A duty of care to our Armed Forces
While we should applaud Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, for recognising the scandal of investigations into alleged human rights abuses by British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and promising in his interview with
yesterday to support suspects by paying their legal costs, it is shameful that this disgrace was allowed to carry on for so long. Nearly 1,500 cases have been investigated, in an appalling waste of public money and time: but, far worse, serving and retired soldiers have had to live under suspicion while this work takes its lumbering course.
We owe members of our Armed Forces a tremendous debt. Many of them, like many of us, disagreed with some of the wars they were asked to fight: but they unfailingly did their duty. To persecute them afterwards is to misunderstand how a serviceman functions in a war zone where his life is in constant danger.
I’m glad to see that Sir Michael – who enjoys mixed reviews among service chiefs and indeed among colleagues – regards these inquiries as a “witch hunt”. He is right, too, about a European human rights law designed to stop the reopening of Auschwitz and Belsen being used to attack men and women doing their duty in the forces of democratic and civilized countries. No one will excuse a rogue soldier who commits a blatant war crime; but we are not talking about rogues here.
The Services have long experience of, and have been particularly good at, dealing with men who go too far. We should not trespass on that. Just offering a cut-off point for prosecutions, as Sir Michael has done, is not enough: the Forces have their own well-established and highly professional legal services, and if a serviceman is under suspicion, they should investigate.
However, Sir Michael’s promise that a new British Bill of Rights will replace European human rights law (which pre-dates our EU membership) must be acted upon. For years there has been talk: it is now time for action, and the iniquity of the European law’s use in this case should be the final straw.
The Government needs to raise its game with veterans. Those who have languished under these accusations have seen how little the state supports and cares for them. Many others have simply failed to readjust to civilian life and, because the wars in which they fought are now an embarrassment, they, too, are treated with insuffucient respect. This has to stop: one day we may need our Armed Forces again to protect us against a real threat. With veterans treated so shamefully, why would anyone want to join the Armed Forces, putting his or her life in danger to defend a country that won’t reciprocate their sacrifice with loyalty?
Nor can, or should, the Government disregard the prospect that we may need to rely on the Services in the foreseeable future. Last week a 10page memo, written last April by General Sir Richard Barrons, ex-chief of the Joint Forces Command, was leaked. It warned the Defence Secretary that capabilities fundamental to each of our Armed Forces had been lost because of defence cuts. And he also identified, in my view correctly, the potential enemy. “Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort,” he said.
The investigations scandal is bound to have an impact on recruiting, and Sir Michael has only begun, by his promises, to alter that. He also needs to lobby against the Government’s warped spending priorities. The defence budget will rise by £5 billion by 2021. That isn’t enough. In the mid1980s, we routinely spent 5 per cent of GDP (some £40 billion at today’s prices) on defence: today we spend just over 2 per cent. The Cameron government, one of whose idiotic policies the cuts were, refused to take defence seriously. In her commendable desire to undo her predecessor’s toxic legacy, Mrs May should order a new defence review.
She has reappointed her Defence Secretary since he received Sir Richard Barrons’s memo. Sir Michael also landed his knighthood in the Cameron resignation honours list: in his case, not something of which to be proud. His colleagues thought him a lifelong eurosceptic. They were stunned when, during the referendum, he became a most ardent defender of Mr Cameron’s contemptible “renegotiation”, forever adorning the programme.
A man who will sell his principles thus is not someone necessarily to rely upon to safeguard the defence of the realm. Sir Michael has shown lately that he will do, first and foremost, what his ambition requires. We must hope he will deliver on his promises about the alleged abuse investigations, but more is required.
Sir Richard argued that the Navy and RAF had become too dependent on support from the Americans – and even Mr Cameron’s bosom buddy Barack Obama expressed concern about how Britain’s armed capability was being run down. We simply haven’t enough planes, or ships – and nothing like enough personnel – to fight a protracted conventional war.
Sir Michael boasted recently that he had sent a few hundred soldiers to Eastern Europe. This would be comical if it were not so tragic. Discussing the weakness of the RAF, a senior officer observed that the Russians would not even need to shoot down what few planes we have: they would just need to mount the inexpensive operation of murdering in their beds the handful of men trained to fly them.
What should terrify us all is if the day comes when a war happens that is not of our choosing. As things stand we would be easily overrun, as would most of our spineless or impoverished European partners. We can start to prepare for this now by finding more money for the Services – and by rebuilding morale among service personnel and veterans to the point where good people want to join the Forces again. We have a long way to go.