[BBC News] Tour of thanks for Iraq soldiers

[Miss Take]

what where?

[P.K.]

I think some people here are confusing the abuse and misuse of British forces by Bush and Blair/Broon, with the 'covenant'. The two issues are quite separate.

"abuse and misuse" of British forces? Yeah right. So Albert, are you saying that their deployment wasn't after a vote in the HOC?

 

But this is the issue though because warfare is nothing but a political act. So soldiers are carrying out politics.

Ah yes, Von Clauswitz’s "War is a continuation of state policy by other means." But who's politics bring about the conflict? Hitler's? Bin Laden's? Hussein's?

 

The only way to end wars is to have them until you have fought the last battle.*

 

* Copyright P.K. 2008

[Albert Tatlock]

I think some people here are confusing the abuse and misuse of British forces by Bush and Blair/Broon, with the 'covenant'. The two issues are quite separate.

"abuse and misuse" of British forces? Yeah right. So Albert, are you saying that their deployment wasn't after a vote in the HOC?

Based on what? 45 secs and WMD that's what - or have you forgotten?

 

Anyhoo, I am not debating Iraq etc. I was just pointing out what the covenant was, and why people are against the war yet still support the soldiers (covenant).

[P.K.]

Based on what? 45 secs and WMD that's what - or have you forgotten?

 

Anyhoo, I am not debating Iraq etc. I was just pointing out what the covenant was, and why people are against the war yet still support the soldiers (covenant).

45 secs? What's that?

 

Some folks are for the war. Tell you what though, why don't you ignore them?

[Albert Tatlock]

Based on what? 45 secs and WMD that's what - or have you forgotten?

Anyhoo, I am not debating Iraq etc. I was just pointing out what the covenant was, and why people are against the war yet still support the soldiers (covenant).

45 secs? What's that?

Sorry, I meant 45 minutes. i.e. Blair’s assertions that Iraq could launch chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes.

[P.K.]

Dear me. Wasn't it Dr Kelly who made that claim? Although he probably got it from Janes'. It takes about 45 minutes to prepare a binary battlefield weapon. Not exactly rocket science. Actually, in this case it is rocket science. And I haven't forgotten the WMD's Iraq used against their own minorities and the Iranians proving they not only had the knowledge to make them, they also had the means to make them and the will to use them.

 

Now Albert, what was that about those who supported the war?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It isn't contradictory - that is exactly the difference between them not supporting the abuse and misuse of British forces by Bush and Blair/Broon (the Iraq/Afghan wars) and supporting the 'covenant'.

 

The Military Covenant says "our Armed Forces will be called upon to make personal sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the nation and Armed Forces, before their own, they forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, servicemen and women must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way, the unique nature of military operations means that our Armed Forces differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the nation, our Armed Forces and each individual member; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the armed forces and its servicemen and women throughout its history…"

 

Totally different from fighting a war the people don't agree with. You should be venting your spleen at politicians for breaching the covenant by not best representing the interests of the nation, not at the forces.

 

I don't really see how the Covenant relates to support. There is no distinction between servicing one's nation and fighting for the government no matter what war it wants to enter or start because the idea of servicing one's nation is meaningless. In reality the armed forces only serve the government and not the nation, and that is true regardless of whether the soldiers are fighting for different ideals, but if the soldiers have different ideals then why are they fighting on behalf of the elites interests?

 

I can understand what you may be saying in terms of the general public recognising the need for the soldiers and members of the armed forces to be treated well, to be given the right equipment, etc. But I don't really see this as relating to supporting the soldier but rather recognising that they should not be treated badly. Though certainly the British armed forces are having problems with equipment and are stretched to the limit.

 

But the way the word support is used in terms of the armed forces does not refer or does not simply refer to the points made in the covenant. In American and in Britain there has been sporadic but furtive efforts to awaken the population to the need that they should support the troops, as if there is an expectation that the troops require some form of support. But given the manner in which this request for support is framed it is not related to the covenant but rather hinges on some misguided recognition that these people are fighting for the British or American people and because they are fighting for 'our' country they deserve our support. I am saying that if you do not support the political objectives then you cannot support the soldiers efforts to fight for their nation or country.

 

In venting my spleen, I am not venting it at the soldiers in the forces! How does it appear that I am? Rather I am venting my spleen at the beliefs that are held about the purpose of the soldiers and the role of the military. But also venting it indirectly at the bizarre and stupid world we live in where our soldiers are not political yet their tasks are nothing but political.

 

Ah yes, Von Clauswitz’s "War is a continuation of state policy by other means." But who's politics bring about the conflict? Hitler's? Bin Laden's? Hussein's?

 

The only way to end wars is to have them until you have fought the last battle.*

 

Any person or group can initiate a conflict. But I don't know why you mention this because I doubt you are trying to demonstrate that British foreign policy is reactive and benevolent or for the good of the world. What are you trying to say?

 

I don't agree at all with that phrase. I used to be, because it is drummed into people, of the opinion that man is a greedy, power hungry and belligerent animal at heart. Nowadays I think the opposite. I do not think war is at all necessary. There may be disagreement and conflict in communties and between people, but war itself in consitituting a nation or very large grouping of people fighting against one another is not necessary or a permanent feature of human life. We can rise above it because in so many others aspects of human interaction we can overcome conflict and cooperate. Today we just live in a world of nation states run by small elites who have no qualms about waging war if there are real benefits for them.

[Albert Tatlock]

It isn't contradictory - that is exactly the difference between them not supporting the abuse and misuse of British forces by Bush and Blair/Broon (the Iraq/Afghan wars) and supporting the 'covenant'.

 

The Military Covenant says "our Armed Forces will be called upon to make personal sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the nation and Armed Forces, before their own, they forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, servicemen and women must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way, the unique nature of military operations means that our Armed Forces differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the nation, our Armed Forces and each individual member; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the armed forces and its servicemen and women throughout its history…"

 

Totally different from fighting a war the people don't agree with. You should be venting your spleen at politicians for breaching the covenant by not best representing the interests of the nation, not at the forces.

 

I don't really see how the Covenant relates to support. There is no distinction between servicing one's nation and fighting for the government no matter what war it wants to enter or start because the idea of servicing one's nation is meaningless. In reality the armed forces only serve the government and not the nation, and that is true regardless of whether the soldiers are fighting for different ideals, but if the soldiers have different ideals then why are they fighting on behalf of the elites interests?

 

I can understand what you may be saying in terms of the general public recognising the need for the soldiers and members of the armed forces to be treated well, to be given the right equipment, etc. But I don't really see this as relating to supporting the soldier but rather recognising that they should not be treated badly. Though certainly the British armed forces are having problems with equipment and are stretched to the limit.

 

But the way the word support is used in terms of the armed forces does not refer or does not simply refer to the points made in the covenant. In American and in Britain there has been sporadic but furtive efforts to awaken the population to the need that they should support the troops, as if there is an expectation that the troops require some form of support. But given the manner in which this request for support is framed it is not related to the covenant but rather hinges on some misguided recognition that these people are fighting for the British or American people and because they are fighting for 'our' country they deserve our support. I am saying that if you do not support the political objectives then you cannot support the soldiers efforts to fight for their nation or country.

 

In venting my spleen, I am not venting it at the soldiers in the forces! How does it appear that I am? Rather I am venting my spleen at the beliefs that are held about the purpose of the soldiers and the role of the military. But also venting it indirectly at the bizarre and stupid world we live in where our soldiers are not political yet their tasks are nothing but political.

 

Ah yes, Von Clauswitz’s "War is a continuation of state policy by other means." But who's politics bring about the conflict? Hitler's? Bin Laden's? Hussein's?

 

The only way to end wars is to have them until you have fought the last battle.*

 

Any person or group can initiate a conflict. But I don't know why you mention this because I doubt you are trying to demonstrate that British foreign policy is reactive and benevolent or for the good of the world. What are you trying to say?

 

I don't agree at all with that phrase. I used to be, because it is drummed into people, of the opinion that man is a greedy, power hungry and belligerent animal at heart. Nowadays I think the opposite. I do not think war is at all necessary. There may be disagreement and conflict in communties and between people, but war itself in consitituting a nation or very large grouping of people fighting against one another is not necessary or a permanent feature of human life. We can rise above it because in so many others aspects of human interaction we can overcome conflict and cooperate. Today we just live in a world of nation states run by small elites who have no qualms about waging war if there are real benefits for them.

...sorry...but you are only proving you don't need to join the air force to see a full fly past.

 

Read the thread again, especially the definition of 'the covenant'. You are missing something very obvious and making something very complex which is really very simple.

 

The fact is you shouldn't be mixing up what a crap government does, with the forces of the UK - the forces do what we expect them to do at their expense whilst expecting Joe Public's backing - if duff politicans get it wrong, the forces have no recourse - other than falling recruitment figures (therein lies a hint too).

[Freggyragh]

Sorry LDV - you lost my interest as soon as you mentioned that you help with young gay homeless folk. How many of these young people, single with no dependents and living homeless in the IoM are there? The only thing they need up their arses is a boot - and less of the sympathy from self-important posh knobs like yourself please. I was, and am, dead against the Bush wars - and the way the Brits got dragged into it. I also live in the real world, and sorry to break the news mate, but shit happens. You feel that the beginning of November is a good time to tell the world you have discovered anarcho-syndicalism - well good news for you, there are plenty of places around where anarchy rules - but you have chosen to live in Mannin. You are telling yourself a huge lie if you think you could live up to the ideals you blather on about.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Read the thread again, especially the definition of 'the covenant'. You are missing something very obvious and making something very complex which is really very simple.

 

The fact is you shouldn't be mixing up what a crap government does, with the forces of the UK - the forces do what we expect them to do at their expense whilst expecting Joe Public's backing - if duff politicans get it wrong, the forces have no recourse - other than falling recruitment figures (therein lies a hint too).

 

I can see what you are explaining to me. I understand it very well that the forces respond to the governments decisions and do not make policy themselves. Policy is directed by the elites, and the generals direct strategy, etc.

 

My issue hinges on this idea of support. It just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe an analogy might be help to explain. The situation for people who need to work is all the same, we have to find a job. When we are employed we carry out the tasks of the employer and we do what they say. We act on behalf of that employer. If the employer is unethical or if the employer sells fake goods it is not the fault of the shop worker.

 

Now I completely appreciate that the shop worker has absolutely no say in what is being sold and how the company operates. He/She is just someone who needed work and got it there. But I do not SUPPORT him/her in selling these goods and in being part of an unethical company but the business she is part of is bad. I cannot disassociate her role in the shop with the role of the employer because the running thread begins with the decisions at the top and leads to fake goods being sold by the shop worker.

 

Similarly, the soldier carries out the demands placed upon him by his superiors who have their policy objectives set by politicians. Warfare is political, so what the soldier does is effect policy. He joined the army maybe because he could not find work anywhere else or he thought the pay was better than what he could get. He joins the forces and is now subject to the demands of the politicians in effect. For the same reasons as the shop worker, I cannot SUPPORT the work that he carries out if that involves effecting foreign policy objectives which I disagree with.

 

Now I think that soldiers should be well paid, well treated, afforded respect like anybody else (though not a level of respect in the sense that they are a distinct group of people who should be held in high esteem), and should have the best equipment and should be looked after just like any other worker. And I agree with the part of the covenant that states: "In return, servicemen and women must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service." But I do not see this as representing support and certainly does not represent the same meaning of support that is bandied about.

 

I don't know if we are talking cross purposes or whether I am missing something. One thing I can infer (maybe wrongly) from your replies is your belief in the role of the military in service the nation. And this might be where our disagreement really lies. Conventional thinking would see the military as ALWAYS serving the nation, that is it's job. So for the military there is a continuous role of service. They RESPOND to policy directives no matter what they are but no matter what will ALWAYS be serving the nation. So when I hear Americans whittle on about support for the soldiers because they are fighting for their country in a badly thought out war this is the impression I get of how they come to support the troops.

 

I do not see it that way, definitely not that way. In reality, regardless of the intentions of those who serve, the armed forces are nothing but a tool to be used by the government to satisfy the governments requirements, and the politicians interests are not the same as the needs or demands of the populace. The phrase of 'serving the nation' is mentioned and this gives the impression that such a role is apolitical and far removed from the scheming of the politicians.

 

The idea of nation is a fabrication so in reality the role of 'serving the nation' means nothing as the forces just serve the government. The soldier is like any other person looking for a job, they find one, and because the political system is structured so as to create apathy the soldiers who join are unconcerned about politics. But from my way of looking at things they are carrying out political tasks and because they do I cannot support them. This does not mean, however, that I despise them or judge them. I know that they are just like anybody else doing their job. I hate the state and military institutions, and I hate warfare and killing and soldiers carrying out killings, but I do not hate the soldiers.

 

I hope that makes sense.

[Albert Tatlock]

Now I completely appreciate that the shop worker has absolutely no say in what is being sold and how the company operates. He/She is just someone who needed work and got it there. But I do not SUPPORT him/her in selling these goods and in being part of an unethical company but the business she is part of is bad. I cannot disassociate her role in the shop with the role of the employer because the running thread begins with the decisions at the top and leads to fake goods being sold by the shop worker.

You can't compare the two.

 

The shop worker can 'get out of the trench' and walk off the job if he doesn't 'agree with the politics or decisions of the employer'...the soldier can't.

 

Not only is the soldier trained not to do so, he is obliged not to do so, has the honour and integrity not to do so, and the comaradary not to leave his mates or let down his country - in fact in the past, if he tried to bugger off he would have been judged to have demonstrated cowardice and under military regulations been shot for leaving. Today he will be at least jailed for leaving (with the exception of mental conditions) - that's what you sign up to if you join (i.e. the rights you sign away on joining, outlined in the covenant). In the forces you can't just bugger off when the bullets start flying - without serious consequences. It isn't just a job, it is a vocation, a way of life and a committment - signing away many of your normal rights. Joining is a committment to your people and nation - and

 

How many shop workers effectively sign away their life working for Spar?

 

Understanding this difference between a shop worker and a soldier is one of the major reasons that Joe Public doesn't understand the honour, integrity and comradary that is experienced within the forces, and which makes life difficult for many soldiers after they leave.

 

It pisses me off today that all too many people are only too willing to forget what the forces have done for us on our behalf. Yet many continue to want to take away civil rights from people in this country, when millions have died fighting to protect those same civil rights from being taken by Nazi's, Fascists or communists. Many dead forces people would be turning in their graves today if they knew what was happening in this country (UK/IOM) - all of whom signed away their rights to decide, or had them taken away via conscription, when they joined. ID cards for example - simply not British - the stuff of Nazi's, Fascists and Communist Eastern Europe that we fought against.

 

The forces do what they are told to do by the government of the day. If the forces were a democracy or weren't apolitical there would be chaos. You can't have it both ways.

 

Once again, over the Iraq/Afghan situation, vent your anger at the current government, not the forces.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You can't compare the two.

 

The shop worker can 'get out of the trench' and walk off the job if he doesn't 'agree with the politics or decisions of the employer'...the soldier can't.

 

Not only is the soldier trained not to do so, he is obliged not to do so, has the honour and integrity not to do so, and the comaradary not to leave his mates or let down his country - in fact in the past, if he tried to bugger off he would have been judged to have demonstrated cowardice and under military regulations been shot for leaving. Today he will be at least jailed for leaving (with the exception of mental conditions) - that's what you sign up to if you join (i.e. the rights you sign away on joining, outlined in the covenant). In the forces you can't just bugger off when the bullets start flying - without serious consequences. It isn't just a job, it is a vocation, a way of life and a committment - signing away many of your normal rights.

 

You can't compare the two if you are discussing how easy it is to leave one's job if you do not agree with decisions, but that is not where the issue lies. Regardless of whether the soldiers can or cannot escape their job or the particular task they are asked to do THAT particular task is where you decide on support. I cannot say I support such people because that HAS to mean in some way I support what they do, otherwise the term is meaningless. I mean what else are you trying to say?

 

Joining is a committment to your people and nation

 

But such a commitment is based on the fallacy that being part of the forces is fighting or serving the people or nation. It is nothing of the sort.

 

Understanding this difference between a shop worker and a soldier is one of the major reasons that Joe Public doesn't understand the honour, integrity and comradary that is experienced within the forces, and which makes life difficult for many soldiers after they leave.

 

I can recognise the distinctions between civil life in terms of work and that of joining and working in the military, but it would be wrong to posit them as starkly different. You enter the job for the same reason, you are paid wages, you need a job, and are subject to the same forms of unjustified authority and have little control over your work. Though in the case of the military man he has even less control than his civilians counterpart in general. I would say, however, that although I admire the bravery and find military history to be very interesting it does make me wonder why any person would wish to lose SO much control over the life for the sake of a job. In the most part, is it because they is little else on offer? Or does the idea of honour and integrity compensate for the lack of control? Though I don't see being part of the forces as necessarily affording honour or integrity. But maybe I don't understand why it others think it does.

 

It pisses me off today that all too many people are only too willing to forget what the forces have done for us on our behalf. Yet many continue to want to take away civil rights from people in this country, when millions have died fighting to protect those same civil rights from being taken by Nazi's, Fascists or communists. Many dead forces people would be turning in their graves today if they knew what was happening in this country (UK/IOM) - all of whom signed away their rights to decide, or had them taken away via conscription, when they joined. ID cards for example - simply not British - the stuff of Nazi's, Fascists and Communist Eastern Europe that we fought against.

 

We see things very similar in respect of personal liberties. Not only the forces in WW2 and during the Cold War (probably alone)(and I am not sure whether the Soviet Union would have invaded Western Europe if unprotected) but civilian workers as well have campaigned and fought very hard for protections from the damage that the state, other states, and capitalism can and have wreaked upon people. But you have governments of today that seem intent at removing our liberties on the basis of trying to combat terrorism and because the elites want greater control over the masses. But people are beginning to wake up, people are realising more and more than liberal democracy does not work, voting is ineffective and people are looking to other ways to combat the government.

 

Though I do have to say one thing, when you talk about freedoms that have been fought for you must recognise the governments during WW1 and WW2 denied their citizens their freedoms. In WW2 a fight was needed to avoid greater oppression by an even worse state than the British, but freedoms were completely denied for the sake of staving off a greater evil. This is understandable in terms of a liberal democratic point of view but it shows how the government effectively rules us and believes it should take away freedoms when it wants.

 

 

The forces do what they are told to do by the government of the day. If the forces were a democracy or weren't apolitical there would be chaos. You can't have it both ways.

 

Ideally I would like to see no military, but that means a world without nation states and capitalism, I think.

 

Once again, over the Iraq/Afghan situation, vent your anger at the current government, not the forces.

 

But how am I venting my anger at the soldier. When I say I do not support him I recognise his absolute powerlessness and existence as nothing but a tool in terms of his abilities to have control over his life. And I recognise him as the hand of the government and military institution. The soldier effects policy, but I am not angry at him. I could only be angry if he killed civilians or did something he knows to be wrong. He is human after all.

[Skeddan]

Joining is a committment to your people and nation

Why is joining the UK armed services 'a commitment to your people and nation' if you are Manx?

 

Should support be given to people from another country who serve in their country's armed services because of their 'commitment to their people and nation'? (e.g. US soldiers in Iraq).

 

What if a number of Manx people joined a US regiment and were serving in Iraq? Would sending cards and sweets to them be in recognition of their commitment and service to IoM? Wouldn't it be a far simpler personal matter rather than some lofty acknowledgement of gratitude for their military service?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Why is joining the UK armed services 'a commitment to your people and nation' if you are Manx?

 

I would support because in terms of the British armed forces, they are supposedly intended to be used to serve and protect British island and possessions. So if you have been indoctrinated as most have into recognising that all people on the British island and possessions have the same basic interests and commonalities then it would be easy to perceive oneself as serving all or most of these people from the point of joining the forces.

 

Should support be given to people from another country who serve in their country's armed services because of their 'commitment to their people and nation'? (e.g. US soldiers in Iraq).

 

I know what you are getting at, and it is really does highlight the problems with idea of support. No British person would refer to French soldiers in the same manner as they would a British soldier. The Covenant principle are applicable to the French army or a good deal of other nations armies. But do the British people support these soldiers on their campaigns? No, of course not. It is because of nationality, because people genuinely think that the soldiers serve their people and protect their people, and THEIR means the British people. In reality it simply isn't the case. And more bizarrely, if soldiers do not join to fight for King and Country then why do the people think they do?

[P.K.]

I don't really see how the Covenant relates to support. There is no distinction between servicing one's nation and fighting for the government no matter what war it wants to enter or start because the idea of servicing one's nation is meaningless. In reality the armed forces only serve the government and not the nation

Well it may be me but didn't the nation vote in the government thus making them ultimately responsible for the government's actions, especially when they deploy the military?

 

Also unless you have served the concepts of duty, loyalty and comradeship will be very difficult to understand. Sure you can be told about them but you can never understand just how much they can mean unless you have experienced them.

 

Also I agree with Albert @ 18:55 pm 14/11/2008 signed - P.K.