Dulce et Decorum is not..to die

A "pervasive and resilient culture of pessimism" about the Afghan war back home in Britain is severely undermining troops on the front line, a senior army officer serving in Helmand has warned.

The negativity is hindering an “objective analysis of the campaign” and falsely painting an alarmist and defeatist picture, he says. The sight of crowds turning out to see the return of soldiers’ bodies at Wootton Bassett has become a feature of the Afghan conflict.

There is frustration in the military that there is a lack of appreciation back home about what UK forces are achieving about what UK forces are achieving at great personal risk and in extremely tough circumstances, Lieutenant Colonel Matt Bazeley told The Independent.

I would be happy to count myself in amongst those with an alarmist and defeatist attitude. It is not yet an offence to apply reason and consideration to a situation and that is what I seek to do in the face of the permanently sunny, bright and uplifting Good News dished out by the Services media specialists. It is Good News Week - By Order. I accepted over 22 years of it whilst serving and was often in a position during that time to know exactly what had happened and how that was presented by the spin-masters.

The Army marshals it's chosen supporters " Young soldiers serving in some of the most dangerous parts of Helmand talk often of the reactions to the war back home. No 1 Company the Coldstream Guards have had five soldiers killed – including the latest member of the British forces to die, Guardsman Michael Sweeney, last week – and 35 injured, while operating in Babaji.

Guardsman Ross Caddy, 18, said: “I think we are doing some good. The Afghans are taking over security more, it’s their country. I don’t think anyone likes to see a foreign army in their country. But I don’t think people back home really know what’s going on here.”

Drummer Lance Mawson, 20, from Leicester and also of No 1 Company, said: “It’s been a very tough tour and pretty hard to see guys you know and work with becoming casualties. We like to think we are doing the right thing and this is worth it. It would be pretty bad if we lose the support of people back home, all you can do is hope that doesn’t happen.”

Lt Col Bazeley said there was ample evidence of public support for the soldiers: “It is humbling to see the quite extraordinary level of support we receive from the British people, but there is clearly less enthusiasm to sustain a demanding and costly military campaign.

Soldiers do as they are told - or else. My interruptions are never aimed at the rank and file - how could they be? They do as they are told and are conditioned even to accept that they will be required to lay down their lives and fill out that blank cheque that went towards the now abandoned Covenant. But, it is conditioning that makes them do it.

Imagine oneself freshly reporting at a training depot still damp-eyed at separation from girl-friend/wife and kids and family for just a few weeks and the first thing one is told is "You have a very good chance of being killed or severely disabled in the next eight months" Do you think many would stay for a second night in barracks?

Listen to what the Officer tells us "Support is subtly different from sympathy and I sense on occasions the two are conflated in the Public Mind. We do not want sympathy; sympathy is for losers and we are not losing. We are soldiers, we know the risks, we know what we are doing and why we are here... We face the challenge with informed and considered determination but we want to be drawing on a National strength and resolve to underpin our efforts and not just our morale"

Well - if they were not conditioned at the depot, they are being fired up in Afghanistan. Look at all the appeals to the pride - the warrior class. Scorn for losers. Facing challenges. A fine combination of Churchillian oratory and the In Which We Serve school of 1939-45 war films. Henry V at Agincourt could not have done better. Reference is made to the threat from terrorism. "Failure in Afghanistan will leave a security black hole from which extremeism on a large scale will emerge" is forecast. So, what if we achieve a win in Afghanistan (whatever a win constitutes) who can say that the forward march of militant Islam will not spring out from some other Islamic homeland? Any mention that much of the progress gained by the blood of our troops may well be abandoned by a deceitful UK or US government seeking peace at any price or that the forces we leave in charge are not overthrown within a few months. There is the example of the claimed resolution in Iraq which is already being blown apart. The Northern Ireland solution was to be the end of wanton death there.

A postcript - "A British soldier on foot patrol in Southern Afghanistan was killed by an explosion yesterday, the Ministry of Defence said. The soldier, from 3 Bn The Rifles, was killed after the blast in the Kajaki area of Helmand" RIP and a parade will follow. What a wasted life.

No room at the Inn

There is a thing going around inviting people to tell Boy Dave what they think he should do about the question of what appears to be the personal opinion of one of his Shadow Ministers regarding homosexuals and boarding houses. I copy it here so all know what it invites - no link for reasons I hope will become clear.

Allowing certain business-owners to discriminate based on sexual orientations opens the door to discrimination based on religion, race, country of origin and anything else.

It seems it stems from a situation some while back when the owner of a B & B denied accommodation to a couple of homosexuals. He based his objections upon an abhorrence of their life style. The same set of circumstances were repeated

A gay couple were turned away from a Berkshire guest house by the owner who said it was "against her convictions" for two men to share a bed. Michael Black and John Morgan, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, had booked a double room at the Swiss B&B, Terry's Lane, in Cookham, for Friday night. When they arrived Susanne Wilkinson refused to let them stay.

She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples. The couple have now reported the matter to Thames Valley Police.

Under the Equality Act 2006 it is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation."

So, here we have a woman who objects on the basis of her religious beliefs. For the purposes of these scribblings, let us assume that this is a totally genuine reason and not used as a cover for plain old outright homophobia. What is, therefore, being sought is support for the position that she must be denied her Christian values and beliefs. Is that in itself not just some other form of discrimination? Mrs Wilkinson herself has been reported as saying “We are Christians and we believe our rights don’t have to be subordinated. We have religious freedom and we are not judging that but we are not prepared to have that sort of activity under our roof,” he said. “These people are very organised and we have already been inundated with abusive calls and emails. It is really sad that people act like that.”

The local police say that similar matters are normally dealt with a civil matters. Could it be, I wonder, that she was targeted by those keen to advance their own homosexual beliefs?

I have no publishable opinions regarding homosexuals - that comes under my personal attitude of reverse apartheid where I keep myself away from things I cannot bar coming to me. However, I just wonder why we ever got into such a wide application of legislation banning discrimination.

The Human Rights Act of 1998 gave protection at Article 9 under "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion"

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

That seems quite clear to me. I accept that me sticking to 'my rights' may conflict with you enjoying 'your rights' but such situations arise in everyday transactions and events. That is possibly why 'such matters' are normally the subject of civil court remedy where the judgement of a independent and learned third party will prevail. So, why did we give homosexuals absolution from being judged on what is otherwise the law of the land? I do not know. Certainly, there has been considerable publicity seeking acceptance of them and their beliefs. But why should that belief over-ride religious beliefs truly held? We have recently had the opinion of the Leader of the Church of England regarding paedophilia in another religion and it would be reasonable to assume that that same attitude would apply to what the accepted Book of Rules/Bible says regarding homosexual conduct.

Of course, now that the matter has been brought into the three ring circus of pre-election madness, all reasonable comment will be lost in a stream of point-scoring. It stems from an overheard remark so presumably the author was not intending it for a public statement as to how he might act if put into a position of power. And, what if he did? He cannot issue edicts. The requirement for Bills being made law requires action by Government as a whole. The Labour concerns at the freedom of action the guy might have maybe reflects the way they are accustomed to operate? Perhaps. What seems to be being advocated is that none should act in accordance with their beliefs and conscience but become slave to the exact compliance with the law.

If there be any who have got this far and wish to see more opinions firmly stated, I would recommend they have a read of these comments on a Holy Joe site.

More fluff than a baby's bum

The ongoing war waged by the desk-bound MOD has taken on a new campaign. They invited a bunch of religious leaders from Afghanistan to UK for a guided tour. And a Press and photo-opportunity as well of course.

The Independent newspaper has reported that Muslim clerics in the British Army may be deployed to Afghanistan in a 'hearts & minds' mission to highlight the part played by Islam in UK society.

Just remember that bit - "the part played by Islam here in UK"

The Indy article goes on "The ulama's (someone in the Press office showing off their foreign tour?) views would strengthen the hand of General Richards and others in the military who want to project the role played by Muslims in the Army, expand the number of imams and deploy them on missions abroad"

Just what is this need to project the role of serving Muslims? Seems there are currently around 350 Muslims serving in the Armed Forces. How many of them are fit and trained to deploy we do not know but, be generous, and say 300 across all three services; not much of a role playing force is it?

We know the strength of family ties and the knowledge of law advantageous to their own ends their community possesses. Has any Whitehall Warrior contemplated how to deal with the Daily Hate headline "Sent to die abroad because of my religion"? I'm not totally up to date with discrimination but I bet there are some in the Islamistan areas of UK who could see things their way.

There is more. 'The Director of Helmand hajj said,"The Taliban are spreading lies that NATO is trying to destroy our religion in Afghanistan. We can take back the message that in Britain the Muslim people are free to practice their religion"' Free to practice their religion? Well - of course they are but the Talib are not daft. There is ample evidence that the true course of Islam in UK is not totally free of justified criticism - even leaving aside the rants of the BNP which should read well back home in downtown Kabul. If we extend the ground to the NATO countries we have the wearing of the burqa and the fun and games in Holland. 'That' cartoon will be dredged up again. The March of Muslims through Wootton Basset. The welcome home where the local other-religionists spoke of murder by our forces.

Amongst the delegation was one Shah Wali described as a former 'senior prosecutor and authority on Sharia law' Ah - there is always one isn't there? That brings me to the quid pro that these estimable holy men will want. In Afghanistan nothing comes for free. Except for some where death comes in a glaze of light. By introducing new members of the Chaplain's department (turban branch) and deploying them to a theatre of war we will give them a fair degree of status - what CO would want to have his attached beardie making notes for the commander's annual assessment? In addition, someone here amongst the proponents of Sharia but feeling depresed can quickly get onto one of Wali's friends and say their religion is being threatened and Sharia dishonoured. It will be like having a branch of the union Unite right in the front line.

There is a place for propaganda - which I regard as just another branch of hearts and minds anyway. Hitler's acolytes showed just how opinion may be distorted by the skilful use of words and doubtless, a fair number of our Media and PR branch had Oxbridge educations. My complaint is that this type of proselytizing guff is regurgitated into the public domain and might even be swallowed by some as a good thing. We have an election coming and voters will be examining the conduct of the trough-searching candidates. To use this sort of initiative as a basis for being optimistic is degrading their information and is dishonest. The fact that a senior officer of General Richards' is being used as a front man only increases the deception.

It is, surely, very simple. We have tried using force of arms and skill. It achieved little at the time and nothing likely to be permanent. We suggested bribery of the other side's forces. That idea seems to have died the death; rest assured we would have had it for breakfast, lunch and dinner news had one single jundi come across (and stayed after getting his bribe). We speak of democracy and empowering the people. In that direction, check out Karzey's idea of free and fair elections. That idea has done down the waste pipe. We are left with the Blair Solution as demonstrated Northern Ireland. Find out what the other side want and give it to them in return for us being allowed to rush for the Exit door in peace. It got the Yanks out of Iraq and it has to be what we do in Afghanistan - unless we can find the courage of our convictions like the Canadians have done.

We can act unilaterally - America moves us about like a load of chess-pieces. Sort out things in our own area by whatever means and then set off for the docks. If Obama complains - that is if he even notices what an erstwhile ally is up to - tell him the area he drafted us into is OK and he can deal with the rest. If he fails to get the point then, tell him we must re-deploy to get ready for Falklands v.2.0.1 where the actions of his bitch have encouraged a load of gaucho to ride again.

I am not really a BNP sort of person but the way the current Government, and the totally useless Opposition, have allowed the status of UK to be destroyed internally and externally is a disgrace. I am for my Queen and Country in prime spot and the BNP's stated policies are very attractive to this ancient old man who has seen better times and locations.

Another member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has resigned, adding another chapter to the beleaguered group's problematic relationship with government. Eric Carlin, former chairman of the English Drug Education Forum, said he was disillusioned with the way the decision to ban mephedrone was taken due to media and political pressure. In his resignation letter to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, Mr Carlin wrote: "We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour. Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure. As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

The Council has had a very chequered history. The boss was sacked and most of the others have already resigned; either to show support of their erstewhile Boss or with disapproval at what the Government has been doing. I say Government but the speed with which events have happened suggests that it has been the actions solely of the Home Secretary.

I do not know how the Council was selected or the detailed background of any member but I am surprised that at least one of them should resign on the grounds of little or no discussion. One assumes they submit reports where they recommend what needs to be done in respect of drug control and that would, surely, be their path to initiate discussion.

From my own experience of investigating drug use and distribution, I would say that there is little to discuss anyway. We already have a well entrenched drug culture and consumption of drugs - of whatever classification - is a regular part of the recreational side of many people's lifestyle. Warning them of the dangers does nothing - they say that they can control their own usage such that they do not become dependent. Punishment holds no threat they recognise.

The latest banning will have easily predictable results. The sources of supply will be seized by dealers who will sell at a profit. The buyers will have to find ways - generally illegal or morally decadent - to fund their purchases. Can anyone point to a single instance where banning a potentially risky substance has actually reduced the harm to both the users and society at large? The knee-jerk reaction of classification will also mean that there will be no research into exactly what the drug does. This thwarts any attempt to reasonable warn users what risks they run and how we might treat those who become dependent.

Drugs expert Professor David Nutt argues the case for a legal, though regulated, supply of drugs like mephedrone, ecstasy and cannabis, to reducing the undoubted harms of drug taking. There is a sort of precedent in the use of methadone as an alternative to heroin.

More than 30 years of methadone prescribing (for the much vaunted purpose of reducing drug related crime and drug addiction) have resulted in the quantities of drugs being consumed, the number of drug users and the incidence of crime rising year upon year.

In any other situation, such disastrous statistics would over-whelmingly expose and condemn such ‘treatment’ as an abject failure - but this has not happened. Methadone is a dangerous and addictive Class ‘A’ drug which is being prescribed to hundreds of thousands of drug users as a substitute for heroin and which is then dispensed to those users at taxpayer expense on a daily basis - usually for life – likely a life shortened by the methadone.

What we do with drug controls is producing a far from ideal result. It might well be that it is a problem without solution and the most human reaction would be to warn in very clear terms and then treat those who ignore that
message - or bury the dead.