountability is essential and has been absent from the office of the secretary of defense for too long.” Contrast that with our own part-time Secretary of State for Defence who is also the Minister of State for Scotland. Accountability is not a word he is familiar with. He has presided over a regime where increased demands on the armed forces have not been matched with increases in resources. The thin desert-pink line has been stretched to breaking point and it is no surprise that under the circumstances more and more servicemen are abandoning the armed forces.

Gates has made it clear that the American air force had suffered for years from a loss of expertise in handling nuclear materials. Is that what is in store for us? Are we going to have our own “nuclear incidents” caused by lack of experience or lack of resources? Two incidents hit the headlines in America. One happened last year when a B-52 flew across America with six armed nuclear cruise missiles, which was completely against regulations, but what’s more, the crew didn’t even know they had them on board. The more recent incident, which resulted in the sackings, was when four nose-cone fuses for Minuteman nuclear warheads were sent to Taiwan, instead of some helicopter batteries that should have been sent.

The problems in America are certainly not due to resources, they are more symptomatic of complacency. Over here we have a dedicated, motivated, and professional armed services, but which is underpaid, poorly resourced and seriously overstretched. As a consequence ours are also haemorrhaging skilled men and women. Never mind the injustices that are being done to those who serve, and let’s not even get started on how shamefully the wounded are treated, where is the political will to see defence as nothing more than a part-time job? When will we get a secretary of state for defence who will focus on his job? When will we get some accountability?

Another skirmish in the Race Relations war

I love the Sikhs. Of all the troubles we read about in today’s religion-obsessed world, none of them are caused by Sikhs. To my knowledge they stand for principles, loyalty, honour, family values and service to the community, plus whatever other qualities you can think to name. They have also served the British Crown loyally and valiantly for more than a century. You would think the Ministry of Defence would be delighted to be approached by leaders of the Sikh community with the suggestion of forming a Sikh regiment and the assurance they would have no trouble finding 700 willing volunteers. And the MoD were delighted. Delighted that is, until they spoke to the Commission for Racial Equality who vetoed the idea.

Sikh soldiers in the Indian Army

The CRE, which itself has a dreadfully racist record of employment, has a vested interest in perpetuating the race relations industry and saddling this country with insane policies. It is also highly selective in its approach. Saying “the creation of a separate regiment according to ethnicity would be segregation, which amounts to discrimination under the Race Relations Act” is to defy common sense. The British Army has for centuries formed regiments along ethnic lines, and why? Because they work. Society is entirely happy with the idea of the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards and the Welsh Guards. They take recruits on ethnic grounds from all across the UK. There is no conceivable reason why the Sikhs cannot do the same.

I hope common sense will prevail and Sikh leaders and the Ministry of Defence will decide to ignore the CRE and go ahead with this inspiring proposal.

The Falklands War, the teachers’ reaction

Twenty five years after the Falkland Islands were freed from a military occupation, teachers in Scotland have voted for a ban on recruiters visiting schools to talk about careers in the army. Apparently these despicable people were handing out t-shirts and even pictures of helicopers. Okay, so I realise the teachers are probably more upset about Blair invading Iraq than anything else, but it demonstrates to me how morally enfeebled we have become because of political correctness and even class hatred. I wish we hadn’t been lied to over Iraq as well, but the response should not be to punish the armed forces over it.

Service in the military is a service to the country and is something to be proud of.

Read the BBC Scotland report here