Over the weekend I saw an article that essentially became the straw that broke this particular camel's back and spurred me into creating this blog. The article, by the Express, is a classic example of shoddy reporting combined with an overwhelming desire to milk a military story. Not only does it mislead the reader with unfounded claims and uneducated opinion, it actively seeks to exploit a vulnerable family for their own ends.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/203420/Father-tells-how-soldier-son-died-because-Army-wouldn-t-buy-a-gun/
I have the greatest of respect for any family that has paid the ultimate sacrifice by giving the life of a loved one in the defence of our country. I cannot possibly imagine the pain they are going through, and offer them all my sincerest thoughts and appreciation. That a grieving father should want to place blame on someone, particularly a common target like the MOD, for the loss of his son is entirely understandable. That does not, however, excuse a journalist like Gary Mitchell from reporting the situation responsibly.
Sidearms are not common issue amongst British forces. Certain roles will carry them as appropriate, but most people don't bother because it implies extra weight for negligible benefit. That said, there is no shortage of pistols in Afghanistan so anyone who does want one - regardless of their role - can get hold of one. Crucially, everyone gets thoroughly trained in their use prior to flying out. If Guardsman Major had wanted a pistol, he could have had one. That in itself debunks the myth that the Express attempt to perpetuate, but for the sake of argument let us look a little closer at the situation surrounding Gdsm Major's horrific murder...
Gdsm Major was part of a training team embedded within an Afghan unit. Chances are he'd been amongst these men for some time, sharing the same living spaces, meal times, and recreation periods with them. He'd almost certainly come to be friends with them and feel he could relax in their presence. The attacker, claimed to be Taliban, has successfully infiltrated the unit and done his job of blending in. Gdsm Major, like most soldiers working in Afghanistan, probably looked forward to his downtime as an opportunity to chill out and take off his heavy, hot body armour. There aren't many places in Afghanistan that someone can do this risk-free, but within the walls of a guarded compound you're probably going consider yourself safe enough. Do the Army and MOD have a responsibility to tell everyone that they can never remove their armour, regardless of how safe you think you are? Are they required to keep their weapons trained on all local forces at all times? How many more would then suffer from heat exhaustion when it goes over 40 degrees? What are the loyal Afghan's going to think when we tell them we can't trust them enough to socialise with them? How is a bloke having a kip supposed to stop another bloke with a machine gun when that same bloke was making him a brew just ten minutes earlier?
Adrian Major's son was unlucky, like most war casualties are. He was the victim of a well-planned infiltration that could not have been anticipated in more than the most general of terms. The lad was only human, and had to sit down and relax at some point. Pistol or not, his attacker was going to get the drop on them and kill someone. It's a horrible truth, but it is truth all the same.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
"It's Good Enough For The SAS"
I watched that Dispatches on how the MOD was wasting our money the other week. My overall impression was that it collected together some of the more obvious headlines, provided enough basic background to get your worked up, then conveniently moved onto the next topic before explaining any of the relevant detail. In other words, it was a documentary version of the many paper-media articles that inspired me to create this blog.
I could go into it all in detail with this post, but I shan't. In all honesty, I've forgotten most of it because it didn't tell me anything new or overly interesting. In fact, the only thing that stuck with me after the final credits was the scene in which the reporter visits an arms fair and speaks to the bloke from Colt about providing the British Army with M16 and M4 assault rifles instead of the SA80 that we actually use.
The SA80 has had a rough time of it. When it first came out, branded the "A1" variant, it had serious, well-docuemented issues. No-one disputes that it was a bit crap, as the magazine dropping off while firing is a pain the bum for any soldier, and difficult to gloss over. Unfortunately, since the press latched on to that particular defect in the early days, it's struggled to recover. In my experience, it's difficult to find a British soldier who doesn't rate the "A2" variant that incorporate all the necessary fixes. It now does its job and does it very well. The press, however, will keep telling you it's rubbish.
There are many sensible arguments for and against the use of the SA80, not because of how "good" or "bad" it is, but because of the role it plays and the things we need it for. I'll get into those arguments shortly, but I want to start with the one that Dispatches used, and which most people who don't really get the military but want to sound knowledgeable use: "The SAS use the M16 and the M4. If it's good enough for them, why aren't all British troops using it?"
First of all, the SAS don't use the Colt rifles. Not insofar as they have a "standard issue", anyway. It's common knowledge that they actually use the Canadian versions, the C7 and the C8. Granted, the rifles are barely distinguishable from the American ones, but that's still a factual error on the part of Dispatches.
Secondly, the SAS are special. The clue is in the name. They don't fight normal battles, the don't get into the same situations as a "line grunt" infantry soldier. Most of their scraps are up close and personal. If you believe books like Task Force Black it's all kicking in doors and pulling people out of bed. Chances are, if they're fighting people at range, something has gone wrong. Infantry, however, could well be expected to get stuck in at longer ranges. Funnily enough, the SA80 is significantly better at that job.
Moving away from the dubious Dispatches claims, the SA80 is often accused of being heavy, complicated, and expensive. Yes, it does way a fair bit in comparison to the M16 and is a lot more difficult to put together. The Americans, however, don't give their troops as much basic training as we do. They needed a simpler weapon that could be trained on quicker. As we essentially get to create "better" soldiers (physically fitter, as well as more skilled) with our additional training time, we can afford to give them a better weapon that requires more input.
The cost issue is the last thing I'll cover, and I'll use the official MOD line because, well, it makes perfect sense. The US buys many millions of its stock infantry rifles. They're simpler to put together as well. Our Forces are smaller, hence we need fewer rifles. Economies of scale suggest that a shitter product done on a bigger scale is quite obviously going to cost less per unit than a better product done on a smaller scale. Even if we sold our troops short by giving them a rifle that didn't fulfil the same criteria they needed for the job they do, we'd still pay more per unit than the Yanks. Why? Because we're small-time in comparison.
In summary, always be wary of people who immediately assume that the SAS kit is the best at everything. A special unit, with a very special role, uses very specialised kit. It doesn't immediately make it applicable to Joe Squaddie sat behind a sandbag in Helmand. Lazy, lazy journalism.
I could go into it all in detail with this post, but I shan't. In all honesty, I've forgotten most of it because it didn't tell me anything new or overly interesting. In fact, the only thing that stuck with me after the final credits was the scene in which the reporter visits an arms fair and speaks to the bloke from Colt about providing the British Army with M16 and M4 assault rifles instead of the SA80 that we actually use.
The SA80 has had a rough time of it. When it first came out, branded the "A1" variant, it had serious, well-docuemented issues. No-one disputes that it was a bit crap, as the magazine dropping off while firing is a pain the bum for any soldier, and difficult to gloss over. Unfortunately, since the press latched on to that particular defect in the early days, it's struggled to recover. In my experience, it's difficult to find a British soldier who doesn't rate the "A2" variant that incorporate all the necessary fixes. It now does its job and does it very well. The press, however, will keep telling you it's rubbish.
There are many sensible arguments for and against the use of the SA80, not because of how "good" or "bad" it is, but because of the role it plays and the things we need it for. I'll get into those arguments shortly, but I want to start with the one that Dispatches used, and which most people who don't really get the military but want to sound knowledgeable use: "The SAS use the M16 and the M4. If it's good enough for them, why aren't all British troops using it?"
First of all, the SAS don't use the Colt rifles. Not insofar as they have a "standard issue", anyway. It's common knowledge that they actually use the Canadian versions, the C7 and the C8. Granted, the rifles are barely distinguishable from the American ones, but that's still a factual error on the part of Dispatches.
Secondly, the SAS are special. The clue is in the name. They don't fight normal battles, the don't get into the same situations as a "line grunt" infantry soldier. Most of their scraps are up close and personal. If you believe books like Task Force Black it's all kicking in doors and pulling people out of bed. Chances are, if they're fighting people at range, something has gone wrong. Infantry, however, could well be expected to get stuck in at longer ranges. Funnily enough, the SA80 is significantly better at that job.
Moving away from the dubious Dispatches claims, the SA80 is often accused of being heavy, complicated, and expensive. Yes, it does way a fair bit in comparison to the M16 and is a lot more difficult to put together. The Americans, however, don't give their troops as much basic training as we do. They needed a simpler weapon that could be trained on quicker. As we essentially get to create "better" soldiers (physically fitter, as well as more skilled) with our additional training time, we can afford to give them a better weapon that requires more input.
The cost issue is the last thing I'll cover, and I'll use the official MOD line because, well, it makes perfect sense. The US buys many millions of its stock infantry rifles. They're simpler to put together as well. Our Forces are smaller, hence we need fewer rifles. Economies of scale suggest that a shitter product done on a bigger scale is quite obviously going to cost less per unit than a better product done on a smaller scale. Even if we sold our troops short by giving them a rifle that didn't fulfil the same criteria they needed for the job they do, we'd still pay more per unit than the Yanks. Why? Because we're small-time in comparison.
In summary, always be wary of people who immediately assume that the SAS kit is the best at everything. A special unit, with a very special role, uses very specialised kit. It doesn't immediately make it applicable to Joe Squaddie sat behind a sandbag in Helmand. Lazy, lazy journalism.
The Nuclear Deterrent
For my first proper post, I thought I'd briefly explain my own stance on Trident and counter some of the more vocal arguments against it.
I'll start with the obvious: Why do we need nukes? Nukes are bad. Why don't we get rid of them all?
Well yes, obviously nuclear weapons are nasty, dangerous things and the world would be better off without them. However, despite mankind being clever enough to develop devices of such awe- and fear-inspiring power, it still hasn't worked out how to physically change the past. Nuclear weapons have been made, and there are people all around the world who have the knowledge required to make more. There's absolutely nothing you can do about that, no matter how many trees you hug or monkeys you break out of labs. Add to this the element of standard human nature, and you can always guarantee that someone, somewhere, would quite happily mess around with one at the expense of someone else given half a chance.
Non-proliferation is all well and good, but there will always be someone who ignores it - usually the people you'd trust the least - who would suddenly become the only people on the planet with the biggest of big sticks. Those who have them won't use them for fear of getting one back, and those who want them won't get them for fear of getting smacked. It works, so why try and fiddle with the situation? As far as I'm concerned, giving up the nukes would be a stupid idea that would truly destablise the world. I have no issue with the likes of Russia and China keeping their's, either, because it serves to keep our own politicians honest (for a given value of honest, at least...).
On this basis, you then need a credible method of delivering said devices else your threat has no teeth. This is where the funding argument comes in, as submarine-based systems are bloody expensive. Unfortunately, the UK doesn't have much other choice, as we're not really the biggest of places. We can't dump the missiles in some cheap silos up in Scotland, because (of the shit ever hit the fan) the Russkis and the Chinese have almost certainly got enough power to level the entire place before we get one off. A land-based deterrent is predictable and easy to counter - and the counter is not particularly attractive if you live within 500 miles of the silo, like most of us would.
Similarly, sticking them in a plane and flying them onto target is out of the question as planes are easy to shoot down. You might not have to destroy the entire British Isles to keep yourself safe, but you're still pretty confident that you'll get away without a scratch. i.e., you're not deterred.
Keeping the warheads on subs is the only way to keep them hidden long enough to get a shot off. It's the only way to get them close enough to the target to be effective. It's the only way to put enough doubt into a potential enemy's mind to keep him honest.
So why do we go for really expensive subs? Well ok, I'll give you that. We do seem to over-engineer this part quite a lot. However, consider the alternative - would you trust your country's last line of defence to the cheapest option? The consequences of it failing are pretty damn stark, and what price do you put on avoiding a Fallout: New London scenario? You can't even save on the cost of the missiles, because the alternatives (i.e. cruise missiles) are illegal according to the same sorts of treaty that the anti-nuke campaigners begged for in the first place.
Basically, the world is stuck with nukes. We can't uninvent them, we can only hope that no-one hits the big red button. The only way to ensure any chance of that is to have everyone sat in a state of perpetual fear for themselves, where the repercussions are too dire to consider.
The final argument is that the only real threat now is from non-state entities, i.e. terrorist organisations, who don't actually care and can't be nuked in return. This is, to me, completely moot. Just because we're all worried about Oba... sorry, Osama right now does not mean that another conventional war won't kick off in three, ten, or fifty years. I mentioned at the start that we can't undo history... we can't predict the future either. I'd also like to point out that all terrorists have to live somewhere, and I reckon if someone was daft enough to try a nuke as a terrorist plot, the deserts around Waziristan would soon be turned to glass - and if OBL was that keen on being a martyr he'd have come out of hiding years ago. Fear of retaliation doesn't just work on us and the Russians.
I'll start with the obvious: Why do we need nukes? Nukes are bad. Why don't we get rid of them all?
Well yes, obviously nuclear weapons are nasty, dangerous things and the world would be better off without them. However, despite mankind being clever enough to develop devices of such awe- and fear-inspiring power, it still hasn't worked out how to physically change the past. Nuclear weapons have been made, and there are people all around the world who have the knowledge required to make more. There's absolutely nothing you can do about that, no matter how many trees you hug or monkeys you break out of labs. Add to this the element of standard human nature, and you can always guarantee that someone, somewhere, would quite happily mess around with one at the expense of someone else given half a chance.
Non-proliferation is all well and good, but there will always be someone who ignores it - usually the people you'd trust the least - who would suddenly become the only people on the planet with the biggest of big sticks. Those who have them won't use them for fear of getting one back, and those who want them won't get them for fear of getting smacked. It works, so why try and fiddle with the situation? As far as I'm concerned, giving up the nukes would be a stupid idea that would truly destablise the world. I have no issue with the likes of Russia and China keeping their's, either, because it serves to keep our own politicians honest (for a given value of honest, at least...).
On this basis, you then need a credible method of delivering said devices else your threat has no teeth. This is where the funding argument comes in, as submarine-based systems are bloody expensive. Unfortunately, the UK doesn't have much other choice, as we're not really the biggest of places. We can't dump the missiles in some cheap silos up in Scotland, because (of the shit ever hit the fan) the Russkis and the Chinese have almost certainly got enough power to level the entire place before we get one off. A land-based deterrent is predictable and easy to counter - and the counter is not particularly attractive if you live within 500 miles of the silo, like most of us would.
Similarly, sticking them in a plane and flying them onto target is out of the question as planes are easy to shoot down. You might not have to destroy the entire British Isles to keep yourself safe, but you're still pretty confident that you'll get away without a scratch. i.e., you're not deterred.
Keeping the warheads on subs is the only way to keep them hidden long enough to get a shot off. It's the only way to get them close enough to the target to be effective. It's the only way to put enough doubt into a potential enemy's mind to keep him honest.
So why do we go for really expensive subs? Well ok, I'll give you that. We do seem to over-engineer this part quite a lot. However, consider the alternative - would you trust your country's last line of defence to the cheapest option? The consequences of it failing are pretty damn stark, and what price do you put on avoiding a Fallout: New London scenario? You can't even save on the cost of the missiles, because the alternatives (i.e. cruise missiles) are illegal according to the same sorts of treaty that the anti-nuke campaigners begged for in the first place.
Basically, the world is stuck with nukes. We can't uninvent them, we can only hope that no-one hits the big red button. The only way to ensure any chance of that is to have everyone sat in a state of perpetual fear for themselves, where the repercussions are too dire to consider.
The final argument is that the only real threat now is from non-state entities, i.e. terrorist organisations, who don't actually care and can't be nuked in return. This is, to me, completely moot. Just because we're all worried about Oba... sorry, Osama right now does not mean that another conventional war won't kick off in three, ten, or fifty years. I mentioned at the start that we can't undo history... we can't predict the future either. I'd also like to point out that all terrorists have to live somewhere, and I reckon if someone was daft enough to try a nuke as a terrorist plot, the deserts around Waziristan would soon be turned to glass - and if OBL was that keen on being a martyr he'd have come out of hiding years ago. Fear of retaliation doesn't just work on us and the Russians.
All Aboard!
The Outrage Bus. We've all been on one, usually when reading a Daily Mail, or some uninformed drivel from a red-top aimed solely at getting your blood pumping.
The British Armed Forces, in spite of the supposed public media support for "our boys and girls", apparently make good targets for such reporting. The Ministry Of Defence, with no public (or indeed political) support, get even more of a kicking in the press. Given the nature of the business in which they work, these organisations are often unable to defend themselves. They also manage to generate a kind of rhetorical smoke-screen, with a language and culture that really doesn't lend itself to outside understanding.
All this combines to give the press seemingly free reign to publish what they like, backed up by "military experts" (i.e. another journalist who once did a two-week embed in Bosnia), claiming opinion as fact, and utter bullshit as opinion.
This blog aims to provide you, the reader, with a simple translation of the military world into something resembling the language of normal people. It will provide my own no-nonsense interpretation of the situation as guided by my own knowledge working alongside all three Services, although I should point out that I have never actually served. It will also call on the combined opinion and expertise of the British Army Rumour Service and its vast array of current and former Service members.
While I may work in a military-focused environment, I have no desire to portray the MOD as anything other than what they are. Some bias may be expected in my own opinion, but I certainly don't wear rose-tinted glasses around the office and will call the MOD on its faults and failings as necessary. I aim simply to give you a more balanced view than the usual vitriol I see in the papers. Similarly, while I have the utmost respect for all of those who serve, or have served, for their country, I am under no illusions that no-one is perfect and will pull up the Forces as necessary.
I hope that my blog will help you understand the world of the military and its impact on you, the UK, and the world. I hope that it will educate you on issues that you may not have realised existed. Most of all, I hope it doesn't get me fired.
Enjoy.
Bruno
The British Armed Forces, in spite of the supposed public media support for "our boys and girls", apparently make good targets for such reporting. The Ministry Of Defence, with no public (or indeed political) support, get even more of a kicking in the press. Given the nature of the business in which they work, these organisations are often unable to defend themselves. They also manage to generate a kind of rhetorical smoke-screen, with a language and culture that really doesn't lend itself to outside understanding.
All this combines to give the press seemingly free reign to publish what they like, backed up by "military experts" (i.e. another journalist who once did a two-week embed in Bosnia), claiming opinion as fact, and utter bullshit as opinion.
This blog aims to provide you, the reader, with a simple translation of the military world into something resembling the language of normal people. It will provide my own no-nonsense interpretation of the situation as guided by my own knowledge working alongside all three Services, although I should point out that I have never actually served. It will also call on the combined opinion and expertise of the British Army Rumour Service and its vast array of current and former Service members.
While I may work in a military-focused environment, I have no desire to portray the MOD as anything other than what they are. Some bias may be expected in my own opinion, but I certainly don't wear rose-tinted glasses around the office and will call the MOD on its faults and failings as necessary. I aim simply to give you a more balanced view than the usual vitriol I see in the papers. Similarly, while I have the utmost respect for all of those who serve, or have served, for their country, I am under no illusions that no-one is perfect and will pull up the Forces as necessary.
I hope that my blog will help you understand the world of the military and its impact on you, the UK, and the world. I hope that it will educate you on issues that you may not have realised existed. Most of all, I hope it doesn't get me fired.
Enjoy.
Bruno
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)