Welcoming Home the Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 21 September 2007
General Dannatt has suggested that "Welcoming Home Parades" should be arranged for the troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.
I wonder what good this will achieve though I can see why from the Army perspective it would be morale boosting.
The War in Iraq has been consistently unpopular with the the general public in UK, and the Peace-making efforts in Afghanistan seem to be widely misunderstood as far as our commitment there is widely considered at all. This I blame on the Political nature of both involvements. If the Afghan situation were explained by Government Ministers and this amounted to News which the Media were interested in [which it seems is not the case] then I believe that the efforts of our troops would be understood and applauded, but in Iraq, I believe the Army finds itsself in much more difficult situation as no amount of explanation is going to popularise that Invasion and the subsequent slid into catastrophe.
This is a a very difficult one and the gulf between the civilian population and the military, the General speaks of, can only be widened for the very fact that the Invasion seems to have been a cause largely forced on the Army and country by Mr Blair, following [for reasons not explained] Mr Bush's policy in the US. Mr Bush's motives seem to have been examined, and appear as much commercial as in any way humanitarian, and why Mr Blair found them so compelling remains a mystery to many in the UK, I am sure.
I wonder what other members here feel should be the approach to this. If we had a conscripted Army, and not a voluntary one, I think the situation would be less serious. But the fact is this could have a serious implication for future recruitment...
Sincerely, George
Posted on: 21 September 2007 by Roy T
The armed forces are used as elected politicians see fit so please do not confuse the two and tar the fighting forces with the same brush as those who decide upon the fate of others from the safety of green or red benches in the House or the Other Place. It is quite OK to be at the same time proud of the fighting forces but hold those who direct them in complete and utter contempt - vote those you detest out of power and praise those who fight in your name.
Posted on: 21 September 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Roy,
I am not tarring anyone with anything. You make my point doubly as you have seen a confused linkage that is so wrongly seen by so many [but not me] in the general public between the politics and the actual military action, without once considering the fact that I applaud the Army's grand efforts in what is in the case of Iraq, an entirely impossible mission!
Where I suspect that the proposed parades could do is immense damage is if they occur without a genuinely welcoming public attending them. Unless the linkage you seem to think I have confusedly made, but have not, is removed more generally, I can see the general public staying away in droves. That is the point I am trying to make.
I thoroughly applaud the military efforts even if I think in Iraq it would always be impossible to achieve success.
The situation in Afghanistan is different and if explained would be seen as a just as valuable as the efforts in the former Yugoslavia a few years ago...
The tropps returning from both arenas should be equally warmly welcomed home. I fear this is unlikely. The reason for this Thread would be for people to express views on whether a series of home-coming parades would be a good or bad idea, unless it is really explained in the News Media, what we are applauding: The actual efforts, or the reasons why these efforst were made. Two entirely different questions, which somehow I doubt will be addressed separately. The Army cannot really question their Political Masters, and their Political Masters are hardly going to want the question examined more than can be avoided by them, as I think would be healthy!
ATB from George
Posted on: 21 September 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Interesting point, George.
I know some guys that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are taking a real pounding. I'll dig out some blog stuff and post it when I remember.
The troops in theatre are working under particularly arduous conditions with temperatures up to 45 degrees and the constant threat of death or horribly maiming injury. There was recently a thread about how hard ten minutes of paitballing was. The guys on operations wear Osprey body armour weighing 22 lbs, the SA80 weighs 14 lbs ( before ammunition and the bayonet ), combat helmet weighs about 6lbs; two litres of water about 5 lbs so nearly 50lbs before radio and electronic counter measures kit, ammunition for the machine guns...
The welcome should not be for conquering heroes but to recognise young men who have put themselves in harms way because that is what HMG have told them to do.
M
Posted on: 21 September 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mike,
I entirely agree, but somehow the unpopularity of these actions is quite likely to mean the actual welcome will be all too muted I suspect. Without a big excercise in informing the public I fear the resulting wolcome will both be without gratitude, and worngly so...
ATB from George
Posted on: 22 September 2007 by BigH47
I feel sorry for our troops regardless of the rights and wrongs of the postings,they have a job to do. They like the US troops returning will take the brunt of discontent,when it's the politicians who made those decisions.
Howard
Posted on: 22 September 2007 by manicatel
I think its a bit hypocritical of the senior ranks to ask the country to welcome the boys back, & treat them well, when the care they give the soldiers is often criticized.
I work for BA as air crew, & have just flown back from Kuwait. On board, we had several army types, coming back home. There was one guy in particular that had been a bomb victim, & his arm was in a heavy cast. He asked if he could have a seat which gave him extra room to rest his arm. The Army would only pay for a regular World Traveller seat for him, (obviously, very little elbow room). Luckily, we had spare seats in other cabins, so I could get him into a bigger seat, with the adjacent seat spare.
The army could have paid for him to upgrade to "Traveller Plus" for only about £200, but refused to pay. Not a great "duty of care", I think.
Matt.
Posted on: 22 September 2007 by Mr Underhill
Manicatel,
That smacks to me more of civil service bureaucracy than army care. While I'm sure specific examples of poor care can be cited the general impression I have received is one of support - against a background of changing political values.
I must say that I was disgusted by the burghers of Ashtead who were fighting against the siting a house for recuperating forces personnel in their locale, perhaps the politicians are more in tune with the 'great' British public than I would like to think.
M
Posted on: 22 September 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Manicatel
Can you give more detail of this? I know some Interested Parties and might be able to take this further.
Alternatively you might like to post details
on the Army Rumour Service which is read by some Very senior people
I agree itsts more likely to be MoD Bureaucrats, rather than the Army per se.
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 22 September 2007 by manicatel
Mike,
I've told you pretty much all I know.
Basically, he came on board the plane with a very heavily bandaged/protected left arm, & asked me if there was any way he could get a seat with room to rest his damaged arm on. He said they wouldn't pay for a bigger seat. He was originally sitting in a centre block seat, & would have people sitting either side of him. He was on some pretty strong painkillers.
As I said, I decided to "upgrade him" to "Traveller Plus", & ensured the seat next to him would remain vacant, so he could rest his arm on a few spare pillows & catch some sleep. I spoke to him later in the flight, & suggested that this was the sort of seat he should have been in anyway, bearing in mind his condition.He scoffed at the idea that 'those who pay' would consider spending the extra to allow him to travel in anything other than the cheapest cabin.
For discretions sake,I think personal details should be kept private, I'm sure you would agree.
To be fair, I'm unaware of who actually pays for these tickets. It may well be the civil service/bureaucrats.
I'm not suggesting that everyone should fly in 1st class,(wouldn't that be great?), but there may be room for improvement.
Matt.
