RIP Sir John Keegan

Sad to hear that the great military historian Sir John Keegan has passed away. I strongly recommend his work on Normandy in particular.  Full text from the DT below written by General Sir David Richards: 

As a professor at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, Sir John Keegan shaped a generation of young Army officers with his intellectual insights and historical perspective. As defence editor of The Daily Telegraph, he kept the generals and politicians in line with trenchant criticism and carefully judged observations. His death marks a sad moment for those of us who knew him, but an opportunity to remember a man whose influence on British defence policy was long and measured.

Sir John’s works unfailingly took the part of the soldier in battle, bringing a perspective so often overlooked by those with a more political interest. Those of us who were commissioned in the Seventies remember well his first major work, The Face of Battle (1976), which brought the perspective of the archer at Agincourt, the rifleman at Waterloo and the Tommy at the Somme to young officers preparing for what could have been the next European war. It was sobering for those of us who had not experienced battle and it played a major part in our training.

His later works built on this formidable tome and he shaped the way we thought about battle and the nature of military power. His contribution to explaining the Falklands conflict to a dubious and often defeatist London journalistic community should not be underestimated.

Victory in no way seemed assured and many thought the idea of sending a Task Force was a vainglorious relic of empire. Sir John saw it for what it was: a courageous, risky, but ultimately achievable operation that had to succeed, and he devoted a huge amount of effort to convincing others of this. It helped turn the doubting intellectual milieu into a supportive community.

That ability to shape the debate by bringing specialist knowledge to the lay reader was fundamental to his success. As conscription ended and fewer people had direct experience of military life, it was vital to ensuring that people understood what the Armed Forces were for.

This sometimes meant that he took on contentious topics, such as his support for the Iraq war. With courage and accuracy, he was able to divide the invasion from the occupation, and reminded everyone who would listen that in strictly military terms the victory in 2003 was astonishing for its speed and completeness.

As his more than 20 years on the Telegraph demonstrate, Sir John’s articles and comments contributed to the national debate with an energy and understanding that few could match. Though his views were not always shared by those of us struggling to balance the competing pressures that modern generalship demands, he was an honest critic and had that most useful of all journalistic assets: an ability to make us think again.
His work at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is also worth remembering. This is a hugely impressive organisation with a global mandate, and requires people with the vision, sensitivity and understanding of Sir John to ensure that it endures.
I know his contribution to that, and so many other walks of life, will be greatly missed. Despite a childhood sickness that prevented him from putting on a uniform, he was very much one of us.
General Sir David Richards is Chief of the Defence Staff

No reporting from Afghanistan during the election.

Expect to see less of this during the election.
Even though reporting during the 1945 election
was never suspended.

Reporters are facing a 'gag' on reporting from Afghanistan in the run up to the election. Is anyone surprised? I guess not but at least Gordy managed to get his own piece of electioneering from Afghanistan done last week. That is of course before the ban will come into effect. A further example of powerful, corrupt government suiting it's own ends. Never mind the troops, I wonder if the next of kin of any casualties that occur during the period of this gag will have to wait for news. I mean will the MOD wait until after the election and then tell the families their loved ones have died, days or weeks later. It would certainly be expedient for this government to do so and in keeping with the spirit of this unnecessary restriction on press freedom.

In the words of Colonel Douglas Young Chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation:



“It didn’t happen in 1945 - there was no question of limiting reporting at that time simply because an election was happening and I don’t see why there should be any questions of that now. Are we to stop operations during this period? Obviously not, and if operations are in process they should be reported upon in the normal way.

“It is ridiculous to expect the forces to be hiding away just because there’s a general election.”

PM appears to say 'We have enough helicopters in Afghanistan'- Why then Gordy are more being sent?

Whilst the debate rages on, he soldiers on...







One thing I regret about this blog is that I have not blogged enough about defence and the overseas operations being carried out supposedly to that end. However I cannot ignore the current morass in Afghanistan. Read the Telegraph article if only for the comments below it. What annoys me though is the continued double speak by our ruling politicians. Examples include saying 'we could send more helicopters'. Anyone get that I don't? Could or should? I mean we could send a P&O cross channel ferry for that matter. However we do need them. I don't believe that Afghanistan is a lost cause, however a lack of aerial mobility will render our troops very vulnerable. I can be convinced that defeating or at least containing the Taleban insurgency is best for the region. If only to prop up up the governments in Kabul and Islamabad. Besides if the Taleban emerge victorious a huge price will be paid for all. That said I wish both the UK and US governments had realised that much sooner. I'll conclude by copying the superb comment by 'JL' in the Telegraph:





'15 July: General Dannatt - we need more helicopters.


16 July: Brown - no you don't.


17 July: Jock Stirrup - we need more helicopters.


19 July: John Hutton - they need more helicopters.


20 July: Mandelson - no they don't.


21 July: Malloch-Brown - they need more helicopters.


22 July: Brown - no they don't.


22 July: Malloch-Brown - they have enough.


23 July: Rammell - we may send more helicopters......Meanwhile yet another soldier dies in Helmand.This has gone beyond farce. If we have to fight this war then fund and equip it properly. Otherwise get out.'





I could not agree more.











More men and helicopters 'could be sent to Afghanistan'- The Telegraph

Hundreds more troops could soon be sent to Afghanistan, a defence minister hinted yesterday.
Downing Street has already said that the 700 extra troops sent to Helmand temporarily for the operation to protect the integrity of next month’s elections will stay, probably to help to train Afghan troops. However, Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, hinted that the current total of 9,150 could be increased further as military chiefs call for up to 2,500 more soldiers on the ground.



Earlier Gordon Brown accepted the case for more helicopters in the region. In a change of tone, he acknowledged that more were required for the “general” Afghan mission and said that they were being ordered. He denied that a lack of helicopters was costing British lives after Lord Malloch-Brown, the Foreign Office Minister, appeared to back criticism that the British force was not properly equipped. Lord Malloch-Brown told The Daily Telegraph: “We definitely don’t have enough helicopters.” Under pressure from No 10, he later issued a clarification: “There are without doubt sufficient resources in place for current operations.”

The issue dominated the Prime Minister’s monthly press conference at which Mr Brown insisted: “For the operation we are doing at the moment we have the helicopters we need.” He also described as completely wrong any assertion that the recent loss of lives had been caused by an absence of helicopters. “More helicopters in general, yes,” he said. “That is why we are putting them into Afghanistan.” More Merlins would be there by the end of the year, more Chinooks next year, and numbers had increased by 60 per cent over two years, he said.



The remarks put the Prime Minister more in line with the approach taken by present and former British commanders, who have been calling for more help to tackle the Taleban.
Earlier, on a visit to Salisbury Plain where he met troops preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, Mr Rammell confirmed that a review of troop numbers there would take place after the Afghan elections. Asked if he would meet the desire of military chiefs who have asked for an additional 2,000 to 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, the minister said: “This is a Government that does listen to the advice that it gets from the service chiefs. That is why we increased the numbers from 5,500 to 9,000.” He added that the figure was kept under review.



General Sir Richard Dannatt, who will be replaced in August by General Sir David Richards as head of the Army, said last week that he wanted more “boots on the ground”, regardless of whether they were British, US or Afghan. Additional British troops are ready to head out to the front line if called upon. Brigadier James Cowan, commander of 11 Light Brigade, the next brigade to deploy to Afghanistan in the autumn, said: “It is up to ministers to decide. I will make do with what I am given. I am a practical man.”



Elsewhere, the Government’s insistence that it has provided enough equipment was questioned by the former commander of British troops in Helmand, who said that the military effort in Afghanistan was “insufficiently resourced” to counter a widespread insurgency. Brigadier Ed Butler, a retired officer, told The World at One on Radio 4: “What is [Mr Brown] defining as the mission at hand? He may be referring to Operation Panther’s Claw but I think the wider campaign in Afghanistan, and this has been the case from the early days, has been insufficiently resourced to undertake a proper counter-insurgency.”

Back soon with my own ideas for defence in the 21st Century.

Is NATO fit for role?

In fact as the US 'Surge' NATO will be rolled
back.




Interesting article from the American Spectator. In short I believe that NATO is facing a crisis, one that has much to do with the European allies (with notable exceptions) lacking conviction. I hope to blog much more about Defence issues in the future and about the UK military. Here is the full text of the article below, I agree with the thrust of it although the comments concerning the Germans border on the puerile. Please comment below, interesting isn't it how after all the European political elites gushed over Obama they can't lift a finger to help him in Afghanistan?



























What's NATO for Again?













By Doug Bandow on 5.4.09 @ 6:06AM













NATO has been with us 60 years. The organization staged the usual self-congratulatory anniversary ceremony last month, with President Barack Obama in attendance. Exactly what the organization is supposed to do these days isn't clear, however. A herd of heads of state and government celebrated the alliance's birthday without bothering to explain its purpose.
The original goal of NATO, articulated by Lord Hastings Ismay, the alliance's first Secretary General, was to keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in. The first objective was firmly achieved two decades ago when the Berlin Wall fell, the Eastern European satellites spun out of Moscow's orbit, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Russia's oil-based rise has changed nothing: Moscow might be able to impose its will on neighboring Georgia, which was part of Imperial Russia as well as the USSR. But there will be no Red Army romp to the Atlantic. With ten times Russia's GDP and nearly four times Russia's population, Europe is more than capable of defending itself.







Meeting the second goal arose naturally out of the rubble of World War II. A few neo-Nazis might still meet furtively to discuss the coming of the Fourth Reich, but most Germans have run far from their past. Today the Bundeswehr is primarily a recruiting mechanism for social service agencies; indeed, when drafted two-thirds of young men choose alternative civilian work. The once feared German warriors are a memory.







The problem is not a lack of individual bravery. As of March, 34 German soldiers and policemen had been killed in Afghanistan. But Berlin insists on deploying military units to the north, where they aren't needed. And they no longer are combat-worthy. Reinhold Robbe, the parliamentary commissioner for the military, observed: "Plainly put, the soldiers are too fat, exercise too little, and take little care of their diet." London's Daily Mail headlined one story: "German soldiers are 'too fat to fight' Taliban because they drink so much (while our boys go dry)." Europe can breathe a sigh of relief -- no one need worry about German soldiers singing Deutschland Uber Alles and goose-stepping down their own, let alone someone else's, streets.







Which leaves keeping America in, but to what end? The U.S. isn't needed to protect Europe from the Russians or Germans. Instead, Washington provides prosperous and populous allies, whose collective economy and population are larger than that of the United States, with a defense insurance policy at American expense. If the Balkans get messy, Washington sends in real military forces. If something should go terribly wrong with Russia, we know who the Europeans would expect to save the day. Hint: It wouldn't be the overweight and well-lubricated Bundeswehr.







Other members of NATO want the U.S. to believe that it gets something out of the alliance. But it's hard to see what. Albania and Croatia joined the organization this year. They added geopolitical liabilities rather than military assets to NATO. Proposals to bring in Georgia and Ukraine, which are involved in complex geopolitical disputes with Russia, risk another confrontation with nuclear-armed Moscow, this one in the latter's rather than America's backyard, and over conflicts in which America has no stake.







The U.S. isn't even getting much out of its allies for its number one geopolitical objective of the present, Afghanistan. The British, Danes, French, and Australians have fought. So have the Canadians and Dutch, who, unfortunately, will be going home over the next year or two.
But most of the nearly two score countries (NATO members plus other states) have followed the German model -- modest detachments deployed in regions and under conditions, called "caveats," designed to ensure that they are never shot at. Indeed, American commanders say that ISAF stands for "I Saw America Fight" rather than "International Security Assistance Force."







Consider the record of the Czech contingent. The Herald Sun (Australia) reported that "When asked by the Britons to attack Afghan rebels, the commander of a special operations unit (SOG) said 'we're not going to, it's dangerous,' then ordered his men to get in trucks and return to the base." At another point the SOG commander rejected a British request for aid by noting that his 35-member unit was on vacation. This is "help" that Washington doesn't need.







The Obama administration is having no more luck in enlisting additional European assistance than did its predecessor. So far the response to the president's plea, writes William Pfaff, is "65 men with two F-16s promised by Belgium; 12 trainers and a small troop contingent (probably from the gendarmerie) for the election in Afghanistan next month, with a larger French contribution to the new, combined European Gendarmerie Force that has already dispatched 300 to 400 men and women, all to improve Afghanistan's own national police, so far without conspicuous success." The Europeans also are promising a "civilian surge."







It comes as no surprise that the Europeans see little cause for fighting in Afghanistan, but NATO invoked Article 5 in 2001 with great fanfare for the first time as a show of support for the U.S. If the alliance is not needed to defend Europe and won't aid America elsewhere, then, really, what is its purpose?







Some alliance members recognize that NATO is failing its Afghanistan test. Warned British Defense Secretary John Hutton: "Success in Afghanistan is fast emerging as the test of NATO's relevance in this new post-cold war age." If the alliance can't act there, then "NATO will risk being irrelevant, a talking shop where process is everything," he adds.













In fact, that's all NATO has become. It's time to give NATO, at least an American-dominated NATO, a decent burial. The U.S. should pull out, leaving the Europeans to construct whatever continental security architecture seems best. If they want to sort out the Balkans, guard the Caucasus, or engage in some other far-flung mission, they should be free to do so. Without American forces.







At the same time, Washington could work out agreements with any European nations with real militaries that see the value of continued security cooperation. That likely would include Britain and France. And maybe Germany, if its soldiers would lay off the sausages and beer.

'Make Every woman wear a Burkha'- More from the 'anti - war protestor'

This is another gem from Choudhary. Interestingly though in an example of naivety another blogger described Choudhary's group of Muslims who greeted British Soldiers with placards saying 'Anglians go to hell' as anti-war protesters. The poster went on to say that these individuals were right to protest as 'Between 601,027 and 1 million people have died since March 2003 as a result of the invasion of Iraq.' Leaving aside the fact that the statistics are incorrect, a better question would be 'who did most of the killing'? Here is the problem therefore with describing Choudhary's motley band of Jihadists as 'anti war'. They are not, they are in fact pro-war, pro-Jihad. Look at the article below for just one example of Choudhary's views. Also bear in mind that most of the killing in Iraq was done by Jihadists, the Al Qaeda movement and Shia militants aligned with and sponsored by Iran. It becomes clear that these protestors are far from linking their arms and singing 'we will overcome'. They are in fact supporters of extreme acts of violence which have killed many Iraqis. It was not American troops who ploughed suicide car bombs into Shia pilgrims in Iraq. Never mind of course Choudhary et al they have a right to peacefully protest in the UK, I just wish that Geert Wilders had a right to come into Britain for a peaceful debate as well. Full text of Choudhary’s latest below:

‘MAKE EVERY WOMAN WEAR A BURKHA’

Anjem Choudary
Saturday March 14,2009
By Martyn Brown
A MUSLIM hate preacher who demanded that all British women be forced to wear burkhas faced a storm of outrage last night.
Firebrand Anjem Choudary said he wanted every woman to be covered by a full-length cloak in his vision of Britain under Sharia law.The lawyer, who praised the Mumbai terror attacks, also said he wanted to see the “flag of Allah” flying over Downing Street, adulterers stoned to death and drunks whipped.Choudary, 41, sparked fury this week when he branded British soldiers “cowards” and was behind a sickening anti-war protest against troops who were arriving home from Iraq to a heroic welcome.Last night politicians and fellow Muslims condemned his comments while some called for him to leave the country.Choudary, the leader of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, a group set up following the banning of extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, led by now-exiled preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, said he offered “a pure Islamic state with Sharia law in Britain”. He said: “Every woman, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, would have to wear a traditional burkha and covereverything apart from her face and hands in public.”“In matters to do with the judicial system and the penal code, one male witness is sufficient to counter the testimony of two females. People who commit adultery would be stoned to death.”Despite becoming possibly the most despised man in Britain with his fanatical views, he remained unrepentant.“That’s a badge I would wear with pride,” he said. “It’s inevitable that when you offer an alternative morality and way of life, many people will hate you for it.”


He said Britons “with their alcohol, gambling, prostitution and pornography” live “like animals in a jungle” and added that “anyone who becomes intoxicated by alcohol would be given 40 lashes in public”. He claimed last month on his website Islam4UK that alcohol was “the root of all evil”. Last night his comments were met with outrage. Conservative MP and ex-Army officer Patrick Mercer said: “If anyone thinks that those views are a step forward in society they are seriously deluded. They are repellent and repulsive. I strongly believe the Home Secretary should seriously think about this man’s right to live in Britain.”Tory MP Philip Davies said: “The man is an idiot who does more to incite racial tensions than anyone else. “If he wants Britain to live under Sharia law then why doesn’t he go to another country?” Choudary was also attacked by moderate Muslims. Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “Choudary and his tiny group of hooligans are about as representative of British Muslim opinion as the BNP is of ordinary British public opinion. “If their inflammatory remarks ever cross the boundary into actual incitement to violence then they should be prosecuted.”Iraqi war victim Ali Abbas, 18, who came to the UK after losing both arms and his family in the conflict, said: “Where was this Muslim preacher when I and countless others were lying in hospital beds not knowing if we were going to die?”

Johnson Beharry VC with Shocking Indictment of Mental Health Care for Veterans

The 29 year old Grenadian was awarded Britain's highest award the VC.

From the BBC. Seeing as our government is keen to commit troops to military operations it is entirely reasonable to expect that our society takes care of them upon their return. Furthermore those suffering from the after effects of the conflict should receive the best help and treatment. However according to Beharry the support available from agencies such as the NHS is poor. Certainly more needs to be done, is it too much to ask that say the standard of care available is better than or equal to the effort our welfare state goes to support people such as Abu Qatada. This is a serious issue as witnessed with the issues affecting veterans of the Falklands conflict of 1982. Full text of BBC article below:

Veteran mental care 'a disgrace'

L/Cpl Beharry also spoke about his own mental health Britain's highest-decorated serving soldier has criticised the government for failing to help ex-servicemen and women suffering mental health problems. Lance Corporal Johnson Beharry, who was awarded the Victoria Cross, said it was "disgraceful" that some veterans struggled to get treatment.

He told the BBC the Army provided "first-class" treatment but ex-soldiers were forced to wait on the NHS. The MoD said a "huge amount of work" was being done on mental illness.
L/Cpl Beharry, who was given the VC for twice leading comrades to safety during attacks in Iraq, called on the government to give more help to his comrades suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, depression and mental breakdowns. The 29-year-old told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he has to live with constant pain, nightmares, mood swings and unexplained rages, five years after receiving a serious head wound. Going forward, the demand on our services is going to be ever-increasing Robert Marsh, Combat Stress Yet he had to wait three hours in hospital to see an NHS doctor about his trauma.
"A lot of soldiers get discharged from the Army and have to be on the NHS for treatment.
"Having experienced it as a serving soldier, what it's like being on the NHS, I feel it's ridiculous because these ex-servicemen and women would not get that treatment they really need. What's going to happen to them?"
Mental symptoms can take a long time to surface and they are harder to deal with in civilian life, he said.

"[In the Army], we have places to go and get the help at the moment but my worry is that ex-servicemen and women, if something like that happens to them and they have to wait two to four hours on the NHS."
Earlier, in an interview with the Independent, he said it was "disgraceful" that those who had served their country in Iraq and Afghanistan were forced to wait for NHS treatment and charities had been forced to step in where ministers had failed.
"You spend six months on the battlefield and you have to defend yourself every day and then you come back to normal life and go to Tesco and someone runs into your trolley.
"You have to stop and think - it is only a trolley, you are not on the battlefield."

General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army, said: "Ex-servicemen and women are cared for by the NHS.
"They should have a priority. Government policy is that they have priority within the NHS and I should hope that the NHS managers remind themselves of that."
As well as NHS responsibility, there was vital work being done by charities and the voluntary sector, he said.
'Not complacent'
Defence Minister Kevan Jones said: "We recognise mental illnesses as serious and disabling conditions but also ones that can be treated.
"Our dedicated psychiatric teams based in theatre provide the very best diagnosis and treatment of psychological illnesses both during and after deployments."
He insisted the government was "not complacent" and had awarded a new contract to the NHS for the provision of in-patient mental health services.
"In addition we have recently introduced mental health pilots across the UK; commissioned research into mental health conditions; and expanded our medical assessment programme at St Thomas' Hospital to include assessment of veterans with operational service from 1982," he added.
Figures published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in November showed nearly 4,000 new cases of mental health disorder were diagnosed among armed services personnel in 2007.
We need to understand that our duty of care lasts a lifetime
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox
They also showed personnel sent to Afghanistan or Iraq were more likely to suffer post traumatic stress disorder.
Robert Marsh of Combat Stress, a mental health charity for ex-servicemen, said the number of cases was bound to increase in the next few years.
"I think to be fair we work in partnership with the MoD as much as we can. Last year they gave us round about £4m in respect of war pensioners that we are treating.
"But I think that going forward, the demand on our services is going to be ever-increasing and there is going to be a funding challenge and perhaps we need to question where we are getting our money from."
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said there was "a bow wave of mental health problems building up".
"We need to understand that our duty of care lasts a lifetime," he said, "And that in areas such as mental health we need to find ways of picking up problems which may take years to manifest themselves."
Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey added: "The government is slowly waking up to the problem, but this testimony shows how far they have to go before we get close to dealing with this very serious issue."

NATO General suggests member states could get supplies from Iran! Doh!

John Craddock, his eye on the wider picture
or his head stuck up his Khyber Pass?


Okay now before people condemn this idea as being entirely devoid of common sense and the mutterings of a blimp like retard lets evaluate. Firstly the guy saying it is General John Craddock, a senior NATO general and thus hopefully at least no fool at all. Secondly there may be some merit in engaging Iran diplomatically over the resurgent Taleban insurgency. After all it is most likely that Tehran does not wish to see the Taleban back in Kabul. However that is about it, the Iranian theocracy will most certainly not want to see a NATO victory or democracy taking root now on two countries that border it (the other being Iraq).





Other problems are the fact that credible reports have been made that Iran is actually supplying Taleban elements with munitions. That is definitely a problem just as it proved and to an extent still does in Iraq. Most importantly this would hand Iran in effect full power to influence the outcome of NATO operations, operations to which they will almost certainly be opposed to. In other words NATO would go from being currently severely hampered to actually defeated in Afghanistan when the mullahs call off the supplies. Perhaps I'm missing something and the Iranians actually do want to help and not just swallow a load of dollars whilst being duplicitous (like Pakistan). Personally with my limited knowledge I would favour a supply route through the Caucasus, although again that would be with a political price. Anyway here is the article from AP.

A story with a happy ending from Iraq

'Bishop' with General Petraeus (center) and LTC Crider (right)







I found this story on Michael Yon's excellent website. Yon has travelled to and reported on the situations in Iraq/Afghanistan. His dispatches which he occasionally undergoes significant risk to produce are nothing short of marvellous and the man possesses a wonderful depth of humanity. This is a at times harrowing and yet uplifting story of hope over adversity, the story of 'Bishop'. Sadly many others had a more tragic ending. The full text below:





Between 2007 and 2008, I got to know a man in South Baghdad whose codename was “Bishop.” This is the short story of his life.His parents were Kurdish Sunnis. They moved to Baghdad 34 years ago – recently married and excited to make a new life for themselves and create a family. Bishop’s real name was Bashar Akram Ameen; the name given to him when he was born on October 6, 1978 in the Abu Ghraib apartments in Baghdad. Bashar had three sisters and one brother. His schooling included graduating from a Baghdad high school in the class of ’96 and attending the Agriculture College of Baghdad University from 1997 until 2002 when he graduated. America had just set its sights on toppling Saddam. Shortly after graduating, Bashar began service in the Iraqi Army Reserve, but that lasted only three months, because the U.S. crushed a great part of the Iraqi Army and then officially dissolved the rest. For three months, Bashar was one of those unemployed young men we worried about. He got a job in October of 2003 as a bodyguard for an Iraqi judge. His first job didn’t last long because insurgents assassinated the judge. Feeling lost and a bit frightened, Bashar decided to look for a “safer” job, and began interpreting for, as he called it, “the Sally Port Security Company” in al-Mansour, Baghdad. Insurgents in his neighborhood figured out that he was working for an American company, and on February 21, 2006, as he left his job at 6:00 pm, they started shooting at him in his car, “…but I miraculously survived,” Bashar explained to me, “and that was the reason to leave my job at that company.”His own safety, and therefore that of his loved ones, was in jeopardy, and so, as Bashar recalled, “I quit visiting my family for over four months.” Though he had used caution, his family was forced to flee in order to avoid imminent suffering or death from the insurgents. Bashar explained, “They had killed our neighbor’s son, so their father gave the key of his house to my father to keep the house safe until maybe the situation getting better. Then, on the next day, the same killers of our neighbors came to my father and asked him about the key, so he refused to give it away and he said that he don’t have it and he don’t know anything about it.” The insurgents warned Bashar’s father that they would check the validity of his information, and if it was untrue, “they will teach my father and us a lesson.” His family, doing what they must to survive, reluctantly left their home. Bashar wrote to me, “My father packed some basic stuff and moved from our own house in Ameriya, Baghdad; Iraq.”By now, the civil war was raging in Baghdad. Not everything was so bleak. Even at the height of the civil war, life went on. Bashar met a woman named Alyaa, who worked in legal administration at the “Sally Port Security Company.” They courted for a year, and got married on September 14, 2006 – all the while, sectarian violence raged around Iraq. A year later their first son, Mustafa, was born. Around that time, however, the local Shia militia (called Jaish al-Mahdi, or JAM) figured out that Bashar, who is Sunni, had worked for the Americans at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon (where he got the codename “Bishop”). “They began coming around to bother my wife while I was at work,” he recalls. “So we moved again to live in al-Mansour, Baghdad. And since then, I stopped making any type of relationships with the neighbors just because you can’t trust anybody. In al-Mansour, we had very quiet time….” And so Bashar began working for the American Army as an interpreter, for various units, at the time of peak fighting. I first met Bishop when he worked for 1-4 Cav in South Baghdad. The 1-4 Cav soldiers kept Bishop busy, working him hard, and he became one of the team. As the months rolled by and I came back to 1-4 on several occasions, their area had become quieter and quieter until, really, there was nothing going on except progress. The younger infantrymen were proud of the progress, but wanted to get up to Mosul or out to Afghanistan, where the fighting was. But not Bishop. He’d seen the worst of it and did not want to see any more war. He was old beyond his years and wanted peace.

Bishop with General Petraeus (center) and LTC Crider (right)
The two most dangerous jobs for Iraqis were probably journalist and interpreter. Bishop wanted to come to the United States. As a result, 1-4 Cav Commander, LTC James Crider, and some of the soldiers Bishop had worked with helped with the paperwork. Just a small aside: LTC Crider and his battalion were serious contributors to success in Iraq. I got e-mails from LTC Crider about his struggles with Iraqi bureaucracy on behalf of Bishop, even after he went home to America. I’d seen this LTC Crider go to bat for Iraqis over and over again in Iraq. In just one example, Crider and his staff waded for months through the Iraqi legal labyrinth to try to free a man who had been wrongfully detained for a bombing he could not have committed; the bombing had never occurred. Crider and his battalion were welcome fixtures in that neighborhood, because he and his men had brought peace and serenity to a place that had previously been one of the most perilous places in Iraq. The last time I was there, I walked around with no body armor or helmet, and bought popcorn on the street. (I was just there again on about November 15; the progress continues without violence.)I heard that many Iraqis cried when 1-4 redeployed to America. One captain had even been offered a home if he would come back to live in the neighborhood. The captain knew how to get things done, while still making the time to learn the names of every kid there. And he knew their mothers and fathers, too. But that was it; 1-4 went home and Bishop was left behind, with his family scattered by the war. His father died in July 2007, his mother and two sisters still live in Baghdad, his brother in Kirkuk, and another sister in Syria. LTC Crider and others struggled…and struggled…and finally succeeded. On November 6, 2008, Bishop emigrated to America, landing in [Nashville], Tennessee along with his wife, Alyaa (who is carrying their second child), and their son, Mustafa. And the amazing 1-4 Cav keeps winning battles, without firing a shot, long after leaving the war.So now, Bashar is no longer “Bishop,” and he has begun an American life, with the many ups and downs we all have to face. His next fight is to find a job in our troubled economy and overcome a high-voltage dose of culture shock. He will come to understand that our culture is just as complicated as the one he left behind – but without the violence, threats and scars of war.Many people have welcomed him to America. I think Bashar can be of particular value to America at this time, simply by getting on the radio stations and talking to reporters and telling his story – the story of Iraq – and showing people how it really is over here. (I write this from Iraq.) Perhaps he can explain why many of us think that it was all worth it. I asked Bashar if I could publish his e-mail address, and he agreed.This is not just a happy ending, but a happy beginning. Please welcome this new family to America and pass this story to your local papers and radio stations. Ask them to talk with a real Iraqi who just got here. People need to know what happened in Iraq. Bashar can be reached at:
'bash.amen@yahoo.com

We will remember them

Today is the 11th November 2008. The first world war ended 90 years ago on this day. Three Gentlemen with a combined age of 330 laid wreaths at the cenotaph to commemorate. They were veterans of that conflict. From the Telegraph:

Great War veterans applauded on 90th anniversary
Three of the last four survivors of the Great War, with a combined age of 330, joined forces at The Cenotaph to mark the exact moment when the guns fell silent.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent Last Updated: 6:47PM GMT 11 Nov 2008
; http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/bctid1913313243 http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=1139053637

The remarkable trio, the last historic focus for the commemoration, was led by Henry Allingham, Britain's oldest man at 112, an aircraft mechanic who saw action at sea, in the Battle of Jutland, and ashore on the Western Front.
Then there was Harry Patch, 110, a veteran of the horrors of Passchendaele, who is the only survivor of the trenches and Bill Stone, a relative junior at the age of 108, who ended up fighting two World Wars for the Royal Navy. Their faces a living memorial to the First World War, their presence a warning that the sacrifice of their colleagues they left behind should never be forgotten.
As a mark of respect the three men, covered in blankets in their wheelchairs to protect them from the biting wind, were accompanied by some of the most highly decorated serving personnel from the three Services.
L/Cpl Johnson Beharry, VC, helped lay the wreath for Mr Patch, who was injured in the bloody 1917 battle of Passchendaele. Mr Stone, the youngest veteran, was accompanied by Marine Mkhuseli Jones, MC. But it was down to the first female wearer of the Distinguished Flying Cross, Flt Lt Michelle Goodman, to help Mr Allingham place his memorial.
For four minutes Mr Patch struggled to rise out of his wheelchair watched by a silent group of onlookers that included the Prime Minister Gordon Brown and chiefs of the Armed Forces.
At one moment it appeared he had beaten the clock but he managed to rise only a few inches out of his chair.
As Big Ben struck at the 11th hour, of the 11th month, Mr Allingham was still fighting to place his own tribute to his fallen comrades. "Everyone was willing him to stand," said Alexandra Coode, a schoolteacher who was a few feet away. "But he just could not get up so he kissed the wreath to say goodbye. But he showed the spirit that got these men through the war."
The wreath was finally laid at his feet as the Royal Marine buglers sounded the Last Post followed by two minute's silence. Mr Allingham said: "I hope people realise what my pals sacrificed on their behalf. "May they never be forgotten. I can't describe what they mean to me."
The Right Reverend David Conner, Bishop to the Forces told the crowd of 5,000, that including more than 500 servicemen, to remember the price paid "by far too many people" in conflicts since the Great War.
In reference to Iraq and Afghanistan he added: "We shall most certainly not forget those who even at this very minute face danger as they try to make their contribution to the building of a safer future for our all too troubled world.
The ceremony complemented the commemorations that also took place on the site of the Battle of Verdun, France, attended by President Sarkozy, accompanied by his wife Carla Bruni, and the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.
An estimated 20 million people were killed in the 1914-1918 war including 760,000 from Britain and the Commonwealth.
The Cenotaph service will almost certainly be the last significant anniversary that any of those who fought in the First World War will mark.
Of the five million men and women who served in the Armed Forces in the war, only four are still alive, including Claude Choules, 107, who lives in Australia.
After the ceremony Mr Patch, said: "It is important to remember the dead from both sides of the conflict. Irrespective of the uniforms we wore, we were all victims."

The second image is of the Commando memorial at Spean Bridge, Scotland. This is a desolate yet beautiful area and it is here that Allied Commandos underwent training during world war two. The US Rangers also underwent training there. It is a beautiful site worth a visit. What makes it particularly poignant are the nearby tributes to modern Commandos lost in Iraq/Afghanistan as well as local Scottish soldiers. I would like to dedicated this simple and unargumentative post to all those who served and have made the sacrifice. As well as those still serving along with their families.

On this day, 90 years ago.

I do not really post much on military history. It is a subject I have read extensively on and studied but I thought this was worth a mention. When it comes to the first world war everyone has heard of the Somme 1916 battle or Ypres. But how many people are aware of Amiens? The battle commenced on 8th August 1918 and was a resounding success for the allies. It was notable for the successful use of the 'all arms' battle and was an allied endeavour involving Australian, Canadian, French, British and American troops. The bulk of the forces came from the BEF. The battle was not just a single successful incident, on a military level it formed part of the dramatically successful 'one hundred days' campaign which ended the war. The battle had a notable psychological effect. It convinced the allies right down to the individual soldier that they could and indeed were going to win the war. Conversely of course it had the exact opposite effect on the German Army, whose soldiers were demoralised and whose commander Ludendorf, may have suffered a nervous breakdown. I do not post this to glorify combat, rather to keep alive the memory of noble men who fought for freedom over 90 years ago. A struggle that continues on many different fronts.

A more detailed description of the battle is available here. I know it's wiki but that's all i could get online at short notice for a reference!

A perfect role model for 21st Century Women?

Either that or a sign of our times. Anyhow here is the story of a modern hero (heroine?) from the BBC, Katrina I salute you!

Squaddie makes Miss England final

Katrina Hodge is a part-time model and a soldier in the British Army
A female soldier who once fought off a suspected Iraqi insurgent has won a place in the final of Miss England.
Katrina Hodge, 21, will participate in the contest in July, having already won the Miss Tunbridge Wells crown.
L/Cpl Hodge was nicknamed Combat Barbie in 2005 after being given a bravery commendation for saving the lives of members of her regiment in Iraq.
They were held at gunpoint when their vehicle overturned but L/Cpl Hodge punched the gunman and took his rifles.
She said: "I was in complete shock at first. The force of the accident caused our vehicle to roll over three times and threw us off guard.
"As I came round, the Iraqi suspect was standing over us with the rifles. I knew if I didn't act fast then our lives would be in danger.
"I punched him and the force startled him enough for me to retrieve the rifles from him."
Miss Hodge, a military clerk with The Adjutant General's Corps, will go on to appear at Miss World 2008 if she wins the English title.
"I was delighted to have been selected for the Miss England final and it is a great honour," she added.
"Being a part-time model and a serving soldier is certainly a world apart. I want to use this competition to highlight the work that the Army are doing and what they have done for this country."
She is currently serving at Frimley Park Hospital in Camberley and will take part in the Miss England national finals on Friday.

Paper Tiger Alert! 'Army' for EU Proposed!

Well why is this idea so naff? Two reasons it will cost taxpayers a fortune, secondly it will never be an Army as most European countries will not fight anyway. Look at the weak willed German commitment to NATO, that is so apparent in Afghanistan for instance. In Afghanistan German helicopters will not fly after 5pm (gives the Taleban the night off) and their troops will only fire in self defence. Thus Taleban leaders in their area have relative immunity. In Afghanistan the burden is borne by UK, US and Canadian troops. Anyway the story from the BBC is here.

Call for EU to build its own army
By Mark Mardell Europe Editor, BBC News

European soldiers already act under the UN banner in Kosovo
An influential Polish member of the European parliament has called for the EU to develop "hard power" and spend more money to build a European army.
Foreign affairs committee chairman Jacek Saryusz-Wolski also wants the European parliament to have the final say on deployments under the EU flag.
The French have said beefing up the EU's military capability will be a key part of their six-month presidency.
The BBC has been told their plans also include a new EU military headquarters.
Other items on the French list of proposals involve calling upon all EU countries to increase spending on defence to meet a new target of perhaps 6% of Gross Domestic Product.
More aircraft
France's leadership of the EU will also include a push for the creation of more rapid reaction forces to enable Europe to collectively undertake three simultaneous missions.
They also want more helicopters and aircraft to be made available for missions.
The big problem is finding countries that want to contribute... troops and helicopters to real missions
Mark Mardell's blog
The EU will not officially comment until the proposals are unveiled by French President Sarkozy in two weeks' time.
The head of the German army, Gen Wolfgang Schneiderhan, told the BBC that Europe needs to be able to react to crises.
"Working together with Nato we can improve the ability of both organisations to tackle the threats that face our world," he said.
The plans are likely to prove controversial in many countries, including Britain, where there is reluctance towards any move to a European army.
In Ireland there are concerns about neutrality, while in Germany there are worries about any policy that could go beyond a peacekeeping role.

Further background and comment on this story can be found on the BBC journalist Mark Mardells blog.

MUSU seek to 'ban' military- Updated!

Turns out this rather petulant piece of showmanship was decisively defeated at election well done Manchester Students! Read it here

This is a follow on in many ways from the silly behaviour of the NUT that I reported on. It seems that Manchester Student Union (or representatives thereof) are seeking to ban the military from Campus. This is due to the involvement of the UK's military in 'unpopular wars'. I do not for one second believe that all or even a majority of Manchester Students support such a move. Rather what we are seeing is an attention seeking cheap stunt by petulant under grads. This is quite literally biting the hand that protects you. Ok so Andy Cunningham of the Student's Union regards the wars as 'unpopular' he is entitled to that opinion. What this nob jockey fails to mention is who ultimately protects his right to say so? Furthermore I was wondering that if in the event God forbid of some kind of terrorist attack(Manchester has known these)occurring near the University, would Cunningham then seek to disallow the Army's bomb disposal team from accessing campus? The big problem with the attitude of cheap plonkers like this man is they do not actually attack those that form policy i.e the government. Rather their immature protest only levels fire at the soldiers themselves. That I strongly disagree with. Anyway from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7368932.stm

Student military recruitment row

A motion banning military recruitment at the university is to be voted on
Recruitment staff for the Armed Forces could be banned from enroling university students in Manchester.
A motion is to be voted on next week banning the Army, Navy and RAF from setting up stalls at the University of Manchester's student union building.
If passed, they would not be allowed to set up stalls for three years.
Supporters say it is "unacceptable" for the military to recruit young people to fight in "massively unpopular" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Undergraduates at University College London have also adopted a similar ban.
'Utter disgrace"
The Ministry of Defence said it was "disappointed" by the plans in Manchester, while Macclesfield MP Sir Nicholas Winterton, who completed National Service, labelled them "an utter disgrace".
He added: "I am appalled. Historically it is because of our armed forces that these students have the opportunity to go to university."
Martin Watkins, chairman of the Royal British Legion's Manchester branch, added: "The average age of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan while fighting for the freedoms they take for granted is 22."
The proposal has been put forward by Andy Cunningham, of the students' union.
Outrage sparked
He said: "There is a large officer training corps on campus. If this is successful we want the university to sever their links as well."
The vote has sparked outrage among members of the Manchester and Salford Universities' Officer Training Corps - a branch of the Territorial Army aimed at higher education students. They want members to vote against the proposal.
Ministry of Defence spokesman Greg Stringer said: "However people view military operations, everyone should be able to respect the brave job our armed forces perform."

NUT seek to ban 'military Recruitment'

Barking mad this not least as 'military recruitment' does not happen in schools. Another point is all these delegates speak authoritatively about a military in which none at all have ever served. I guess their beef is with the govt but still attacking the soldiers themselves is easier. From the Daily Mail in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=533428&in_page_id=1770 Row as teachers call for ban on army 'pro-war propaganda' recruitment leaflets in schools By LAURA CLARK and MATTHEW HICKLEY - More by this author » Last updated at 00:46am on 14th March 2008 Comments (32) Military recruitment in schools should be banned as it exposes pupils to pro-war propaganda, teachers say. Left-wingers in the National Union of Teachers are attempting to galvanise a campaign to stop recruitment visits. Scroll down for more... Glamourized: The MoD have been accused of targeting yongsters by a teachers' unionDespite acute shortages of military manpower, the teachers will present a motion to the union's annual conference this month urging members to "actively oppose" recruitment activities in schools. The move, described as "deeply unpatriotic", will fuel growing concern over hostility displayed by parts of society towards the Armed Forces. The motion, scheduled for debate at the NUT conference in Manchester, condemns "the exploitation of schools for recruitment by the Armed Forces". It says: "Military intervention in schools customarily presents a partisan view of war, largely by ignoring its fatal realities in favour of promises of travel, skill training and further or higher education course sponsorships otherwise often unavailable to young people, especially in areas of high unemployment. "Conference believes that teachers and schools should not be conduits for either the dissemination of MoD propaganda or the recruitment of military personnel. "Conference therefore agrees to actively oppose military recruitment activities in schools." The Ministry of Defence has scaled back active recruitment in schools. But the three services still have teams which respond to invitations to visit schools, giving countless presentations. Tory MP Patrick Mercer, formerly a colonel in charge of Army recruitment, said: "The union's attitude leaves me breathless. It is deeply unpatriotic, and runs directly contrary to the commitment and bravery our servicemen and women are showing in service of their country. "Recruitment and retention have never been as difficult as they are now, and visiting schools to make young people aware of opportunities in the military is a key part of recruitment strategy." The union's leadership has already made clear it intends to get the section of the motion referring to visits removed. It said it opposed the attempt to stop recruitment activities and has put forward an amendment that would see it removed. However, the leadership is backing a second aspect of the motion, attacking the use of teaching materials produced by the MoD, and intended to increase awareness of Armed Forces activity, as "propaganda". NUT general secretary Steve Sinnott wrote to Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, to complain about a lesson plan for English intended to help pupils learn the skill of "writing to argue". The plan focuses on "the ongoing occupation of Iraq by British Armed Forces". Mr Sinnott said: "I think it is propaganda. It does not present a balanced position." But the MoD said use of the resources was voluntary. "We have consulted widely with teachers and students during the development of these products and feedback from schools has been extremely encouraging." Critics of the motion said it was obvious that Armed Forces recruitment material would avoid drawing undue attention to the risk of loss of life attached to a forces role. What about the leftie NUT members with their propaganda? Something with their ten weeks paid holiday a year they have a lot of time for it seems.