Generals Back Clegg Over Trident

What do Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham, General Sir Hugh Beach and Major-General Patrick Cordingley have in common? Well today they have all written to The Times backing the Liberal Democrats policy on not replacing Trident, that's what.

They say that the next government would threaten both front line Forces and global disarmament talks unless it considers different ways of spending the billions required to replace the fleet of submarines. They also express "deep concerns" that Trident has been omitted from the Strategic Defence Review scheduled for after the election. They argue that any review should look at the questions:

"Is the UK's security best served by going ahead with business as usual, reducing our nuclear arsenal, adjusting our nuclear posture or eliminating our nuclear weapons?"

The best defence the other side comes up with is this from Paul Beaver, a defence analyst:

"This is not a military programme. This is a national programme. It is about Britain’s place in the world. It is about our relationship with the United States most of all."

So there you have it folks Trident isn't military. If we do away with our nuclear Tridents America who is threatening countries gaining nuclear capability will no longer be our friend. I'm still trying to get my head round any logic in that statement, I've given up.

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank however adds weight to the Generals' case saying:

"Do we really need the kind of effective weapon we had in the Cold War? There is quite an argument to say we do not."

I seem to remember Nick Clegg using almost that form of words last Thursday.

Joyce Tells Gordon Get a Grip....On Defence

Eric Joyce has chosen the 70th Anniversary of the declaration of War on Hitler's Germany to resign as the parliamentary private secretary to Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth. In his

he tells the Prime Minster to get a grip. Not actually in those words but he concludes saying:

"I believe the next election is ours to win, thanks greatly to your personal great economic success. But we cannot win unless we grip defence. Above all, Labour must remember that service folk and their families are our people. We say that we honour them for their risk, bravery and sacrifice and we must at literally all costs continue to show by our actions that we mean it."

His letter is a strong rebuke on the war senior members of his own party are attacking senior military personnel while keeping those very experienced voices silent.

"Behind the hand attacks by any Labour figure on senior service personnel are now, to the public, indistinguishable from attacks on the services themselves. Conversely, in my view we should allow our service personnel greater latitude to voice their views on matters which make distinctions between defence and politics pointless."

No doubt the man who resigned his commission as a Major just 10 years ago has like that other former soldier 70 years ago kept his ear to the ground with his former colleagues. Like Churchill he is saying that something needs to be done, something that he feels cannot be done despite his experience from inside the MoD at the moment.

He also says that he does not think that "the public will accept for much longer that our losses can be justified by simply referring to the risk of greater terrorism on our streets." Going on to talk about the uncertainty about British forces continued deployment in Afghanistan.

However, he does note that a British withdrawal leaving the USA to fight on alone "would mean the end of NATO as a meaningful proposition" all the while acknowledging the proud tradition of British forces punching well above their weight.

It is an interesting time to go, although he said that the decision was made some weeks ago. The choice of today seventy years on from when Neville Chamberlain announced to the nation, "I have to tell you now that no such undertaking (withdrawal from Poland) has been received and consequently this country is now at war with Germany," can surely not have been overlooked by a military man.

Consequence? I think not. I mean the man is a mature* Sandhurst Graduate and was commissioned into the Royal Army Educational Corps.

Update: Subrosa has asked me to point on a couple of occasions in the comments to point out that Eric started as a private in the Black Watch at 18 before leaving to get a degree at 21, entering Sandhurst and becoming a mature 'cadet' at 27. As this does point out that he know live in the ranks, officers' mess and the difficulties being a mature officer cadet can bring, I have decided to add the detail, as it shows the mans possibly unique grasp of Army matters even further from the current green benches.

Eric Joyce's Resignation Letter

Hat tip to Channel 4 News

Gordon Brown MP
10 Downing Street
LONDON

3 September 2009

Gordon

As you may know, I told Bob Ainsworth some weeks ago that I intended to step down as Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to the Defence Secretary before the start of the new parliamentary term. This seems to me the least disruptive time to do that. I have been privileged to work as PPS to four senior Labour ministers in four government departments and now feel that I can make my best contribution to the Labour effort in parliament by concentrating on helping, as a regular back-bencher, to show that Labour remains sound on matters of Defence.

Labour was returned to power in 1997 on the back of your great success in turning the Economy from a weakness into a strength for Labour. Our continuing success in helping people from all parts of society become more prosperous, while helping the least well-off most, is built upon that. More quietly, during the 90's, Labour's then shadow defence team showed how Labour had become, after the disaster of the early 1980s, 'sound' on Defence. It seems to me that your personal success on the economy won the deal in 1997, while colleagues at Defence sealed it.

We are now, I think, once again at a critical time for Labour and Defence. The Conservatives, of course opportunistically, think they can convince the public that we have lost our empathy with the Defence community. We must not allow this to happen. I know that you have great commitment to our armed forces and this was clear when you visited Afghanistan this week, yet there seem to me to be some problems which need fixing with the greatest urgency.

As you know, two Black Watch soldiers gave their lives during your visit. I do not think the public will accept for much longer that our losses can be justified by simply referring to the risk of greater terrorism on our streets. Nor do I think we can continue with the present level of uncertainty about the future of our deployment in Afghanistan.

I think we must be much more direct about the reality that we do punch a long way above our weight, that many of our allies do far too little, and that leaving the field to the United States would mean the end of NATO as a meaningful proposition. The British people have a proud history of facing such realities. They understand the importance of the allied effort in Afghanistan/Pakistan and I think they would appreciate more direct approach by politicians. We also need to make it clear that our commitment in Afghanistan is high but time limited. It should be possible now to say that we will move off our present war-footing and reduce our forces there substantially during our next term in government.

We also need a greater geopolitical return from the United States for our efforts. For many, Britain fights; Germany pays, France calculates; Italy avoids. If the United States values each of these approaches equally, they will end up shouldering the burden by themselves. The first place to start is an acceptance this week by them, and by the Afghanistan electoral authorities, that there must be a second round in the elections there. I do not think the British people will support the physical risk to our servicemen and women unless they can be given confidence that Afghanistan's government has been properly elected and has a clear intent to deal with the corruption there which has continued unabated in recent years.

Most important of all, we must make it clear to every serviceman and woman, their families and the British public that we give their well-being the highest political priority. Behind the hand attacks by any Labour figure on senior service personnel are now, to the public, indistinguishable from attacks on the services themselves. Conversely, in my view we should allow our service personnel greater latitude to voice their views on matters which make distinctions between defence and politics pointless.

I believe the next election is ours to win, thanks greatly to your personal great economic success. But we cannot win unless we grip defence. Above all, Labour must remember that service folk and their families are our people. We say that we honour them for their risk, bravery and sacrifice and we must at literally all costs continue to show by our actions that we mean it.

I intend to do what modest amount I can to help from the back-benches.

Yours sincerely

Eric Joyce MP

****Breaking**** Eric Joyce Resigns as PPS to Defence Secretary

Former Army major and MP for Falkirk Eric Joyce has resigned as the parliamentary private secretary to the Defece Secretary, Bob Ainsworth. In his letter he is critical of the Government and particularly the Labour Parties handling of Afghanistan. His army career started in the Black Watch who have recently lost two of their number in Afghanistan.

More to follow.