Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Defence, Government, Military, NATO, United States

British maritime surveillance of Russian submarines is weak

DEFENCE

smolensk

Danger: Smolensk nuclear powered submarine

BRITAIN is struggling to keep track of the growing number of Russian submarines in its waters.

The Russian president Vladimir Putin is increasingly using his fleet to hide off the coast to test the weaknesses of the Royal Navy.

The Navy has been forced to rely on NATO patrols since it scrapped its submarine-tracking aircraft in 2010, with replacements not due for at least two more years – a so-called security gap in Britain’s military power.

Figures on hostile incursions in British waters are kept secret, but of ten known incidents between 2005 and 2015, eight were in the past three years. In June, a Russian submarine was intercepted as it cruised towards the English Channel, while in October others were detected in the Irish Sea.

A defence analyst at the respected Henry Jackson Society, a security think tank, said: ‘Sadly, because of certain cuts, we don’t have the capacity to monitor Russian activity constantly. There is a security gap and doubtless the Russians are testing our reflexes and responses… We are now reliant until at least 2019 on our NATO allies to help us with the patrolling.’

Britain has not had its own submarine tracking aircraft since the Ministry of Defence scrapped its Nimrod maritime reconnaissance spy planes in 2010.

In November, last year, Downing Street announced the purchase of a fleet of Boeing P-8 Poseidon aircraft, but they are not expected to enter service until 2020. The UK has diminished its conventional war-fighting capabilities as it has faced the challenges of cyber warfare and terrorism. Intelligence initially suggested there would be no threat, but it has since transpired that there is a threat and from a rather traditional source. It will take time, once again, in building up our military capabilities.

At least twice in the past year a Russian submarine has been suspected of attempting to track one of Britain’s Clyde-based Vanguard-class submarines carrying Trident nuclear missiles in order to obtain the ‘acoustic signature’ it emits as it moves. Once this is obtained it can then be deduced where they are and tracked.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: ‘The Royal Navy maintains a vigilant watch in international and territorial waters and is always ready to keep Britain safe from potential threats. We do not comment on operational detail, for obvious security reasons.’

Dr Julian Lewis, the Tory Chairman of the Commons defence committee, said: ‘We should look on Russia as an adversary but not an enemy. By showing Russia that we are strong, we can ensure it decides it is not worth its while becoming our enemy.’

OPINION

Since the Berlin Wall fell, Europe’s leaders have wound down their armed forces, apparently thinking the world has changed so much that a major war is no longer possible. If only this were true.

Indeed, as Russia’s Vladimir Putin experiments with cyber warfare, flexing his military muscles in Syria and the Baltic – and daily probes the Royal Navy’s defences and our air defences – the threat of attack remains ever with us.

Donald Trump has sent a strong message that we can no longer rely on America to go on bearing its disproportionate share of defending Europe through NATO. Mr Trump wants other NATO countries to be contributing far more. Just five countries in the alliance meet the minimum 2% of GDP on defence spending.

Add the terrorist threat and there could surely be no more insane moment to countenance a real-terms cut in our defence spending.

Yet this is happening, as the weaker pound and creative accounting at the MoD threaten to reduce our frontline capability.

We drop our guard at our mortal peril.

Standard
Arts, Books, Britain, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Politics, Syria, Terrorism, United States

Book Review – Black Flag Down: Counter-Extremism & Defeating ISIS

BOOK REVIEW

Intro: In his new book Liam Byrne MP argues that the British government is making critical mistakes in its methods of combating home-grown extremism. Defeating Islamic State will probably mean taking on the digital caliphate.

THE WORLD was caught by surprise in June 2014 when the infamous terrorist group Islamic State (IS) declared a caliphate in the heart of the Middle East. Within the space of just a few short months, like a rapidly spreading avenging fire, it had scorched across Syria and much of Iraq. In so doing, the group carved out an empire stretching more than 400 miles from Aleppo to the Iraqi town of Sulaiman Bek, a town just 60 miles from the Iranian border.

IS, also known as Isis, or Da’esh, seemed unstoppable at first, but it has now been pushed back, possibly decisively. Since the group inaugurated, it has lost an estimated 45,000 jihadists, as well as a slew of key towns and resources it previously controlled. Its most direct enemies – Kurds, Iraqi troops and Shia militias – are largely contained in Iraq’s second city, Mosul, and are advancing on the group’s de facto Syrian capital, Raqqa.

In this timely book, the Labour MP Liam Byrne, points out that the fight against Isis and its brutal ideology has many fronts. Isis is obsessed with controlling territory, as well as having higher aspirations by creating a global caliphate. For many years, though, the group existed without any territory. With its war on the world going badly, its digital caliphate is becoming ever more important.

Byrne offers up a wide-ranging and discursive study. In his book, he elicits and concentrates on what is arguably the most significant fight of all: the ‘battle of ideas’. Whilst his journey has taken him to northern Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, his most interesting discoveries are found and reported upon within in his own parliamentary constituency of Birmingham Hodge Hill. Here, Muslims boast the highest share of the population of any area in the UK.

Byrne is assertive that Isis and other jihadi groups such as Boko Haram and al-Qaeda are fundamentally heretical by nature. Essentially, he says, they are death cults, with as much relevance to most Muslims as David Koresh has had on mainstream Christianity. Ironically, however, Isis claims to espouse the purest form of Islam, the creed and doctrine pursued in the 7th century by the Prophet Muhammad. It believes that it has the power to repudiate and excommunicate apostates, an act known as takfir. But as the world has come to witness, this has metastasised into exterminations and genocide, as Christians, Kurds, Yazidis, and Muslims in the Middle East can attest.

In the immediate aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the group, notoriously known to the world as al-Qaeda, morphed with Saddam Hussein’s avowedly secular Ba’ath Party. What emerged was something yet even more ferocious as the terrorist group had a firm apparatus in which to operate from.

The objective of Isis was to trigger conflict between Iraq’s Shia majority, which came to power after the invasion, and the Sunni minority, which hitherto had the reins of power. The group’s global aim was to foment division between Muslims and everyone else.

Mr Byrne is of the firm believe that the British government is making a critical mistake in its methods of combating home-grown radicalism and extremism. He says its doctrine is symptomatic of a ‘clash of civilisations’ which makes Islam the problem. Counter-extremism programmes which operate in the UK such as Prevent are based on a ‘conveyer belt’ theory that specifically highlights religious conservatism as the trigger for radicalisation. But the author, citing security and academic sources, argues that anger and resentment, often engendered by a sense of marginalisation, are more powerful factors.

We should – at the very least – recognise the true nature of the extremist threat we face. The U.S. president-elect’s declared solution to dealing with Isis including heavy bombing and barring all Muslims from entering his country are, though, the very antithesis of proper reason and rationality which seems to be in such short supply these days. For clear insight, we could do worse than reach for Liam Byrne’s excellent and revealing narrative.

–     Black Flag Down: Counter-Extremism, Defeating Isis and Winning the Battle of Ideas by Liam Byrne is published by Biteback at £12.99

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Legal, Military

The Iraq Historic Allegations Team and exploitative abuse

IHAT

ihat

Around 1,500 cases of mistreatment are being investigated by the publicly-funded Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT)

Intro: IHAT’s investigations has not led to a shred of evidence of systematic abuse

RECENT media and press coverage has laid bare the iniquitous practice of British soldiers being persecuted by their own country for doing their job. That is also the uncomfortable conclusion being drawn by critics of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT). Revelations stemming over a range of apparent abuses and mistakes made has led to a sense of betrayal that has markedly worsened.

Legal activism is being fuelled by a litany of inquiries. These should be ended by the Government who must be assumed to have a duty of care to those soldiers who have served the nation. Frivolous and vexatious claims being pursued by ambulance chasing lawyers to the point of it becoming so routine, often at huge expense to the legal aid bill, should stop.

The scale of payments made by IHAT to Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), a legal firm that lodged more than 2,400 criminal complaints against British troops, has been staggering. PIL shut down over the summer after its legal aid was withdrawn, and in the last few days the firm’s founder, Phil Shiner, conceded to a legal disciplinary hearing that he ‘must be’ struck off after he admitted acting ‘recklessly and without integrity’.

Among IHAT’s expenses, drawing on funds supplied by the Ministry of Defence, some £1.4 million was paid in travel and hotel costs for Iraqi civilians, PIL staff and IHAT investigators travelling to Turkey and Lebanon. A sole Iraqi agent, who worked as a tout for PIL, received more than £110,000 for three years’ work – as well as receiving separate money to cover hotel and travel costs in and out of Iraq. And PIL’s paralegals were paid up to £75 per hour to sit with Iraqi civilians during interviews. A dozen payments, totally nearly £210,000, were even made to the disgraced legal firm after the MoD had reported the organisation to the legal watchdog.

We must look at how this strange situation has arisen. IHAT was set up ostensibly to avoid the British Armed Forces being investigated by the International Criminal Court. PIL sought redress on a mountain of cases, and, it is presumed, payments from IHAT to PIL were made for the alleged abuses to be investigated as fully as possible.

What other police operation in the world behaves in such a way, one in which the alleged victims of abuse and their lawyers are paid to give evidence? IHAT’s independence clearly looks to have been compromised.

While it is surely right that the Government should end many of these insatiable inquiries that has led to legal activism, it must also be right that where individual soldiers have committed crimes that any charges are investigated and the guilty are brought to justice.

IHAT’s investigations has not led to a shred of evidence of systematic abuse. That has not been the case. The abuse being raised by its growing number of critics is the team’s largesse and its deliberate and provocative hounding of veterans.

 

Appendage:

Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT)

. What is it?

The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) was set up by the Labour government in 2010 to examine allegations of abuse, including murder and torture, made by hundreds of Iraqi civilians by British armed forces

. How many cases have they examined?

The investigative team, led by a team of retired police officers, has looked at 1,490 cases of abuse, the vast majority brought to the unit’s attention by Public Interest Lawyers, which closed down in the summer after being stripped of legal aid funding over alleged irregularities in connection with a number of Iraqi claims.

. What offences have been alleged?

They range from alleged murder to low-level violence from the start of the military campaign in Iraq, March 2003, through to the major combat operations of April 2003 and the following years spent maintaining security and mentoring and training Iraqi security forces.

. Why has IHAT been criticised?

It has been accused of “betraying” British veterans after revelations that three servicemen, including a decorated major, could become the first troops to be prosecuted over the death of an Iraqi teenager 13 years ago. The decision to consider charges comes despite a 2006 military investigation that cleared the three men of wrongdoing.

. How have veterans responded?

Hilary Meredith, the lawyer acting for the major, who has not been identified, condemned the recommendation to prosecute her client. She said he was awarded two medals for bravery and is now suffering mental and physical health problems.

. How much has the inquiry cost?

Red Snapper Recruitment is paid nearly £5million a year by the Ministry of Defence to provide staff, including ex-police officers, to the inquiry. The agency is owned by husband and wife Martin and Helen Jerrold; company accounts show the couple were paid a dividend of £318,539 in in the 12 months to May 31, 2014 in the year after the contract was awarded. The firm’s profits have also risen – from 181,980 in May 2013 to £1.1million in May last year.

Standard