I must say, I'm afraid I found Liam Fox's explanations and justifications for the combat drawdown timetable in Afghanistan on Radio 4 this morning rather unconvincing. At one point he started to remind me of various Labour defence ministers (you can pick one) in his attempts to service the argument that the Afghan National Army will somehow be ready to take over from American and British troops in five years' time, despite mounting evidence to the contrary (not least yesterday's tragic rocket attack on British soldiers by an insurgent who had infiltrated the Afghan army) and continuing military reversals (I define losing territory you have just gained from the enemy because you don't have enough men to hold it a 'reversal', don't you?).
It's not that I don't buy what he says - in most ways, he is far more believable than his Labour predecessors, who spent most of their time lying through their teeth about helicopter numbers, among many other things - it's that things just don't add up given the time frame proposed and troop levels involved.
It's been said by a lot of commentators and experts alike that the mission, the war aims, the 'liberation not occupation' philosophy, the 'protecting us at home by fighting terror abroad' ideology, even the timetable that's been announced, are all theoretically sound apart from one, vitally important factor: for all these goals to be accomplished, our troop levels in the short term need to rise substantially; our level of engagement intensify dramatically.
Under-manning has and, it seems, always will be the British problem in Afghanistan. In order to fulfil the mission we set for ourselves, two or even three divisions of soldiers (around 30,000+ combat troops plus support) should have been committed, and now should be committed, to augment the USA's 10. "But that would cost the country a fortune!" I hear you gasp. Well, war does cost a fortune and if you are not prepared to pay it, then you should pull the hell out immediately because there is no point in staying.
It was a fortune of our treasure that Gordon Brown was not willing to spend on our behalf to protect our armed forces, so I place the blame squarely at his door for subsequent losses, both the ones caused by a lack of equipment - strength in the air - and the ones caused by insufficient strength on the ground.
I'm now wondering, though, will the Coalition government try to fight this war on the cheap as well? If they do, then we will lose.
Dr Fox had better wake up to that reality - fast. And so had David Cameron and the Coalition he purports to lead.
Someone quoted Kipling with reference to Afghanistan in yesterday's Telegraph - and very aptly - though I can't be certain: I generally can't remember that far back these days. But it put me in mind of "Tommy", his wonderful satirical poem about the lot of the average squaddie, who, when called upon to execute the policy follies of men like Tony Blair, is treated with hypocritical reverence and, should he lose his life in the service of Queen and Country, can expect his memory to be honoured, for instance, with a cursory, solemn mention at the dispatch box - but not a visit from Gordon at his repatriation ceremony, of course. The rest of the time, he's ignored, underpaid, under-equipped, unappreciated, badly billeted and generally despised - especially by the people who would put him in harm's way just to suit their own political ambitions and vanities (Blair again).
The point is that the poem is as fresh now as it was when it was penned by the great man, in 1890. It's pretty funny, too:
Tommy I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, 'We serve no red-coats 'ere.' The girls be'ind the bar they laughed and giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again, an' to myself sez I: Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away': But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play - The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, Oh, it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls! For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, wait outside'; But it's 'Special train for Atkins' when the trooper's on the tide - The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, Oh, it's 'Special train for Atkins' when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap; An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit. Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?' But it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes' when the drums begin to roll - The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, Oh, it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that , an' 'Tommy, fall be'ind,' But it's 'Please to walk in front, sir,' when there's trouble in the wind - There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, Oh, it's 'Please to walk in front, sir,' when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!' But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
I don't know about you, but I think it's time to put an end to this Afghan thing, either by sending in massive reinforcements and actually paying the necessary price for final victory - in other words, not causing unnecessary death by doing everything on the cheap (one scandal for which Brown should genuinely never be forgiven) - or by bringing our army home. That's the choice Cameron will have to face. Why? Because, to coin a phrase, we can't go on like this.
Me, I would opt for the former and give our armed forces everything they need, and then some. Whatever it takes, Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is the right war and is a war that we have to win. We must respect our troops properly, therefore, by backing them to the hilt, even if it means making some sacrifices at home in the short term.
One thing is certain, if nothing else, our armed forces deserve much better than Labour, and much, much better than Brown.
Seems Brown's reliance on the decisiveness of Barack Obama over an American troop surge that will, at least, we assume, in Brown's fevered, rather cynical mind, somehow shore up his unravelling policy and dwindling support for the Afghanistan war really is starting to hurt him. James Forsyth in the Speccy has written, in answer to a very pertinent question he puts, "How long can Obama leave Brown hanging on over Afghanistan?":
Gordon Brown is in a nigh-on-impossible position on Afghanistan until President Obama makes up his mind about how many more troops he wants to send and what strategy he wants to pursue. Yesterday at PMQs, Brown said with a sense of relief that there would be a decision from Washington in days. The White House rapidly distanced itself from Brown’s comments. Now, the New York Times is reporting that the ‘announcement is still likely at least two weeks away – perhaps more.’
Two weeks where Brown can’t say that Britain is winning in Afghanistan but equally can’t announce a new strategy is going to be corrosive of support for the Afghan mission in this country. It is going to add to the sense of drift and that soldiers are dying there for the want of a better option. In a very different way, Obama is turning out to be as problematic an ally—if not more so—for Brown as Bush was for Blair.
On the British Army's current mission impossible down there, at least while it is chronically and dangerously undermanned, under-resourced and unrepresented in government, that is, Forsyth is absolutely right. As a bereaved mother of a dead soldier has just said on Sky News, referring to the MoD bonuses scandal: "You don't win wars with budget cuts."
It is also now becoming very clear that the White House is not the only seat of power "rapidly distancing" itself from a Prime Minister who is, clearly and deservedly, finally coming to the end of the road.
Obama may be indecisive - who knows? - but at least he has a mandate to govern, indecisively or otherwise, something he clearly now realises Brown will never enjoy. Besides, as one American friend recently told me, most Americans who have ever actually heard of (or heard) Brown - presumably this includes some politicians - think he's a bit of an asshole. I wonder whether they have also come to the same conclusion as, according to Alastair Campbell, The Sun newspaper has here:
“The Sun, largely for its own commercial and marketing reasons, decided to come out for the Tories at Labour’s conference. They don’t like to back a loser…” *
It's increasingly apparent, what with the G20 snub and now this, that for what are no doubt his own political and diplomatic reasons, Barack Obama doesn't either.
An excellent - and quite moving - article by Simon Jenkins, one of the Guardian's light sprinkling of reasonably decent columnists, considers Brown's latest, impertinent and hamfisted attempt at some sort of implausibly sincere bereavement counselling to be inappropriate in a number of ways - above and beyond his apparent inability (inclination?) to spell words correctly in an important letter. It is certainly worth reading.
One part struck me as particularly significant, though. Jenkins' view must be accepted that the writing of letters - just like the tribute of a medal - to the relatives of military personnel killed in the service of their country should be the preserve of heads of state, like the Queen, and no one else. While the entire, balanced article is important - it's pretty damning on Labour's and Brown's defence policy debacle, too - this is the key part for the specific point:
A British soldier lost in battle dies in the service of his queen, not the Labour government. He dies for his country, not for Afghanistan or Iraq or Nato, or keeping in with America. He customarily receives thanks from the monarch, given institutionally as a token of the courtesies of the state.
The famous letter sent in 1864 by Abraham Lincoln to Lydia Bixby, who lost five sons fighting for the Union, was careful not just in its language but in the source of its sentiment. Lincoln (or possibly his scriptwriter, John Hay) offered Mrs Bixby "the thanks of the Republic they died to save" and the "solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice on the altar of freedom".
Such sentiments are best expressed by a head of state, not a practising politician, even if in America they are one and the same. The Queen cannot be blamed for failures in MoD equipment and supply. She would not telephone a clearly upset woman to explain away a failure in policy or strategy. She embodies the state's gratitude to those who volunteered to serve it professionally and died in its cause. Condolences are her job, not a prime minister's...
I hope Brown reads Jenkins' article because someone needs to teach that man humility, if nothing else, no matter how 'sincere' he thinks he is. Just for the record, and in case Brown decides to continue with his arrogant policy of writing ill thought-out, rather shallow scrawls to relatives of the inevitable future victims of Afghanistan, here is Lincoln's letter in full.
Executive Mansion, Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.
Dear Madam,--
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
Afghanistan, Round 4, is one of them, history and common sense both teach. It's impossible to add anything useful to the following, coruscating tour of force from posh DT scribbler, Gerald Warner:
We did not need Eric Joyce to tell us we are in deep doo-doo in Afghanistan. In that far-off country of which, over the past 170 years, we have come to know too damn much, Britain has previous. For us, this is the Fourth Afghan War and it has turned into every bit as much of a resounding success as the previous three. If there is one thing in which the Ministry of Defence and the British public can claim expertise, it is getting cuffed in Afghanistan.
Tony Blair could not have been expected to know that, with an historical hinterland in which Hugh Gaitskell belonged to the Bronze Age (”Hey, look – come on – I mean – this is a young country”…), but brooding Gordon should have seen nemesis coming. The war is lost: end of story. Even post-neocon America is waking up to the fact, as evidenced by General Stanley McChrystal’s recent remark that “time is not on our side”. Among the American public, support for the war is melting faster than a polar ice-cap in Al Gore’s imagination.
Well, actually, yes. Because the odds would be more stacked against them, despite mass immigration having to some extent provided jihadists with “the sea in which the guerrilla swims like a fish”, as Chairman Mao phrased it, by establishing large Islamic communities. There is no more favourable terrain for Muslim militants than the irrigation ditches and mountains of Afghanistan. So, why do we send our soldiers there, inadequately equipped, to provide them with target practice?
The significance of Brown turning to the “keep terror off British streets” claptrap is that he realises the previous claptrap, about “building democracy”, has even less plausibility after the spectacle of the Afghan elections rigged by the corrupt Karzai regime. Is that what young Britons are dying for? It is time to up sticks and exit. We know the way – we have travelled it three times before.
I'll add something anyway, though (however useless): pointless wars are not worth winning. They're certainly not worth ignorant Bliar's "blood price". And wars prolonged just to keep a man like coward Brown's image on domestic political life-support are just evil. Afghanistan is that war.
How much more of our nation's best blood must be spilled before Brown makes his inevitable exit next year? One more drop is too much. We could win, if we had the need, the will, a general call-up and, subsequently, 20 heavily armed divisions to prosecute it. Costly, but the "way".
If it really was for Britain, then maybe we could and should. But for Brown! It's just not worth it. Nothing has ever been more clear in British history. We must kick Brown out and then finish the "job" in Afghanistan, one way or another. Or bring the troops home - right now.
I think that's what Warner is basically saying. And if I'm right, then he is!
Mediocre BBC politics pundit Nick Robinson, of whom I generally think very little, misses the point entirely, as usual, about the problem with Gordon Brown.
The latest rumblings about the underfunded, underequipped and understaffed mission in Afghanistan (what was that mission again?) caused by the resignation of some Scots trougher MP and ex-tartan Rupert called Joyce, in response to the smearing of senior officers among many other things (like that total moron, Ainsworth, being promoted over his head by Brown), have nothing to do with Brown's "leadership of the war effort", as Robinson (not the Sun) characterises it, but everything to do simply with Brown's leadership - period.
The resignation of a junior ministerial aide would matter little if it weren't for the fact that Eric Joyce is a former army officer and is echoing, in public, concerns and criticisms many in the military make in private. Fortunately, for Gordon Brown, he has a speech already written as a reply to his critics.
The prime minister is much more worried about losing the backing of the military, and of papers like the Sun, which have attacked him for showing no leadership of Britain's war effort - than he is of losing Eric Joyce. He is most concerned though about losing the argument.
Today, he will try to convince his own MPs, the military and the public of the value of his war mission, to describe what success looks like and to prove that our troops are not being left under-resourced.
If he does not begin to do that, he has a much much bigger problem than the resignation of a junior member of his defence team.
Not so, and Joyce's own letter did not really make the point very well either, though I am certain that he wanted it to. Brown's "bigger problem" is the most fundamental a leader can have: no one thinks he can lead. Today's speech, if it is the same, pre-written one as Robinson claims it will be, will merely further confirm how inflexible and convinced by his own sense of righteousness, but at the same time, moved by dishonest and unprincipled pragmatism and total, paranoiac insecurity Brown is. So full of contradictions and serious character flaws is this man that leadership of a MacDonalds would be a severe mental challenge for him. Leadership of a major Western power (let alone during a war)? Exactly!
But that, folks, is our Prime Minister. I don't think the troops will be paying much attention to him, unless he's planning on announcing his resignation. Do you?
Yesterday's news, to be sure (literally), but interesting none the less. From time to time, it's worth paying a visit to the Army Rumour Service ("Arrse") to try to infer the mood of our servicemen, currently tasked with dealing with the most difficult enemy in the world: incompetent political leadership. This was the report:
From The Sunday Times August 30, 2009 British soldiers banned from using live bullets to save money
Michael Smith
British soldiers are being forced to train with blanks rather than live rounds to save money.
The entire Territorial Army (TA) and a number of nonfrontline regular army units will be affected by the ban on the use of real bullets in personal weapons, according to defence sources.
Soldiers bound for Afghanistan will be spared the restrictions, but even they will start training with live rounds only in the last three months before departure. Those learning to shoot as part of basic training will also be allowed to use real bullets.
Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and a former infantry commanding officer, said: “The idea that our frontline reserves should not be able to use live rounds is quite extraordinary..."
Only a government that has no idea what it's doing - and has made some determined enemies within the civil service - would allow a story of this sort to leak when our moron Prime Minister has decided to pay the troops a morale boosting sapping visit on - or near(ish) - the front line.
But it was a bit of a non-story, in reality. I know from (limited) experience that the only time reservists use live ammunition is on the range, but finding time for that kind of training is not always easy for the part timers. Also, because of the way the war's going in Afghanistan, all live ammunition has probably been prioritised for the battlefield. Even so, it gives you some idea of the sort of pressure our supply chains are now under, and that there are some serious replenishment and supply problems brewing (not least over food and water, would you believe).
Thanks to this twit government - and twit-Brown in particular - trying to fight the war on the cheap, it's quite possible we'll be throwing rocks at the Taliban pretty soon. But 'twas ever thus!
So, why post this? Well, some of the reactions of people on that chat forum (quite a lot of whom are either current or former soldiers) are quite telling, in terms of the mood of people who are actually in or around the thick of it.
Have we, as a nation, really been reduced to this? When will someone grow a spine and arrest brown and darling for criminal negligence, or at least misconduct in public office?
...writes "Skycarver". While "Diripio" says:
It is funny how things have gone full circle. I can remember in the 70's when I was in Sennelager and the last Liarbour government were in power, tankies being reduced to a maximum of 25 road miles a year and no live firing, no ranges due to a lack of 9mm and 7.62.
The sooner this government are put to sleep the better, but will the alternative make any difference?
Good question. We'll get to find out soon enough, though. I wonder if Bonkers Brown actually realises that yet.
Another "Arrser" comments:
Look at all that crap Indian 9mil we bought & had to dump because it was pants! What's next? The RAF dropping grenades out of Cessnas? The Navy going to sea in canal boats? I wonder if all this penny-pinching woul've beenthought up if the Gov & MP's had'nt been cought out fiddling expenses....
Harsh and fair. But "Auld-Yin" reckons this is nothing new. It happened the last time the Labourists were busy trashing the country:
Very remininscent of the 60's early 70's where you were lucky to get a range day in between APWTs. Several times doing your annual weapon test was the only time that live rounds were used - and I was Infantry FFS.
"Jeagar" spoils the party somewhat with a caution to err on the side of moderation (it's a pretty good post, though, so I've included it here):
Whenever I read something like this, which serves to confuse more than it illuminates, I'm reminded of the old adage about newspaper reporters, "first simplify, then exaggerate". I'm no fan of Brown or his utterly useless, discredited Goverment of course, but what exactly is being cut here? I've read the article and I'm none the wiser. Is it simply a reduction in ammo available for range days?,has BATUS gone completely blank?, are recruits not going to do any Stage 5 Live firing at all? What's happenig at Brecon, Warminster, Sandhurst etc?As for ammo only being available for training in the 3 months prior to deployment to Afghan, no big deal, theres lot's of other things to be getting on with in the meantime, I'm sure there will be sh*t-loads available then at least. Fact is, just how often, apart from in the run-up to APWT, do Infantry Units for example, actually go on the ranges? not THAT much in my experience.
There might be some point here in sticking your hand out for the Outrage-Bus, but not on the info. so far received and not on the basis of this tedious article in The Times.
True enough, but fails to nail the main point: as more and more of these types of story filter out, and the "utterly useless, discredited" government limps on, staggering from one crisis to another as the full scale of its incompetence and dishonesty becomes ever clearer, morale in the army will drain away. Only a change of government can reverse this because only a new government will have a mandate to change policy and fix the problems. It's pointless having a go at the press, (unless it's to make it damn clear that the MSM is partly responsible for putting these idiots in power in the first place).
Comments of the day go to "OldTimer":
How come we can't afford live ammunition but the taliban seem to have an abundant amount available. Perhaps they have a better government . Thinking of it it certainly couldn't be any worse than ours.
and to "HE117"(!), who makes this perceptive observation:
Actually I think we are looking at a shell crisis situation in the offing...
Yes, and a couple of differences: Asquith was honest, honourable - and elected!
(PS: Hat tip to Anna Raccoon, who wrote an interesting piece on this latest Labourist fiasco earlier today, and who's a much better writer than me anyway ;)
From today's Guardian. I trust Alex Massie of the Speccy, who has formed a particularly odd, and frankly rather corrupt, view of this latest scandalous stitch-up and travesty of justice, has seen it...
As if the smearing of General Dannatt were not bad enough, the true nature of this government's attitude to the armed forces has now been revealed. Aside from the terminal incompetence, the cynicism of Labour's parliamentary leadership simply takes your breath away.
Perhaps the Sunday Times, an erstwhile pro-Labour rag, sums it up best in its fresh leader on the subject (although it fails to mention one of the most extraordinary statistics - that the last four years of fighting have led to 14 thousand UK casualties). No wonder Labour tried to bury it. I've lifted the most damning part of the column. You can read the rest here.
Although governments can get away with such political cowardice for a while, taking no decision can be just as bad as taking the wrong one. Eventually, inevitably, the issues will return and the earlier failure to take a decision and look to the future will have damaging consequences. That is where we are now in Afghanistan. The failure to provide our troops with adequate equipment is the direct responsibility of a government that buried its head in the sand for more than a decade.
No government can predict specific circumstances. But what they must do is regularly take a panoramic view of defence needs. The last strategic review was conducted in 1998. “In corporate life no enterprise would persist with a 12-year-old strategy without at least re-evaluating it fully on a regular basis,” Mr Gray writes. “Few who would expect to prosper would even try to do so.” With the sole exception of John Hutton, who commissioned the Gray report, every defence secretary since 1998 — Geoff Hoon, John Reid, Des Browne and now woeful Bob Ainsworth — should hang their heads in shame. They are responsible for the situation in which failure at the Ministry of Defence is, according to Mr Gray, “endemic”.
Above all, this is the responsibility of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Mr Blair took us into war without ensuring that our troops were backed by a defence administration and equipment suitable to their needs. In his liberal interventionist foreign policy he willed the ends but not the means. As for Mr Brown, his behaviour has been cynical in the extreme. His response to the warnings of shortages given by Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the army, was not to take heed but to allow a defence minister to attempt to smear the general over his expenses.
In 2002 the Dutch government resigned when a report found it had sent soldiers into combat without the necessary equipment. It says much about the prime minister that his only response has been to suppress the report.
Brown's government of all the smearers is falling apart - and he's on holiday. The storm clouds have been gathering for him for ages. I think that storm has just broken.
Uncle Bob has already blogged brilliantly about this latest piece of Labour filth, so I'll keep my scornful rant brief: New Labour are the most corrupt, twisted and morally empty group of incompetent wasters this country has ever had inflicted upon it. You still have doubts, after everything that's been written, blogged, proved and resigned over? Well, here's a bit more for you, this time from the ST. Read on...
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted to the Ministry of Defence, and uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, asks for publication of any correspondence between Gen Dannatt and Hadyn Parry, the chairman of the Help for Heroes charity.
It comes after Labour MPs and ministers were accused of using FOI laws to make trouble for Sir Richard by unearthing his expenses claims, after he publicly criticised the lack of resources given by the Government to the troops in Afghanistan.
Whilst the MoD would not disclose who was behind the Help for Heroes FOI request, which was submitted in June, Conservative MPs claimed it looked like fresh evidence of a smear campaign.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "There is no target that Brown's bullyboys will not pick upon to protect themselves or divert attention from their catastrophic management of the military. New Labour is now the most corrosive and corrupting influence in British politics."
Whoever submitted the FOI request could have been seeking to find out whether Gen Dannatt had claimed expenses from Help the Heroes following his unpaid work on the charity's behalf.
Mr Parry described Gen Dannatt's work for the charity as "exemplary". He said: "Sir Richard has done a tremendous job for the charity. His work has been exemplary – beyond reproach.
"He has never submitted any expenses claims, nor have any of the other charity trustees, because we want as much money to be spent on charitable work as possible."
Last week it was revealed that, on a tip-off from inside government, several FOI requests were submitted to expose the 58-year-old general's expenses. Kevan Jones, the Veterans Minister, was named on political website Guido Fawkes as the figure behind it. But he dismissed the accusation as summer tittle-tattle and heaped praise on Gen Dannatt.
Mr Jones last night denied again that there was a smear campaign, saying: "I do not know anything about this Freedom of Information request, nor do I know anything about Freedom of Information requests that were put in as part of a campaign against Sir Richard."
When allegations of a smear campaign first emerged a month ago, Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, sent a note to all his ministers – Mr Jones; Quentin Davies, Defence Equipment and Support; Bill Rammell, Armed Forces; Lord Drayson, Strategic Defence Acquisition; and Baroness Taylor, International Defence and Security – warning them not to brief against General Dannatt and demanding "complete support" for military commanders.
But last week it emerged that a minister had discussed "chasing" Gen Dannatt over his expenses in an attempt to smear him. Requests were allegedly made under the FOI Act, with the backing of the unnamed minister, to find out the extent of entertaining by the general, who retires as Chief of the General Staff next week.
It was also alleged that a minister had called Gen Dannatt a "complete bastard" for making so many public statements critical of the resources given to the troops in Afghanistan.
Wow! That list of "ministers" reads like a who's who of utter Labourist mediocrity.
Not content with their usual, now-predictable, contemptible attempt at rubbishing anyone who dares to speak the truth, a method perfected by Alistair Campbell and Mandelson (the truth in this case, as Dannatt has bravely implied on many occasions, is that total Labourist incompetence and, one is forced to suspect, their underlying hatred of the armed forces, has cost the lives of many British soldiers in Labour's foreign adventures), now they are willing to drag into their appalling smear campaign a charity set up to help the ones who make it back from the front merely wounded, but who are then abandoned by their own country (another Labour triumph).
Who needs the Taliban when you have an MoD occupied by these uberhoons? Just when you thought they couldn't get any worse...
So, extraordinarily, incredibly, unbelievably, astoundingly says the incumbent minister in charge of Her Majesty's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, David Miliband. I did hear on Radio 4 a few days ago while driving home from work a fawning, honeyed plug for this idiot's interview. I paid it no mind, thinking there was no way even he would be stupid enough to go down that road. I figured he'd give his qualified support to the ANC cause he connects himself with like any good little snot-nosed, Oxbridge, PPE student with a well-connected Marxist daddy (connected with Joe Slovo's killer Communists, for instance), but distance himself from their murderous terror campaign in an appropriately diplomatic way as befits a Foreign Secretary. It seems I was wrong. Read Nile Gardiner's blog about this foreign policy disaster and weep:
The Foreign Secretary’s remarks to the BBC Radio 4 Great Lives programme condoning terrorism in some circumstances are an absolute disgrace, and should be disowned by the Prime Minister. The Radio 4 interview focused on the life of South African Marxist Joe Slovo, a leading member of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the African National Congress (ANC). The ANC’s bombing campaign included the targeting and killing of civilians.
As The Daily Mailreports, when asked by presenter Matthew Parris whether terrorism can ever be justified, Miliband stated:
“Yes, there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, and yes, there are circumstances in which it is effective.” “The importance for me is that the South African example proved something remarkable: it looked like a regime that would last forever, and it was blown down.” “It is hard to argue that, on its own, a political struggle would have delivered. The striking at the heart of a regime’s claim on a monopoly of power, which the ANC’s armed wing represented, was very significant.”
The full interview can be heard here, and yes, the comments are accurate.
Miliband’s ill conceived statements demonstrate a serious lack of strategic judgment by a senior government official at a time when Britain is actively engaged in combating terrorism both at home and across the world. They will be used by homegrown Islamist terrorists to justify their own terror attacks against British targets, as well as by the leadership of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
There are absolutely no circumstances under which terrorism is acceptable. The Foreign Secretary is sending an extremely dangerous mixed message to Britain’s enemies and handing them a huge propaganda opportunity. He should issue an immediate apology and the Labour government must clarify whether or not it actually believes that some forms of terrorism are acceptable.
It is hard to see how Miliband can continue representing Britain on the world stage after he has publicly condoned the use of terrorism in certain situations. The figure responsible for crucial aspects of British anti-terror operations cannot be seen to be justifying the use of terror in any form, whatever the historical context. The Foreign Secretary’s foolish words are a bridge too far at a time when British soldiers and security services are putting their lives on the line combating terrorism.
Who can possibly argue with any of this analysis? Government policy for decades has been never to negotiate with active terrorists. Has this policy changed? Are we now to assume that this Labour government will not only listen to, but actually support, terrorist organisations if it happens to share their aspirations and/or worldview? That's the direct implication of Miliband's lamebrain platitudes. And it is a desperately dangerous one. It's also obvious why: Miliband has admitted that terrorism is justified "under certain circumstances" and insodoing has just given the green light to every violent extremist on the face of the earth to argue precisely this: "We believe in what we're fighting for - and even if you don't, we have the right to do whatever we think it will take to achieve our objectives. And you've just admitted that."
I'm not even interested in this sickening fool's resignation (though that must be the minimum requirement for his criminal arrogance). It's too late to worry about that. Lives of fighting British soldiers - possibly even British civilians - will be lost as a direct consequence of the morale boost he's just handed to those whose hatred of Britain is only matched by their willingness to commit mass murder.
Whatever you think of Joe Slovo (and I think very little of him), or of the happy outcome that was South Africa's eventual, general liberation and tentative reconciliation, the fact is that Miliband, all on his own, has just handed the Taliban and Al Qaeda a massive, deadly propaganda triumph - and the initiative. Bravo.
The first casualty of war is the truth, so the saying goes. That may be so, but now it seems the lies themselves, once the truth is KIA, can claim the odd victim, too, or so Sky News reported this morning...
A former spin doctor is to sue the Government, claiming years of being made to tell lies over the war in Iraq made him ill.
The press officer felt torn over the safety of the army's Snatch Land Rovers
John Salisbury-Baker was responsible for supporting dead soldiers' families, attending funerals and dealing with the media.
He claims holding back information about troops' safety led him to develop stress-related illnesses.
The 62-year-old is set to sue the MoD for disability discrimination.
While working at Imphal Barracks in York he told the media army vehicles such as Snatch Land Rovers could withstand roadside bombs.
He then "felt responsible in some way" when soldiers were killed, his partner Christine Brooke said.
She explained: "It goes back to the fact he felt torn because he had a moral dilemma based on the fact he knew a little bit more about the situation than the people he was dealing with whose sons had died."
Ms Brooke added: "We're all aware that some of the personal protection equipment wasn't of as good quality as it might have been and there were things missing, I think that's sort of common knowledge, but perhaps the families weren't as aware.
"John felt that he was holding back, being frugal with the truth.
"I think it's caught up with him really, it pushed him over the edge as far as his levels of stress were concerned."
Mr Salisbury-Baker was diagnosed with stress-related angina in 2007 and PTSD a year later.
But while Salisbury-Baker fights for his compensation for the 'damage' to his mental health being a mouthpiece for Labour's endless lies about our troops' equipment he claims has caused (yes, mate, it's called a guilty conscience), the lies go on and the troops keep dying, as umpteen reports and blog entries have shown just today. Here, for instance.
For myself, I would simply point out that if this bloke knew he was telling lies on behalf of a government hell-bent on keeping the truth about their incompetence from the nation when he was in post, and if he knew our troops were dying as a direct consequence of that government incompetence, then he should have had the courage to speak out about it in public at the time. That he didn't says as much about him as the lies themselves speak volumes about this Labour government (under both lying leaders, Blair and Brown).
He's a coward, isn't he? Yes, more or less. So it's pretty straightforward really: set aside the money he would be awarded if (ridiculously) he won his case for the genuinely wounded and the families of the war dead. After all, his willing dissemination of Labour's lies contributed to their plight, whether he liked it or not.
I wonder if Labour cabinet ministers will be trying-on the same scam once they're out of a job next summer. I wouldn't put it past them.
I don't think I was unduly harsh yesterday about the BBC and its fawning coverage of Brown's and Labour's latest wicked lies about the appalling conditions confronting our troops thanks to their determination to fight the war in Afghanistan on the cheap. And I'm prepared to give credit where it is due.
Two pieces today - from that very same BBC, no less - perfectly illustrate the yawning gap between the lies Labour have spun and the reality on the ground. Well done to Andrew Neil for almost perfectly skewering Bill Ramell over the scandelous abuse of British armed forces by this government. It doesn't really matter to Rammell, of course. He has the third smallest majority in parliament and will not be an MP next year. Why should he give a toss?
Compare this stinking spinning of a talentless, honourless career politician with the stoic dignity of the grieving mother of one of the victims of Brown's lies, cuts and lethal incompetence.
One can only assume that the current situation with our public broadcaster is that the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing, and/or vice versa.
The same must be said of the worst government ever inflicted upon the people of Britain and the servicemen and women, desperately trying to obey its orders but discovering it to be as big a threat to their wellbeing as the Taleban itself.
