This should never have been necessary

Occasionally our politicians do something right, more often than not they do it for the wrong reasons though. Making the military covenant a binding law on government makes for a great soundbite, but it really should scarcely have been necessary if politicians and civil servants who run the Ministry of Defence had any shred of honour in the first place.

Telegraph.

There had been fears that David Cameron was moving away from a pre-election pledge to give the armed forces “a new military covenant that’s written into the law of the land”.

Many in the services were disappointed with the wording of the Armed Forces Bill which is currently going through Parliament.

The defence minister overseeing the Armed Forces Bill, Andrew Robathan said the Coalition would “ensure the best possible treatment for all our Service personnel, both serving and retired”. He also added: “We are putting the military covenant on a statutory basis for the first time.” 

 Those who put their lives at risk for their country have often been treated with contempt by the powers that be and even some of their own countrymen, the Poem by Kipling  "Tommy" makes this prejudice against them fairly clear even from the past. Yet respect should automatically be their due, it should not have to be enshrined in law, yet such has been their treatment by the previous government that it now will be.
It's hopefully going to be a good and useful statute, it's just a crying shame it became necessary.

More about → This should never have been necessary

Are they mad?

Ok, Osama bin Laden was attacked and killed in a million dollar mansion in one of the nicer parts of Islamabad.*
I can sort of live with that, even if Pakistan is supposedly a sovereign country and the people doing the attacking were U.S. special forces. After all someone fairly high up in the Pakistani government and their security services must have been complicit in allowing him to remain there, unless he was a complete hermit in that time complete with supposed kidney failure then I cannot believe that someone there did not know.
But they killed him and then buried him at sea?
Can you see conspiracy theorists sprouting from the internet faster than you can say photoshopped? because I certainly can. OK I accept that any grave-site would instantly become some sort of shrine to the daft bastards who believe the only good non Islamist is a dead non Islamist, but they didn't have to bury him in an Islamic country, somewhere in Area 51 would have done just fine alongside all those aliens who keep visiting.
But now there's no body, no proof other than the words of the soldiers and some photographs. Have they forgotten that some people are convinced Elvis is still alive? I can almost promise you that OBL will be spotted any time soon working down the local chipshop wearing an Elvis wig. (or something like that) After all, his followers are convinced we're all liars anyway and under the control of Zionists and look there's no body so at best we killed one of his numerous body doubles!
Then again perhaps he's not dead just enjoying a bit of waterboarding in Guantanamo...



Can anyone else see the sort of problem we're now going to face?
*For a given value of nice

More about → Are they mad?

No exit

I don't think Libya is worth the life of a single UK serviceman, I don't think it's worth the cost and I can't see the benefits, even if we seized the oil fields, what then?

Telegraph.

The Government does not know how long the Armed Forces will be engaged in Libya, a defence minister admitted as debate intensified over the likely outcome, cost and leadership of the mission. 

Nick Harvey, the Armed Forces minister, was asked how long Britain would be involved in the military operation in north Africa. He replied: “How long is a piece of string? We don’t know how long this is going to go on for.”

His admission, three days into the intervention, came as ministers faced mounting pressure to set out the limits of Britain’s involvement and explain their eventual exit strategy.

MPs were becoming increasingly concerned that Britain would be “sucked in” to a prolonged conflict.

Adding to the sense of uncertainty, France and Britain remained at odds over a plan for Nato to take over command of military operations when the US winds down its involvement, a transition expected in days.

Wonderful, we still seem to have a bunch of politicians in charge who believe that 1984 is an instruction manual.

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter3

Being the relevant quote and that seems to be what they are proposing, war without end with various foreign regimes, simply to keep the proles from asking what's actually going on, at least until the dumbing down process in the education of our youth along with the mind numbing "variety/talent/celeb" shows which keeps them occupied all without questioning the motives of the powers that be.

"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 7

The Romans called it "Bread and Circuses" as it kept the proles out of the affairs of their so called betters as well as making them susceptible to the odd demagogue who would use them to riot on his behalf.
But no matter the name the process remains the same, though I believe this time they may have bitten off a bit more than they can chew as the public sentiments are no longer behind such a war despite the best efforts of the MSM and government cheerleaders. We've seen too many flag draped coffins and heard too many Islamoloons spreading their vile hate to know that these are not people you can reason with, Melanie Phillips is being investigated (allegedly) by the police for calling Islamists savages and it's hard to blame her, the very rebels we have chosen to support have been sending their people until recently to fight us in Afghanistan. Even now the Arab League who called for a no fly zone are complaining that they didn't mean it the way it ended up, probably trying to get the best of both worlds I should imagine, claim they were trying to help then criticise the helpers.
So, here we go again, another war, another media onslaught and another round of dead soldiers courtesy of "Islam R us"

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Don't you just love Big Brother?

More about → No exit

It's Tommy this and Tommy that...

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O 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,
O 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,
O 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,
O 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,
O 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!

by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

You may not agree with our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan,you may believe that Iraq was an illegal war (it wasn't, Parliament decides legality not the people and Parliament decided it was legal) But the courage of our soldiers is not open to any form of disagreement.

Mail.

In an extraordinary show of courage, British soldiers are making themselves deliberate targets to flush out a Taliban sniper who is terrorising a base in Helmand.

Two snipers have killed two soldiers and injured six more over the past four months at the outpost in Qadrat. One marksman has been killed but the second is still resisting attempts to trap him.

Now, soldiers from the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment are volunteering to present themselves as targets.

Lieut Jamie MacDonald, 24, the commander of the base, has himself set up vehicle check points to try and draw out the sniper.

He said he would not expose his men to a danger he would not face himself: He told The Daily Telegraph: 'I've done it a couple of times. I don't ever sit still, I just keep moving.'

Lieut MacDonald said that the sniper currently opens fire on every patrol heading north. The lieutenant has twice come close to being shot when rounds have narrowly missed his head or body. Soldiers have returned to base with bullet holes in their armour and backpacks.

The lengths these brave men and women are prepared to go to for their comrades in arms and their duty to their regiments defies description save only that as the Mail says, they are "The bravest of the Brave"  They rise time and time again over their shameful treatment by successive governments and their Ministry of Defence, their courage shames politicians, bureaucrats and those who would call them murderers and rapists when they march home from doing their duty.

Perhaps it is time to bring them home, perhaps it's time to bring them home to clean house from the scum who shame this nation by their antics in insult or denying them the tools to do their job.

Words cannot express my horror at our young people putting their lives on the line to do this, words cannot express my pride in their courage.

More about → It's Tommy this and Tommy that...

At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.

IN FLANDERS FIELDS
by John McCrae
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place: and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
WE SHALL NOT SLEEP,
THOUGH POPPIES GROW
IN FLANDERS FIELDS.

More about → At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.

Perfect sense?

Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has said that plans which could put British combat troops including the SAS under French command make “perfect sense”. Well they might make perfect sense to an imbecile, (or politicians) but they don't make sense to me. When it comes to the defence of the realm, you make damned sure that your armed forces and all the attachments that go with it remain under your command. You for instance don't allow a foreign military however friendly to command your troops under any circumstances simply because their interests may not be in any way shape or form your interests. I can imagine circumstances where the lives of French civilians or military may be in danger where the "British" contingent of their rapid response unit is used as a sacrificial lamb to get them out whilst the French contingent remain safe doing the evacuation. Far fetched? Not really, British troops on the whole have combat experience, French troops mostly don't, you want something difficult done you use the right tools for the job, in the case of the military in Europe, that's us. I can see the EU using our troops as cannon fodder when the inevitable breakdown happens either through internal division, or the rise of the Islamics and their constant attempts to bend our way of life to their medieval lunacy. In the next 20 or so years, something is going to break and I want our troops here with a 26 mile (at least) moat between us and them.
Liam Fox and whoever came up with this idea on the British side (yes I'm looking at you Cameron) are traitors, there is no other word for it, they are selling out our armed forces to a foreign power to pay the bills instead of getting rid of the obscene environmental taxes, trimming back savagely the welfare industry and napalming the Quango cults. They can claim they are just tidying up Labours mess, but you don't endanger your nation by messing with its armed forces by handing command of them over to a foreign power. Oh I know it's early days yet and they are keeping the units separate, but this is the thin end of the wedge, this is where we start to go slowly into the night as a nation.

More about → Perfect sense?

The best we have, so of course they have to go...

There are days in which I look at various conspiracy theories out on the web and wonder at how some people can believe such rubbish as the fact that the moon landings were filmed on a stage (false, the number of people involved to do that something would leak, plus the moving flag doesn't ripple in the breeze but because it's on a spring) That the Twin Towers were blown up with thermite (read the engineers report here for what really happened) yes you can speculate who was flying the planes, but please don't allude to the fact that the buildings were deliberately blown up, doesn't wash I'm afraid. I also didn't believe the theory that the government were deliberately running down our military and keeping our troops abroad in pointless wars to prevent them from siding with the people over the betrayal of our nation to the EU and the NWO.
Now, I'm not so sure.

Telegraph.

The SAS is facing the greatest cuts since the end of the Second World War with veterans being forced out and a Territorial Army regiment set to close. 

The Director of Special Forces, a major general who cannot be named, will meet with reserve SAS soldiers this week to inform them that their services are no longer required.

Already more than 40 veteran SAS men have been given their marching orders after the Army said it can no longer afford to pay them. 

While British special forces are seen as one of the greatest global assets Britain has to offer and are particularly coveted by the US, they are expensive accounting for an estimated £2 billion out of the £37 billion MoD budget.

However, like the rest of defence the SAS has had to make cuts and getting rid of the “old and the bold” and part of the TA is seen as the best solution.

Under the Strategic Defence and Security Review, under with the Ministry of Defence has to make cuts of between 10 and 20 per cent, the SAS will also lose either 21 SAS or 23 SAS, its two TA battalions who also contribute to the war in Afghanistan.

“Sadly the director (DSF) is going round this week to talk to people because it looks likely we are going to lose a reserve regiment,” an SAS source said. “This is modern times and all we can really afford is the fighting young blades who deploy on operations.

“DSF is doing the sensible thing and is looking at them in the eye and saying the pot is this big and here are the options and this is why.

“It very unfortunate and inevitably will take something away from UK special forces but that is the reality of it.”

There has also been outcry that the SAS is losing its most experienced men who have served on operations since September 11th.

 The Army can't afford to keep one of our best regiments going because it's running out of cash. Yet look at the government waste going on with diversity co-ordinators, environment facilitators, the wasteful green energy rules, useless computer systems and massive bills by outside contractors. If the government were really serious about tackling waste they could easily save billions and increase the size of the armed forces, but they wont and they don't. They'd rather waste the money elsewhere, because I suspect they see the army (and the other forces) as a threat to their intentions to sell our country down the river. Perhaps it's a price they are paying to keep our multicultural minorities happy and not rioting in the streets, after all protecting the minorities seems to be far more important to them than upholding ancient rights and protections of the majority.
Something stinks at the heart of our government, we're being betrayed drip by drip into a society with a privileged elite and a massive, ignorant, ill-educated under-class without the means to tear down the prison walls they are slowly but surely being put behind.

 

More about → The best we have, so of course they have to go...

Looking after our own

I'm a big fan of armed neutrality, I personally don't believe UK forces should be involved in any conflicts that really don't concern us. This means we shouldn't be in Iraq and we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, certainly not doing what we are doing now, if we do go to war (and it is a war) then we go in with overwhelming force, we do what we have to do, then we get out, we should also look at the cheaper options too. Not that I'm saying that we haven't brought some benefits to these countries, just that they aren't our countries and sooner or later what we do there will come back to haunt us. Primarily our armed forces should be available for home defence, defence commitments to our allied territories (Falklands etc) Possible availability for Commonwealth problems/peacekeeping and that's about it. We shouldn't be available for EU conflicts, nor available as U.N. peacekeeping.
Our troops should also have the best possible equipment available at a cost effective level, particularly with regard to modern battlefield weapons, this means we should also have our own burgeoning defence industry, producing said equipment (under license if necessary) If we want the best, then we either make it or buy it, which ever is easiest.
What we also do is look after the morale of those who choose to serve as defenders of our country.

Times.

The shocking conditions endured by certain Forces families in houses across Britain — including the discovery of afterbirth stains on the carpet, flooding and broken doors — is undermining the morale of soldiers on the front line, The Times has been told.

Military wives have revealed a litany of housing problems due to decades of underfunding. They say that the constant worry about repairs compounds the stress of separation when their husbands are serving in Afghanistan.

General Sir Mike Jackson, a former head of the Army, told The Times that accommodation was “the Cinderella of defence spending”. He said: “It reflects badly on the way that defence is financed that we still are unable to ensure that every serviceman and woman and their families are decently housed.”

A dilapidated estate for middle-ranking officers in London offers an example of homes that have yet to benefit from a multibillion-pound upgrade programme being implemented by the Ministry of Defence. Up to 20 per cent of the semi-detached houses are uninhabitable because of subsidence.

 This is simply unacceptable, I'm not saying that the dependants of our troops should be housed in luxury, but they should be housed in relative comfort and also if necessary relative safety. The MOD and the government should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen, first they deliberately deny our troops proper kit and follow it up by making their dependants live in squalor (whilst tarting up the MOD building complete with £1000 chairs for computer operators in case of back strain) and handing out medals to civil servants who go out to the front.
It's all a matter of priority and it has become ever more plain and obvious where the priorities of the government and the senior civil service lies and that's purely with themselves. This needs to change, though I doubt very much that it will until we have a government no in thrall to the existing system but who desire wholesale reform in the teeth of a hostile elite who see the purpose of government being to keep us in our place whilst they enrich themselves at our expense.

More about → Looking after our own

Deterrence

Nuclear weapons are very dangerous and also very expensive though not as much as the delivery systems.
Currently the government are about to spend £80 billion on the Trident delivery system, it's not so much the cost but the fact that it is submarine based that makes it expensive, the advantages are however manifold.

1. The warheads are safe from interdiction interception from those out there who would do us harm.
2. Land based rockets can be got at far more easier than submarines.
3. Aircraft can (and are) shot down far easier than a submarine.
4. Our nuclear subs can strike back from anywhere at any time.
5. Those who would do us harm will never know where or when our revenge would come from as they don't have the means to detect our subs.

So when I saw this article I knew straight away it was an attempt to smash and grab the Trident budget rather than any serious thought given as to what would happen if Iran got  nuclear weapons or Pakistan fell to Islamic fundamentalists.

Times.

Britain should be prepared to scrap its nuclear deterrent, a group of generals write in The Times today, pushing the future of Trident to the forefront of the election.

The generals say that the next government would threaten both frontline Forces and global disarmament talks unless it considers different ways of spending the £80 billion required to replace the fleet of submarines.

Their intervention, although nonpolitical, offers timely support for Nick Clegg, who goes into tomorrow night’s foreign affairs debate with Gordon Brown and David Cameron as the only party leader arguing against a like-for-like replacement. 

Since 2007, when the Government decided to replace Trident, the debate has shifted significantly, they write, and there is now a “growing consensus that rapid cuts in nuclear forces ... is the way to achieve international security”. Pressing ahead regardless with a costly replacement could upset President Obama’s international disarmament drive, they say. And money spent on nuclear weapons would be unavailable for frontline troops, counter-terrorism work, helicopters, armoured vehicles, frigates or manpower.

They argue that any genuinely comprehensive review needs to answer the question: “Is the UK’s security best served by going ahead with business as usual, reducing our nuclear arsenal, adjusting our nuclear posture or eliminating our nuclear weapons?”

Personally I don't trust president Obama's disarmament drive, that will only work for civilised countries, North Korea and Iran are not particularly trustworthy where it comes to rhetoric and belligerence, nor do I trust the Pakistani state to remain stable. All of those will pose future threats to civilisation and non will hand over their nuclear weapons I suspect they think Obama's a fool too.
The government have short changed the frontline troops of equipment from day 1, I rather doubt £80 billion will be given to the generals rather than the Navy to play with, far better spent on keeping the governments client state pets happy with bread and circuses.
Clegg's argument that other states shelter under Americas nuclear umbrella may have been true in the cold war but certainly isn't so today, America might retaliate if an ally is attacked, then again they may not, far better to have our own deterrence anyway, particularly one where they wont see it coming until too late.

Yes I know it's expensive, but it's a far better deterrent than any other option and whilst I'm all in favour of funding our armed forces properly, I don't think it should be done at the expense of Trident.

More about → Deterrence

No, no, no, no NO!

There are some things that irritate, there are a few things that annoy and there are some things that get the red mist in front of the eyes.

Telegraph.

Ministry of Defence staff get same Afghan medal as front line troops

Civil servants working for the Ministry of Defence in Afghanistan are entitled to receive the same Operational Service Medal as front line troops.

The medal is presented to bureaucrats who have spent time at Camp Bastion, the British headquarters, by ministers at official ceremonies.

But critics said it was "offensive" that civil servants who work only at Army bases or accompanying ministers on walkabouts should be given the same medal as the troops who face the Taliban on a daily basis.

Now I'm not saying that the civil servants lives weren't in danger and I do think that if they served in Camp Bastion that they should get some sort of award, particularly if they came under fire.
Military service medals are just that for military service, you don't award Victoria Crosses to civilians, ever! There are a whole raft of civilian awards for bravery with the George Cross being the highest. However these aren't the same as campaign medals, but you don't give campaign medals to those who are not under arms or in the armed services, something the civil servants definitely are not.
Yes they should perhaps get some sort of commendation, however I do think the danger money they receive ought to cover that, they get £8,000 a month for working in Afghanistan, nearly five times as much some soldiers on the front line.
We honour our forces, we honour the covenant and for this we award them with tokens of our gratitude and respect. What the MOD is doing here is diluting and denigrating this tradition, it should stop, it's wrong, there are other ways to reward civilians and it's being done.
Reading between the lines on this statement...

At a presentation ceremony in July, Armed Forces minister Kevan Jones said: "The welfare role these people do is vital in operations and I thought it important that they get public recognition."

This smacks of a Labour political correctness lunacy, but as in the past they've already proven just how much they value our troops which is why they went to a war under equipped and over-stretched.

Perhaps the civil servants should get a service badge for Afghanistan, but it shouldn't be a service medal, troops are different, should be treat differently, should be made to feel special and not the same as the civilian support staff however much they help.

More about → No, no, no, no NO!