Honour the Covenant

[*Bob*]

I'm not disagreeing with any of the sentiments expressed here.. and I'm not having a pop at anyone for how they feel on this most emotive of issues.

The problem is that it's becoming less and less emotive for children these days. And telling children they're ungrateful because they don't care enough about something that happened years before they were born is not the answer to long-term success for the Legion. It has been, and will continue to have, the opposite effect.

[Brendan]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Poppy Day is about remembrance and support - it

> does not glorify war, on the contrary it brings

> home the stark cost of war.

That is what I have always felt.

I have always worn a poppy on Remembrance Day for the reason my uncle, an Irishman who was in one of the South African regiments that fought for the allies in the Second World War, explained to me: ?So that we remember NEVER to let anything like that happen again.?

I give reserved support to the Legion because I do feel that a society has a responsibility to its service men but I also feel that that responsibility extends to the Government and the Military. It includes them not over-recruiting and under supplying to support pointless wars and neglecting their duty of care.

[Keef]

Exactly right! I'm all for supporting ex service men, and I usually year a poppy. However, as far as I'm concerned, the first duty of care falls firmly at the feet of the services themselves, and the ministry of defence.

[Marmora Man]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly right! I'm all for supporting ex service

> men, and I usually year a poppy. However, as far

> as I'm concerned, the first duty of care falls

> firmly at the feet of the services themselves, and

> the ministry of defence.

Keef,

The problem is that this government (and to a lesser extent previous governments) has underfunded the services. It is the Exchequer that decides service pay and conditions not military top brass, it is the Exchequer that determines how much can be spent on equipment.

The Legion's campaign is all about generating public pressure on government to do better by the service people thay have asked so much of.

On a different note - I'd agree that arguing that today's society should recogise the sacrifice "made for us today" is too simplistic - but they might recognise that a sacrifice was made.

Like others on this thread I have a military background and knowledge but my "war" was a Cold War with few bullets flying. It has been very different since the first Iraq / Kuwait war in 1991.

[macroban]

The Covenant is something more to to think about today.

[Jah Lush]

This poem was sent to me from my nephew who until last year was serving in Iraq with the Royal Engineers. I just thought it is rather apt for this thread.

ITS CHRISTMAS DAY ALL IS SECURE

IT WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS

HE LIVED ALL ALONE

IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE

AND TO SEE JUST WHO IN THIS HOME DID LIVE

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE

NO TINSEL NO PRESENTS NOT EVEN A TREE

NO STOCKING BY THE MANTLE JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND

ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES OF FAR DISTANT LANDS

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES AWARDS OF ALL KINDS

A SOBER THOUGHT CAME THROUGH MY MIND

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT IT WAS DARK AND DREARY

I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING SILENT ALONE

CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER

NOT HOW I PICTURED A LONE BRITISH SOLDIER

WAS THIS THE HERO OF WHOM I'D JUST READ

CURLED UP ON A PONCHO THE FLOOR FOR A BED

I REALISED THE FAMILIES THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT

OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT

SOON ROUND THE WORLD THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY

AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY

THEY ALL ENJOY FREEDOM EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR

BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE

I COULDN'T HELP WONDER HOW MANY ALONE

ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME

THE VERY THOUGH BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY EYE

I DROPPED TO MY KNEES AND STARTED TO CRY

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE

'SANTA DON'T CRY THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE

I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM I DON'T ASK FOR MORE

MY LIFE IS MY GOD, MY COUNTRY. MY CORPS'

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP

I COULDN'T CONTROL IT I CONTINUED TO WEEP

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS SO SILENT AND STILL

AND WE BOTH SAT AND SHIVERED FROM THE COLD NIGHTS CHILL

I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE ON THAT COLD DARK NIGHT

THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOUR SO WILLING TO FIGHT

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE

WHISPERED 'CARRY ON SANTA ITS CHRISTMAS DAY ALL IS SECURE'

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT

'MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT'

THIS POEM WAS WRITTEN BY A PEACE KEEPING SOLDIER STATIONED OVERSEAS

THE FOLLOWING IS HIS REQUEST I THINK IT IS REASONABLE.

PLEASE WOULD YOU DO ME THE KIND FAVOUR OF SENDING THIS TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN

CHRISTMAS WILL BE COMING SOON AND SOME CREDIT IS DUE TO OUR BRITISH SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN FOR OUR BEING ABLE TO CELEBRATE THESE FESTIVITIES.

LETS TRY IN THIS SMALL WAY TO PAY A TINY BIT BACK OF WHAT WE OWE!

[BlueOne]

Edited due to repetition of facts from earlier post!

[Santerme]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Brendan & lozzyloz,

>

> It is difficult to express exactly what I mean - I

> agree nursing, police and fire all are fine

> organisations that, in general, do enjoy strong

> public support. For some reason the Armed Forces

> are less visible - perhaps because fewer people

> have experience of the forces.

>

> While the government of the day pays servicemen's

> salaries - the covenant should extend beyond just

> pay and conditions. Governments tend to support

> what the public supports and the British Legion's

> campaign seeks to build greater support.

>

> There is a phrase "we sleep safe because other men

> guard our walls". The covenant is the deal between

> those of us sleeping safe and those who are doing

> the guarding.

>

> I have been lucky enough to meet many veterans - a

> Wellington Bomber navigator who parachuted out of

> a burning plane to spend three years in POW camp,

> a sailor who lugged a live bomb, on his chest,

> from beneath a submarine casing - aware that at

> any moment the submarine might dive (he won the

> VC), a young Royal Marine who has, in the last 5

> years been at the forefront of the Iraq invasion

> and served two tours in Afghanistan. In every

> instance they insisted they have done nothing

> extraordinary - all are interesting, articulate

> and proud of their service careers, but

> disappointed that their wounded colleagues,

> families and widows are today not given the sort

> of support they had in previous days.

>

> Somehow British society, as a whole, does not give

> the Armed Forces the respect or support I feel

> they deserve. It has ever been thus - but the

> British Legion's campaign seeks to change that.

>

> Tommy - Rudyard Kipling

>

>

> Honour The Covenant

Thank you for pointing me in this direection and I cannot do much better than to echo the sentiments you have expressed.

My tuppence worth is to agree, and posit the question how are you going to make the Military Covenant work, without closer engagement from the British Public?

If the British Public are not actively engaged to support us , then the Covenant will continue to be a top down mealy-mouthed exercise in platitude.

If the Government say "Let's be warm and fuzzy to the boys and girls, and give them what they want" how long do you think it will be , before we're accused of taking money from the NHS, Education , Welfare etc?

We can't deflect criticism, until the British Public are shown exactly why the Military Covenant is so important.

It can't happen , until the British Public are made to feel a part of it.

Anyone remember the Falklands Factor? Yes we launched an expeditionary force, which retook the Islands, and the Iron Trout made the most of it. But, the reporting was in close and personal, and the MoD made damn sure at that time, that the public understood why they were doing it, and why public support was crucial.

Then again, MoD was top heavy with people that had been in a shooting war, and they were dealing with editors who'd sent their fair share of dispatches via carrier pigeon from Normandy.

What RBL is doing, is admirable, but it is not enough on it's own.

We need to up the Military presence in the media considerably, that includes mainstream programming. scripts in Eastenders/Corrie/Hollyoaks etc. More material showing what it means to be on the thin end of the spear, and how it relates to the public at home.

We need to take the 5 minute slots in Cinemas before the film starts for "Helmand report" tie the damn reports to local regiments in local areas, get them talked about.

It means better access for the media to our colleagues on operations, and more "The story of Pte. Bloggs from your street"

We need to get the public thinking "That could be my son, daughter. husband, wife, best mate" etc etc , what can I do to show I care. We need to channel that concern , into exercises where the public can manifest it's concern into physical acts if they so feel.

I don't mean lip-service ribbon campaigns and the like that are gone as soon as they start, and back to square 1.

I mean a constant "background hum" concerning our people. Constant reminders that they are not Dessies clad automatons, but they've hopes, dreams and aspirations.

It is not impossible to get the public to engage at an emotional level. Look at what some local TV stations do, like Central. Embed reporters, and make sure they are on hand when the guys and girls get home.

The surge of pride when the Staffords got back, was palpable, Central couldn't have shown their pride more, if it was their own staff that had been on the OP. That's in spite of MoD, not because of them.

Start the ground swell at local level and build it up, not the other way round, with yet another bloody mean-nothing decree, which the public will lump with all the other crap they've heard.

None of this, not one single thing, is going to be worth a damn if we don't get the British Public onside.

[Marmora Man]

Santerme,

It's a problem. I do think that, since I first posted this thread, there has been a small but definite sift in public opinion and the pride you mentioned when the Stafford's returned and Central's response is part of that. The Major completing the marathon in 13 days was another good news out of bad news story. People are beginning to separate the politics of the wars from the activities of the military.

I do what I can - with business colleagues, friends and neighbours. If I see a soldier in uniform I'll usually talk to him and remind him of my support. I think that's the way to start it - as you say from the bottom up. I'm not a particular fan of Veteran's Day - too jingoistic and government led - the old Navy Days (and presumably Army & RAF equivalents) were very good for engaging with the public - as was the Royal Tournament.

Ultimately it needs a much better geared up and funded PR campaign if real change is to happen. I'd love to see pubs, restaurants, travel companies, hotels, clothing shops offer serving and retired servicemen discounts as happens in the States.

Interestingly, last week in Bath I was accosted by someone rattling a tin for "Help for Heroes", when I asked if her father, brother or anyone she knew was military she said no - she just thought it a worthwhile cause to campaign for.

[Brendan]

I think most people have a great deal of respect for what the members of the armed services do on an individual level. This is why a lot of people who won?t necessarily go waving union jacks at soldiers or be all jolly hockey sticks about flattening one of the oldest cities on earth will still give to campaigns like Help for Heroes and acknowledge the Armistice. But people are very disillusioned about how the military are used politically.

It?s difficult to feel anything but cynicism and sadness when troops come home from a war that was widely disagreed with but entered into anyway as one big fuck you to the public from the government. Not to mention that they couldn?t even be bothered to properly fund the troops they decided to dump in the desert.

Most people are aware of and grateful for what the armed forces do with regards to defence but many of them have strong objections to them being used for political and financial ends which the public cannot identify with.

So therein lies the problem the activities of the armed forces have to be shown to be generally in line with the current national zeitgeist.

[Santerme]

Lots of members of the Armed Forces are disillusioned how they are used politically.

The stark truth is they are a foreign policy tool deployed by the Government of the day.

Unfortunately, this Government have managed to destroy a reputation garnered over five centuries or more in less than three terms of Parliament.

[Huguenot]

Much as I don't like to be contentious, to imagine that the armed forces have ever been anything other than an extension of political will is a wee bit rose-tinted.

The advantage that the political leadership has had over the last five centuries (why pick those?) is control over the dissemination of information.

"This government" has done nothing unique to destroy the reputation etc. etc., what's happened is the democratisation of information lifting a veil from the eyes of both the electorate and the military.

[Santerme]

I don't think I was suggesting they have ever been anything but a foreign policy option for the Govt.

I teach at the US War College in Carlisle, PA a couple of times a year and I can assure you the level of what was once 'awe' at the professionalism and COIN expertise of the British Army has reduced steadily over the last five years.

It has everything to do with this Govt lack of willingness to fund, equip and deploy the necessary resource in terms of boots on the ground into theatre.

Take Iraq, the Phase IV element of the plan was the fatal flaw and it was the Pentagon which preferred not to implement the US State Depts model for post invasion policy.

It was a political decision imposed with lack of regard for military wisdom.

What was needed and indeed the British input at the planning stage required was a Civilian Expeditionary Force in the follow up wave to immediate take control of the infrastructure.

Re-employing the Iraqis in meaningful reconstruction projects and local policing would have, in my opinion, gone a long way to stifle the growth of a disaffected population.

In fact, intialling re-arming the Iraqi Army and having it guard installations a la French Indo China where the Japanese were reinstalled in security operations was the perfect model.

Achieving control with the minimal critical mass of forces employed was essential given the low force numbers which took part in the invasion.

40,000 was enough for us to clear Southern Iraq, reducing to 11,000 as a garrison was woefully inadequate and built in future failure.

At 5,500, by the time of the Charge of the Knights, it was a force combat ineffective and capable barely of force protection.

The scale of these forces and the budget to back them are and were set by Blair and Brown.

Our Government like all governments primary concern is reelection.

I absolutely agree with the commander on the spot at that time, which was, it was not worth another drop of British blood to restore the situation.

Time for Iraqi's to bring closure, unfortunately, predictably these 'well trained' forces brought in from the North ended up being kicked six ways to Sunday, until some backbone arrived in the form of US Airborne troops.

Farce does not do the situation justice.

Did Iraq tarnish the reputation of the Army?

Yes is the short answer and the honest one.

Is is deserved?

A portion, but a small portion.

Valour is unquestionably the stock in trade of our Armed Forces, dependability is another, even on a shoestring budget these men and women perform beyond the normal call of duty.

I did not hear Tim Collin's speech to his men before we crossed the start line, but it is an eloquent and poignant call to arms,tempered with the need for magnanimity.

For the most part those who served lived up to his words.

It was the politicans posturing who carry the burden of history's damnation.

Bush will have his library and Blair his million dollar lecture tours.

The Vets, will have inadequate health care, poor housing, lack of job opportunities.

They will face crippling injury, loss of normal family life, through mental trauma.

And even in their sleep they will not escape the devils in their dreams.

And yet, even these may not end up the most notable victims as we leave behind a people promised so much and to whom we have delivered so little for so much loss and destruction.

We have not followed Tim's words and trod lightly in their country and that is the shame of it all.

Note...I picked last 500 years as we have only has a real standing national army since 16th Century.

[antijen]

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1103 I think there are a lot of people angry about this, I've been at family days in Myatts field park, when this country went into Iraq, and although I was told the T.A. was part of the community, I was disgusted to see young children allowed to lift the guns on display, especially as there had been a weapon amnesty bin set up by Southwark council a couple of weeks before.

[Santerme]

antijen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1103

> I think there are a lot of people angry about

> this, I've been at family days in Myatts field

> park, when this country went into Iraq, and

> although I was told the T.A. was part of the

> community, I was disgusted to see young children

> allowed to lift the guns on display, especially as

> there had been a weapon amnesty bin set up by

> Southwark council a couple of weeks before.

Well, all I can say is never move to the US, the fanatical obssession with the need to protect their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is frightening.

My wife is Canadian so I spend 3 months of the year in North America.

Your post is a little ambiguous are you feeling that the Army advertising is remiss or the defacing of it is wrong?

If it is the former, then I think it is perfectly ok to recruit in this manner and I would thoroughly recommend a military career, with the caveat it is not for everyone.

If it is the latter, then I fully defend peoples right to protest in this way.

[antijen]

I think they showed no respect for the anger people felt against the war, and didn't think it was right in an area where gun crime was being targeted. A young boy (10yrs) who was in my sons primary class was being showed how to hold the gun properly, I knew this young lad well and his background where there was serious problems. Now you may not have a problem with this but I believe they have no right to introduce kids to guns, this child was with a few friends, no adults with them. I feel the propaganda, used by the army to entice young vulnerable adults is wrong, and many who have took this route regret there decision. Saying that, I sympathise over lives lost and however uninformed soldiers are they take the decision to combat whereas innocent people have no choice.

[Santerme]

With the utmost respect the TA, moreso than the regular Army, is in touch with local feelings as they are of the community.

However, when in uniform they are obliged to be utterly remote in terms of showing support, or lack of it, toward political decisions.

Personally in hindsight, and I went in on the first day into Iraq, I feel completely let down by the lies which the Govt proclaimed as gospel truth.

I have no firsthand knowledge of the event you attended and it may indeed have been inappropriate in that specific place at that time, but soldiers go where they are told to, even to military displays....and funnily enough in my experience interact very well with children.

I have some problem with the use of the word propaganda to recruit, but these things are viewed by different people in different ways and I respect that.

I have to say, in the main, that in 23 years, the vast vast majority of individuals I saw go through the Army came out the other end better equipped for life than when they entered (I am, of course, not including wounded or otherwise injured soldiers, that is a completely different debate).

We have very few uninformed soldiers in our ranks today, it is an Army which is incredibly technical and our people are held to a high standard.

[Huguenot]

I can see the point on Iraq.

The only argument I'd have is that this is nothing new surely?

The only difference now is that the issues are exposed - which is a media and society consideration, not a governmental one.

There is a good argument that the 'disrepute' that the army is suffering is a direct consequence of the opportunity to discuss the problems on public websites such as this one.

Absolutely no disrespect intended, but it's entirely possible Santerme, that your observations are the cause of the problem, not the solution.

[Marmora Man]

Politicians commit country's to war. The military fight the war. I would argue that the majority of wars fought by Britain in the last 200 years have been "just" within the accepted definition.

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Tony Blair, as PM advanced a new"ish" addition to the clauses above to justify, first, engaging with a tyrant / dictator in Sierra Leone, subsequent humanitarian interventions in the Balkans strengthened his belief that such unilateral acts of military action were, ultimately, for the good. A reasonable argument can be made that this was the case in Sierra Leone and the Balkans. However, he and Bush got it massively wrong in Iraq mostly, as Santerme has outlined, because the plans for the post conflict phase were so poorly thought through.

One man did stand out against the invasion plan - Lord Boyce as Chief of Defence Staff insisted that the government assure the military that the invasion and war was legal before he would order the military to take the final action. As we now know this government "sexed up" the dossier, fudged the legal advice and went ahead with the war. Mike Boyce's reward was an early retirement from his post.

[Brendan]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would argue that the majority of

> wars fought by Britain in the last 200 years have

> been "just" within the accepted definition.

Personally I would argue that bar the 2 world wars (and there are arguments even there) most of the wars Britian has been involved in over the last 200 years have been part of some form of conquest and therefore far from "just". Perhaps seen as acceptable by people of the day but not "just" by today's standards.

[Marmora Man]

Brendan,

Judging yesteryears actions by today's standards is always illogical and leads to unsupportable conclusions - eg: apologising to N. Ireland for the potato famine, apologising to Africans for the slave trade. That's not to say we can't acknowledge that such things would be unacceptable today - but without full knowledge of the culture and mores of the time, which by definition we can never have, we cannot even begin to get it right.

[Ted Max]

Although presumably those being conquered queried the "justness" of such wars, even by the unknoweable "culture and mores of the time."

[Brendan]

To be fair it wasn?t always that simple. A lot of the wars during the colonial era were over colonies/trading ports that had developed and operated peacefully but then came under threat from other interests, local, colonial or corporate.

Others however were a blatant grab for power and/or recourses.

[mockney piers]

The opium wars caused moral outrage back home at the time and are so far from "just" it's laughable. I'd go along with brendan in saying that barely any bar ww2 were just. Colonial suppression through violence is pretty execrable full stop and that's not a modern view point but a post enlightenment one, a period more than encompassing your arbitrary two centuries.

That said I thought santermes post thoughtful and enlightening even if I'm not in total agreement with all points.

[Marmora Man]

Apologies to all readers - the 200 in my previous post should have read 100 - blame big fingers and small keyboard on my phone.