The BBC does it again

This from a friend of mine in the military: 

"I thought this article might be worth some comment? The alternate headline could be "Soldier doesn't like being punished - shock!" It drives me mad when the BBC write articles like this which surreptitiously undermine the Army.
 
The whole reporting of this case has been typical media misrepresentation of the Army's way of doing things. The term "beasting" is used to describe any hard physical effort, i.e. "That run was a beast," or "I'm getting beasted with paperwork", not just punishment. Physical punishment is actually used only rarely, and normally only when serious misdemeanours occur. For example, one of our companies had a week of getting thrashed because they kept getting into fights in town. And even then, we have to have a Physical Training Instructor present and write a risk assessment on the activity.
 
Physical punishment works on two levels - it's undoubtedly unpleasant (in training, I can remember being made to run up and down a hill with my rifle above my head) and as such is an excellent deterrent against re-offending, over with quickly, with minimal paperwork. It also, however, has the effect of taking the soldier out of his comfort zone and forcing him to keep going (another example - on an 8 mile march at Brecon, I was at the point where blackness was encroaching on my vision and my legs turned to rubber, but still had to finish). They don't appreciate it at the time, or even realise it later, but enduring such things undeniably makes them mentally stronger in the long run. In Afghanistan, we had to do a 500m fighting withdrawal under fire - up hill. That was a "beast", and at the end of it I was bloody glad I'd pushed my platoon so physically hard in training.
 
There's a political dimension too. Throughout their reporting of this unfortunate event, one can sense the genteel liberal shudder at the concept of the whole thing. The Army's ethos is totally at odds with the BBC's left-wing agenda. Ulimately, in the infantry we are training our soldiers to close with and destroy the enemy, under fire from RPGs and machine guns, whilst wearing 30kg of kit, in heat of up to 50 degrees C. It's vital that our training reflects the physical stress that such action puts on the soldier. If a soldier cocks up and gives us an excuse to up the training ante for a brief period, then that's all the better."

Thank God we have men and women in our armed forces who are willing to put their lives on the line to keep us safe. If only the BBC didn't spend so much time doing the work of our enemies for them. 

GITMO: Am I Bovvered?

The BBC spent the first 20 minutes of PM on Radio 4 tonight focusing on the leaked video of the teenage detainee being questionned at Guantanamo Bay. Needless to say the discussion was biased. There was no pro-war contributor.

We're supposed to be outraged. But frankly my dears, I couldn't give a damn. I'd have just dealt with him on the battlefield in Afghanistan, rather than wasting fuel transporting him to Cuba and food on feeding him for the past few years. Tap. Tap. Case closed. Welcome to war.

Whither courage?

To coincide with his accession to the job he has coveted for decades, Gordon Brown published a book about courageous statesmen - a laughable piece of hubris given his subsequent weaknesses and vacillations since wimping out of calling an election.

Now we learn that any pretence at courage has been replaced by a Chamberlainesque move towards appeasement of the Taliban. In a move that will only anger the White House - and which will do little to bring a lasting peace to Afghanistan - Brown has announced he intends to enter talks with the Taliban. If them, why not Al Qaeda, Gordon? And if talks are such a good idea, why have we sacrificed so many lives to defend freedom and to promote human rights and democracy for Afghan citizens who lived under the brutal Islamofascist tyranny of the Taliban?

This government has shown it does not understand or value our armed forces. Brown has also shown that he does not have the stomach for the fight. The half-hearted effort at funding our armed forces, coupled with lukewarm support by the Prime Minister and our part-time Defence Secretary, shows that Brown does indeed exhibit the character of a British wartime leader - not Churchill, however. Chamberlain.

Brown is a coward: but then that's surely no surprise to any of us, is it?

My Two Cents...on Gen Sir Mike Jackson

General Sir Mike Jackson commanded British forces in Iraq in 2003. He is publishing his autobiography and in it he has launched a fierce attack on the Bush administration in general – and Donald Rumsfeld in particular – for what happened after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

General Jackson’s attacks are throroughly unhelpful – just as the attacks on British forces in Basra by the Bush administration last week were unhelpful. The news that Gordon Brown and George Bush haven’t spoken to each other for five weeks when Blair and Bush used to chat most days is equally concerning. The Anglo-American Special Relationship is coming under unnecessary strain.

Jackson may well be right that the US didn’t send enough troops into Iraq in 2003. De-Baathification of the Iraqi army was, in hindsight, not wise. Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion, if true, that America doesn’t do nation building was crass.

But General Jackson is irresponsible to be making these comments at this particular time. He of all people must surely understand that his remarks are undermining the efforts and morale of troops still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is essentially doing the bidding of our enemies by assisting the anti-war obsessives at home, the enemy within.

If General Jackson has criticisms he should make them in private, as he no doubt has done hitherto. Likewise American commanders worried about a British redeployment from Iraq to Afghanistan should make those criticisms in private too. Washing our dirty laundry in public gives succour to our opponents. A little self-restraint, even from publicity hungry ex-generals keen to sell their autobiographies, would not go amiss.