Is Our Value Of Life Going To The Dogs?

The news about the horrific deaths of two police dogs, as a result of being locked all day in a police officer’s car, was tragic to say the least. Despite colleagues of the officer breaking the car’s windows to save the animals (they had been suffering all day in high temperatures) animal welfare staff at the police dog training centre were unable to revive the two dogs.

Unsurprisingly, it made the headlines.

What is more horrifying to me, though, is that a story about two dying dogs has achieved far more print space than that given to the members of our armed forces, and the civilians, who have been killed in our various theatres of war.

So, why is it that we appear to accept the 'mistakes' of our politicians when they cause the cessation of human life but we are outraged when the stupid mistake of a police officer causes the death of two dogs?

It seems strange that people are calling for the officer in question to be prosecuted but are not so vocal in holding those elected officials who made such grave - and some say foolhardy and even criminal - decisions to account.

The world in which we live is definitely going to the dogs!

The Lame Excuse For Action In Libya

Announcing the commencement of military action against the Gadaffi regime’s refusal to capitulate to the wishes of the UN our PM, David Cameron, said:

“We should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people”

It seemed to be a rather strange and weak reasoning for entering into what could well escalate as a long and full blown military occupation, given that successive UK governments have been happy to ignore similar unsavoury behaviour from Robert Mugabe or China or Syria (the list goes on and on) for decades.

Of course, creating an air exclusion zone is a good thing if Gaddafi is using air strikes – but he is not. His followers are still free to launch ground attacks on their opposition or to knock on the doors of rebels and ‘disappear’ them like so many brutal regimes do.

To stop such actions, we would need troops on the ground, and haven’t we been there before?

It seems politicians are slow to learn from historical fact (perhaps we should blame our education system)

The PM finished his address by saying:

“I believe we should all be confident that what we are doing is in a just cause and in our nation’s interest.”

I guess we'll have to wait to hear to whom the cause will be ‘just’ and exactly how it will be of direct interest to our country.

Personally, I shall not be holding my breath!

-

Another Fine Mess......Well Almost!!

I haven’t written anything, up until today at least, about the recent uprisings in the Middle East. To be quite honest with you, I don’t really know what to think.

The speed with which the protesters achieved their objectives in both Tunisia and Egypt surprised even the most optimistic of observers. It was almost as if the ruling regimes in both countries had, like rabbits in a car headlight, been paralysed in fear at the strength of the protests against them.

When the ‘freedom virus’ spread to Libya it was for a while at least, fair to assume that the erratic but controlling forces of the Gaddafi clan would soon follow those of the deposed regimes from Tunisia and Egypt. You could almost hear the champagne corks popping in both our own country and the USA.

But, once again, it seems that Gaddafi has managed to defy the will of most of the ‘free’ world by resisting our demands and those of his people, and instead has turned his country into one that is fast approaching civil war.

Our own politicians are now the ones who appear paralysed. When the protests in Libya first started, they were quick to assume it would all be over in days and our version of ‘democracy’ would quickly take root. They were wrong.

Now, we hear talk of no-fly zones and sanctions being imposed against the ruling regime of Libya. Meanwhile, we have to suffer the embarrassment of international ridicule as our own special forces were captured by the very rebels they were trying to contact last weekend.

It is all starting to look very dangerous politically; we are soon going to have to ‘put up or shut up’. Either we stand by and observe from afar, or we get actively involved in trying to enforce our democracy on a people who have, for the most part, never experienced it before.

Sound familiar?

Last time we got too involved in the politics of other countries, the cost, both in lost lives and national debt, turned out to be far more than we could ever afford.

Of course, all of the above is based on having enough military hardware left after the coalition’s recent version of Scrapheap Challenge

I can feel another post forming!

MI6 Blamed For Taliban Hoaxer

You couldn’t make it up if you tried.

The man who claimed to be a senior Taliban leader in Afghanistan and who has been engaged in talks with coalition forces and the Afghan government about reaching a peaceful settlement, has turned out to be a fake and has disappeared without trace.

As if that were not bad enough, he had already been paid thousands of dollars to take part in the talks and unsurprisingly, the money has disappeared too!

Of course, a game of Pass The Blame has started, with the Afghans blaming our MI6 and our government blaming the Afghan security forces, but whoever ends up with the reddest face, it is just one more reminder of how stupid we were to get involved in such a vain war in the first place!

-

Troops Patrolling Streets Of UK?.....It Could Soon Happen!

Just when you thought it could not get any worse...it has!

We are already the most surveilled population of almost any country in the world and now it seems our controlling government are paving the way to be able to deploy the armed forces on the streets of Britain.

The news came in a Green Paper published yesterday as part of a strategic defence review. Of course, it uses the same old tired excuse - terrorism!

The report says decisions need to be made on the...

"balance between focusing on our territory and region and engaging threats at a distance"

and

"what contribution the armed forces should make in ensuring security and contributing to resilience within the UK".

I have no idea what the hell such a vague and all encompassing statement means but I do know that the possibility of troop deployment is a much more frightening prospect than the perceived threat it is supposed to be preventing.

However, it seems that the media are far more interested in publishing news of philandering sportsmen, than reporting on what would be an irreversible attack on our individual freedoms.

If we don't wake up to reality soon, we could all be dozing into a permanent nightmare!

'Obscenity' And The Ministry of Defence

Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, has been forced to reveal, in reply to a parliamentary question, that a senior official at the Ministry of Defence trousered a bonus payment of £84,500 last year.

The average payment for senior fixed term appointees was said to be £31,890 over the same period.

What the heck is a 'senior fixed term appointee'? Well, the Cabinet Office describe the positions as either consultants brought in from outside the civil service, or seconded from other departments. Hmmm... I am still none the wiser.

Given the way we follow everything the US does, I am tempted to question whether these 'senior fixed term appointees' are really private security personnel (aka mercenaries) contracted to perform dirty deeds - while allowing plausible denial for the government - in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

A spokesman for the Taxpayers' Alliance branded the payments 'obscene' but what is really 'obscene' is the sight of the coffins in which our dead military personnel return, after losing their lives while earning a fraction of the pay being awarded to the recipients of the bonuses.

What is 'obscene' is the fact that the Ministry of Defence could not afford to supply our troops with the equipment needed to protect their lives during a war we should, arguably, not be fighting but can, instead, afford to pay consultants large bonuses.

What is 'obscene' is the cost of the security circus that will be protecting the man who led us into the present military actions, Tony Blair, as he is grilled by the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, at the end of this week.

But the biggest obscenity of all is that it has taken a parliamentary question to even discover that our tax payments are being frittered away in such an unsavoury fashion.

Does Anyone Really Want To 'Find' Osama Bin Laden?

Unquestioning support for the presence of both our own and US forces in Afghanistan is rapidly dwindlng. As the number of troops returning from the country in coffins is increasing, our realisation of the difficulty of achieving a quick exit strategy is finally sinking in.

In the US, President Obama is, at present, deciding whether he can sell the idea to the American people, of sending another 30,000 troops to the region. It is a political 'hot potato' and a decision that I am sure is causing him many sleepless nights.

It seems, therefore, with somewhat fortuitously good timing, that a report from the US senate has been released stating that the world's most wanted terrorist figure, Osama Bin Laden, was allowed to escape capture from US troops in Afghanistan back in 2001. Of course, the report blames the previous administration for this unlikeliest of errors.

Suspiciously, the release of the report seems timed to re-light the fire in people's minds about the so-called leader of the dreaded Al Qaeda; the man said to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks and numerous other shocking terrorist outrages in various parts of the world.

What I have often wondered, is does anyone really want to catch this man? Does he even really exist?

It seems almost inconceivable, that in the age of the highly sophisticated and often secret technology freely available to the various security agencies, they have not been able to pinpoint the location of one mere mortal.

It raises the question of what they would they do with him if they did manage to capture him? He is the figurehead of an organisation with huge and sophisticated resources; he is not just the tribesman he is made out to be. His capture and trial would only increase his profile and would provoke huge terrorist outrages across the globe and increase the recruitment figures of the so called terrorist organisations.

Alternatively, if he were to be killed 'in battle' it is likely the same result would occur.

It is worth remembering that Osama Bin Laden has been a very useful tool for various governments over the last few years. He has become the world's 'Bogeyman'.

Both his name and the organisation he is said to lead, have been used by various western governments to promote a fear in our populations and allow them to introduce more control and restrictions on our personal freedoms. Without promoting such a fear, these measures would have been greeted with outrage.

Here in the UK, you are lucky to be able to go to the bathroom without being monitored by some nosey government employee following your every move on a surveillance camera.

In reality, the fear of any of us being involved in a terrorist incident far outweighs the probability. However, the perception is constantly promoted that we are all in imminent danger. Faced by this perception, we have knowingly allowed our democratic rights and personal freedoms to be taken away on the basis of what is really just a myth.

So I guess I really have to ask....does any government really WANT to 'find' Osama Bin Laden or is he of more political use remaining 'free'?

Make up your own mind!!

The Sun Goes Down!

You could not make it up!

The Sun has been forced to apologise for doing exactly what it criticised the prime minister of doing – misspelling the surname of Jacqui Janes. She is the mother of Grenadier Guardsman, Jamie Janes, who was killed in Afghanistan.

She made GB’s hand written letter of condolence public last week (see post), to illustrate his grammatical and spelling errors (he had inadvertently spelt her family name Jones)

It seems what goes around comes around!

Afghanistan - The History Of Failure.

We are not an occupying army," Gordon Brown told the BBC on Friday. "It's not like previous interventions.... We are actually creating the conditions by which the Afghans themselves, and not an occupying army, can run their own affairs."

The words above are quoted from an excellent article in today's Independent by author James Fergusson. Within it, he explains why the PM's words are so misguided

The full article can be read here.

Afghanistan- We Will Eventually Have To Talk (Pt 2)

I suggested it back in July, in my post Afghanistan - We Will Eventually Have To Talk! but now it seems our government is finally catching up with my common sense theory, that nothing will be resolved in Afghanistan unless we all start talking.

They have asked the government of Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, to instigate talks with the Taliban leadership in an attempt to include them in the political process.

The are also pressing for certain former Taliban members to be removed from a United Nations blacklist which hinders freedom of travel thereby preventing open dialogue.

A memo leaked from the Foreign Office states:

"We must weaken and divide the Taliban if we are to reduce the insurgency to a level that can be managed and contained by the Afghan security forces. This can be achieved by a combination of military pressure and clear signals that the option of an honourable exit from the fight exists."

I am not sure there is any "honourable exit" from such a war but it does seems almost absurd, that it has taken so long for our government to wake up to common sense, having already gained vast experience of a similar solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.

Maybe they should read my blog more often!!

A War Is A Good Payday For MoD Civil Servants...

Civil Servants at the Ministry of Defence have been paid bonuses this year of £47 million.

The payments are, apparently, performance related although quite how 'performance' is measured in a department that deals in armed conflict I am at a loss to understand. Do they get a payment based on a reduction in injuries or deaths? One can only imagine with a feeling of horror!

Forgetting the dubious justifications given publicly for such payments, I wonder how any future government criticism of the bonuses that bankers have been paying themselves can ever be taken seriously from now on.

Added to which, the troops on the front line of Afghanistan only get their normal wages for performing a far more serious and life threatening job every minute of every day.

It is also worth noting that we would not have heard a thing about these payments were it not  for a written reply to a Tory parliamentary question.

It seems that the officials in Whitehall are still playing fast and loose with public money. Time for it to be brought back under control!!

What makes a Soldier....

I meant to post this at the weekend but foolishly, I left the original email at work. It was sent as part of a weekly newsletter I receive from the Red Fridays campaign.

I have no idea who the author is but I found it to be extremely thought provoking; it brings reality into the world of politics. I found it to be very moving. I hope you do too....

The average British soldier is 19 years old.....he is a short haired, well built lad who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears and just old enough to buy a round of drinks but old enough to die for his country - and for you. He's not particularly keen on hard work but he'd rather be grafting in Afghanistan than unemployed in the UK .

He recently left comprehensive school where he was probably an average student, played some form of sport, drove a ten year old rust bucket, and knew a girl that either broke up with him when he left, or swore to be waiting when he returns home. He moves easily to rock and roll or hip-hop or to the rattle of a 7.62mm machine gun.

He is about a stone lighter than when he left home because he is working or fighting from dawn to dusk and well beyond. He has trouble spelling, so letter writing is a pain for him, but he can strip a rifle in 25 seconds and reassemble it in the dark. He can recite every detail of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either effectively if he has to. He digs trenches and latrines without the aid of machines and can apply first aid like a professional paramedic. He can march until he is told to stop, or stay dead still until he is told to move.

He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation but he is not without a rebellious spirit or a sense of personal dignity. He is confidently self-sufficient. He has two sets of uniform with him: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his water bottle full and his feet dry. He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never forgets to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes and fix his own hurts. If you are thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food is your food. He'll even share his life-saving ammunition with you in the heat of a firefight if you run low.

He has learned to use his hands like weapons and regards his weapon as an extension of his own hands. He can save your life or he can take it, because that is his job - it's what a soldier does. He often works twice as long and hard as a civilian, draw half the pay and have nowhere to spend it, and can still find black ironic humour in it all. There's an old saying in the British Army: 'If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined!'

He has seen more suffering and death than he should have in his short lifetime. He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and he is unashamed to show it or admit it. He feels every bugle note of the 'Last Post' or 'Sunset' vibrate through his body while standing rigidly to attention. He's not afraid to 'Bollock'anyone who shows disrespect when the Regimental Colours are on display or the National Anthem is played; yet in an odd twist, he would defend anyone's right to be an individual. Just as with generations of young people before him, he is paying the price for our freedom. Clean shaven and baby faced he may be, but be prepared to defend yourself if you treat him like a kid.

He is the latest in a long thin line of British Fighting Men that have kept this country free for hundreds of years. He asks for nothing from us except our respect, friendship and understanding. We may not like what he does, but sometimes he doesn't like it either - he just has it to do.. Remember him always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.

And now we even have brave young women putting themselves in harm's way, doing their part in this tradition of going to war when our nation's politicians call on us to do so.

When you receive this, please stop for a moment and if you are so inclined, feel free to say a prayer for our troops in the trouble spots of the world. Maybe you'll want to send it on to someone else too.

Why not leave a message here

Remembrance Sunday and The Afghanistan/Iraq Conflicts

Today is the day we remember all those who have died in conflict fighting to preserve our freedom.

Since my earliest childhood memory of men and women standing around the Cenotaph in warm black coats, silently laying wreaths of bright red poppies, it has been about those who fought in WW1 and WW2. Now, though, it must include those who have, sadly, been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For me, that brings confusion.

Both of the world wars were just that - they were global. They were about fighting to protect our freedom against those who sought to invade and conquer us.

In Iraq and Afghanistan the conflicts are different in that we have chosen to invade those countries - albeit with the excuse we are ultimately protecting our home country from terrorist attack. Despite what Foreign Secretary David Miliband writes in today's Mail On Sunday, the argument is still not convincing.

Sir Jock Stirrup, Head of the Armed Forces, said on the Andrew Marr show this morning:

"We haven't done a good enough job of explaining to the public what our strategy is".

That is because there cannot be a strategy against a foe that uses the unpredictable tactics of the terrorist and promotes our presence in their homeland as that of the invader. Yes, you can 'take the fight to the terrorists' and kill hundreds in battle, thereby reducing the numbers but you cannot change the mindset, or the radicalisation of future generations.

As I listened to the bugler at my local cenotaph service occasionally missing the notes and stopping during his performance of The Last Post, I acknowledged there are those in this country who would try to claim that speaking out against our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is being unsupportive of our troops. It is not.

To speak out against an unjust and legally dubious conflict is, in reality, being totally supportive of those who do not have a choice!

.

Afghanistan - We Will Eventually Have To Talk!

My goodness, it has been three weeks since I last posted. I have been trying to think of a reasonable excuse for being so unreliable and have failed miserably.

During my 'downtime', more of our troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan and two more have died today.

Politicians of all parties have been making accusation and counter accusation about the lack of helicopters available to our military but none of them are owning up to the fact they have known for many months of the situation but have not wanted to be seen as the first to break ranks with the government. In short, they have first waited for the media to question the increasing number of deaths so they can capitalise on the public shock.They are spineless!

The government are, of course, still promoting the 'war against terrorism' excuse as being the reason for our presence in Afghanistan but no one has yet pointed out that all previous such situations have only ever been resolved by sitting around a table and compromising over beliefs and demands.

If anyone should ever doubt we talk to terrorists they should remember we have a number of MPs, with Irish accents, elected to the Commons - and who are claiming large amounts in expenses and salaries - who in the past, have been involved in what was perceived as being terrorist offences.

Indeed, even Nelson Mandela, who seems to be only a breath away from Sainthood in the minds of many, was himself branded a terrorist before being incarcerated for all those years. He is living proof that time changes our perceptions and we all eventually have to talk.

Meanwhile, a report in the Independent on Sunday has stated that our military action in Afghanistan has cost every man, woman and child in the UK, £190 since 2001. That money would have financed 23 new hospitals, 60,000 new teachers and 77,000 new nurses.

The cost of the lost human lives cannot, of course, be valued but it seems to me that any expected benefits from what has been described as "a war we cannot win", are unlikely to be worth the price we have so far paid!

Afghanistan - Is The Gamble Worth The Lost Lives?

In the space of a week, seven British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.

UK Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has now admitted what we all know already.... that even more lives will be lost.

The total number of UK military personnel killed in the conflict is now 176.

The Defence Secretary justified our continued presence in Afghanistan by saying:

"for Britain to be secure, Afghanistan needs to be made secure".

But is he right? Can we achieve anything approaching stability in the country and will it really make any long lasting difference to the security of the UK?.

Indeed, do most people in the UK even know where Afghanistan is?

Politicians are now starting to give various new reasons for our military presence but our main aim is, apparently, to defeat the Taliban and to stop Al Quaeda being able to operate from within the country. The only trouble with that aim, is that few of the terror organisations' permanent bases are within the borders of Afghanistan; they are operating, instead, from within neighbouring Pakistan and it is unlikely that situation will change in the near future.

We are, therefore, going to be gambling with the lives of our troops for years, if not decades, to come.

History has shown that the military might of most foreign powers has ultimately suffered defeat in Afghanistan.

If our politicians are to continue gambling, I just hope they can prove history wrong!

The 'Dud Missile' Of An Iraq War Enquiry

Yesterday afternoon, our failing prime minister, Gordon Brown, finally announced what many have been demanding for years - an enquiry into the Iraq war. So far so good.

The fully independent enquiry is to be held in secret, will not report until after the next general election and will not apportion any blame. Now that is all bad!

After the recent scandal over MPs expenses when the prime minister promised a more transparent government, does he really think the British public will have any trust in such an enquiry? Has he not been told of his party's total crash in the polls?

Many questions about the legality of the Iraq war still remain unanswered, even though the original claims about weapons of mass destruction have been proved false.

A secret enquiry where no-one ends up taking responsibility is about as much use as a cat flap on a submarine.

The families of thousands of dead Iraqis and those of the 179 British service personnel killed as a result of the conflict, deserve much more than just another high profile cover up!

Iraq - More 'Official' Lies!

An article in today's Independent's Commentators section by the much respected Robert Fisk highlights the deception that is still being 'spun' about our role in Iraq and the state in which the country has been left.

The article has been based around a letter, forwarded to him by one of his readers, Tom Geddes, and penned by someone with an illegible signature from the Ministry of Defence's "Iraq Operations Team, Directorate of Operations"

It justifies our involvement in Iraq by stating:

It is important to remember that our decision to take action (sic) in Iraq was driven by Saddam Hussein's refusal to co-operate with the UN-sponsored weapons inspections...The former Prime Minister has expressed his regret for any information, given in good faith, concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which has subsequently proven to be incorrect."

Mr Fisk, in his article, points out:

Saddam Hussein did not "refuse to co-operate" with the UN weapons inspectors. The whole problem was that – to the horror of Blair and Bush – the ghastly Saddam did co-operate with them, and the UN weapons team under Hans Blix was about to prove that these "weapons of mass destruction" were non-existent; hence the Americans forced Blix and his men and women to leave Iraq so that they and Blair could stage their illegal invasion. I saw Blix's aircraft still on the ground at Baghdad airport just two days before the attack. Note, too, the weasel words. Blair did not give his information "in good faith", as SM (the illegible writer at the MoD) claims. He knew – and the Ministry of Defence knew (and I suppose SM knew) – they were untrue. Or "incorrect" as "SM" coyly writes.

Interesting words about a lie that very few journalists seem willing to keep in the public eye.

Action in Iraq was an unforgiveable abuse - of democracy here in the UK, of the decision making process of the United Nations and certainly of the people of Iraq and of our troops.

While it may be convenient to just sweep it under the carpet with the rest of the falsehoods from the Blair years, we must make sure that the truth is eventually acknowledged!