It’s Armed Forces Weekend and it has two purposes, apparently. It aims to raise “public awareness of the contribution made to our country by those who serve and have served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces”. But it also “gives the nation (sic) an opportunity to Show Your Support for the men and women who make up the Armed Forces community: from currently serving troops to Service families and from veterans to cadets”.
Helpfully the website suggests ways to do so. We can see, thanks to a map of Great Britain and lots of little Union flags, where there are flag raising ceremonies, beating the retreats and marches to head along to. There’s a page with suggestions on the sorts of parties to hold among your family and friends if you cannot find an offical event to participate in – and advice on how to share your photos. There’s a Facebook page for you to visit to show your support and a AFD Goodies page where you can purchase bunting, hand sized flags and big banners, all emblazoned with more of red, white and blue and big bold statements like “honour our armed forces past and present”.
Is my distaste for all this really so transparent? Good.
It’s not as though I’m a pacifist. I was once, borne of natural anti-authoritarian sentiment but affirmed by the study of various wars and their impacts on populations and politics as a history student. But I do accept that there are sometimes wars that need to be fought and that having a well-resourced armed forces is as relevant to a nation adopting neutrality as much as a pugilistic bent.
And it’s not even the political distortion inherent in the designation of a weekend for Armed Forces, nor in the language and symbols used to sell the concept. Nope, I can see through their cunning plan. Let them wrap themselves in the Union flag and attempt to make us all feel like a single nation in the process.
Moreover, I can see through the attempts at cod psychology. That if we do not get involved or somehow “show our support”, ergo, we are against our armed forces. That the bigger geo-political issues should not get in the way of acknowledging that these people are brave actors on our behalf, doing a job most of us would baulk at. To not participate is to imply that we do not agree with these notions. In some politicians and generals’ tiny minds.
My issue is with the need for it at all. I grew up honouring the contribution made by those who go to war on our behalf. It’s a bit of a tradition in my family for starters, so I have close up and personal accounts to inform me. And even as a teenager, in some kind of anti-rebel rebellious stance, I always made sure to attend the Remembrance Sunday service and silence at the local cenotaph. Somehow, it seemed like the least I could do, for all those holders of familiar surnames imprinted immortally on its walls. So many of them, far too young.
We do not need an Armed Forces day or weekend to honour their contribution; we have Remembrance day for that. And because of its attachment to the Armistice of World War One, we are encouraged to place our remembrance in its proper context.  That the greatest thing to celebrate and honour – always – is peace and the ceasing of battle.
The thing that really sticks in my craw? The idea that by purchasing a little bit of plastic tat and waving it enthusiastically at marching ranks in a parade, we are honouring these men and women. The whole concept of this weekend is designed to seal over the cracks and hide the inconvenient truth.
That still we allow our politicians to play fast and loose with people’s lives by sending them into illegal, inappropriate and ill-thought out conflagrations. That we are quite content to destroy people’s lives, homes and communities – not here but in whatever amphitheatre we have chosen for the purpose of flexing our muscles – because the greater global good somehow demands it.
Far from here, it is easy to forget that the biggest casualties of war, no matter how just, are women, children and old people. Needless to say, we pull out when reconstruction is still a planner’s dream and invest little in repairing the physical, emotional and mental damage inflicted on civilian populations. No amount of the handing out of sweeties to weans repairs the trauma caused by fear and loss dominating your life over a sustained period.
Neither are we particularly mindful of the trauma sustained by our armed forces. Oh, they get better NHS treatment than before but still it is down to charities to attempt to repair the obvious and hidden damage.  And this veneration of everything armed forces is double-edged for them. Sure, the media are more willing to promote their stories and their cause but a whole host of new charities has sprung up spreading the jam of their fundraising efforts still further. Even big business has jumped on the bandwagon - Tesco is currently running a goodies parcel initiative, whereby you pay and they get the credit.  Ultimately it results in less funding from all our pockets for vital recovery and rehab work with veterans.
There is something distasteful too at the very idea that we – a richly resourced kingdom in so many ways – should be supporting our armed forces by sending home comforts to the front line. There is little honour in paying people a pittance for doing the most dangerous job there is, of wrangling with them over pension and benefit entitlements when they return, broken, and of expecting their families and communities to make their sojourn in dangerous places bearable by regular supplies of shaving foam, jam and batteries.
No, if you truly want to honour our armed forces this weekend, ignore the artifice of the official celebrations. Instead, take yourself off to your local memorial and spend a moment or two saying thanks. Then come home and write to your MP demanding that the money being spent on this weekend’s charade is diverted into the reparation and restoration of lives and communities laid waste by recent activities. At home and abroad.
#1 by Scottish republic on June 25, 2011 - 2:06 pm
It’s a big GB love in with no love and nobody cares, especially with the closure of the miltary bases in Scotland.
GB as in its inventor Gordon Brown.
No love for him either (Thatcher excepted).
#2 by fitalass on June 25, 2011 - 2:59 pm
Sad that you see this through the prism of the Union Jack etc. But here is a thought, we quite rightly remember the fallen on Remembrance day. But if you had any real grasp of the sheer price to the still living who have served in the military over the last 30 years, you would know that there is a lot of quite horrific obvious physical injuries being sustained as well as the hidden mental scars.
Today isn’t about waving the British flag or celebrating our one nation. Its about saying thank you to our brave service men and women by recognising their sacrifice. And any extra day that is going to raise awareness about the ever increasing plight of the service personal in those circumstances should be welcomed.
We have a serious problem with ex soldiers who suffer breakdowns, marriage break ups, homelessness, drink and drug addition. Do you realise how many end up in prison?
And this isn’t a new phenomena, its been happening since the Falklands and the worst days of the troubles in NI. Only no one would recognise or talk about it. It wasn’t a trendy issue that got media attention. And I don’t see the Unions&Co noticing or understanding the plight of this particular group of public servants!
And rather than trying to take a pop at today by undermining it because it involves a Union Jack. Think about the fact that sometimes, the issues being raised simple don’t neatly appear along nationalistic lines within the UK. We may have different regiments recognising the home location of those who wear a particular uniform or hat. But neither physical or mental illness mark that any more than peoples respect for their bravery or sacrifice.
#3 by The Burd on June 25, 2011 - 3:06 pm
I’m sorry you only read the first bit of the article because I absolutely acknowledge the damage done to people by sending them off to fight in war and how much more should be done in this regard. And I didn’t take a pop at today because it involves the Union flag. Wrapped in any flag it would still be inappropriate, in my opinion.
I didn’t intend to make nationalistic points but universal ones about how the establishment set such days up for their own ends. There is nothing honourable about consigning folk to the margins of society once their duty is over, or expecting charities, individuals and anyone else pick up the pieces of their lives – and the lives of those whom they were fighting. That I think is my main issue with this weekend.
#4 by Davie Park on June 25, 2011 - 3:03 pm
I agree entirely and am particularly uncomfortable with the tabloid inspired ‘Our Heroes’ meme.
It’s a transparent attempt to conflate support for the soldiery with support for our piggy-backing imperial misadventures.
I’d also have to say that, when a nation’s heroes are it’s military, then that nation is a danger to itself and others.
#5 by Shuna on June 25, 2011 - 3:28 pm
Ouch! I am not sure what the servicemen and women in Moray (and else where) would think of your post today.
Today’s Moray AFD Parade was moved from its origional venue to Lossiemouth – where men and women, their familes, the community are STILL waiting to hear their fate. A decision on the future of many service bases is still up in the air.
Today is a day of remembrance but it is also a day for celebrating the contribution of our serving armed forces personnel – yes celebrating! For today will be a moral boost at a time when people are frustrated and demoralised by a Governement that is still dithering over the future of our armed forces.
Our armed forces are good people – not just statistics – each with a story to tell. Today is about them – ignore the politics of it all. You have legitimate concerns and good arguments but today is not the day for them.
#6 by James on June 25, 2011 - 3:44 pm
I told her she’d need a tin hat. But when, if not the arbitrary day itself, should these things be discussed?
Personally I reckon “Support The Troops” should mean “Bring The Troops Home From Stupid Imperial Wars Of Occupation”. Plenty of military families would agree.
#7 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 3:55 pm
To be honest, if a principal objections of yours is that it doesn’t distinguish between your definitions of country and nation, the rest of your piece seems suspect. More so with Scottish republic’s petty parochialness.
Just as with those self-reverential “Not In My Name” badges, it is _not_ about you. It’s about men and women who have put their lives on the line for something, and subscribed to a sense of praxis and service which is lacking in an atomized society.
From:
to:
Why don’t you ask them? They certainly don’t seem offended by it. There’s been years of mainstream media bigging-up the opposition of isolated families of dead soldiers to the exclusion of the great majority who don’t think their sons/daughters/wives/husbands died for a lie.
Or accidential coroners who have no military background or training in situations arising from combat being named as a “hero” for issuing denunciation after denunciation of military policy.
This is a response to that.
If this were the only public expression of support, you could guarantee that their commanders would say so… but, as we see with the people who turn-out along the route to Woolton Bassett even where no cameras are present, it is clear that the sentiment of quiet respect exists.
Compare that to the likes of Maya Evans who tried to appropriate the names of dead soldiers for her own ends.
There doesn’t appear to be any change here. You’ve gone from one set of easy certainties to another, in which you’re instructing others on the acceptable expressions of support.
~alec
#8 by DougtheDug on June 25, 2011 - 3:59 pm
There was no, “Armed Forces Day”, after WW1, WW2, Korea, Northern Ireland or any of the other conflicts which Britain was involved with across the Globe. What we had was was Remembrance Sunday to remember the fallen in those wars.
The promotion of, “Armed Forces Day”, and the constant pressure to, “Support the Troops”, seems to be designed to try and divert criticism of the political blunders which led us into Iraq and Afghanistan as mercenaries in these two US wars of oil and strategic global positioning.
The hope is that the criticism of these wars will be conflated with criticism of the troops and therefore muted and seen as unpatriotic in an atmosphere of unquestioning support for, “our boys”.
#9 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 4:05 pm
Because the semantic link between wider society and military service was accepted. AFD is clearly stated to be intended to re-establish that link.
You’re arguing about angels on pins.
~alec
#10 by DougtheDug on June 25, 2011 - 6:30 pm
You’re arguing about angels on pins.
No angels, no pins.
From the British Legion website Rememberance Sunday is to:
“…remember all those who have given their lives for the peace and freedom we enjoy today.”
From the Armed Forces Day site Armed Forces Day is to:
“Firstly, to raise public awareness of the contribution made to our country by those who serve and have served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, Secondly, it gives the nation an opportunity to Show Your Support for the men and women who make up the Armed Forces community: from currently serving troops to Service families and from veterans to cadets.”
There is a very big difference. Rememberance Sunday is about the fallen, Armed Forces Day is trying make the UK’s military an national icon. This day is all about getting the UK population to support the military. It’s the equivalent of the, “Support our Troops”, movement in the US and it’s designed to try and stifle criticism of Government decisions about any war the military is currently engaged in.
To criticise the war is to criticise the troops which is not allowed.
#11 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 4:13 pm
Could you tell us which these are? [European] Imperialism arguably ended somewhere between 1919 and 1942.
D’you base this on speaking to them or taking their views into consideration, or are you thinking of the on-message ones who, therefore, get onto the BBC?
~alec
#12 by James on June 25, 2011 - 5:27 pm
It’s a general rule. Currently in effect most notably in Afghanistan. Until recently in Iraq also.
As for the numbers of military families on either side about the justification for specific conflicts, I have no hard data, and I suspect you don’t either. I’m sure opinions are divided – if you have respectable survey information do let me know. But I wouldn’t recommend disparaging those who want to see an end to foolish wars any more than I would look down on those who believe in service without question.
#13 by Ben Achie on June 25, 2011 - 4:22 pm
Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day on November 11th, are the appropriate times to publicly show our support for all those who toil in and for “the field of human conflict”. The rest of the time all our efforts would be far better spent in seeking to provide support to those who have been injured or otherwise hurt by the consequences of war. Funny, it hardly seems to be called that these days, but referred to as armed conflict, and frequently not even that, but simply “intervention”. War seems too serious a word for our politicians to apply to current adventures, because it reminds people of the one inevitable consequence; death, and serious mental and physical injury that afflicts people to the very end of their days. We appear to be much more willing to apply the appellation to, for example, cod wars, where no one usually gets hurt. I’ll never forget Thatcher hiding away all the seriously injured soldiers in the Falklands “Conflict” – are we really doing any better today? One definition of “war” is “failed diplomacy”, which really means failed politicians. We still seem to have a military industrial complex that would have us spend billions on destruction rather than peace-keeping, wealth sharing and the creation of civil infrastructure. I suspect that, in the future, people will look back on these times with incredulity.
#14 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 5:45 pm
Umm, no. The invasion of Afghanistan was UN-mandated, and the Taleban was wasn’t even the internationally recognized authority – except, maybe by Pakistan – in the country.
The invasion Iraq, no matter what legal _opinion_ – i.e. not a ruling/judgement – you may link to, has not been found to have been illegal.
Democratically elected Governments in both countries then went on to extend the invitations to foreign militaries. It was not an occupation.
The historicity of terms like Imperialism mean something, you know.
That’s a circular argument, and you know it.
~alec
#15 by James on June 25, 2011 - 6:03 pm
I don’t regard either the Afghan or the Iraqi government as properly democratically elected. Nor can I see your logic on Iraq. Both are clear cases of imperial adventure as far as I’m concerned. I’m not expecting you to agree, but these are quite tired old debates and I propose we don’t waste any more of each other’s time on them than is necessary.
#16 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 5:51 pm
Why? They simply are arbitary dates as well.
Considering that amputees are seen on such parades, yes. Definitely better than Abacus Insurance.
What d’you think is going on in Afghanistan? Or d’you expect them to use harsh language?
~alec
#17 by Scottish republic on June 25, 2011 - 6:13 pm
It’s B.S.
It’s hardly local lads coming back from conflict to guard our freedoms against tyranny.
It’s toy soldier time as they march along the street, simply commanding sycophancy from the public or worse acting as a recruitment drive to encourage more young people to go off and kill or be killed for a cause politic.
#18 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 6:20 pm
And you call other people Imperialist! Sorry, this is disgusting. Ownership of a country doesn’t go to whichever gangmasters are charge, and I share Dan Hardie’s views on, by extension, classing those who tried to avoid conflict as collaborators.
I remember an Iraqi classmate in tears the day he came to class brandishing his purple thumb. I also remember the sight of other Iraqis in European cities chasing away people with your attitude from polling booths.
I also remember another Iraqi classmate telling me that his cousin – mother of three young children – had been incinerated, for the crime of buying vegetables, by one of the scum opposing what you call an illegitimate government.
This was about their lives, not our imagining ourselves at the high tables of international diplomacy.
Harry Barnes, to name one opponent of the invasion of Iraq, realized that once it went down, his petty views paled into insignificance alongside the needs and expectations of Iraqs, and started to work for their betterment.
~alec
~alec
#19 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 7:24 pm
And it keeps welcoming into its pantheon more fallen, and has come to consist of members/organizers connected – either personally or through family – to current service. War, you see, is no longer summat which happened in the past in the present.
Given that the RBL was founded within one or two years of the Great War, you can guarantee that it wasn’t an abstract event in the past which society at the time had no direct links to.
And all it has to do is brainwash sixty millions people. Did someone say cod psychology?
And if my grandmother were a bloke, she have been my grandfather. You’re constructing your own fantasies.
Someone should tell David Cameron that he’s not allowed to call for a withdrawal date from Afghanistan.
From Burd and Ben and now you, the root reason for objections is coming across as objections that _you_ aint the ones directing events. Not that you are expected to submit yourselves to a pack, but that _you_ aint being permitted to control the pack.
~alec
#20 by Ben Achie on June 25, 2011 - 7:38 pm
Well Alec…..
Armistice Day was when the armistice was signed, at 11am, on the 11th day of the 11th month, and Remembrance Sunday is the nearest one to it I think, so neither is arbitary.
So we’ve moved on then, in that a few disabled servicemen are on parade? That’s always been the case, but the huge numbers likely to be damaged by these wars are certainly kept shrouded.
Afgahanistan could have been sorted out years ago if what you say is correct. It’s been allowed to descend into chaos – although they still manage to get out all that opium – it was used as a test bed for weapons, and still is. Just look, for example, at how drone technology has developed.
#21 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 8:06 pm
It’s from 90 years ago. What relevance does it have to today?
If you think all foreign military engagements should be halted, say so. You will not, however, be able to continue saying just how much you respect the serving troops.
The British armed forces have been volunteer-only for 50 years, and those joining now are not passive victims and doing so in a desire to participate in activities you’d have staked your opposition to.
I’d bet a fiver that before AFD came along, those adopting a supercilious dismissal of it and saying how much more appropriate Armistice/Remembrance events are were saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING about those events. Oh, look at us, we wear white poppies.
It’s oppositionism.
~alec
#22 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 8:22 pm
It’s from 90 years ago. What relevance does it have to today?
If you think all foreign military engagements should be halted, say so. You will not, however, be able to continue saying just how much you respect the serving troops.
The British armed forces have been volunteer-only for 50 years, and those joining now are not passive victims and doing so in a desire to participate in activities you’d have staked your opposition to.
I’d bet a fiver that before AFD came along, those adopting a supercilious dismissal of it and saying how much more appropriate Armistice/Remembrance events are were saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING about those events. Oh, look at us, we wear white poppies.
It’s oppositionism.
I think this sarcasm says more about your view of serving soldiers as ciphers for your own political ends more than anything else.
You stated that injured soldiers were kept kept out-of-sight. I showed you otherwise.
Absolute nonsense. The reason we don’t see photographs aplenty of places like Selly Oak is because of privacy concerns. Injured soldiers, like dead ones, are not for you or Maya Evans to appropriate for your own ends.
Only someone who doesn’t know what the situation was in the 80s, 90s and first part of last decade could say that. I remember some smirking goon in Edinburgh wearing one of those Not In My Name badges telling me how she “was right” about Iraq and Afghanistan… she was _glad_ death and destruction had occurred, and it proved her right.
Sickening.
Again, only someone who doesn’t know of the opportunities which have been presented to Afghan women or the additional opportunities for relief organizations to get in could reduce it all to this.
I find pacifists make lousy military analysists. Of course the military is going to use conflict situations to test new technology! And, if it involves drones which both avoid risking soldiers in ops or – in theory, at least – minimize colatoral damage, all the better.
~alec
#23 by Tocasaid on June 25, 2011 - 10:07 pm
Its good to read some reasoned opposition to this ‘day’. No one opposes respecting those who have given their lives during service – its the nature of the ‘service’ that we question.
I read today that BAe, the weapons manufacturer sponsored the day. If true, enough said.
As to closing army/air force bases… I’d say that if we’re going for socialist/ Eastern Bloc style provision of employment for all, then let it be for something more constructive and peaceful than war. Have already blogged on this topic, so won’t repeat myself further.
http://tocasaid.blogspot.com/2011/06/auld-sangs-for-armed-forces-day.html
#24 by Alec Macph on June 25, 2011 - 11:17 pm
Has anyone else noticed the carpet criticism of Iraq and Afghanistan in the MSN over the past decade? Yes? Good, let’s drop this baloney about the powers the be having pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes, but that we’re more intelligent ‘cos we’ve sussed them out.
No, enough is not said. As I said above, I simply do not believe anyone now saying that they’d support Armistice/Remembrance events were, five years ago, bemoaning the involvement of the military and defence companies in these events. Oh, look, they glorify war, they perpetuate the myth of glorious battle… look at me, I wear a white poppy.
~alec
PS Any chance of a decision, at least, on my two awaiting comments?
#25 by Nik on June 26, 2011 - 1:12 am
Ok,
Part of me suspects you’ll be rubbing your hands with glee at all these comments because you’ve written this partly for effect and to get a reaction. As a result, I’m not going to waste my time picking apart your post.
I’ve not read all the comments so this might already have been covered, if so I apologise.
If not, read this closely.
I could go into a rant about your “union jack” speel, and the “one country” comment (even though we actually are one country).
But instead, I’ll just say that your opposition to AFD is a shallow, semi-hippy idealist, blind, uninformed, political car crash.
1) You don’t even seem to know the point of AFD, the whole concept behind it! If you’re going to write about something you don’t know about, please do some research.
“We do not need an Armed Forces day or weekend to honour their contribution; we have Remembrance day for that.” Er, what?
Remembrance Day is for the DEAD.
AFD is a way of saying THANK YOU TO THE LIVING.
It’s pretty simple to work out there’s a difference.
2) There is nothing political about AFD at all. It is organised and run by the Forces, for the Forces, so your little rant about the politics of it all is laughable. Only an uninformed blogger could try and make this into a political debate.
3) I’ve been working with the Forces to arrange a semi-large-scale AFD event in the last few weeks. They know why it is important to the service personnel. They know why it is different to Remembrance Day. They know that young or old, “illegal war” or not, they went in and did a job for their country (and their job has f*ck all to do with politics as they do it) and through AFD they get to see how people, ordinary people (so not just shitty sound-bites from politicians) appreciate the work they do.
If members of the Forces read this, in particular the Forces personnel I have been working with (at all levels), they would be somewhere between laughing and anger and frustration.
So maybe in future, have a think about what you’re writing and ask yourself…
– do I know what I’m talking about?
– could I maybe find out more and be more informed?
– am I just making a political issue out of nothing and something that isn’t (or outside of this piss-poor post) political whatsoever?
– have I actually spoken to anyone involved in this?
If you want a lesson in AFD and why it’s important and right, let me know and I’ll send you the contact details of CDS, Brigadiers, Majors, Privates, Marines, veterans, Wing Commanders who will teach you something about AFD, respect, honour, pride, profesionalism and humility.
#26 by Indy on June 26, 2011 - 10:02 am
I am sorry but it does have to do with politics.
Tha armed forces are not privately funded, they operate within the laws which are decided by parliaments and they are deployed according to decisions taken by elected governments. That gives taxpayers the right to have an opinion about how their money is being spent and to express that opinion. And it gives citizens the right to have an opinion about the legal framework within which they operate,, and about the decisions taken by their government and to express those opinion.
For example I think it is outrageous that armed forces personnel are not entitled to the minimum wage. I am perfectly entitled to say I believe that is a disgrace because it is my money that helps to pay those wages and I do not wish to see services personnel paid at a lower rate to other workers.
#27 by Nik on June 26, 2011 - 1:16 am
Just realised…nonsense like what you have written is exactly why we have Armed Forces Day!
#28 by Richard on June 26, 2011 - 5:42 am
Well said, Ms Burd, couldn’t have put it better myself. I would only add that even Rememberance (Sun)Day can verge on the imperial at times. I’ve lost count of the number of War Memorials I’ve seen dedicated to “The Glorious Dead”. There’s nothing glorious about being dead.
The Armed Forces should be acknowledged, respected, thanked and remembered, but never celebrated. There is nothing to celebrate in death and destruction.
#29 by Indy on June 26, 2011 - 9:19 am
As other people have commented when you look at the disproportionately high numbers of ex service personnel who end up in prison, who end up homeless, who end up unemployed and who suffer from serious psychological as well as physical health problems the idea that we, as a society, honour our armed forces is a sick joke.
Let’s start off just by looking after these guys properly because at present we don’t.
#30 by ian glass on June 26, 2011 - 10:29 am
Good piece, well timed.
Colonialism has been, and neocolonialism still is, a global blight.
Militarism goes hand in hand with both.
Scotland’s roles as victim and player and (disproportionate) provider and cheerleader has given us a mixed bag to deal with.
I think writing like this helps us deal on a Sunday morning with at least our colonial hangover(s).
Ian
#31 by Alec Macph on June 26, 2011 - 10:35 am
What Nik said with bells and whistles on.
Indy, are you involved with charities or advocacy for ex service personel? If not, I cannot see how you can in any way, shape or form take such a scornful attitude.
I’ll cut y’all a deal… if there’s anyone wearing their hearts on sleeves – or plastic bands on their wrists – about AFD, I’ll join in criticism.
The situation faced by troops returning to civilian life is rife with problems, and underfunding. Yet, it doesn’t matter how contributors to discussions like this blather, reports like this life – which was on the front-page of BBC News Online – are the underwhelming minority.
If anyone here thinks troops are passive victims or that youse are helping them by damning the conflicts they’re involved with, I’d suggest telling it to their faces. Those gentlemen from Hereford or the ones who wear maroon-coloured berets would be particilarly receptive to this.
Events like this are intended to give a voice to the rest who don’t think they were fighting for a lie, and also maybe just maybe make it easier to discuss provision of aftercare for mentally/physically injured soldiers.
~alec
PS Sorry for the one and a half post above.
#32 by Observer on June 27, 2011 - 8:39 am
The facts speak for themselves Alec. If people like you want to support the troops I suggest the following steps as a first measure.
1. Pay them the minimum wage.
2. Fund their pension scheme.
3. Sort out decent housing for them and their families.
4. Ensure peper treatment is available for psychological as well as physcial trauma not only when they are in the services but when they leave.
5. Develop a proper re-settlement programme with a guaranteed period of employment which does not allow people to fall through the cracks.
When people like you start campaigning for those kimds of measures then I will fully buy into the notion that we support our troops. Until then we just don’t and no amount of flag waving makes up for a basic lack of care.
#33 by Tocasaid on June 26, 2011 - 10:42 am
Alec – don’t be a hypocrite. My father was in the armed forces of another nation. I went to what you might call a ‘rough school’ from an area where mining used to be a major occupation. Several schoolmates went to join the army. That’s their choice – they need work. What I’m saying is that if we just want to provide work for unemployed youths – DDR style – they why not give them something more peaceful and constructive to do.
I, like most Scots, lost many grandparents, great uncles etc in the World Wars. I remember them in my own way. I don’t need a New Labour/Tory glorification of ‘Great’ British imperialism under the Butcher’s Apron to cement my respect for those willing to lay down their lives for others. This ‘day’ is just a way of making Blair, Brown and Cameron feel better for wasting young lives in imperialist wars of dubious legality and no morality.
Your comments re the military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are amazing dumb. Do they come from the Daily Mail? And don’t give me any sob stories about new voters with purple thumbs in Iraq. Taking that logic, why then is David Cameron, Commander of British Forces as far as I’m aware, inviting Saudi and Bahraini government representatives to Downing Street? Why then, as we speak, are the Chinese arriving to do lucrative business with the UK? China’s records on both killing their own citizens, lack of democracy and aggression towards neighbouring nations is arguably worse than that of Taleban controlled Afghanistan or Saddam’s Iraq. There’s also the question of why Britain sold arms to Gaddaffi and even had the SAS training his troops only last year.
If we are so concerned with morality of extending democracy to all on earth and of saving the lives of all those repressed then why don’t we march into China, Russia and Saudi Arabia too? Or do we only pick on guys we can beat? Sounds like the actions of a bully. In China’s case, as the major bankroller of the USA, we certainly won’t bite the hand that finances us.
#34 by Tocasaid on June 26, 2011 - 10:47 am
#28 – excellent point. This AFD just gives the conservatives of Tory and New Labour and excuse to do nothing concrete to help ex-service personnel. Fly a few flags, get the royals out, get David ‘not my children’ Cameron up and tell the proles how brave they are. Meanwhile, like you say, ex-soldiers rot in housing schemes, prison or are left to deal with various traumas and addictions while London seeks to trim pensions, wages and social services.
#35 by Alec Macph on June 26, 2011 - 12:09 pm
How old is Cameron’s eldest? Ten? This is the second decade of the 21st Century… not the 19th.
And you’ll find that the second and third in line to the throne have done military service, and that one of their uncles nearly was killed during his.
~alec
#36 by Dr Bill Reynolds on June 26, 2011 - 12:25 pm
I do respect and feel grateful to soldiers that have bravely fought for the nation and to defend us against invasion,.In that respect I recognise the contribution made by the Finnish army during the winter war ,when Finland was invaded by the soviet union and the Scottish soldiers at the Battle of Bannockburn when the English King sent the largest ever English army into Scotland.I can also appreciate the contribution and sacrifices of soldiers during the two world wars.
Unfortunately some people try to use this to promote the concept of the British nation (singular).They also use it to divert our attention from wars that were less worthy.I agrre with views expressed on this site that soldiers have been sent into wars that should not have been fought and that ex-service personnel have been badly treated by the politicians.
#37 by Alec Macph on June 26, 2011 - 1:03 pm
And Stalin was our ally, you know what I’m saying, hint hint.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Hang-on, you just said that you respect soldiers who “fought for the nation”. Which is it?
Anyway, who’s doing this? D’you have anything against AFD more tangible than part of a sentance cribbed from its webpage – if a first year undergraduate provided an essay which said “the Oxford English Dictionary defines ~#such and such a word#~ as ~#whatever#~ they’d be marked down, and quite rightly – or have you more than the slightest involvement with AFD-planning and acquaintaince with military thinking?
~alec
#38 by douglas clark on June 26, 2011 - 1:14 pm
Who is paying for Armed Forces Day? The Red Arrows cost money to put on a display, etc, etc.
If it is coming out of a military budget then that is a disgraceful waste. That money would be better spent on re-integrating ex servicemen and women back into society.
#39 by Observer on June 26, 2011 - 2:05 pm
There is no tradition of Armed Forces Day in this country, as other posters have pointed out it is on Remembrance Sunday that we honour the dead.
This is clearly using the resources of the Armed Forces to try & attract support from the public. Why do they think they need support? Because of the nature of the tasks they are deployed in. The public don’t support them – the wars, that is.
But the public are quite capable of separating their disdain for the illegal & stupid wars that Britain has engaged in, from the poor bloody military the politicians sent in to do it.
Armed Forces Day is an insult to all.
#40 by Observer on June 26, 2011 - 2:20 pm
The extent to which ex service personnel are more likely to suffer from social problems like homelessness, drug or alcohol addiction, that they are more likely to be imprisoned or experience relationship breakdown is quite horrific.
Do they publicise that on Armed Forces Day? It is a recruitment drive as well. One with lots of flags, but it doesn’t tell the full story.
#41 by Alec Macph on June 26, 2011 - 2:27 pm
Yes, because _you_ know what’s best for soldiers. I mean, they can’t know their own minds, can they?
I can imagine the response to to your saying this at Redford…
… oi! Sergeant Major, sir! Silly little beggar here says we just helped insult ourselves on the Royal Mile!
… did she now? Well, sending her into the mess hall. We’ll learn her.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this lie, it is not going to become true.
Libya is both fully legal and has popular support her and in Libya. And I bet you’re opposed to it.
The legality thing is just an excuse.
~alec
#42 by douglas clark on June 26, 2011 - 2:42 pm
Alec Mcph @ 31,
Wow! Just wow!
I think these folk have a better understanding of the futility of war than you ever would. What’s you next act? To stand up at a Tory Party conference and shout ‘Who Dares, Wins’.
#43 by Alec Macph on June 26, 2011 - 2:53 pm
Carry-on digging, mate. I notice how you and others are plain ignoring Nik’s remarks. I mean, why should people so clearly right about a topic actually have to justify themselves to SOMEONE WHO IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED?
It’s worth pointing out we’ve been here before.
Oink, oink.
~alec
#44 by Alec Macph on June 26, 2011 - 4:37 pm
You mean through the likes of Erskine, the Army Widows Association, Army Wheelchair Sports Association? See, charities which deal with just that sort of thing.
You could have found this out by checking the Supporters page for the AFD website. It is not others’ responsibility to accomodation your transparent efforts to tie your opponents up in endless verification.
~alec
#45 by Observer on June 26, 2011 - 4:52 pm
Nik has ignored everybody elses comments.
The fact is that there is no tradition of Armed Forces days or weekends in the UK. It was introduced by Gordon Brown.
Why do you think that was?
#46 by Jeff on June 26, 2011 - 6:03 pm
It’s a bit odd to say that just because something hasn’t been done before then it shouldn’t be done in the current or the future. Infact, that’s surely not even an argument…
#47 by DougtheDug on June 26, 2011 - 6:30 pm
It’s a bit odd to say that just because something hasn’t been done before then it shouldn’t be done in the current or the future.
No, but it’s quite valid to ask questions about the reason that an Armed Forces Day has been instigated now. There has been no AFD in the past so why was there felt to be a need to create one now?
Perhaps the disastrous interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and now the ongoing war in Libya have got something to do with it as a way to create a, “Support our Troops”, smokescreen for our politicians to hide behind. The Generals might also like the cover of that smokescreen to try and hide the embarrassing fact that the US Army had to retake Basra and that Helmand province has again required US intervention. Nothing to do with the quality of the troops but a lot to do with not enough troops, helicopters and aircraft and an optimistic and unrealistic assessment of the situation in both conflicts.
What did the UK get out of Iraq in political or economic benefit? We got nothing from the US because they are so used to asking and getting from the UK that they don’t feel the need to say thanks and we certainly got nothing from Iraq as a country. Afghanistan is another wasted war where 374 have died for some unspecified objective only for the US to at last start talking to the Taliban. Something they could have done a decade ago. Libya is currently below the radar but it could also turn out to be a long war.
AFD smells of politics through and through.
#48 by Jeff on June 26, 2011 - 6:51 pm
I just don’t think the suggestion that AFD is a grubby vote-creator stacks up as DC or GB would just be preaching to the converted. Which party do you think Brigadier Montgormery-Tufts* and Lance Corporal Smitherson* vote for already?
Where does electioneering start and end anyway – doing a good thing for good people who are doing a great job on an unprecedented scale. Does it cost that much in the grand scheme of the defence budget? It’s surely a drop in the aircraft carrying ocean.
I’m not saying Iraq or Afghanistan makes me go all warm and fuzzy idea inside but attacking Armed Forces Day as a direct result of those conflicts? I just don’t get it or, perhaps more accurately, I don’t seek out conspiracy in every last thing that the Government does.
* they are not real people or, if they are, that is a sepctacular conincidence.
#49 by DougtheDug on June 26, 2011 - 7:06 pm
AFD isn’t meant to be a vote-creator it’s meant to be a question stopper.
It’s not there to get votes but to stop people asking awkward questions about both the Labour and Conservative involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and any future wars.
AFD is a direct result of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. No AFD was created after the costly victory against fascism in 1945 but one has now been created after two politically inept and military unsuccessful ventures where the UK went to war on faked intelligence in Iraq and as a US lackey in Afghanistan.
This has been a decade of political and military failure overseas and AFD is there to try and make everyone forget the questions and applaud the parades.
#50 by Indy on June 27, 2011 - 8:53 am
I don’t think it is a vote creator, i think it is a rah rah exercise which buys into a big fat lie i.e. that we support out troops.
Consider this. The armed forces pension scheme is entirely unfunded and is a defined benefit scheme rather than a defined contribution scheme. So it is very far from safe.
But unlike other public service workers the armed forces can’t organise to defend their pensiions or indeed their terms and conditions of employment – that’s one of the reasons they are not entitled to be paid the minimum wage.
So the more rah rah there is and the more we associate our suport for troops with waving flags and venerating heroes the less we actually think about the fact that we treat then ike shit.
#51 by Observer on June 26, 2011 - 4:57 pm
“Our troops risk their lives fighting the agents of terror here on the front line in Afghanistan.
“To keep the streets of Britain safe, they are a force for good, standing up for the UK’s interests right across the world.
“Armed Forces’ Day is our chance to say thank you”
That is what Gordon Brown said when the first Armed Forces Day was held. The reason it was established was political to try & make people feel guilty if they opposed what the government were doing.
It’s a form of emotional blackmail.
#52 by Observer on June 26, 2011 - 6:42 pm
I am asking you to question the motivation behind the establishment of the Armed Forces Day in 2009. We didn’t have anything like that in the past & I think that is relevant.
#53 by Jeff on June 26, 2011 - 6:52 pm
I think one has to point to a specific motivation to make the accusation valid. Hanging a ‘why was this thought of anyway?’ in the air, for me, doesn’t go anywhere nor serve any purpose. If you have a suspicion then spell it out. But, hey, I’m splitting hairs now I suppose…
#54 by Indy on June 27, 2011 - 4:30 pm
The suspicion is surely obvious?
Because of the unpopularity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there was a concern that anger and disappointment with the politicians would translate into anger and disappointment with the troops.
That was, I think, an unfounded fear. WIth a few exceptions British troops have behaved extremely well and most people feel they are doing a good job in very difficult circumstances.
People understand that the army is not a democracy. Soldiers don’t decide where or who they will fight. Politicians take those decisions.
#55 by Alec Macph on June 26, 2011 - 6:55 pm
Wot Jeff sed.
He responded to the top-side post which is etiquette, and didn’t infer motives in the below-the-line comments. You and others, however, are claiming owership of the feelings of service personel and not even responding to someone who has a jolly-sight more knowledge of them.
And, I think the phrase now is “don’t tell him Pike!”.
And there used to be a traditional of legislating against homosexuality. Irrelevant? No more so that that.
Of course he did! He was Prime Minister! Did you expect it to have been the Quakers?
He did so following lobbying from the military and related charities and other organizations and interested parties. They don’t need Gordon Brown to tell them what to do and think, which is the point of this discussion.
Plus, if you actually had spoken to service personel and their families or perused online forums such as ARRSE you’d know just how low an opinion many have of Brown. Yet they still support AFD.
I’ve offered an explanation. Are you ignoring any comments which contradict yours? I would say so considering your sailing blithely on from my one about your not apparently having even checked the AFD website.
There was a Police chief in Berlin…
This coming from someone who started on about the emotional and physical care offered to service personel as if she is the only one allowed to care; and called AFD “an insult to all”, so by extension accused willing participants from the forces of insulting their comrades.
You couldn’t make it up. But you just have.
~alec
#56 by douglas clark on June 26, 2011 - 7:29 pm
Alex Macph @ 42,
I respond to your comment and you accuse me of not responding to someone else’s. That’s a new one.
It is you that made the somewhat controversial statement that our elite forces are so committed to our governments agenda that they would find it necessary to silence any criticism of it.
It is a silly remark.
#57 by Alec Macph on June 26, 2011 - 7:59 pm
Douglas, the problem with your sarcasm is that you aint very good at it. I was not claiming dominion over the sentiments of the gentlemen at Hereford or those chaps in maroon-coloured berets: I’m leaving that up those of youse in approval [1] of the title piece [2].
I was addressing the sentiment oozing from this thread that people care, really really care for service personel. Except when they’re committing to serving in combat or supporting AFD to the rafters.
So, are you saying that you care, really really care for service personel. Care so much that you feel the need to tell them that they’re contributing to a lie when they serve in combat or support AFD to the rafters?
I’d stay away from zebra crossings if I were you. Black is not white.
~alec
[1] Although, to be fair, not Indy. Disagree with him as I may, he’s more often than not consistent and honest in what he says. Likewise, disagree with James as I may, his scorn towards the Iraqi and Afghan elections was not something I expected from him or anyone who contributes to a blog which tells us to work as if we in the early days of a better nation.
[2] Burd admits that her support for Remembrance/Armistice events when she were a lass was in a large part self-justifying contrarianism. But not now. Now she’s being honest.
#58 by The Burd on June 27, 2011 - 12:32 am
No in a small part. I still attend every Remembrance event and I have raised my children to do likewise and understand what it is we are doing and why. I don’t claim to speak for anyone else in my blogs, I’d appreciate it if commenters could respectfully do likewise.
#59 by douglas clark on June 27, 2011 - 12:44 am
Alec Macph @ 54,
Your problem is you think it is sarcasm.
It is not.
It is a heart felt contempt for you attempting to speak on behalf of them. Which you did.
I quote:
Now you say otherwise, you say:
You(se) ought to grow up.
#60 by Alec Macph on June 27, 2011 - 1:14 am
No, Douglas. The problem with applying tortuously literal interpretations to others comments is that is so easily can come back to bite you on the bottom.
You quoted me as saying “if anyone here”… that is, including me. Are you one of those gentlemen from Hereford or chaps with maroon-coloured berets? No you are not.
The only other poster here who shows the slightest indication of having any connexion to military personel is Nik. If he feels I am defaming the concept of AFD, I will happily eat my felt-lined fedora.
You screwed-up in your reading of my comments. I was not instructing personel on what to or not to think… you are. Have the guts to admit.
That’s exactly what you did. You instructed – with italicized emphasis – people to attend the centopath and ignore AFD if they truly respected the armed forces. So, if you were not by extension accusing those members of the armed forces who attended/supported AFD of dishonouring their comrades, you wrote a piece you don’t even agree with.
~alec
#61 by The Burd on June 27, 2011 - 1:19 am
There you go again making assumptions about who has and has not connections to military personnel. It’s really, really tiresome.
#62 by fitalass on June 27, 2011 - 2:55 am
Just come back and surveyed the threads, and I am gobsmacked at the sheer hypocrisy of the SNP movement on here!!
Okay to march against UK wide Westminster closures of military bases up here while deliberately misleading the local populous about their nefarious intentions to destroy local communities due to the economic implications of these closures. But the hypocrisy in trying to make political capital out of our Westminster/UK wide dependence on the military while promising an Independence referendum in this Holyrood Parliament without any credible Defence policy needs challenging!
What a bunch of first class hypocrites you really are when you play the military card. You see ArmedForcesDay as a call to arms for the Union Jack instead of cry for recognition of the living still in the armed forces or injured physically or mentally. So it gets criticism.
But then when it comes to our airbase, suddenly you are the personification of the British Empire because of the local implications. But still not even a hint of an Independence defence structure or policy to offer the nation.
Its just embarrassing, and hopefully your opponents will pick it up and run with it. Along with the petty criticism of this weekend in the name of Nationalistic self interest.
#63 by Indy on June 27, 2011 - 4:43 pm
Nonsense.
I am continually amazed by the assumption that Scottish taxpayers and businesses do not contribute a single penny to the UK Exchequer but instead every single piece of UK infrastructure, be it an air base or whatever else, is only located in Scotland due to the largesse of the British state.
Scotland pays far more towards the defence pf the UK than we get back in terms of jobs and investment. According to the MoD’s OWN STATISTICS, the under-spend in Scotland increased from £749m in 2002/03 to £1.259bn in 2007-2008. The cumulative under-spend between defence reviews is in excess of £5.622bn.
So do not lecture us about how grateful we ought to be for the scraps the MoD does throw in Scotland;s direction. Grow a backbone for heaven’s sake.
#64 by Dr William Reynolds on June 27, 2011 - 6:51 am
I think Alec that you understand my point only to well.Just in case you don’t ,I was referring to the tendency of some people to refer to all of the nations (plural) within the British Isles as the nation(singular).I also said that I respect all soldiers(irrespective of which nation they belong to) when they fight to defend the nation.And yes,through all centuries.It is a pity that we cannot take better care of veterans from those conflicts. I also suggested that some wars were not worth fighting.
I have no idea what Stalin,or your reference to the AFD has to do with my views,which are quite similar to many on this site.Regarding your reference to essay writing,this is a blog site.not a test of scholarly excellence.People blog because they want to be part of an ongoing debate.We tend to snatch at the debate,often with limited time.The main thing is that people share their opinions,and the reason for those opinions.Where people disagree,I would expect them to disagree in a respectful manner.
#65 by Alec Macph on June 27, 2011 - 9:05 am
So, when you said:
You didn’t mean: a, AFD is a charade; b, the approved manner is to attend Remembrance/Armistice-style events?
You didn’t mean that those personel who _did_ participate in AFD were somehow contributing to an artifice which showed insufficient honour to their comrades?
And you subsequent fiat for people to write to their MP and follow your biding was just an added laugh?
I hope someone comes along to untie you from all these knots you’re getting yourself into.
~alec
#66 by sackcloth and ashes on June 27, 2011 - 9:51 am
‘Your comments re the military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are amazing dumb. Do they come from the Daily Mail?’
Seeing as the Daily Heil opposes both the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, I think the answer to that question is a resounding ‘No’.
I’m going to add my tuppence worth, as I am an ex-TA soldier, and have more contacts with the military than anyone else on this thread.
AFD is appreciated by the lads and lasses in dark blue, green and light blue. Likewise the attendance of so many to pay their respects at Wooton Bassett, the fact that service personnel are now permitted to wear their uniforms in public, and also the fact that when members of the British public encounter them they generally greet them with goodwill and respect (some nutters and haters notwithstanding).
Some of you here want to see it as a plot to ‘justify imperial/illegal wars’. That’s your prerogative, but you have no right to speak for the feelings of service personnel and their families, be they Scottish or otherwise. That is something that only members of the forces community can do, and even then the squaddie/matelot/airman/veteran and his or her next of kin will only be speaking for themselves (that applies to myself as well).
I’d also add my own comments on Iraq, as I served there in 2004. My job involved escorting military and civilian officials involved in reconstruction tasks across Southern Iraq, although they were working principally in Basra. I remember reading the papers when they got delivered to us, and simply not recognising the war as it was being reported. There were no shortage of articles and op-eds claiming that Iraq was one long massacre, and that people like myself were up to our knees in blood. I never saw any piece written about the efforts of the Royal Engineers to get Basra’s sewers sorted, or its electricity back online. I never saw any journo acknowledge the efforts of the Dutch medical officer who got an artik-sized refrigerator delivered to the main hospital in the city so that the local docs could store their drugs properly. I barely saw any mention of the reflooding of the marshes, so that the Marsh Arabs (who Saddam tried to wipe out) got their homeland back. And I never saw any reference to the efforts made by British military mediators to stop tribal fights (again, deliberately incited during the Saddam era) from getting out of hand.
I saw all of these things happen during my six month tour. I saw a lot of good work being done by honourable men and women whose intentions were to help the Iraqi people.
You are entitled to your views on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, but if you cannot separate your distaste for wars in general and specific conflicts from the actions of those who are involved in them, you have a serious problem. The fact that you all link AFD with your attitudes to ‘Bliar’ and Brown, or to your own parochial agendas, does not reflect very well on any of you.
I also can’t help noticing one thing about those of you who emote the loudest about the sufferings of the Afghan and Iraqi people. You only started to express concern about them when the first Western soldier put his boots on Afghan and Iraqi soil, and for all your supposed compassion not one of you is prepared to do anything constructive to help the folk you emote over. In fact, your attitude towards them can best be described as ‘out of sight, out of mind’. This is why service personnel deserve AFD, and it is why (I suspect) that some of you here have got such a sad-on about it.
#67 by Indy on June 27, 2011 - 5:03 pm
You don’t seem to understand that objections to the Iraq War, the Afghanistan conflict and so on are political.
Nobody blames the troops.
You do not decide where and when and why to go to war. You obey the instructions which are given to you. It is the instructions which people disagree with, not the instruments.
If you want to engage in political debate why not tell us your personal understanding of why you were in Iraq.
It is admirable for example that troops helped to repair Basra’s sewers and get its electricity online – but why were the sewers damaged and the electricity cut in the first place?
Or to look at the bigger question – what was the purpose of that war? What was your understanding of the strategic thinking behind it?
We know the stated purpose – and we know that the stated purpose was false because no weapons of mass destruction were found and no evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in any kind of usable condition was found.
So, if the real reason for the war was to achieve regime change, what is your understanding of the thinking behind that. Why Iraq? Why then?
Do you believe that oil interests played any part in the decision?
It wpuld be really interesting to hear your thoughts on this because, for obvious reasons, we rarely hear the thoughts of serving troops about why they were sent there.
Do they actually think about it or is it part of your training not to question why you are there?
#68 by Alec Macph on June 27, 2011 - 11:02 am
It was as relevent… no… more relevent than the two conflicts you cited, because it about one of them. This is a discussion about AFD and the British armed forces which participated in neither of the two conflicts you cited.
It’s part of the problem of the Left – well, the chattering Left which assumes it has an understanding of and right to direct events in foreign lands; I’m of the Left in other ways no matter how much some will try with their lazy sylogisms about the Daily Mail and, as Sackcloth and Ashes just showed, beclown themselves – to assume it _understands_ people and cultures it has no connexion to. Only Jesus understands everyone.
But, Bannockburn was seven hundred years ago. And yet you tried to project your early 21st Century attitudes and prejudices onto that. I think we’re into the Hebrews 13:8 territory of a Jesus-complex.
Which is why I don’t expect perfect spelling and grammar, or the Harvard reference system. It is, however, a political… or, more accurately, a current affairs… blog in which supposedly serious discussions take place.
Adherence to basic rules of argument is essential. Confused, irrational argument doesn’t necessarily indicate confused, irrational thinking; but it often does.
Are you involved with any charities and initiatives doing so? If not, check the AFD website… it’ll link you to hunners of its supporters who are.
There are plenty of opportunities on this blog and elsewhere to discuss that. This is about AFD and service personnel, not you.
~alec
#69 by Gavin Hamilton on June 27, 2011 - 1:39 pm
I just thought I would comment with some thoughts on this particular posting.
First, I think symbolism and ceremony actually have quite an important place in society. I Kate is saying the money here could be better spent on something of more practical use. I think in an earlier post you saw the Queen’s state visit to Ireland as a bit of a waste of money.
I don’t agree with this in that I think ceremony and the official marking of things can be terribly important.
The second thing that strikes me is today the British armed forces do not get involved in wars of national survival – like WW1 or WW2. Rather they get involved in a variety of ‘police’ actions to a greater or larger extent – often UN sponsored – or at least sponsored by an alliance of nations.
I am minded of the US soldiers coming back from Vietnam – an unpopular war – and vilified or ignored when they came back. Irrespective of the right or wrong of the cause their bravery and trauma in service to their country was forgotten.
It is important to remember and value our troops – whether we believe in the war or not – for what they are prepared to do and we probably need something like this to support them as the whole nation does not rally round as it would in a war of national survival.
I don’t think Remembrance Day is that event – that is for remembering the individual dead and for the general sacrifice of some very brave people. AFD is for ther living.
What Kate said about Remembrance Day resonated with me – as a sort of inverse rebellion I too felt it was important to mark. Also as a student of history I am conscious of the way a generation was let down by the ruling elites of Europe in WW1 and the way a generation sacriced itself in a fight against evil in WW2. Yes, I am over simplifying – but both in different ways important to remember the people and to remember what war means.
Remembrance Day is now about all conflicts our services are involved in – but for me they will always be dominated by remembering the horrors of the 20th century and the two horrifioc world wars.
Some of te ‘police’ actuions make more sense than others, some do more good than others but our people go to protect our security.
Some, such as Iraq, are probably wrong.
Others such as Afghanistan, we are probably right to be there.
It is probably coming to the time to move on from Afghanistan – to avoid mission creep and to avoid staying forever in a war whose origins are blurred and where we are drawn into more ambiguous activity. The dangers of Islamist Terrorism are probably more centred on Yemen and Somalia now anyway.
But the point is to support our troops in what they are asked to do for us.
Leave the vilification for their political masters.
And lets have something more incisive than the tired cliche of ‘Bring the troops home from stupid imperial wars of occupation’ that one comment mentions. I’m going to guess that may be his default position for any action involving the military, and his analysis of much of UK foreign policy.
So I think ceremony and support for our people from society is important and worthwhile – whatever you think of some of the causes.
It is difficult as I guess such events will tend to have a predominace of people who support a particular political hue getting behind them – and those of other hues instinctively against them.
I think it is all the more important therefore that we all claim the flag and get behind our troops.
Gavin
#70 by Indy on June 27, 2011 - 5:42 pm
“I am minded of the US soldiers coming back from Vietnam – an unpopular war – and vilified or ignored when they came back. Irrespective of the right or wrong of the cause their bravery and trauma in service to their country was forgotten.”
Yes I think that was what may have motivated some of the thinking behind Armed Forces Day. But it was rather clouded thinking in my view.
There has been no evidence of British troops participating in massacres and so on. That is what turned the American public against the troops serving in Vietnam, it wasn’t simply that they realised it was an unwinnable war, it was also disgust at some of the atrocities they saw being perpetrated.
And that is the difference. Of course I am not saying that everything British troops have done in Iraq or Afghanistan has been 100 per cent squeaky clean, that is an unrealistic expectation, but there has been no evidence that they have been involved on a large scale in anything which has really crossed the line.
So I do not think there is any hostility towards the troops. Rather, public disquiet and anger has been directed towards politicians.
And I am afraid there will be no end to that until politicians start being a bit more straight with the public – witness the current Libyan situation. It started out as an intervention on humanitarian grounds with a denial that regime change was the motivation. Now it is about regime change because there is no point ending it until Gadaffi is gone. And they still seem to think that people won’t notice!
#71 by joe kane on June 27, 2011 - 8:54 pm
“I am minded of the US soldiers coming back from Vietnam – an unpopular war – and vilified or ignored when they came back. Irrespective of the right or wrong of the cause their bravery and trauma in service to their country was forgotten.â€
– Just to say that, the US army in the field in South Vietnam was a largely conscript army and it was precisely because of its resistance to what it was being ordered to do which made the illegal US attack and occupation of South Vietnam almost impossible to keep going. The US air force was falling apart too, by the end.
A large part of the US anti-war peace movement was made up of former veterans, and the peace movement did welcome back troops and tried to help them and deal with their traumas as best they could. In contrast to elements in the US establishment which blamed their own returning soldiers for failing to win the war. It’s largely a later fiction that the peace movement abused returning troops.
Incidentally, the American puppet regime of South Vietnam also invited the US military into South Vietnam, just as it has been claimed the current Iraqi and Afghan governments have also extended. The former Soviet puppet regime of Afghanistan also invited the Soviet Union onto Afghan territory too in 1979. It didn’t stop the West describing it as what it actually was, an invasion.
And just for the record, here is a list of countries which have been subjected to the attentions of British foreign policy since World War II, complied by Mark Curtis –
“Consider, for example, the long list of governments that Britain has itself directly overthrown or tried to overthrow: Iran (1953), British Guiana (1953 and 1963 (1956), Indonesia (1957-1958, 1965), Yemen (1962-1970), Oman (1970), Libya (1996), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001). There are also numerous cases where Britain has welcomed the overthrow of governments by the US, such as Guatemala (1954), Iraq (1963), Vietnam (1963), Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973, Nicaragua (1980s) and Panama (1989).
From Mark Curtis – ‘Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses’ (p32, 2007)
Missing from this list is, of course, Libya, which is currently under attack by America’s shambolic European mercenery army, NATO.
Another really useful book on British imperial and foreign policy is –
John Newsinger – ‘The Blood Never Dried: A People’s History of the British Empire’ (2006)
#72 by Scottish republic on June 27, 2011 - 9:35 pm
DougtheDog
“””There was no, “Armed Forces Dayâ€, after WW1, WW2, Korea, Northern Ireland or any of the other conflicts which Britain was involved with across the Globe. What we had was was Remembrance Sunday to remember the fallen in those wars.
The promotion of, “Armed Forces Dayâ€, and the constant pressure to, “Support the Troopsâ€, seems to be designed to try and divert criticism of the political blunders which led us into Iraq and Afghanistan as mercenaries in these two US wars of oil and strategic global positioning.
The hope is that the criticism of these wars will be conflated with criticism of the troops and therefore muted and seen as unpatriotic in an atmosphere of unquestioning support for, “our boys—””
The best comment on the Britfest Armed Forces Day.
The best comment because you unlike the rest of us remeber why this drivel started.
#73 by Dr Bill Reynolds on June 28, 2011 - 10:16 am
Alec,I actually accept some of what you are saying.However,I would advise never to assume what others are saying and never insult them.Be polite and ask for more detail and clarification.That is called active listening and is a prerequisite to analysis and synthesis and metacognition.
While I do not have unlimited tiime and have sweated over a dodgy laptop,I only wanted to say that I agree with many views expressed on this site.For example:
1) I do appreciate the contribution of the armed forces.
2) I do appreciate that many have not been treated well,particularly after unpopular wars
3) I am unhappy about the fact that some people use the armed forces for political ends.
I do not think that a blog site provides the opportunity for an indepth analysis of those views.If people want that,then they should submit a paper to Better Nation.I can see that different political aspirations have coloured this debate.The problem with blog sites is that individuals selectively choose what to respond to,and factor in a limited number of variables to analyse and support their opinion.However,I think that the discussion has been interesting and reasonably informative.I can see that this is an issue that generates a lot of emotion.
#74 by sackcloth and ashes on July 1, 2011 - 11:35 am
Indy, I’ve seen your comments, and these are my responses. FWIW, I should stress here that these are my opinions, and mine alone. I’d also add that the reasons for the Iraq war were a subject of sustained debate within our Company on Telic 4, and a full range of views was represented at all levels.
‘If you want to engage in political debate why not tell us your personal understanding of why you were in Iraq’.
My point was not about the rights and wrongs of Telic, but to point out why AFD was necessary, and so stress that I couldn’t understand why people could not separate their distaste for specific conflicts with their attitudes to the people who served in them.
Bear in mind that the service personnel who are commemorated on AFD include those who’ve performed missions which have undoubtedly been of humanitarian benefit. I would expect that decent folk – whatever their background – would want to express their respect for the peacekeepers in Bosnia and Kosovo, the navy chaps who did humanitarian relief work in South-East Asia after the 2004 tsunami, the chaps who stopped the RUF in their tracks in Sierra Leone in 2000, the folk who did flood relief in Gloucestershire in 2007, the RAF crews who do air-sea rescue, and so on and so forth. If you don’t think those people are worth the commemoration that they don’t necessarily get on Remembrance Sunday (which is for war dead), then that’s your position. Don’t expect me to respect it or understand it.
As for the reasons for the Iraq war, these were as follows:
(1) Saddam’s non-compliance with a series of UNSCRs (from 687 onwards) calling for the internationally monitored and verified dismantling of his NBC and missile programmes.
(2) The attitudes of the Bush and Blair governments towards Iraq under Saddam, and the conclusion that he was a regional menace.
(3) The erroneous presumption that post-Saddam Iraq would be easy to democratise. These are the three main reasons.
‘It is admirable for example that troops helped to repair Basra’s sewers and get its electricity online – but why were the sewers damaged and the electricity cut in the first place?’
In Basra, I noticed two things. Firstly, the dilapidated state of the infrastructure. Secondly, the massive palace that Saddam built for himself in 1997, at a time when Iraq was supposedly starved of much needed funds because of sanctions. The Iraqi leader had no money for drains, but plenty of money for luxury mansions. Go figure that one out for yourself.
Here’s another fun fact for you. Iraq was offered Oil for Food (OFF) aid by the UN Security Council in 1992. The Baathist regime only accepted OFF four years later. If we are to take the presumption that sanctions caused massive humanitarian suffering to the Iraqi people, then the bottom line is that this was a deliberate calculation by its own government. There is only one culprit for Iraq’s condition by 2003, and that was the regime itself.
‘Or to look at the bigger question – what was the purpose of that war? What was your understanding of the strategic thinking behind it?’
To remove an anti-Western dictator who had invaded two of his neighbours and fired missiles against a third state in an unprovoked act of aggression, built WMD prior to 1990 in violation of his treaty commitments, violated UN resolutions on disarmament, and who continued to threaten his neighbours with armed attack (see Op Driver 1994). That makes perfect sense to me.
‘We know the stated purpose – and we know that the stated purpose was false because no weapons of mass destruction were found and no evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in any kind of usable condition was found’.
I think you need to read the Iraq Survey Group Report (see link here) before you make any more comments about Iraqi WMD capabilities; note in particular the conclusion that Saddam retained a skeleton programme to be revived once sanctions were lifted:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
I’d also add the following. If pre-war US and British intelligence reports on Iraqi WMD were flawed, then so to were those of the French and Germans (both of whom opposed the war). So was that of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a highly-respected and world-renowned think tank whose 2002 report on Iraqi WMD capabilities also presumed that Iraq had retained Chemical and Biological weapons.
I’d also point to the book Scott Ritter wrote on his experiences as an UNSCOM inspector, ‘Endgame’, the latest edition of which was in 2002. Ritter – who was clearly not a supporter of the war – describes Iraq has having the ‘capability to produce, weaponize, store, and employ’ both chemical and biological weapons; ‘a limited operational capability for using long-range (i.e. over 150 kilometers) ballistic missiles’, and ‘the capability to conduct active research and development in the field of gaseous centrifuge enrichment and the weaponization of a nuclear device’.
All of these pre-war assessments were wrong, and it is easy to be wise in hindsight. In this respect, I’d quote Paddy Ashdown’s diaries on a meeting he had with Blair in mid-November 1997, which read as follows:
‘I have now seen some of the [Joint Intelligence Committee] stuff on [Iraq]. It is pretty scary. [Saddam Hussein] is very close to some appalling weapons of mass destruction … The world thinks this is just gamesmanship. But it’s deadly serious’.
Now unless you’re trying to tell me that all the scientists and intelligence officials on the ISG, the French and German foreign intelligence services, the wonks at IISS, the former leader of the Lib-Dems and the anti-war activist Ritter are all part of some collosal cover-up, I think you’d have to revise your views on the reasons why Iraq was presumed to have WMD prior to 2003. Past precedents, a lack of real intelligence and the regime’s record of systematic deceit explain why this presumption was made.
‘So, if the real reason for the war was to achieve regime change, what is your understanding of the thinking behind that. Why Iraq? Why then?’
See my comments above.
‘Do you believe that oil interests played any part in the decision?’
Funnily enough (according to Anthony Sampson’s ‘Who Runs this Place?’ (London: John Murray 2004), p.301) the Chairmen of both BP and Shell advised Blair against the invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that it would actually hamper UK access to oil and send the price of petrol up. If it was a war for oil, then strangely enough the oilmen weren’t really up for it.
I’d also add the following point. If we wanted oil from Iraq, we would have done what the French and Russians did, which is work for the removal of sanctions, and sign agreements with Saddam to exploit the Iraqi wells once the country was open for business again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/20/iraq.oil
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/10/france.iraq
Can I also add the following question. You are clearly an opponent of military action to overthrow Saddam, and I guess that you were also opposed to sanctions as well. Does that mean that you essentially wanted to see a return to the status quo of the 1980s, when Saddam was free to build up his arsenal, wage wars of aggression, and gas the Kurds at will?