- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Here‘s an article from The Daily Telegraph (27 Nov) discussing a problem which isn‘t as foreign as we‘d wish ...
Armies kill for their country - they don‘t run soup kitchens
By Alan Judd
‘THE task of the infantry," wrote Field Marshal Montgomery, "is to find the enemy, and kill him." Could any general nowadays be so starkly truthful about his profession? And what, nowadays, do would-be infantrymen think they are joining the British Army for - to die for Brussels, or to dish out soup with copies of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Since 1945, Old Labour has, in fact, looked after our Armed Forces pretty well. Perhaps it was partly because the party felt vulnerable and so made a particular effort, just as the Tories have always increased spending on health and welfare. Labour ministers were generally patriotic and got on well with the generals. True, Harold Wilson cancelled the TSR2, an aircraft way ahead of its time, but Labour kept faith with the nuclear deterrent, with Nato and with Tommy Atkins, to whom it gave the most generous pay rise since the Second World War.
Things have changed with New Labour. Not so much in ministerial attitudes to generals or particular military issues, but in the cultural revolution that New Labour seeks to impose on our Armed Forces.
To his credit, Tony Blair has been decisive in deploying British force in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and seems to have left the commanders to get on with the job (apart from crassly assuring the Serbs that what they most feared - invading ground troops - would not be deployed, thus arguably prolonging the campaign and the suffering).
However, other aspects of New Labour‘s attitude towards the military were more accurately summed up by Peter Mandelson‘s sneering dismissal of the Household Division (who have lost their share of men defending the province for which he is responsible) as "chinless wonders".
Since May 1997, a significant proportion of news stories about the Armed Forces has not been primarily about military matters but has stemmed from New Labour‘s war against this country‘s institutions and practices, waged under the banner of that weasel word "modernisation". If that meant modernisation of obsolescent equipment, or command structure or tactics - anything that made the forces more effective - all would be well. But it‘s very far from anything to do with making our soldiers into better killers and much more to do with the culture of grievance and a spurious egalitarianism. It means large payments to girls who signed on knowing that if they got pregnant (an avoidable state) they got sacked; and who then got pregnant and claimed compensation. It means enforced acceptance of homosexuality. It means human rights and racial awareness courses, and women in the frontline, no matter what allowances have to be made in terms of, say, lugging kit or fast jet training. Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, is reported to have demanded that the forces show him why women should not be in combat. It would be interesting to see whether this bloody enthusiasm for equality in suffering would survive the first few thousand body bags with bits of girls in them.
Any of these changes might be argued on the ground that they contribute to military effectiveness, but they are not. They are being imposed because of the view that our forces are supposed to be "representative" of society and that this is how New Labour thinks society should be. Similarly, Mr Blair has made speeches suggesting that he sees our armed services as internationally available peacekeepers (not warmakers, note) to be deployed worldwide in the service of all things good - mercenaries, almost, for good causes. Hence the recruiting message that sells the Army as a "force for good".
Nor is conforming with the idealised New Labour world view the only pressure on the forces. In Northern Ireland, they have had to dismantle their bandit-country watch towers and submit themselves to the Savile inquiry into Bloody Sunday, not because either will lead to a lasting peace or final truth, but in order to appease the violent republicanism they have helped to contain for more than 30 years. And now they find significant portions of themselves committed to the European Rapid Reaction Force - or nascent EU army, according to the Spanish defence minister and Romano Prodi. It is a force that will operate "within Europe and Europe‘s backyard", according to Robin Cook; but anywhere, according to the Germans. It will be independent of the EU Commission, according to Mr Blair, but co-ordinating with it, according to the French and the EU Commission. And it will involve 72 of Britain‘s combat aircraft, 18 warships and 12,500 troops without, according to Mr Blair, being "a conflict force". Shining through all this is one clear message for our Armed Forces: someone is playing politics with them.
It is not as if they need extra commitments in order to justify their existence. They are tiny - the Army about 106,000 strong, the RAF 52,000 and the Navy 42,000 - and the degree of over-stretch is already such that they are losing key personnel faster than they can recruit them. To provide a single properly equipped armoured division for the Gulf war, it was necessary to scour the rest of the Army for workable tanks and guns. The lack of an adequate battle communications system and even a decent infantry rifle are just the best-known recent examples of equipment problems, which, although inherited from the Tories, this Government has had more than half the length of the Second World War to sort out, and hasn‘t.
We keep telling ourselves that our forces are among the best in the world, and certainly we use them to good effect to justify our seat on the UN Security Council. But the decades since they had to confront a really serious enemy have been characterised by under-provision and under-manning. This Government‘s spending plans will not be enough to ensure that they stay among the best, while recent undermining of their values and traditions reflects a New Labour unwillingness to accept what armed forces are essentially for: killing for their country. That unpalatable fact was better understood by the likes of Major Healey and Chief Petty Officer Callaghan.
And this, surely, is the point: there is no room in the New Labour world view for the hard realities of fighting forces because there has been no hard fighting, and no one seriously anticipates any. Mr Blair can afford political gestures while no one actually threatens us, but once someone does, he will discover awkward truths, such as the fact that the esprit de corps so necessary to keep men fighting depends partly upon the exclusion of some of the values so beloved by New Labour. That, for instance, the fighting man fights best as part of a hard, cohesive, exclusive unit comprising others like himself, that a compensation culture is the antithesis of what you want in men you are sending to their deaths, and that the soldier regards himself as more expendable than his womankind, whom it is his instinct to protect. And that he is more prepared to die for his mates and his country than for the European Court of Human Rights.
Under the present government, however, it is unlikely that these lessons will be re-learnt until either we find our enemy, or he finds us.
Armies kill for their country - they don‘t run soup kitchens
By Alan Judd
‘THE task of the infantry," wrote Field Marshal Montgomery, "is to find the enemy, and kill him." Could any general nowadays be so starkly truthful about his profession? And what, nowadays, do would-be infantrymen think they are joining the British Army for - to die for Brussels, or to dish out soup with copies of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Since 1945, Old Labour has, in fact, looked after our Armed Forces pretty well. Perhaps it was partly because the party felt vulnerable and so made a particular effort, just as the Tories have always increased spending on health and welfare. Labour ministers were generally patriotic and got on well with the generals. True, Harold Wilson cancelled the TSR2, an aircraft way ahead of its time, but Labour kept faith with the nuclear deterrent, with Nato and with Tommy Atkins, to whom it gave the most generous pay rise since the Second World War.
Things have changed with New Labour. Not so much in ministerial attitudes to generals or particular military issues, but in the cultural revolution that New Labour seeks to impose on our Armed Forces.
To his credit, Tony Blair has been decisive in deploying British force in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and seems to have left the commanders to get on with the job (apart from crassly assuring the Serbs that what they most feared - invading ground troops - would not be deployed, thus arguably prolonging the campaign and the suffering).
However, other aspects of New Labour‘s attitude towards the military were more accurately summed up by Peter Mandelson‘s sneering dismissal of the Household Division (who have lost their share of men defending the province for which he is responsible) as "chinless wonders".
Since May 1997, a significant proportion of news stories about the Armed Forces has not been primarily about military matters but has stemmed from New Labour‘s war against this country‘s institutions and practices, waged under the banner of that weasel word "modernisation". If that meant modernisation of obsolescent equipment, or command structure or tactics - anything that made the forces more effective - all would be well. But it‘s very far from anything to do with making our soldiers into better killers and much more to do with the culture of grievance and a spurious egalitarianism. It means large payments to girls who signed on knowing that if they got pregnant (an avoidable state) they got sacked; and who then got pregnant and claimed compensation. It means enforced acceptance of homosexuality. It means human rights and racial awareness courses, and women in the frontline, no matter what allowances have to be made in terms of, say, lugging kit or fast jet training. Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, is reported to have demanded that the forces show him why women should not be in combat. It would be interesting to see whether this bloody enthusiasm for equality in suffering would survive the first few thousand body bags with bits of girls in them.
Any of these changes might be argued on the ground that they contribute to military effectiveness, but they are not. They are being imposed because of the view that our forces are supposed to be "representative" of society and that this is how New Labour thinks society should be. Similarly, Mr Blair has made speeches suggesting that he sees our armed services as internationally available peacekeepers (not warmakers, note) to be deployed worldwide in the service of all things good - mercenaries, almost, for good causes. Hence the recruiting message that sells the Army as a "force for good".
Nor is conforming with the idealised New Labour world view the only pressure on the forces. In Northern Ireland, they have had to dismantle their bandit-country watch towers and submit themselves to the Savile inquiry into Bloody Sunday, not because either will lead to a lasting peace or final truth, but in order to appease the violent republicanism they have helped to contain for more than 30 years. And now they find significant portions of themselves committed to the European Rapid Reaction Force - or nascent EU army, according to the Spanish defence minister and Romano Prodi. It is a force that will operate "within Europe and Europe‘s backyard", according to Robin Cook; but anywhere, according to the Germans. It will be independent of the EU Commission, according to Mr Blair, but co-ordinating with it, according to the French and the EU Commission. And it will involve 72 of Britain‘s combat aircraft, 18 warships and 12,500 troops without, according to Mr Blair, being "a conflict force". Shining through all this is one clear message for our Armed Forces: someone is playing politics with them.
It is not as if they need extra commitments in order to justify their existence. They are tiny - the Army about 106,000 strong, the RAF 52,000 and the Navy 42,000 - and the degree of over-stretch is already such that they are losing key personnel faster than they can recruit them. To provide a single properly equipped armoured division for the Gulf war, it was necessary to scour the rest of the Army for workable tanks and guns. The lack of an adequate battle communications system and even a decent infantry rifle are just the best-known recent examples of equipment problems, which, although inherited from the Tories, this Government has had more than half the length of the Second World War to sort out, and hasn‘t.
We keep telling ourselves that our forces are among the best in the world, and certainly we use them to good effect to justify our seat on the UN Security Council. But the decades since they had to confront a really serious enemy have been characterised by under-provision and under-manning. This Government‘s spending plans will not be enough to ensure that they stay among the best, while recent undermining of their values and traditions reflects a New Labour unwillingness to accept what armed forces are essentially for: killing for their country. That unpalatable fact was better understood by the likes of Major Healey and Chief Petty Officer Callaghan.
And this, surely, is the point: there is no room in the New Labour world view for the hard realities of fighting forces because there has been no hard fighting, and no one seriously anticipates any. Mr Blair can afford political gestures while no one actually threatens us, but once someone does, he will discover awkward truths, such as the fact that the esprit de corps so necessary to keep men fighting depends partly upon the exclusion of some of the values so beloved by New Labour. That, for instance, the fighting man fights best as part of a hard, cohesive, exclusive unit comprising others like himself, that a compensation culture is the antithesis of what you want in men you are sending to their deaths, and that the soldier regards himself as more expendable than his womankind, whom it is his instinct to protect. And that he is more prepared to die for his mates and his country than for the European Court of Human Rights.
Under the present government, however, it is unlikely that these lessons will be re-learnt until either we find our enemy, or he finds us.