# Wales to be venue for huge Military Exercise



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 9, 2008)

PRESS RELEASE 

News of a massive military exercise in Wales appears to be the thin edge of 
the wedge according to Plaid Cymru Councillor Nic Hodges. 

Cllr Hodges leader of the Plaid Cymru group at the Vale of Glamorgan Council 
said 
"I see once again our coast and air space is being used for a > multi-national 
military playground for "war games" on a greater level than ever before." 

"A two-week exercise code named "Joint Warrior" will see the whole of > Wales including large sections of our coast and air space used as a playground for the forces. With the leaked plans to build the privately funded Military Academy at St Athan on the cards I fear Wales will become an all year round military playground. I continue to be concerned that there are still no answers on the question of cost and possible job creation at St Athan. I 
 have no doubt I will once again be attacked for asking these questions by 
 Labour MP's and aspiring Tories. " 

"I want to see promises from the Ministery of Defence that if the 
 privately funded training academy at St Athan goes ahead it will not be  used to train soldiers from some of the unsavory regimes in the world. I've 
raised these concerns with Chris Franks my Assembly Member and have urged 
him to take these forward."


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 9, 2008)

*Wtf?*

Sep 28 2008 by Robin Turner, Wales On Sunday 

FIGHTER jets, infantry troops, destroyers and submarines will converge on Wales next month for one of the largest military exercises of all time.

The two-week exercise – codenamed Joint Warrior – is designed to recreate a scenario in which Britain and other sovereign nations go to war against a “state-sponsored terrorist movement” – using a vast array of lethal modern weapons.

Taking place between October 6 and October 16, it will provide coordinated training for all three UK Armed Services, plus forces from EIGHT allied nations.

The whole of Wales has been designated as a flying area for the exercise, while so-called “managed danger area” ranges at Castlemartin and Manorbier in Pembrokeshire and Pembrey near Llanelli will be used for ground strafing, bombing and missile practice using live ammunition.

An area of the West Wales coast has also been earmarked as a maritime “warfighting” area for Joint Warrior.

The exercise is aimed at giving pilots, ships’ crews and ground troops vital training before they deploy to war zones like Iraq or Afghanistan.

According to the RAF, Joint Warrior will be particularly useful for Forward Air Controllers (troops directing airborne missile strikes), the role made famous by Prince Harry who became known by his call sign Widow Six Seven while directing fire against the Taliban.

Six companies of infantry, 29 surface and four sub-surface maritime units and 60 aircraft – flying at a rate of about 80 to 100 sorties a day – will be involved in the exercise.

An MoD spokesman said: “The two weeks will develop through a period of tension into simulated warfighting/open hostilities.”

The exercise aims to provide opportunities for all warfighting disciplines including:

nClose Air Support (CAS) – executed by fast jet aircraft and Forward Air Controllers, often using live weapons;

nConvoy Support, Time Sensitive Targeting (TST) and urban close air support scenarios – “in order to replicate current Middle-East operational missions”;

nLarge Force Element (LFE) missions – which will target fixed and mobile targets including inflatable Scud Decoys and Electronic Warfare (EW) emitters simulating surface-to-air threats;

nAnti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Anti-Surface Warfare (AsuW) and also, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions – all carried out by Maritime Patrol Aircraft;

nJoint fires – involving live weapons on ranges in Welsh Wales;

nSubmarine training – boats will complete sub-vs-sub and sub-vs-ship exercises.

The MoD spokesman said: “The exercise will accommodate a squadron of Tornado GR4s from 12 Sqn, RAF Lossiemouth and a squadron of Gripen aircraft from 171 Sqn, Swedish Air Force plus asso-ciated support personnel drawn from support units throughout the RAF.

“This is a particularly important exercise for the Tornado GR4 deployment as this will also act as a full mission rehearsal for their forthcoming deployment to Afghanistan.”

But Squadron Leader Peter Sinclair of the RAF in Wales moved to allay fears about the impact on people – and the environment.

He said: “Some of the exercise areas overlap environmentally-sensitive conservation zones, which contain a wide variety of marine wildlife, sea bird breeding grounds and protected fauna and flora.

“Furthermore, the farming, fishing and tourist industries are important economic activities, which benefit from the natural beauty and relative isolation of some of the exercise areas. Against this background, the MoD recognises the impact of military activity and takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously.

“During the planning of the exercise, Environmental Impact Assessments are conducted for all potentially damaging activities, such as the use of active sonar and live weapons. Furthermore, close working relationships with landowners and key national stakeholders, combined with engagement with local communities, ensure that appropriate environmental mitigation procedures are put in place and then adhered to.

“It should be noted that the MoD has decreed that environmental considerations are always to take priority over the achievement of training objectives. This direction remains a primary consideration throughout exercise planning and execution.”

The director of the exercise, Capt Paddy McAlpine OBE said: “Joint Warrior will offer high-quality joint tactical training with maximum tactical interaction, tailored to meet the participants’ requirements across the whole of the UK whilst creating as little impact on the environment as possible.

“I am sure that the high-fidelity joint tactical training environment provided by JTEPS within Joint Warrior will ensure that UK and allied participants are rigorously prepared for operational tasks in theatres world-wide.”


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 9, 2008)

Our take on things


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 11, 2008)

I haven't heard anything about this in the news. This hasn't been covered in the BBC or anything. Or discussed in the Assembly. This is ridiculous, why are they using Wales as a playground for their murderous fantasies?


----------



## 1927 (Oct 11, 2008)

Would people prefer that we had no armed forces and therefore no defence against anybody who would wage war against us?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 11, 2008)

1927, will you tell us who is waging war against Britain at present?
I'm not a pacifist either.

Simple fact: At a time when British armed forces are involved in occupying and waging war on someone elses country to extend and defend profits, and beating the drum for more imperialist wars - for example, against Iran - Should we be supporting massive training exercises for these adventures?

The war game "is designed to recreate a scenario in which Britain and other sovereign nations go to war against a “state-sponsored terrorist movement” – using a vast array of lethal modern weapons"

There is no such terrorist movement except in the insane fantasies of George Bush and the allies of neo-conservatism in Britain.

The exercises are actually designed to train people for the kind of wars that 2 million people marched against five years ago in Hyde Park.

Let me turn the tables back on you:

Would you prefer instead of billions poured into the war machine that rather it was spent on hospitals, schools, pensions, free education and students?

Why should we support our rulers project of destabilising the world by propping up unjust regimes and waging wars all over the place?


----------



## ClassWar (Oct 11, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> 1927, will you tell us who is waging war against Britain at present?
> I'm not a pacifist either.
> 
> Simple fact: At a time when British armed forces are involved in occupying and waging war on someone elses country to extend and defend profits, and beating the drum for more imperialist wars - for example, against Iran - Should we be supporting massive training exercises for these adventures?
> ...


this fact you claim - could you post a link to a quote from a single serving senior british officer 'beating the drum for more imperialist wars'? as for state-sponsored terrorist movements, we're frequently told that the us and iran do sponsor or have sponsored terrorist movements, eg (in the us case) the old contras in nicaragua. are you saying there are no state-sponsored terrorists in the world any more, or that there are state-sponsored terrorists and this country is not at war with them?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 11, 2008)

Sections of the British and American ruling class are beating the drum for more wars. Much of the military establishment actually thinks this is a bad idea as they know that they are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan and overstreched.  These military exercises have openly been advertised as linked with the war on Afghanistan. And talk of taking on  "state sponsored terrorist movements" could mean training for wars elsewhere. For example, another attempt on Lebanon or the US proxy war being waged by Ethiopia on Somalia etc.

State sponsored terrorist movements? 

Yes, of course the Americans sponsor many. 

Iran fund Hezbollah who are not a terrorist organisation, but a national liberation organisation formed in the slums of South Lebanon after years of brutal Israeli occupation by poor Shia who won wide acclaim for driving them out of most of Lebanon (except the Sheba Farms) and inflicting a stunning military defeat on the IDF in the summer of 2006. Anyone who would support action to invade Lebanon by the West is nuts.

The American rulers also like to blame Iran for the insurgency in Iraq. This is an old imperialist game - they just can't except that the occupied people don't want them there. 

So it's the Russians and Chinese stirring it up - in Vietnam
Pakistan causing problems - in Afghanistan
Iran funding terrorism - in Iraq.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 11, 2008)

So no one is attacking us at the moment, god forbid we would actually want to prepare in case it doe shappen in the future.

Germahy didnt attck us throughout the 30s but thank fuck we were in a state of readiness just in case.

Russia never waged a nuclear war against the US/UK in the 70s or 80s, but I for one an pretty fucking pleased we kept hold of our military capability just on the off chance like.

Tell ya what, on second thought, why don't we get rid of our military, save billion of pounds a year, and ring up the Chinese and ask them if they would like to come in and put an army of occupation based on Salisbury plain and we can all learn to speak Cantonese. Ok with you?


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 11, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> 1927, will you tell us who is waging war against Britain at present?


Good question. Nobody in the short answer. We can expect that to change if we don't prepare for the possibility.

One real target is Russia. The Russians are fairly clearly going to move over the Arctic and its mineral resources. This will affect Denmark, Norway and Canada among others. They are our NATO allies and can reasonably expect our support. That's why we prepare for war through such exercises, and why the Russians are watching.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 11, 2008)

1927 said:


> Tell ya what, on second thought, why don't we get rid of our military, save billion of pounds a year, and ring up the Chinese and ask them if they would like to come in and put an army of occupation based on Salisbury plain and we can all learn to speak Cantonese. Ok with you?



Mandarin, surely?

eta - Right enough, I remember that Canton is a neighbourhood in Cardiff. As you were.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 11, 2008)

That's such a bollocks post that I'm nominating you for my personal, secret, Dr Strangelove Post of the Year prize. I'll let you know in due course if you've won anything noteworthy.









1927 said:


> So no one is attacking us at the moment, god forbid we would actually want to prepare in case it doe shappen in the future.
> 
> Germahy didnt attck us throughout the 30s but thank fuck we were in a state of readiness just in case.
> 
> ...


----------



## ClassWar (Oct 12, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> Sections of the British and American ruling class are beating the drum for more wars. Much of the military establishment actually thinks this is a bad idea as they know that they are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan and overstreched.  These military exercises have openly been advertised as linked with the war on Afghanistan. And talk of taking on  "state sponsored terrorist movements" could mean training for wars elsewhere. For example, another attempt on Lebanon or the US proxy war being waged by Ethiopia on Somalia etc.
> 
> State sponsored terrorist movements?
> 
> ...


returning to the questions i posed...

you said that





> British armed forces are involved in occupying and waging war on someone elses country to extend and defend profits, *and beating the drum for more imperialist wars*


can you produce some evidence for them beating the drum? i don't care a fig that sections of the uk & us ruling classes are calling for imperialist wars: that's not what you said above.

as for state-sponsored terrorists, you now say there are such movements, when you denied it before. which do you think is right, what you first said or what you say now?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 12, 2008)

ClassWar, get a life! How about actually helping the movement against these war games?

As you can see I made a sloppy mistake, as often happens when posting on boards like this. 

It is pretty clear that what I meant was that these huge military exercises are taking place in a context where sections of the global elites are beating the drum for more wars. The leadership of the military share the same ideology and goals as the ruling class, but most are aware that Britain is losing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. (and one only has to look at Portugal in 1974 to see what happens when a ruling class continually forces its military to wage wars it can't win)

Unlike 1927 who has fantasies that we might all be speaking Cantonese, we need to look at the concrete context that these war games are happening.

The MoD have made no secret of the connection of the games with the war against the Afghan people. Given that the British Army has no place being in Afghanistan, then all decent people should oppose a single inch of soil being used to train people for a war on workers from another country - this is basic working class solidarity. 

We then hear oblique talk from the MoD of training for a scenario where various Western militaries would take action against a "state sponsored terrorist movement". Given the phrase - "state sponsored" this can only mean war against another state. Remember the Afghan War was sold to the British public under the banner of taking on a state sponsored terrorist movement, Al Quaeda who were backed by the Taliban state.

But maybe the MoD have in mind,Pakistan? Or another try on Lebanon? Maybe Iran? Or an adventure in Somalia? Maybe even an assault on Nepal whose Maoist leaders are defined as terrorists by the West. Perhaps elsewhere.

(As we have stated previously the only groups that could be meaningfully defined as state sponsored terrorists are those supported by the United States and the West, so in this sense, when the MoD uses the phrase "state sponsored terrorist movement" it is referring to a non-existent phenomenon)


----------



## 1927 (Oct 12, 2008)

Thing is Udo you cannot seperate military training into its uses. These exercises cannot be dismissed purely because the soldiers may fight in Afghanistan, they may well be required tod efend these islands on day, do you wish to cancel all military training on that basis?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 16, 2008)

1927 said:


> Thing is Udo you cannot seperate military training into its uses. These exercises cannot be dismissed purely because the soldiers may fight in Afghanistan, *they may well be required tod efend these islands on day*, do you wish to cancel all military training on that basis?



You're fucking bonkers, 1927. When was the last time the UK, the British Isles or even England (at that) had to defend itself against a war of aggression launched on its own soil?

Bonkers!


----------



## ClassWar (Oct 16, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> As you can see I made a sloppy mistake, as often happens when posting on boards like this.


more like you made a sloppy mistake, as often happens when you've no politics and less point.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 17, 2008)

ClassWar said:


> more like you made a sloppy mistake, as often happens when you've no politics and less point.



Yeah, I'm really collapsing from the weight of your political analysis on this thread. No wonder most people rate Cl@ss W@r's posts as being better than yours!


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2008)

Col_Buendia said:


> You're fucking bonkers, 1927. When was the last time the UK, the British Isles or even England (at that) had to defend itself against a war of aggression launched on its own soil?
> 
> Bonkers!



If we had no means of defending ourselves I suspect it might happen quite often. And you call me bonkers, FFS.the intelligence, or lack of it, in some people truly astounds me.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 17, 2008)

There's a big difference from being able to defend yourselves and being able to do imperialist power projection a la Blair-Bush. A purely defensive military would look quite different to the kind required to play our token role in enforcing neo-liberalism on the world stage. It'd probably be a) more useful for civil emergencies and b) more of a threat to the government because it would be likely to include a large proportion of Swiss-style milita if it was geniunely defensive rather than aimed at power projection.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 17, 2008)

We had quite a good discussion around 'what would an ethical defence policy look like?' a few years ago. Took me a while to find it. Start at post 255 here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=127911&highlight=ethical+defence+policy&page=11


----------



## chainsaw cat (Oct 18, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> 1927, will you tell us who is waging war against Britain at present?
> I'm not a pacifist either.
> 
> Simple fact: At a time when British armed forces are involved in occupying and waging war on someone elses country to extend and defend profits, and beating the drum for more imperialist wars - for example, against Iran - Should we be supporting massive training exercises for these adventures?
> ...





Look, we need armed forces. We may not need them right now, but you can't just invent them at a week's notice if the French or whoever turn Fascist in 2036 and fancy coming over here to kill all our gays and nick our money and that (cf. A. Hitler, 1940).

Therefore, much as it irks lots of people, it's better to keep the Army etc. on the boil.

Think how silly anti forces stuff would have looked in 1939. 

And, as it goes, there have been plenty of times when intervention has been a Good Thing recently (not as good as it could have been, and not as plentiful either) to balance against insane warmongering.


Udo, this sounds badly Daily Mail or even Sun, but fact is, without the Forces you would be speaking German and have a grand total of zero gay, black, Jewish or disabled mates.

Swallow your distaste and accept that on occasion you/we need nasty guys to do - or threaten - nasty things or else the world changes for the worse.


----------



## niclas (Oct 18, 2008)

Thanks for the history lesson. Ironic for you to mention the Daily Mail, with it's lavish praise of "Mr Hitler" in the 30s and infamous "Hurrah for the Blackshirts"... fascism doesn't always speak with a foreign accent.

The truth is that the left was far more alert to the dangers of European fascism in the 30s than the British ruling class. That's why thousands went to fight as volunteers against Franco's coup in 1936 - which I'd argue was the prelude to the Second World War. It was Welsh miners who defended Spanish democracy, not the fascist fellow travellers in their London clubs. 
Allowing Italian tanks and German planes to destroy places like Gernika unchallenged meant that Hitler and Mussolini knew they could continue on their imperialist aggression.
 The World War 2 analogy is crap.

Now back to this training exercise. This isn't about France turning into a "rogue state" by 2036 - this is using conventional military might to try to tackle a loose and undefined terrorist network. It hasn't worked - and never will work. For centuries (think Owain Glyndwr or the French Maquis), massive conventional armies have been outwitted by far smaller numbers of terrorists/guerillas/freedom fighters (all these are terms laden with value judgements).

Having an aircraft carrier ain't much good if you're trying to catch a suicide bomber with a rucksack - except that it makes a good target.

The military exercise is state-sponsored willy waving. No more, no less.

So please, no more cod history lessons and "what ifs".


----------



## mattie (Oct 18, 2008)

I'd argue the ongoing tensions with Russia would take on a very different complexion if there was no military might behind either side.

We either try to remain a player on the world stage, and maintain a military capacity to match, or we don't.  The question isn't about whether we need a military of this type, the question is where we want to sit in the world.

Seeing as we're a huge exporter of military hardware, I can't see us shifting.


----------



## niclas (Oct 18, 2008)

mattie said:


> I'd argue the ongoing tensions with Russia would take on a very different complexion if there was no military might behind either side.
> 
> We either try to remain a player on the world stage, and maintain a military capacity to match, or we don't.  The question isn't about whether we need a military of this type, the question is where we want to sit in the world.
> 
> Seeing as we're a huge exporter of military hardware, I can't see us shifting.



What's this "we" - I haven't exported military hardware in ages.

One of the reasons I want an independent socialist Wales is to stop being part of such a military state. No aircraft carriers, no privatised military training.


----------



## Karac (Oct 18, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There's a big difference from being able to defend yourselves and being able to do imperialist power projection a la Blair-Bush. A purely defensive military would look quite different to the kind required to play our token role in enforcing neo-liberalism on the world stage. It'd probably be a) more useful for civil emergencies and b) more of a threat to the government because it would be likely to include a large proportion of Swiss-style milita if it was geniunely defensive rather than aimed at power projection.


Good point-its embarrassing the huge armed forces the UK has in relation to its population
I reckon Wales could get by with a few divisions of elite Mountain troops spread out amongst the Black Mountains and Gwynedd-they could survive for years in the unlikely event of an invasion
If things really went tits up on a global scale it would make more sense to go along the Swis/Israeli model and arm the populace


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 19, 2008)

Wales is a country of 2.9 million people. We should not be involved in wars, we should be neutral.


----------



## mattie (Oct 19, 2008)

niclas said:


> What's this "we" - I haven't exported military hardware in ages.
> 
> One of the reasons I want an independent socialist Wales is to stop being part of such a military state. No aircraft carriers, no privatised military training.





The 'we' would be British and international companies.  There are defence manufacturers in Wales, even if your wish for independence were realised that wouldn't change.  What may change is the desire to 'compete' (whatever that term may mean) on an international stage.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Oct 20, 2008)

niclas said:


> Thanks for the history lesson. Ironic for you to mention the Daily Mail, with it's lavish praise of "Mr Hitler" in the 30s and infamous "Hurrah for the Blackshirts"... fascism doesn't always speak with a foreign accent.
> 
> The truth is that the left was far more alert to the dangers of European fascism in the 30s than the British ruling class. That's why thousands went to fight as volunteers against Franco's coup in 1936 - which I'd argue was the prelude to the Second World War. It was Welsh miners who defended Spanish democracy, not the fascist fellow travellers in their London clubs.
> Allowing Italian tanks and German planes to destroy places like Gernika unchallenged meant that Hitler and Mussolini knew they could continue on their imperialist aggression.
> ...



No mate, you miss me point.

I am with you on the contempt for the 'war on terror' (I for one am not a bit terrified. Quite relaxed to be frank). 
It's your anti Forces tone that worries me. 

The forces are ours and we need them. It's the politicians who want to misuse them we need to watch.

Minor criticisms of your post there:

1. Aircraft carriers give force projection including all sorts of elint that can, genuinely, impact on Mr Rucksack.

2. What happened to Owain Glyndwr? 

3. How much practical use were the Maquis until the conventional forces were on the way?


----------



## chainsaw cat (Oct 20, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There's a big difference from being able to defend yourselves and being able to do imperialist power projection a la Blair-Bush. *A purely defensive military would look quite different to the kind required to play our token role in enforcing neo-liberalism on the world stage.* It'd probably be a) more useful for civil emergencies and b) more of a threat to the government because it would be likely to include a large proportion of Swiss-style milita if it was geniunely defensive rather than aimed at power projection.




No, not really.

It would still have to have a full range of weapons, people trained to use them, and the capability to engage in agressive attacking manoeuvres on a large scale, integrating air sea and land force with all sorts of intelligence, special forces, psyops, diplomatic leverage and economic warfare.

Look, you clearly have no idea at all about any military subjects so stop embarassing yourself.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 20, 2008)

chainsaw cat said:


> No, not really.
> 
> It would still have to have a full range of weapons, people trained to use them, and the capability to engage in agressive attacking manoeuvres on a large scale, integrating air sea and land force with all sorts of intelligence, special forces, psyops, diplomatic leverage and economic warfare.
> 
> Look, you clearly have no idea at all about any military subjects so stop embarassing yourself.



And in what way have I ruled out in the post above a capability including say an armoured division, plus a division or two more of regular infantry along with all the appropriate artillery, engineers and support stuff, or the necessity for appropriate air and coastal defences with command and control, communications facilities etc; but without aircraft carriers, assault ships, heavy airlift, trident submarines (arguable) and other stuff that you don't need if you're not bothering random strangers on behalf of capitalism? 

I was quite clear and specific in saying that a purely defensive force might 'include a large proportion of' (as opposed to 'consist entirely of') a part-time component analogous to the Swiss or Japanese self-defence forces which combined various capabilities useful to civil society (particularly in emergencies) with its military functions.

Go look at the old thread I linked in post #21, before jumping to conclusions about what I had in mind in the post you've quoted above. You may have some military expertise, but so did many of the people involved in that discussion.

... only for some reason none of them felt the need to be dicks about it.


----------



## Dhimmi (Oct 20, 2008)

Blimey this hasn't taken long to devolve into a bid to "_smash the international imperialist agenda_" and gather votes for PC has it?

The objections against a pfi training school are solid as I see it, pfi is a scam, regardless of what it's funding. 

The objections against training exercises are pointless. 



niclas said:


> This isn't about France turning into a "rogue state" by 2036 - this is using conventional military might to try to tackle a loose and undefined terrorist network. *It hasn't worked - and never will work*. For centuries (think Owain Glyndwr or the French Maquis), massive conventional armies have been outwitted by far smaller numbers of terrorists/guerillas/freedom fighters



The Malayan Emergency '48-'60. 



chainsaw cat said:


> 3. How much practical use were the Maquis until the conventional forces were on the way?



I know where you're coming from with this, but they were bloody useful, some of their infiltration and sabotage of factories was exceptional and often where traditional forces couldn't be so effective for far greater effort. 

However without those conventional forces they couldn't have been supplied, nor, as I think you're alluding to, could they have been so well placed in supporting incredibly vital operations like Overlord.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 20, 2008)

...


----------



## chainsaw cat (Oct 21, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> And in what way have I ruled out in the post above a capability including say an armoured division, plus a division or two more of regular infantry along with all the appropriate artillery, engineers and support stuff, or the necessity for appropriate air and coastal defences with command and control, communications facilities etc; but without aircraft carriers, assault ships, heavy airlift, trident submarines (arguable) and other stuff that you don't need if you're not bothering random strangers on behalf of capitalism?
> 
> I was quite clear and specific in saying that a purely defensive force might 'include a large proportion of' (as opposed to 'consist entirely of') a part-time component analogous to the Swiss or Japanese self-defence forces which combined various capabilities useful to civil society (particularly in emergencies) with its military functions.
> 
> ...




Yeah sorry I was having a grumpy posting day.

However, any Army designed purely for defence loses the initiative before the war even starts. Without the full range of kit/people, for example, how would we have defeated the Axis? Sit and wait for them to develop their V weapons to the point that we were annihilated or forced to surrender? 

What about the sort of wars one could posit for a generation from now if there are major shifts ... do you think that the last maniac with a world domination disorder and a big army was THE last maniac with a world domination disorder and a big army? 

If another turns up, might it not be necessary to go out and bash the bastard before he bashes us.... In retrospect, a quick slap of the German regime at several points up to about 1937 might have saved a lot of shenanigins later. 

Not much chance of that if everyone was the Swiss.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 21, 2008)

Fair enough, no worries. 

On the 'Hitler Argument' thing though, doesn't it make you a tiny bit uncomfortable in using that argument that a variation of it was used to justify the stupid, murderous clusterfuck that we've been complict in creating in Iraq recently? 

People like me wouldn't be wondering how to gimp our armed forces enough to keep them out of stuff like that in future while leaving them capable of sorting out a genuine threat if there was any reasonable expectation of them not being used to commit any crimes on behalf of capitalism.


----------



## Dhimmi (Oct 21, 2008)

Good point but for me the argument used for the Iraq/Afghan debacle owes more to Goebbel's *Big Lie* theory or even Goering's observation;

_Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship . . . voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."_

True now as it was in 1938. 

The Swiss militia system is a good system, especially for the Swiss as they're quite well-educated and have a healthy tradition for gun sports. The UK doesn't, in fact most folk are nervous of them almost to the point of phobia.
Could you imagine the UK having a festival like the Zürcher Knabenschiessen?

Even if you suggested organising something like that, the Daily Wail et al would have a field day. Perhaps it's because as a nation we've become gunshy and forces-phobic that we present such a solid opportunity to be totally shafted when it comes to anything military?


----------



## niclas (Oct 22, 2008)

chainsaw cat said:


> It's your anti Forces tone that worries me.
> The forces are ours and we need them. It's the politicians who want to misuse them we need to watch.
> 
> Minor criticisms of your post there:
> ...



Not a problem with the ordinary squaddie - my dad was one and my taid got torpedoed in WW2. My problem is what they're get told to do by their political and military superiors, so I think we're in agreement there.

1. Don't know what elint is so that one went right over my head.
2. Owain Glyndwr never got caught did he...
3. Maquis did a lot of damage as another has posted, the Yugoslav guerilla movement actually defeated the Nazi armies without conventional forces, which is why Tito was able to maintain his independence of the USSR post-war.

Someone posted the Malayan emergency as an example - perhaps the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 22, 2008)

Some people have referred to the necessity of supporting the armed forces because of the possibility of a Hitler figure emerging. Such a statement could only be made by those in utter false consciousness as the biggest rogue state on the planet (whom are backed to the hilt by the British ruling class) is, of course, the United States. 

Think this is rhetoric? 

You might not if you lived in Vietnam and Cambodia where 4 million people were murdered in the 60s and 70s, or in Iraq where over a million were killed by sanctions in the 90s imposed by the West, and then another million in the last 5 years. If you live in Latin America you will know how a democratically elected government in Chile was toppled with the assistance of the CIA on 9.11, 1973 with 30,000 people murdered and 300,000 forced into exile, you will also know of the history of El Salvador, Nicaragua etc. 

Indeed, it's a safe bet to say that anybody attempting to build a fairer and more just society faces military intervention from "our" (as you call them) or America's armed forces & not just abroad, it is well known that in 1984, the British Armed forces had operations against striking miners and when Firefighters went on strike a few years back, there was talk of the army stepping in as strike breakers.

The great socialist historian, CLR James once referred to an army as being a "minature of the society that created it".

One of the most class ridden institutions in our society is the British Armed Forces. We hear horror stories of the accomodation afforded to rank and file soldiers, and then read of thousands of taxpayers money used to pay to send the officer's kids to elite private schools. The officers are always invariably from the middle and upper class. The rank and file soldiers are denied the basic human right to form a trade union. Yet we hear stories of soldiers even dying (as happened in Wales) in the games the officers refer to as "beasting".

We should at the very least encourage and support rank and file soldiers to organise within the army against the officers, to be able to have democratic forums where, for example, they discuss and debate issues such as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and why they are their. Representatives of these rank and file bodies could appear on TV and Radio. Why should we only hear from the top military brass? 

The ruling class, would of course, attempt to smash any attempts of ordinary soldiers to organise as it would threaten their interests, but it could provide the basis for working class soldiers to stop fighting for the rich and start to think how they could use their skills to support and defend the struggle of working class people.

But isn't this the fundamental flaw of the arguments of the "we would all be speaking German brigade"? That they fail to understand that people in Britain don't have a common interest, but that the role of armed bodies of men and women like the British Army is to defend and extend the power of the rich and powerful, and smash any attempts to create social justice at home.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 22, 2008)

One additional comment. Say that we agree with 1927s analysis. The argument seems to be put forward:

While we don't like wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we do need armed forces in case Hitler fascism or some madman comes to power who is bent on world domination.

A perfectly coherrent and respectable point of view.

I would turn the tables back, though by asking:

Does this mean, therefore, that we should 

1) Give a blank cheque to the military and tolerate a situtation where billions is poured into the armed forces, while we are told at the same time there is no money for vital public services, and we know that the US military budget is enough to erradicate global poverty ten times over?

2) Give the British armed forces carte blanche to do what ever the hell they like?

Should we be quite happy for the armed forces to carry out agressive recruitment campaigns where they go to the poorest areas of Britain to find the cannon fodder for wars that are not really in the interests of poor people in Britain, as an example?

Or support war games when they are explicitly about subjugating another country?

etc.

It is perfectly clear that even from the perspective being put forward by 1927 et al, we could say 1) No blank cheque for the military 2) No carte blanche to do whatever the hell they like.

Incidentally, Britain claims to be a democracy, so what democratic control do we, or at the government have over the armed forces? 

Seems like the armed forces are not really accountable to anybody except the generals and a small clique of politicians in the Labour Cabinet.

Certainly it is perfectly legal in Britain for the armed forces to invade another country without even a vote in Parliament - pretty incredbile, no?

If they are "our" armed forces, as is claimed, How come "we" have so little control over them!


----------



## MikeMcc (Oct 22, 2008)

Some pretty piss-poor reporting in the article in the OP.  This exercise is nothing like the scale of the exercises in the 1980s.  Particularly Brave Defender in Sept 85, that one involved pretty much every spare bod in the UK, including the TA and the Home Service Force.

Th eone in the OP is actually pretty smale scale for a multi-national exercise.

"Mountain, meet molehill"
"Pleased to meet you..."


----------



## Gromit (Oct 22, 2008)

Wales used as armed forces training ground shocker.

Really?!
Really?!!!

Its been going on for years guys. Its not news.
The Brecon beacons is always crawling with troops and low flying jets.

I'm kinda proud of the fact that our terain is ideal for training troops for dealing with really nasty conditions. Brings jobs to the area which are needed after England raped most of our natural resources for their own gains.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 22, 2008)

Marius said:


> Wales used as armed forces training ground shocker.
> 
> Really?!
> Really?!!!
> ...



2 wrongs don't make a right do they! the cunts should get out of our mountains as well! 
proud indeed


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 22, 2008)

Suits me Breacon beacons is probably the most horrible place I have ever been.If given the choice rather go to afganistian than Wales .Nothing against the welsh and the country side is stunning crawling around it in the rain gives you a diffrent view of it .
             Unfortunatly we need a profesional military and it needs to be equipped and trained .How why and where it is deployed is open to debate .
We are a small heavily populated country any threat to us is better off delt elsewhere.I think our defence budget could be spent better giving us more 
more resources  either to fight  or aid in disater relief etc.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 22, 2008)

dylanredefined said:


> Afganistian does effect us due to drugs and terrorism not to mention the taliban were an evil regime .We are a small heavily populated country Its far better for our population that any threat to this country is delt with elsewhere rather than rely on millitias defending their own cities ..



How many terrorist acts have been carried out Mainland Britain by Afghan citizens? 

Let me tell you, Dylan . . . Zero!

Afghanistan is in no way a threat to Britain, in fact, these wars make the world less safe for the majority of people & are waged not for the benefit of the people of Britain and America, but rather for an already greedy elite. I full more affinity with an Iraqi with a Kalashnikov fighting the armies of occupation than with the British Government who sent people to kill and be killed.

Though when Britain kills thousands of people in other countries, it is perfectly possible that some "mad" people might retaliate by killing people here. 

Since Britain and America invaded Afghanistan opium production has actually increased which is seen very visibly on the streets of Britain with an increase in heroin addiction. Ironically the Taliban had quite effectively cut down on production.

You say "The Taliban were an evil regime". The Northern Alliance who were the group favoured by the US and UK when they invaded weren't exactly known as defenders of human rights or any of the other warlords who have carved up Afghanistan.

You seem to be a bit out of touch, the Taliban are actually more popular in Afghanistan than before the invasion and a growing force. (Though we shouldn't forget that the Taliban came out of the Mohajedin, a group that were armed and funded partly by the United States against the Soviet Union).

Apartheid was an evil regime, Romania under Ceaucescu was also an evil regime, but we didn't support military intervention by the West, we supported the movements in those countries that wanted change and ultimately overthrew the regimes.

Incidentally, virtually all Western intervention has made a bad situation worse, precisely because the aim is not humanitarian, but rather imperial.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 22, 2008)

dylanredefined said:


> Suits me Bre*c*on beacons is probably the most horrible place I have ever been.  If given the choice rather go to Afganistian than Wales .Nothing against the *W*elsh and the country side is stunning, crawling around it in the rain gives you a diffrent view of it.            Unfortunat*e*ly we need a profes*s*ional military and it needs to be equipped and trained .How why and where it is deployed is open to debate.
> We are a small heavily populated country any threat to us is better off de*a*lt elsewhere.I think our defence budget could be spent better giving us more
> more resources  either to fight  or aid in disa*s*ter relief etc.



were you injured in battle or have to be that thick to pass the entrance exam???

you may need one in your mind but Wales and the Welsh do not!


----------



## MikeMcc (Oct 22, 2008)

ddraig said:


> were you injured in battle or have to be that thick to pass the entrance exam???
> 
> you may need one in your mind but Wales and the Welsh do not!


Nice to know that you speak for them all...


----------



## ddraig (Oct 22, 2008)

MikeMcc said:


> Nice to know that you speak for them all...



well i is a red dragon!

<or caveat everytime is it>
views on the internets are not always for all the people all the time
</or caveat everytime is it>


----------



## MikeMcc (Oct 22, 2008)

ddraig said:


> well i is a red dragon!
> 
> <or caveat everytime is it>
> views on the internets are not always for all the people all the time
> </or caveat everytime is it>


Pity there isn't a shaking head smilie, the roll eyes doesn't cut it!


----------



## chainsaw cat (Oct 22, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Fair enough, no worries.
> 
> *On the 'Hitler Argument' thing though, doesn't it make you a tiny bit uncomfortable in using that argument that a variation of it was used to justify the stupid, murderous clusterfuck that we've been complict in creating in Iraq recently? *
> People like me wouldn't be wondering how to gimp our armed forces enough to keep them out of stuff like that in future while leaving them capable of sorting out a genuine threat if there was any reasonable expectation of them not being used to commit any crimes on behalf of capitalism.



It does bother me (the more so as I was in Gulf War One - the Original) and am crystal clear that we could have rolled up Saddams good time regime in about 18 minutes had we not stopped at the border).

But... jsut 'cos the lying filth we get as politicians are lying filth, doesn't mean every case will be a lie. And one day we might need a fully capable military and bitterly regret not having one a few days later.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Oct 22, 2008)

niclas said:


> Not a problem with the ordinary squaddie - my dad was one and my taid got torpedoed in WW2. My problem is what they're get told to do by their political and military superiors, so I think we're in agreement there.
> 
> 1. Don't know what elint is so that one went right over my head.
> 2. Owain Glyndwr never got caught did he...
> ...




1. Elint - electronic intelligence
2. No, but Wales wasn't exactly liberated by his antics.
3. Yeah, supplied by the Western Allies who were helping to keep the other 300 odd Axis divisions busy in North Africa, Italy, France (eventually) and of course Russia.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Oct 22, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> *it is well known that in 1984, the British Armed forces had operations against striking miners *




Utter fabrication and bullshit for gullible SWP nutters. Never happened. Shite.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Oct 22, 2008)

Udo Erasmus said:


> Some people have referred to the necessity of supporting the armed forces because of the possibility of a Hitler figure emerging. Such a statement could only be made by those in utter false consciousness as the biggest rogue state on the planet (whom are backed to the hilt by the British ruling class) is, of course, the United States.
> 
> Think this is rhetoric?
> 
> ...




In fact the whole post is shite.

I was going to go through it with a shite highlighter and address each point but I've only got another 20 odd years to live so I'd have to do the last 3/4 of the job from beyond the grave.


----------



## METH LAB (Oct 23, 2008)

I live near (well, in terms of fighter jet terms anyway) quite close to a miletery base.. they always doing practise stuff about my air-space... its fun, some of the shit they get up to is bonkers! Plus we get a free show every year for them being such a bloody nuicance lol (some peep's aint to keen coz of the noise and that, which makes the free show kinda ironic.. but i love 'em

peace


----------



## likesfish (Oct 24, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> There's a big difference from being able to defend yourselves and being able to do imperialist power projection a la Blair-Bush. A purely defensive military would look quite different to the kind required to play our token role in enforcing neo-liberalism on the world stage. It'd probably be a) more useful for civil emergencies and b) more of a threat to the government because it would be likely to include a large proportion of Swiss-style milita if it was geniunely defensive rather than aimed at power projection.



er just one problem with that We are a fucking Island can't really wage effective resistance if the bastards can starve you out FAIL
  thats also the bnp's defence policy


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Oct 24, 2008)

chainsaw cat said:


> Utter fabrication and bullshit for gullible SWP nutters. Never happened. Shite.



It's actually the testimony of numerous miners that their were armed forces in police uniform brutalising their communities - but it is something that cannot be proven, unless documents are made public in the future.

But I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up. There have been numerous occasions where members of "our" armed forces have been used to break working class strikes - that's what they are there for - as pawns of the rich and powerful. But we don't attack individual rank and file soldiers - we aim to win them to our politics.

I'm not sure what other points you disagree with? 

You seriously deny that the British Armed Forces are not one of the most class-ridden institutions in our society? Are you seriously claiming that the Offiers are not all from the middle and usually the upper class?

You seriously think that Britain are the good guys on the world stage? No the British Ruling Class are some of the most bloodthirsty and wicked scum in history, no wonder a generation of working class militants called the Union Jack, "The Butchers Apron"!


----------



## likesfish (Oct 24, 2008)

lets see plenty of books about the SAS etc 
 and they mentioned kicking the heads in of violent prisoners not used on miners.
 This was discussed on arrse not a single squaddie admits to being on the picket lines and no police mention it either.
 Don't think the average squaddie would have a problem putting the boot into violent strikers but it didn't happen.
  as you haven't served you seem to have got your ideas about the British army form the 1800s please continue its very entertaining


----------



## Dhimmi (Oct 26, 2008)

niclas said:


> Someone posted the Malayan emergency as an example - perhaps the exception that proves the rule.



Rotter! 

The Werwolf guerilla movement is another example, well partially, as there's much speculation about it ending up siding with the US to harass the soviets. 

The Polish Home Army during the Warsaw uprising is another example, which included some filthy maneuvering by the Soviets. 

The Polish January uprising, the Indian mutiny, the second Boer war, Philippine American War, Greek Civil War, and the Spanish Maquis after the Spanish Civil War are more examples of guerilla wars which failed. There are many more. 

There's no real definites in history.


----------



## Karac (Oct 31, 2008)

chainsaw cat said:


> Utter fabrication and bullshit for gullible SWP nutters. Never happened. Shite.


It did
Definitely off duty squaddies


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 1, 2008)

Karac said:


> It did
> Definitely off duty squaddies


Balls. Absolutely never happened.  There's plenty of ex-mil in the police, but there's was never any need to get squaddies dressed up as plod to have a go at the miners.  There were more than enough police happy enough to do it.


----------

