what Is An Ally?

On Friday the soldier killed in Afghanistan belonged to the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment.  Another was killed by an IED yesterday.  He was a member of the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment and his death increases the number killed in this unwinnable war to 352.

We lost 106 soldiers during the four years they fought the Taliban in Sangin, Helmand province, yet the governor of the province was pleased to tell the US that the British strategy in the province is flawed.  General Dan McNeill (US Army) was said to be 'particularly dismayed by the British effort' and was also highly critical of a ceasefire agreement the British made with local Taliban leaders that allowed British troops to leave the Helmand town of Musa Qala in 2006. "They have made a mess of things in Helmand, their tactics were wrong and the deal that London cut on Musa Qala had failed," he's reported to have said. (The Taliban reclaimed the area within months).

US Marines took over Sangin three months ago.  So far 27 have died and more than 140 have been injured - far worse casualties than those suffered by any British forces in such a short time.  British forces had strung out a series of small patrol bases along route 611 - known as Pharmacy Road - but the Americans closed half of them to 'free up forces to manoeuvre against the enemy'.

US troops on the ground are realising the British weren't inadequate:

"The British shed a lot of blood here," says captain Matthew Peterson, commanding officer of Lima Company. "They sacrificed a lot of men holding on to Sangin. Let's not forget that the British started what we are doing . . . We are building on [that]."

Some soldiers say that despite the British losses, they were unprepared for the intensity of the violence.

"It all just happened so fast," Buckholz says. "We knew Sangin would be tough but we didn't realise how fast it would happen. As soon as we got here it was, like, bam. There was no time to ease into it. People started dying immediately." (source)

Now the US has made a peace deal of their own.  They are cautiously optimistic although ISAF has been careful not to overstate the outcome of this latest deal which some analysts worry will have little more than a localised impact.

There's nothing more demoralising than an ally criticising your best efforts and saying  they're not good enough.  I never heard Liam Fox defend our troops when the avalanche of negativity rained down on them last year. 

The Strategic Defence and Security Review seeks to lay off 17,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen within five years.  The first of their allowances cuts, which it is said amounts to a drop in annual income of £1,400 for every service person, will be made in April and then phased in over the next two years.  Some payments, such as the commitment bonus for long service, have been cut by as much as half, the MoD has revealed.

HM Forces will be reduced by 17,000 within five years and possibly earlier.  There are many within the three services who know they can command much higher salaries in the business world and to see their colleagues humiliated by the US without any redress from their own government, plus losing income, will break the invisible bonds of loyalty our forces give to the country.  The best will leave once their current service agreements conclude.  We'll be left with a much weaker military.  That will suit the unelected manipulators in the EU perfectly.

Is the US our ally?  I certainly have reservations.

Tweet

Fancy a Wee Bit Extra Cash?

Fancy a wee bit extra cash? You must do or you wouldn't be reading this.

It's rather easy really - join the military, spend six months out in the ravages of Afghanistan fighting for your life everyday and you too will receive £2,400 if you manage home alive.

David Cameron promises to increase this 'bonus' to £4,800 if he is elected as Prime Minister.

A generous gesture some may say and I'm sure it will be welcomed in military circles but wouldn't it be more appropriate if our troops' salaries were increased? As David Cameron states: "The pay they get for what they do is relatively low. We want to do more to make sure our forces have a better deal."

Another quote given by him during his recent tour of Helmand:

''I think it is very important not to send mixed messages. Instead let's say we're here to train up the Afghan National Army and Police and as soon as the job is done we can bring our troops home. But don't let's set artificial timetables.''

What does he mean by 'let's say'? Has a little touch of propaganda about it don't you think? One remark does have a ring of truth about it and that is we must not set artificial timetables. We must not give hope to families that their loved ones will be home on a specific date then follow that with multiple delays. They have enough stress in their lives these days.

Yesterday morning I was delighted to read this. Well done Mr Cameron - a master stroke. If I lived in Beckenham I'd be voting for Col. Bob without hesitation.

Tweet

The Great and the Good Are At It Again

They are at it again, those verbose MPs along with their pals in the House of Lords.

Patrick McCormack (pictured) says that MPs' salaries should be doubled - from £64,766 to more than £130,000- in return for scrapping their controversial second homes allowances.

Douglas Hogg, that bad mannered, arrogant Tory, also called for MPs to be given six figure salaries with "appropriate expenses." He said their pay had fallen so "in absolute and relative terms" that it was insufficient to support the lifestyle "to which most professional and business classes aspire."

These men are serious in their comments. They honestly consider themselves worth such sums of money. They go to the 'office' a maximum of 165 days a year, they are presently receiving salaries which take them into the top 10% in the country and they have one of the best pension schemes in the country too. Yet they consider they are presently underpaid.

They can't even agree a reasonable expenses system for themselves so what hope do we have of them taking sensible decisions concerning matters of national interest.

There is never a shortage of candidates for the job so I suggest, if they don't feel well paid, they move onto other work outside the Westminster bubble.

In the meantime why don't we insist that MPs salaries are in line with military officers. New MPs could start on OFT level 1 paying an annual sum of £31,188.36p which increases by annual increments. Now surely there's nothing fairer than that. After all, isn't it our MPs who set the salaries of the military? Iain Dale has results of a poll he undertook on MPs' pay. Surprising results it shows but I am sure it is not in line with general public opinion.

If we had a more sensible salary scale then we may attract more dedicated people into politics. The nonsense spoken about the present salary not being enough to attract people of 'quality' is just that - nonsense.

As for Scotland, we have 59 MPs and 129 MSPs plus our MEPs and hundreds of councillors. We must be the most over-represented country in Europe. Time to think how we would structure our political representation for an independent Scotland.

Tweet