Category Archives: Military

Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Military, National Security, Syria, United States

Arming the Syrian rebels is looking less likely…

SYRIAN REBELS

Downing Street has ditched plans to arm the Syrian rebels after the Prime Minister has been warned that there is little point sending weapons unless he is prepared for all-out war with the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

General Sir David Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff, along with other commanders believe that sending small arms or ground-to-air missiles will hardly be worth it, since it would it would make little difference to the outcome of the conflict. Military chiefs have also said that even options like a no-fly zone (NFZ) would require air attacks on Syrian defences that would last weeks or even months.

The assassination last week of Kamal Hamami, a top commander of the Syrian Free Army, by a hardline group linked to Al-Qaeda, has compounded anxieties over plans by Britain and other Western countries to give military help to rebels fighting the Assad regime. Those fears are aggravated by the possibility that weapons and expertise provided to the rebels could be turned against the UK and her allies by radical Islamists. There are also growing rivalries between the Syrian Free Army and Islamists, who have sometimes joined forces on the battlefield.

But senior ministers and Whitehall officials have revealed that the Coalition is drawing up plans to help train and advise ‘moderate’ elements of the opposition forces who continue to battle with Assad’s forces.

The British Prime Minister has been keen to act on Syria and demanded last month an end to the EU arms embargo on the country to give him options. The EU reluctantly relented, but sending weapons to the beleaguered rebels in Syria remains an option open to the prime minister if parliament was to approve, though that does seem a remote possibility at the present moment given the lack of support among Tory whips.

Following a meeting of the National Security Council, in which British military commanders were asked to present options on the conflict, the Government was told that although it might make them feel better (by sending weapons) it was hardly worth it in terms of altering the balance of forces on the ground. Whilst Syria is known to have good air defences, military chiefs have also said that engaging Syria militarily would mean weeks of bombing and air strikes. A decision to engage is one that couldn’t be undertaken half-heartedly.

But given the lack of organisation within the rebel movement, training and advising the rebels remain district possibilities for Britain. The UK is concentrating on areas where it feels it has the expertise to contribute. The supply of weapons into Syria is continuing to be made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

It is understood that military advisers could be stationed in Jordon to advise Syria rebel leaders on strategy and tactics. UK chiefs are wary of being accused of having British boots on the ground in Syria or by making any ground incursion into the country.

Ministers believe it could take 18 months of further conflict before Assad is forced to the negotiating table. The civil war has already claimed more than 100,000 lives with millions more displaced on the borders with neighbouring countries.

There is also frustration about the approach taken by US Secretary of State John Kerry in pushing regime figures to the negotiating table. There is little idea of the solution Mr Kerry is seeking. Knowing where you are trying to get to in order to get there should surely be central in any negotiations over Syria, but this underpinning remains distinctly absent even after almost three years of intense fighting.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Military

Ministry of Defence introduces the residency rule for recruitment into the Armed Forces…

RESIDENCY TEST THAT WILL HIT CITIZENS FROM COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

Soldiers from Commonwealth countries have been banned from joining Britain’s Armed Forces unless they have lived in the UK for five years.

The residency test, which came into force two days ago, will prevent overseas recruits joining immediately as they do now.

The Ministry of Defence reinstated the requirement, which was scrapped in 1998, as it attempts to reduce the size of the military by nearly 30,000 troops.

But the controversial move could lead to accusations of betrayal because Commonwealth troops have shed blood for Britain on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan – as well as in previous conflicts and two world wars.

In the past decade 24 Commonwealth soldiers have been killed in conflict. Dozens more have been wounded. If the rules had been in place when Sergeant Johnson Beharry arrived in Britain from the Caribbean island of Grenada in 1999, he would not have been permitted to join the Army in 2001.

And the soldier, who serves with the 1st Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, would not have been on the Iraq battlefield in 2004, when he won the Victoria Cross (VC) for twice saving comrades in ambushes.

Typically, 500 Commonwealth soldiers are among the 7,000 new recruits each year and the residency rule could leave the Forces perilously overstretched if they failed to recruit enough British soldiers.

Throughout the infantry, about one in ten soldiers is from outside Britain. Many join units that fail to recruit their full complement of soldiers at home.

Mark Francois, the Armed Forces Minister, said the new residency rule was unavoidable as the military coped with sweeping cuts. In a written ministerial statement he acknowledged the contribution of Commonwealth citizens serving in the British Armed Forces.

Mr Francois said:

… In order to deliver the future structure of the Armed Forces under the requirements of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, we are already reducing their size by adjusting our recruit intake and making some redundancies.

… We are confident that we will still be able to meet our recruitment targets.

The changes will not affect Gurkhas or those from the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta.

Labour’s shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, said:

… When rightly recruiting those from the UK, ministers must never undermine the many sacrifices and commitments made by those from the Commonwealth who have served on frontlines across the globe in the name of British national security.

… The country will want to know this is based on the best possible military advice and nothing else.

Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan, praised the long tradition of ‘sterling service’ that Commonwealth soldiers have provided in the Army.

Colonel Kemp said the Armed Forces had ‘depended heavily’ on Commonwealth troops to bring units up to strength and accused the MoD of using ineffective recruiting techniques.

But he also added:

… However, at a time when our Armed Forces are reducing to the lowest levels in more than a century, it is right that priority should be given to British citizens.

Standard
Britain, Defence, European Court, Government, Military, National Security

ECHR verdict for British troops on the battlefield…

BRITISH troops could be prevented from carrying out vital missions after an explosive human rights ruling.

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond MP, said military commanders will be ‘living in fear’ of being prosecuted.

Mr Hammond believes our forces risk being reduced to Continental-style peacekeeping roles – which see some countries refuse to let their personnel go out after dark – after judges in Strasbourg at the European Court decreed that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies on the battlefield.

The Defence Secretary is understood to be so furious at the Supreme Court ruling that he is considering demanding a revocation – and believes it strengthens the case for Britain quitting the ECHR. Mr Hammond said:

… We can’t have troop commanders living in fear of how lawyers back in London might interpret their battlefield decisions that are vital to protecting our national security.

… There could be serious implications for our ability to work with international partners not bound by the ECHR.

If the ECHR ruling applies to personnel on operations it is feared that commanders may be reluctant to make decisions in the field that will then be second-guessed by lawyers sitting behind a desk in London. Commanders will not want to be tied up by health and safety rules that prevent troops patrolling at night or only with certain items of equipment.

Families of some British soldiers killed or injured fighting in Iraq have been given the go-ahead to bring compensation claims against the Government.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court has ruled that cases of troops killed while driving Land Rovers could be brought under the ‘right to life’ enshrined in article two of the ECHR. This potentially outlaws future deployment of troops with outdated equipment.

It also ruled that families of soldiers killed by ‘friendly fire’ from Challenger tanks could sue for negligence.

The mother of Private Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, who died in July 2005 after a Snatch Land Rover was blown up, said it meant soldiers could no longer be treated as ‘sub-human with no rights.’

Conservative MP Dominic Raab, a lawyer, and who seeks reform of human rights law, said:

… The Supreme Court ruling will endanger our forces and undermine democratic accountability.

Colonel Richard Kemp, former head of British forces in Afghanistan, said:

… We cannot allow a constricting health and safety culture to creep in and prevent the vital job our soldiers do.

COMMENT 

Is it still a matter of great shame to Britain’s political class that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers were sent to fight and die without being properly equipped?

But, there is a dichotomy. While it is vital that ministers should be held to account, it’s impossible not to be alarmed by the Supreme Court’s ruling that soldiers in warzones should, for the first time, be given protection under the Human Rights Act.

Doubtless, the judges felt that giving soldiers and their families the right to sue the Ministry of Defence would focus the minds of the Government and Army on minimising risk.

On the face of it, it appears that they have failed to accord due weight to the fact that military commanders are regularly tasked with making instant life-or-death decisions. Any fear of future litigation which might cause them to hesitate for even a moment could have disastrous consequences.

What is more, if the Defence Budget is drained by fighting vexatious claims brought by city lawyers, there will inevitably be less to spend on equipment and training.

The great fear of Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is that the ruling could diminish Britain’s standing in the world, as our forces are reduced to that of a peacekeeping role. He understandably questions how we can continue to work side-by-side with our US allies, when they are not beholden to the same human rights edicts.

Standard