The Bewilderness

The red poppy and the green harp

We are beginning to see some of the effects of the lingering recession and Irish debacle. In times of downturn, recruitment from Ireland to the British Army increases. It is a well-trodden path, with strong antecedents.

The numbers are insignificant. The Belfast Telegraph points out that at the height of the boom, ten soldiers from the Republic of Ireland joined the British Army. This has increased by an order of magnitude now. I suppose my surprise is that the numbers are still so low, though they are based upon addresses only. The sample is probably higher than this.

Whilst there are still protests amongst the die-hard nationalist community, others such as the SDLP member wearing a poppy start to realise that remembrance can form an act of historical commemoration and contemporary respect.

Whilst

 

Defence ducked

Was the leak of Liam Fox's letter a mere contrivance? Strange that the public receives muddied waters on expenditure cuts with benefits and defence the two zones of conflict. Did the papers report rearguard actions from civil service Taliban setting off improvided explosive leaks (IELs) to save their budgets, and not coincidentally, their positions.

Yet, when David Cameron spins that he is now in the driving seat on defence, we sit up and await his decisiveness. Renewal of Trident, perhaps? Two new aircraft carriers confirmed? No, the "wide ranging" interview of strong decisions fades away very rapidly:

disclosed that more Chinook helicopters would be made available for British troops in Afghanistan.

he pledged that Britain’s Armed Forces would be given “everything that they need” to fight the Taliban.

This is what Brown used to say. Are we facing a convergence in rhetoric? One government starved the armed forces out of neglect,the other by necessity. All both can fall back on is tired mantras about troop protection. 

The real issues on defence, strategic thought and withdrawal from Afghanistan remain unresolved.

Grow your own, no need to import from abroad

A new report from the Centre for Social Cohesion confirms that most Islamist terrorism in Britain is based on radicalised individuals from the United Kingdom. The report does not allow a dominant interpretation to emerge: over twenty years, the Islamist terrorists derive from all parts of the Muslim world, sourcing from East and North Africa or South Asia. The terrorists can be either unemployed and on benefits or university graduates. The complexity of recruitment and motivation are laid bare, denying that moronic connection of poverty and violence that some on the Left use to patronise nd justify evil.

The history of such terrorist activities also reveals that the state attack on civil liberties has had zero effect in detecting or preventing this problem..

Judges neuter the defence

The Human Rights Act was a dogs breakfast from beginning to end, as every decision of the European Court of Human Rights, no matter how contradictory, must be respected. Therefore, application of the Act to soldiers serving in action must be regarded as leaving Britain with grave restrictions on her defence. Commanders will be second-guessed by the courts.

Mrs Smith’s lawyer, Jocelyn Cockburn, a partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: “I don’t think a court would second guess in almost any circumstance what a commander decides to do in the heat of battle. The issues that could be affected are military planning and the putting in place of, and adhering to, systems to protect soldiers.”

The MoD would have a greater requirement to ensure troops are properly trained and equipped before deployment, she said.

Given this Act and the judges who opine, some courts would second guess in all circumstances and judicial decisions cannot legislate for lack of money or incompetence.

Another example of how much damage needs to be reversed

The grotesque endgame of New Labour

The Ministry of Defence has stopped British journalists from undertaking “embeds” in the armed forces during the period up to the General Election. Senior Officers have also been halted from making speeches during this period. The convention of curtailing relationships with the media during an electoral period, known as “purdah”, has not been extended to the armed forces before now.

Was the same convention enforced at the 2005 election? It does not appear so.

The government fears unpopularity for its treatment of the armed forces. The management of the news cycle is turning draconian:

“It’s a truth blackout. Nothing, especially the truth, is to stand in the way in Brown’s election. Our armed forces can fight and die, but not write or speak. Any critics of the Government are to be banned from having any contact with the press. This is the grotesque endgame of New Labour. They want to bury bad news and bury the truth.”

We have yet to see the grotesque endgame....

A plague on all at chilcot

To view Broon's testimony to the Chilcot Committee as a challenge to honesty falls into the battle of credibility that both the Prime Minister and the generals have used in their briefings, evidence and statements. Each side has tried to deflect blame on to each other, when it should be apportioned to all. This is not difficult.

The Ministry of Defence is notoriously incompetent in spending money and ordering equipment. The shortfalls in helicopters and armoured vehicles can be laid at the door of its procurement policy. The Treasury was rightly sceptical of certain claims emanating from such masters of special pleading. Yet this scepticism hardened into deafness, even when the critics were clearly those on the frontline, fighting a war without support from home.

Broon applied financial sanctions to the MoD to punish them for their ineptitude, even though the 'poor bloody infantry' were most likely to suffer from this constraint. Even then, it took years for the flaws in equipment to merit a response and money.

For any onlooker, Brown's refusal to bear any responsibility or share blame is evidence of his unfitness for office. That can be said of many to no avail and today, I say it of Brown. This has not prevented such candidates maintaining their power. It also does not mean that he feels genuine remorse for any soldiers who die on his watch. And that, extended further, means that he does not link his own actions with deaths in action. This is not vacuity. This is not cynical abandon. It is an unbalanced inability to thread the cause (Brown) and effect (MoD incompetence). He would gain my admiration of he had made a genuine effort to resolve the problems of the MoD. Instead, he allowed his contempt to shine through, appoint a part-time Minister in Des Browne and compounding the problems.

Brown's fantasies let rip

Gordon Brown commits to defence expenditure in order to appear tough and outflank the Tories. Two aircraft carriers, lots of fast jets and maintaining the army above 100,000 soldiers. Just malice in wonderland. There is no money. He drank it all.

Our armed forces: a political plaything for Broon.

Put those bloody hands up for Chilcot...

The inquiries into the Iraq War have thrown up many shortcomings in process, misleading intentions on many of the participants and a cavalier attitude to law. But no conspiracy, more cock-up: the legacy of 'sofa government', so far. Steve Richards sums up the difficulties that Blair faced in that time:

Evidently Blair regarded Saddam Hussein as a threat and had come to regard the removal of dictators as one of his causes. I doubt if he was as evangelical about this as his public performances suggest, but when a leader of a middling power signs up to the agenda of a much bigger one he has made the only decision in the sequence over which he has some control. After that Blair was largely in the hands of a divided, incompetent US administration and had no choice but to follow its timetable while pretending to be in command.

I wish he had felt strong enough to turn away but I do not underestimate what would have happened if he had done so. Those condemning him would have included many of his current tormentors in the media: "Blair turns his back on Bush as US removes evil dictator". The intensity would have quadrupled if he had withdrawn support later in the face of opposition here.

There is a selective amnesia from Blair's critics that wash their hands of blood by drenching his instead. It is an unedifying sight.

Goldsmith's fudged figleaf

Lord Goldsmith appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry today and presented more questions than answers. The resulting headlines are odd, very odd. Goldsmith explained that the armed forces required clarity on the legality of the war. You know the sort of thing: lawyers puzzling over Hitler's invasion of Poland and pondering whether Britain's guarantee of its territorial integrity could be defined as a war of aggression. Goldsmith provided clarity to 'protect' the armed forces.

The whole affair revolves around his change of mind, and wholesale ambiguity. After meeting Jack Straw and US armtwisters, Goldsmith finally 'understood':

He changed his mind in February 2003 after compelling evidence from senior US officials and advisors - including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Will Taft IV, a senior State Department legal official. Lord Goldsmith said their description of the negotiations that lead to the Security Council resolution helped convince him that a second resolution was not required.

The whole episode reeks of fudge. It is an unedifying sight when a war was launched on semantics. Goldsmith's arguments for legality hinged upon a contingent interpretation of UN Resolution 1441 and the balance of motives on the part of the great powers.

War requires moral, legal and political clarity followed by the use of overwhelming force. None of these were obtained and former officials and politicians play hardscrabble with semantics. None cover themselves in glory. But if Goldsmith wished to 'protect' soldiers, then surely rejecting any possibility of legal action was better than the fudged figleaf that he presented to Blair.

That Gordon Brown shaped hole dug out by repeated use

The drip-drip series of revelations only serve to hurt Brown's standing as Prime Minister. All those who have publicised these damaging facts place personal satisfaction above party interest. Much as one enjoys the internecine pain of a dying government, what compels them to throw one more knife at their hapless leader?

This is the question that will haunt analysts long after Gordon Brown has gone. For even as he explores the walls of his political grave, our Prime Minister cuts his cloth as Banquo rather than Macbeth. Some may say that he made too many enemies, though the reverse may be true. Perhaps if Brown had been more ruthless, more savage, the Blairites would have been too cowed to undertake serial acts of revenge.

Others may decide that his personality is to blame. The rages, the odd lapses, the lack of empathy all conspired to test his ties to voters unto destruction. There may be something in this, although Brown's personality was stable enough to get him to Number Ten.

My pennorth just states history and the simple morality tale. Brown sets much store on representing rectitude. Like 'back to basics', he is weighed and found wanting. For whenever a situation arose that Brown could take the right path for himself, he forsook difficulty and damned the consequences. These were not trivial decisions and the path taken now returns to haunt him:

Gordon Brown tonight faced demands to give evidence to the Iraq Inquiry before the election after the former Defence Secretary said the Armed Forces were starved of cash in run up to the war.

Geoff Hoon said he feared that Britain would struggle to take part in a full-scale land invasion and admitted delays in ordering equipment led to shortages of armoured vests and desert boots and clothing.

The military required emergency Treasury funding to prepare soldiers in the months before the invasion because the Ministry of Defence had previously been told to reply on “efficiency savings” to buy new equipment, he told the inquiry.

However, Mr Brown, the then Chancellor, only approved the additional money five months before the start of the war.

Starving soldiers of supplies, as the headlines portray, is the worst outcome for Brown. It need not have been, as the facts show that Blair was just as, or even more culpable, than the Chancellor. But Brown was there, unlike the money, and people died. Now he is damaged and even less likely to appear before Chilcot.