Race & Crime UK
80.4K views | +23 today
Race & Crime UK
In association with Nationalist Media Network - Home Page http://britishnationalistreview.tumblr.com
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Nationalist Media Network

Army cuts: Farewell to our warrior nation

Army cuts: Farewell to our warrior nation | Race & Crime UK | Scoop.it

The Government is making huge cuts to the Army, Royal Navy and RAF in the mistaken belief that they no longer matter, says Max Hastings.

Thirty years ago, I tramped across a soggy South Atlantic wilderness among 15,000 Royal Marines, paratroopers, Guardsmen and Gurkhas who fought that most surreal of campaigns, the 1982 Falklands war.

It was obvious at the time that Margaret Thatcher’s South Atlantic adventure was a last imperial hurrah. But none of us would then have guessed that today, not merely the ships and planes, but the very Armed Forces which fought the war, would be on their way to the scrapyard. Soldiers are being made redundant. I do not mean merely those thousands of men and women who have lately been handed P45s as part of the Coalition Government’s defence cuts. Britain’s entire Armed Forces are shrinking towards a point where, like Alice’s cat, soon only the smile will be left.
This represents a big cultural change. Yet despite all the public’s enthusiasm for supporting soldiers through such charities as Help for Heroes, there is no sign that they have noticed the draconian implications of the defence cuts – or if they have, that they much care. Amid disillusionment following perceived military failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, the British people have lost enthusiasm for our traditional role as a warrior nation.
David Cameron’s Government is cutting the regular Army to its lowest manpower strength for centuries: 82,000. When the downsizing is complete, more than 20 per cent of our soldiers will have gone. I must confess that I am profoundly sceptical whether it will prove possible to recruit the 30,000 reservists the Defence Secretary promised this week.
Soon, we shall be capable of deploying only a single battlegroup of 7,000–8,000 men for sustained operations overseas. Compare this tiny force to the 35,000 troops deployed in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles in the 1970s, or the 30,000 military personnel sent to the First Gulf War in 1991.

The message is plain: Britain has neither the means nor the will any longer to sustain a capability to commit large troop numbers abroad, in support of the national interest. The historic vision of the redcoat – holding the line at Blenheim, Waterloo, Balaclava; defending Rorke’s Drift for that peerless movie Zulu; fighting to victory in two world wars and countless colonial ''brushfire’’ campaigns – is to be laid to rest.
This momentous decision, with all that it means for our culture and heritage, has been a long time coming. And it raises an important question: what are soldiers for in the 21st century?
For thousands of years, nations required armies to defend their own territories and conquer those of others. From the 18th century, most of our military effort was deployed to secure our burgeoning empire. The public in those days did not love its soldiers as it did its sailors. Everybody knew that Britain recruited its warriors from the dross of society, men incapable of finding any other route to a living than to ''take the King’s Shilling’’. The Army preserved some respectability chiefly because the aristocracy liked fighting, and sent its younger sons to serve. Lords and honourables were often bereft of brains and unfit for their commands, as Wellington complained. But somehow a raw, brutal, bovine courage common to the leaders and the led, together with a few bright officers, enabled the relatively small regular army to achieve some remarkable things.
The First World War brought a huge expansion of the Army, first by volunteers, latterly by conscription. The same happened in 1939-45, when once again millions of young citizens experienced military life. Even when peace came, the Cold War and residual empire commitments sustained into the 1950s an Army of 750,000. Then, however, it was decided that conscription was more trouble and expense than it was worth. Though a minority of young men fought, most peeled potatoes or blancoed puttees at Aldershot or Rheindahlen. They learnt little that was useful, and the professionals had to devote most of their energies to training them.
The Army that followed in the 1960s and 1970s, volunteers to a man, became the best this country has ever had. But the end of the Cold War brought another radical upheaval. Inevitably, the government seized the opportunity to save money by cutting the Armed Forces. The Royal Navy secured a temporary reprieve thanks to the 1982 Argentine invasion of the Falklands. A short, sharp, decisive war enabled the British to show off their superiority over a third-class enemy. The prestige of all the services soared, and victory earned Margaret Thatcher her reputation as a warrior prime minister.
But she soon resumed her pursuit of a ''peace dividend’’. Rhine Army’s resources and training budgets were cut savagely. For the First Gulf War in 1992, it proved necessary to cannibalise the Army’s entire armoured vehicle inventory in Germany to deploy a single weak division in the desert.
The Army was deeply apprehensive about its future when Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997. As far as action went, it need not have been.
New Labour’s prime minister put British troops in harm’s way, in pursuit of his supposed ''moral foreign policy’’, more often than any other modern national leader including Mrs Thatcher. There was one important difficulty, however. While Blair was eager to use force to do good deeds in the world, he never wanted to pay the bills. In Iraq and later Afghanistan, British forces found themselves pursuing hugely ambitious objectives with wholly inadequate resources, and humiliatingly dependent on the Americans for equipment.
In the Blair era the Army shrank below 100,000 men, yet again and again accepted tasks that were properly beyond its means. The generals’ traditional ''can do’’ spirit contributed to grievous embarrassments and failures in Basra and Helmand province. They should have said ''no’’ more often.
Today the public still embraces our Army – but as victims, lambs to the slaughter like the Light Brigade at Balaclava. Such an attitude greatly dismays thoughtful soldiers. They know that the Army has lost much of the prestige won by victories of the Falklands era, and the political clout it could wield when most politicians had served in uniform. David Cameron’s Coalition sees only that it needs to save money, and soldiers are expensive.
It costs about $2 million a year to keep each American in Afghanistan. Manpower costs account for 40 per cent of Britain’s defence spend. The Government is determined to fight no more foreign ground wars, once we escape from Helmand.
This hope or expectation is almost certainly unrealistic. Events have a way of taking charge. Who knows where Cameron, or his successors, may discern a ''moral imperative’’, as he did in Libya and chafes also to do in Syria? Downing Street argues that air power and special forces can do the business, without having to commit thousands of troops. Technology may be expensive, but it seems to the politicians to deliver a bigger bang for their buck.
Yet ''boots on the ground’’ offer flexibility and a disciplined and available national resource such as no other institution in the land can match. In 2012, the Government would have faced huge embarrassment had it not been able, at a month’s notice, to deploy 3,000 soldiers for security at the London Olympics. After 2015, however, there will be pitifully few men for Olympic security or anything else.
Defence policy should always be rational, so no sensible person will lament the passing of Britain’s redcoat tradition merely as a matter of sentiment. But I believe that our national interest and security will suffer from the drastic shrinkage of the Armed Forces. In future, we shall retain – at vast cost – a capacity to pulverise an identified foreign enemy with Trident nuclear missiles, though it is hard to conceive any credible scenario in which we would use them. We shall still have special forces, capable of storming buildings and fighting terrorists. But we shall have lost immense and important capability between the two.
When millions of people put on their Remembrance poppies tomorrow, they will commemorate not only the dead of our past wars, but the looming recession into history of the Armed Forces which have done so much to define our national culture. The politicians are consigning Britain’s Army, Navy and RAF to the margin of national experience. As a matter of policy rather than sentiment, this seems a grievous error.

This is an edited extract from 'Red: The Waterstones Anthology’, edited by Cathy Galvin, published by Waterstones (£10)
'All Hell Let Loose: The world at war 1939-45’, by Max Hastings, is published by HarperPress (£9.99)

Scooped by Nationalist Media Network

Father attacks daughter's school after she was told to remove poppy band as it breached health and safety rules

Father attacks daughter's school after she was told to remove poppy band as it breached health and safety rules | Race & Crime UK | Scoop.it
Maggy Lane (pictured), 13, was told to remove her Poppy Appeal wristband at Shepshed High School in Leicestershire because it breached the uniform code.


A man whose grandfather was a Second World War soldier has hit out at his daughter's school after she was banned from wearing her poppy wristband because of health and safety fears.
Maggy Lane, 13, was ordered to remove the Poppy Appeal band - a symbol of remembrance sold by the Royal British Legion - by teachers at Shepshed High School in Leicestershire.
The teenager was told the wristband was forbidden because it breached the school's uniform code and it was feared the rubber bangle could get caught on something during a lesson.

The schoolgirl's father Myles Lane, 39, questioned why the rubber bands were banned because of the potential safety risk when students are allowed to wear poppies secured to their uniform by a pin.
'I feel quite passionate about it,' said Mr Lane, who added that his grandfather Arthur Witherbed, who died last year at the age of 90, was part of the Royal Leicester Regiment which fought in Norway in 1940.

'I have always drummed into my daughter the importance of Poppy Day and she had bought the band out of her own money.

'They told me it was a health and safety risk, but they are okay to wear a poppy with a pin on it.
'I can appreciate the school has health and safety issues with bracelets but I think they should be able to make an allowance with a poppy band,' said Mr Lane, a draughtsman.
'Perhaps they could ask students to remove them in potentially hazardous situations like for P.E. and in cookery lessons, then let them wear the bands at other times.'
Mr Lane, from Shepshed, said Remembrance Day held extra significance for his family since his grandfather's death last year.
When the Germans invaded Norway in 1940 Mr Witherbed escaped by walking to neighbouring Sweden. From there he made his way back to England, and he was stationed with the military police at Bletchley Park in Buckinghamshire.
Adrian Stephenson, joint head teacher at the school, said: 'We don’t allow children to wear wrist bands at school. It is as simple as that.
'We have to stick to the uniform code,' he said.
'When governors put the dress code together, health and safety is part of the issue of wearing jewellery.
'It is important to stress we want the children to understand all about remembrance and it is a central part of what we do, but at the same time, if you want to run a good school you have a set of rules and you have to stick to them,' Mr Stephenson added.

His co-head Stewart Goacher said the wristband was forbidden under the same rules that prevent pupils from wearing bracelets.
Mr Goacher added that the school sells lapel poppies, holds an annual remembrance assembly and supports the charity Help for Heroes.
David Hobday, chair of the Loughborough British Legion, said: 'In theory, I am upset because it is a promotional time particularly for us, but if it is school policy and they have been asked to take them off then that is the school’s prerogative.'

No comment yet.
Scooped by Nationalist Media Network

Queen leads Remembrance tributes

Queen leads Remembrance tributes | Race & Crime UK | Scoop.it
The country has fallen silent to remember its war dead at services across the country as the Queen led the nation in honouring the fallen.


At the Cenotaph memorial in London, the monarch laid the first wreath to commemorate members of the Armed Forces who died fighting in all conflicts since the First World War.

In brilliant autumn sunshine, senior members of the monarchy joined Prime Minister David Cameron, military chiefs, servicemen and women and thousands of watching spectators in paying their respects.

When the first stroke of eleven sounded from nearby Big Ben, Whitehall observed a two-minute silence only punctuated by the hum of distant London traffic and birds.

The Queen laid the first wreath, followed by the Duke of Edinburgh.

Then the Duke of Cambridge, wearing his RAF uniform, laid a wreath, under the gaze of the Duchess of Cambridge, who watched from a balcony at the Foreign Office alongside the Countess of Wessex and the Princess Royal's husband Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Lawrence.

William was followed by the Duke of York, the Earl of Wessex, the Princess Royal, Prince Michael of Kent and Field Marshal Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank.

Wreaths were also laid by Mr Cameron, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, opposition leader Ed Miliband and Westminster Plaid Cymru group leader Elfyn Llwyd, as well as high commissioners from Commonwealth countries and leaders of the Armed Forces.

The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall earlier attended a ceremony in Auckland as part of their Jubilee tour of New Zealand. Under grey skies the royals sat with New Zealand's prime minister John Key, veterans from across the decades, and members of the public around the Auckland Cenotaph.

The Duke of Kent was also overseas, representing the Queen at a service in the Falkland Islands.

No comment yet.