Author: James Page 2 of 5

Have the Taliban won?

On March 2, 2020

While they have been hammering away at it for some time now, the US has announced that they have finally reached an agreement with the leadership of the Taliban to conclude a peace deal. Let’s be clear; this isn’t a peace deal, it’s an exit strategy. We’re almost 20 years into this quagmire and the line was always going to be drawn at some point. When the Special Forces’ Task Forces routed the Taliban from Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, their post-operational recommendation was very clear; flooding the country with occupying troops would be a rallying call to reinvigorate the Taliban and their jihadist allies. In the UK, however, I believe our collective military and political classes saw an opportunity to redress the historical stigma of our previous defeats in Afghanistan and couldn’t pass up on the chance to achieve this.

I spent over 3 years in Afghanistan with both UK and US military initiatives and observed first-hand the muddled objectives of our militaries deployments. The mission-creep encompassing a frankly embarrassing anti-narcotics focus, and all the way to our endgame status of handover of responsibility to the Afghan security forces for the protection of their own people and nation.

We extended our commitment to the deployment by conjuring up mission statements based upon our western templates of democracy and human rights. Education, Gender Equality, Healthcare to mitigate infant mortality, Anti-corruption, mentoring of Law Enforcement agencies to international compliance levels. And the list goes on.

Afghanistan remains a country where tribal and familial bonds far outweigh the tiny geographical influence that Kabul actually wields. Warlords continue to dominate and forge alliances based solely on personal gain and profit. Our well-intentioned first-world initiatives are not welcome or indeed remotely achievable, outside the ring of protective security around Kabul. Beyond this, and particularly in the remoter regions, life and law have changed very little over the centuries. So when our media reports success stories and heart-warming human interest pieces from the graveyard of empires, they do not reflect circumstances in the greater part of the country. Our twenty years of western intervention barely noticed in many regions.

So, this is an exit strategy that draws a line under the thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars that the 2 decades of this conflict has cost. And the future? Congratulatory soundbites from our Generals and political leaders lauding our achievements and how better off the country is after our ‘assistance’. The reality, of course, will be far more grim. Gloating Taliban will again dominate and control much of the country, initially portraying themselves as the saviours of the people. Then Taliban in-fighting as their collective breaks down and alliances are forged and formed, splinter groups and fragments turning on one another. At the same time, we will witness the collapse of the Afghan Security Forces, their effectiveness and capability nullified by the absent air superiority, intelligence provision and hand-holding that the coalition has been providing. Eventually, a return to full-scale conflict as warlords and jihadists vie for control of the country and the spoils of the capital and provincial cities.

This is not a pessimistic viewpoint by any means. A little-known fact, for me at least, is that when the Russians exited Afghanistan, it wasn’t the scurrying retreat that I had imagined. They actually conducted a comprehensive and documented handover of military bases, equipment and infrastructure as well as training in the maintenance and care required for upkeep. The Russians also sent some of their advisors back to Afghanistan periodically to monitor the condition of the military and the assets that they had retained. The advisers found abandoned bases stripped of every element that could be sold for profit; cables and wiring, generators and heaters, air-conditioners and refrigeration, bedding and furniture, transport and machinery. They reported finding deserted FOBs where the troops had taken flight, choosing to run rather than defend their positions. Senior officers rich in wealth and status having profited from the sale of the equipment and now set up as minor warlords in their own right. The Russians documented all of this, disappointed but unsurprised.

And in my opinion, this is the likely scenario that will repeat itself. First, the more remote FOBs and outposts will be looted and abandoned then occupied by the very forces they had been built to defend against. Without the support and mentoring of the larger western nations, the Afghan forces will have little confidence or motivation to continue putting their lives on the line and will simply down tools and return home. It’s worth remembering that one of the biggest hurdles the coalition faced was ensuring that the rank and file of the security forces actually received their salaries from the respective ministries. It was commonplace for senior officers to keep the entire wages of their police or soldiers for themselves. So, returning to that scenario, it isn’t exactly hard to imagine droves of these service personnel deserting their posts. Or worse, pledging their allegiance to the opposing forces out of self-preservation. And base by base, town by town and province by province, this domino effect will play out.

It is sad to think that the terrible loss of lives throughout this conflict have been sacrificed only to reach an exit strategy and not, as we’d hoped, a better country for the Afghan people to live in. Painful to imagine gloating Taliban governing the bazaars of Sangin and Nad e Ali, the legacy of the dead service men and women all but forgotten as the country rewinds back to where it was pre-9/11. A bitter pill to swallow for anyone who has had any engagement with our involvement in Afghanistan. In the UK, we are still coming to terms with the legacy of our government’s settlement with the republican movement in Northern Ireland. This was another exit strategy that was painted as a peace agreement, handing terrorists and criminals freedom from prosecution deals to expedite an end to violence. But then harassing and pursuing the service men and women who were carrying out government policy in an attempt to portray them as the criminals in the rewriting of the republican narrative. So, the familiar echoes of a ‘peace agreement’ with foes from a long-standing conflict are very fresh in our minds.

Have the Taliban won? I remember back in the early days when I was briefing a Cabinet Minister on one of our operations in a rural area and he asked me whether, in my opinion, I thought we were ‘winning’. I replied that it was an impossible question to answer as there was nothing to win. The enemy wasn’t a structured national army who we could beat into submission and formal surrender. The nation wasn’t responsible for the attacks on US soil and as such couldn’t be held to account and punished for them. And it wasn’t the bad old days of colonialism where we would occupy and govern the country to advance our economic and political goals. So you can’t really win when there is nothing to win in the first place.

And I believe it is the same for the Taliban. An important point to remember is that there is no single Taliban; they are a collective, loosely bound by tribal and familial loyalties that shift and break on a routine basis. Without the focus of a single cause with which to unite these bands of brigands, the collective will quickly unravel and the groups turn upon one another. So can they win? In the end, it comes down to definitions. If by winning, the Taliban determine that the withdrawal of the coalition from Afghanistan was their endgame then by that measure yes, they have won. But this victory is small and will ultimately be very short-lived as their ranks fracture and divide and their movement descends into violent chaos.

Have we won? No; because as I have already pointed out, as well-intentioned as our motives might have been, there was nothing we could actually win in the first place. And the fact that we have now entered into a formal agreement with the very terrorists who planted IEDs and tortured and killed thousands sticks hard in the back of the throat when we think about the sacrifices made over these last 2 decades. So that doesn’t feel particularly ‘winning’ either.

And what of the Afghan people? Have they won? I wouldn’t presume to speak for them but I would suggest that the thought of their country returning to the status of a failed state presided over by feuding warlords probably doesn’t make them feel like winners of very much.

So, no matter whether it’s labelled a peace deal or an exit strategy, after two decades of conflict, loss and sacrifice, there are no winners, only participants. The Taliban may think they’ve won but in truth all they have won is the extension of decades of fighting and the continued destruction of a country that, after 40-odd years of conflict, could do with a bit of a break.

Betrayal of the Bannermen

By James

On June 28, 2019

In Military Matters, Terrorism and Counter Terrorism, Topical, Uncategorized

With the latest ill-thought utterance from Jeremy Hunt, the time has surely come to recognise that at all levels of our government, Veterans’ concerns over historical allegations of criminal acts are nothing more than an irritation to our elected representatives. I’m not an idiot; I recognise that the context of Hunt’s statement could be explained as him meaning that terrorists and Veterans alike should be treated equally in the eyes of the law where criminality is concerned. But the truth of the matter is…we’re not.

The photo above is of my first operational tour in Northern Ireland. A border tour. Bandit country. The South Armagh gun team the bogeyman hiding in the hedges with the big DshK heavy machine-gun. The knowledge, as we patrolled, that one round from the Barret .50 cal sniper rifle the IRA had in the area would extinguish our life instantly.

Like most operational tours of that era, we had our share of contacts with the enemy. Shootings, IEDs, IDF. But we fought back. And each time we fought back, the incident was investigated. Weapons taken away for forensic examination. Those involved interviewed under legal protocols and compliance. Statements taken and questioned. SOCOs on the ground conducting thorough investigations of the scene of the incident. A report of the findings issued by the Police. Those involved either cleared of any wrongdoing or subjected to further investigation until the Police were content they had all the true facts.

And that’s how it worked. You were investigated by the Police in the same way that any other individual would be. Your statement was compared to the forensic evidence provided by the SOCOs and a judgement made accordingly. Not a pleasant experience for a soldier to endure when he or she was simply carrying out their duties in accordance with the roles and responsibilities afforded them by the MoD and UK government policy. But it was fair. It showed that no bias was given to serving members of the crown despite all the assertions to the contrary by the republican pressure groups.

And yet, all these years down the line, we are now seeing aged veterans being hauled into the courts for alleged transgressions that took place, in some cases, over 40 years before. More importantly, for alleged crimes that they had originally been cleared of any wrongdoing for. But why? New evidence? No. Has the law changed somehow in the years gone by? No again. So what has brought this about?

Throughout my military career and particularly when I worked in Northern Ireland, I could see the skill with which the republican movement conducted its information and public relations operations. They’d secured groundswell support and millions in funding from the USA and successfully portrayed themselves as the downtrodden victims of the British state. They were also hugely successful at portraying the Police and the Military as nothing more than weapon-wielding tools of the state that enforced the subjugation of catholics in Northern Ireland. And that narrative continues to this day, where the murderers and killers of the republican terrorist groups occupy a role within their communities as defenders of the streets. Heroes who threw off the yoke of the oppressive British state. Even Gerry Adams has reinvented himself as an avuncular, cuddly, grandfather figure, completely at odds with the calculating IRA commander that he was.

This book by the journalist Ed Moloney is essentially the testament of 2 former terrorists, one republican and one loyalist. The republican is Brendan ‘Darkie’ Hughes, a name well-known to most soldiers who served in Northern Ireland throughout Op Banner. Hughes was instrumental in the formation of the Provisional IRA; PIRA. One of the most active terrorists within the entire organisation, Hughes was also very close to Gerry Adams, sharing a cell together in Long Kesh and working together to shape PIRA into the machine it would eventually become. As time went on however, Hughes became hugely disenchanted with Adams’ continued denial that he had ever been a member of PIRA, to the point where Hughes had nothing but contempt for the man he’d previously described as his brother. None of this might have amounted to anything more than gossip, had Hughes not accepted an offer from Boston College to take part in an initiative that would come to be known as the Boston Tapes. In a nutshell, paramilitaries were encouraged to recount their experiences on record and agree that when they died, the recordings would be made public. Hughes’ recordings struck a giant blow to the republican movement but, specifically, to Gerry Adams himself. Hughes’ testimony names Adams as an IRA volunteer who climbed the ranks to become not only a unit commander but also to brigade and army council level. He further named Adams as being in charge of a clandestine group of PIRA volunteers called ‘the unknowns’. The role of this group was to carry out sensitive tasks and internal security that PIRA could not be seen to be involved in.

The photograph on this book cover is that of Dolours Price, a convicted PIRA bomber but, more importantly, a key member of ‘the unknowns’. Price, like Hughes, felt betrayed by Adams and the route that he took the republican movement, and questioned strongly why so many had died or been imprisoned for such little gain. But another important question that Price asked was why, as members of PIRA, they had killed so many people to achieve so little. The book above centres on the disappearance of Jean McConville, a catholic mother of 14 from Belfast in the early seventies. Price is unequivocal: Adams, in his role as commander of the unknowns, ordered and directed the PIRA operation to abduct Jean from her home, take her over the border and kill her as a suspected informer. Price took part in the murder of this poor woman, leaving 14 children to fend for themselves as their father was also deceased. Her rage at Adams’ hypocrisy on this matter is a matter of public record and she is very clear about who was and wasn’t involved. When she heard that Adams had actually sat down with McConville’s now adult family and told them that PIRA had a hand in the disappearance of their mother but that he personally had known nothing about it, Price was furious. She was happy to go on record and name Adams as the head of a secret team that ‘disappeared’ people. It’s worth remembering that the process of ‘disappearing’ people was associated with vile, oppressive regimes who conducted these activities against an innocent population. For PIRA to be seen or linked to such activities within their own communities would deal their image credibility a huge blow.

Adams was interviewed over these assertions but because of the elapsed timeframe, his status as a politician and the lack of physical evidence, no charges were brought against him and he walked free. Free to continue updating his Twitter feed with comments about teddy-bears and recipes that sustained him while a struggling Sinn Fein candidate.

So what’s the difference between the standard of evidence that Adams walked away from and that which is being levelled at Veterans today? Both are very historical, there is no physical evidence and the testimonies amount to hearsay more than anything else. So why can Gerry Adams sleep easy at nights knowing he has nothing to fear but a former paratrooper who was only doing his job has been thrown to the wolves? I think the answer lies in the point I made at the beginning of this post. The success of the republican narrative in portraying themselves as the victims of an institutionalised campaign of violent oppression, and the Police and Military as the perpetrators of these acts.

Jeremy Hunt may not have meant to equate Veterans with terrorists but the fact remains that he did. The first thing a politician learns is the impact of statements and speeches. The fact that he didn’t even bother to assess the potential impact of his statement highlights what little importance he ascribes to the matter.

To continue to subject Veterans to these witch-hunts and trials is nothing short of a betrayal of the oaths and commitments that they honoured during their service. If Jeremy Hunt truly wants to equate Veterans with terrorists then why not go the whole hog and issue Veterans with the comfort letters and guarantees of freedom from prosecution that was afforded to the true criminals?

From Bethnal Green to Baghuz

By James

On February 15, 2019

In Military Matters, Terrorism and Counter Terrorism, Topical

Shamima Begum posing for a journalist from The Times

They were notorious at the time; the three schoolgirls from Bethnal Green who ran away to join Islamic State, or ISIS, in Syria. The national media leapt upon the story of three 15 year-olds turning their back on their own country to join with the most vile terrorist organisation with a fundamental hatred of all things western.

In the last couple of days, one of the schoolgirls, Shamima Begum, now a woman of 19, was discovered by Times’ journalist Anthony Loyd in a refugee camp in Syria. In an interview with Loyd, Begum talks about her journey to Syria and her experiences as a Mojaheran, a wife of a jihadi. What is interesting when reading the transcript of the interview, is Begum’s utter lack of remorse or sense of wrongdoing. She actually openly states that she has no regrets about joining and becoming part of the failed caliphate.

Indeed, her only motivation in speaking to Loyd was to request assistance in securing safe passage back to the UK for herself and her unborn child.

This request, as one would expect, has polarised viewpoints in the UK. On one hand, it is treated as laughable that someone who has effectively committed high treason should just waltz back home as though she has been on an extended gap year. On the other hand, some sectors, predominately leftist-leaning or within the brackets of the legal profession, point out Begum’s youthful age when she left to join ISIS.

For me, it is simple; she is a 19 year-old woman who has spent the last 4 years of her life supporting and assisting the biggest physical threat to western democracy and values. 4 Years. That’s 4 years during which she could have tried to escape, defected to coalition forces, got messages to her family that she wanted out. But in 4 years, Begum did nothing of the sort.

And I don’t buy into the reduced culpability argument due to her age when she and her companions departed for Syria. Let’s not forget that even before she left the UK, the terrorist attacks on London streets and further afield were front page and lead item news.

One of the most shocking terror-franchise attacks witnessed in the UK, the barbarous murder of drummer Lee Rigby, took place a mere 10 miles from Bethnal Green. This was a horrific incident that dominated the news feeds for weeks. And this was something that Begum and her friends would have been exposed to at home, at school, on mainstream media and on social media. And at some point stopped just talking about it, and went on to support such acts.

And it is that key word support that I believe those who should know better, are missing the point of. ISIS is not just a bunch of bearded men with AK 47s and RPGs. It wouldn’t have survived as long as it has if this was the case. It was/is an organisation. And an organisation can only function with support. And let’s make no bones about it, Begum and the rest of the Mohajeran are support.

They marry ISIS fighters, providing these terrorists with comfort, respite from fighting, stability, family. In essence, Begum et al are contributing to normalising the ISIS fighters’ experience, making it easier for them to continue plying their vile trade in torture and murder. And, despite not commenting on any further activities, Begum would have been carrying out active support roles on behalf of her husband, his unit and the leadership of whichever area they were living.

Often, foreign brides are encouraged to recruit other women from their home countries to travel to Syria and join the fight by marrying and supporting an ISIS fighter. They were also used to create content for, and disseminate, propaganda. Identify means of fund-raising. Tasked to identify suspected spies and informers, or join the Al Khansaa unit; a brutal, all-female, religious police identifying and punishing those women they deemed as not quite islamic enough….

So my point really is this; ISIS could not function without support. An analogy to highlight this would be walking into a large, UK Forward Operating Base in Afghanistan and there only being infantry soldiers with guns. No intelligence support, no galley or cookhouse for food, no Engineers to assist in construction of accommodation or ablutions, no IT or welfare communications to speak to loved ones at home, no REME or the like to repair vehicles or essential equipment, no Signallers to maintain vital operational comms…the list is endless really. But, suffice to say, our infantry soldiers would have a very finite effectiveness and life-span without the supporting elements that are as essential to their existence as their organic, front-line soldiering skills.

And, in this regard at least, ISIS is no different. Remove all the support elements, and life for their fighters would be unsustainable for any protracted period of time. The support that Begum and the other Mojaheran provided has directly aided ISIS in remaining a threat to life, values, and democracy for far longer than it should have.

And in that regard, my viewpoint is simple: Begum championed ISIS. Celebrated ISIS atrocities and attacks. Supported ISIS through sharing of propaganda on social media. Attached herself to the ISIS cause against her own country. Helped ISIS by supporting its fighters and looking after them. And is only running now because the caliphate has failed. The black flags lying, tattered and torn in the smoking ruins of the towns and villages of their former territories in Syria.

She had 4 years where she made no effort to escape or leave the caliphate. 4 years where she aided and abetted those guilty of torture, murder, rape, and genocide. 4 years where she actively assisted in the effectiveness of ISIS as it carried out its horrific activities.

Shamima Begum didn’t just support ISIS.

She is ISIS.

Veterans the next Victims?

By James

On February 1, 2019

In Uncategorized

Service Personnel in Afghanistan showing the exhaustion of operational intensity

In 2018 a Notice to Tender was quietly promulgated by the UK Government. Essentially, private companies were invited to tender for contracts which included, but were not limited to;

Armed Forces Pay, Pensions and Military HR and Administration Services

Administration of the War Pensions Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

MoD Medal Office

Maintenance and development of existing Information System (IS) and enquiry services in support of the above services

Provision of Veterans Enabling and Supporting Services

It is the last point that I want to address here as this is the issue that is going to affect those who have given their service to the country and are now classed as Veterans. It’s a proven fact that, for many individuals leaving the Armed Forces, the transition to civvy street is a difficult one. There are too many reasons and individual circumstances to generalise on this forum but, suffice to say, a great deal of Veterans struggle to cope.

A lot of the onus in dealing with these cases falls to Veterans charities and support groups, organisations that rely upon donations and volunteers to keep afloat. These groups carry out fantastic work, made possible by the unselfish efforts of their staff and helpers. But again, this is in a voluntary rather than an official capacity. And there just aren’t enough of them to cope.

The void that is left in the wake of this shortfall is being filled, by necessity, through self-help groups on social media. The Facebook group, Leave No Man Behind (LNMB) is probably the best example of this. Frustrated by the sheer number of Veterans struggling to access care, advice, legal assistance and even just coping in day to day life, the Group came together very quickly to the point where its membership stands at well over 40k individuals.

And that happened organically; no fancy marketing or advertising, no monetising of the Group membership. In short, it does what it says on the tin; Veterans helping each other with advice, connections, or sometimes just a sympathetic ear from someone who knows what they’re going through.

That’s why, when I hear of the plan to outsource the Veterans’ enabling and support services, a shudder runs through me. I can think of no successful outsourcing that the MoD has conducted that has been anything less than a fiasco.

Consider the appalling reports regarding the quality of service that Sodexo is providing to current serving members of the Armed Forces. Or the previous IT farce that cost millions and provided nothing but revenue for the company involved. Or Carillion’s dismal record on service personnel’s housing quarters. Or this one;

Capita’s failure year on year to reach ANY recruitment targets has seen one of the most embarrassing campaigns to date.

I could go on…

My point is, I have yet to see the case made where outsourcing services has achieved anything other than the profit margins of the companies who win the tender. These companies are interested in nothing more than stripping their delivery to the bone in order to maximise profits and please their shareholders and Directors. And while I’m no legal expert, it still staggers me that these companies seem free from the threat of the type of penalties that apply in the private sector for breach of contract…

So here’s an idea: There are tens of thousands of Veterans out there with similar experiences and the ability to engage and connect with other Veterans who are struggling or experiencing tough times. Use them. Employ them to build a service that is fit for purpose. Rather than outsourcing Veterans’ Services to yet another vulture waiting in the wings, formalise and fund a service that will take the weight off the charities and self-help groups.

And employ the very people that this service will be used by; the Veterans themselves. By default it will become a cooperative service, the ethos being that of providing help rather than turning an obscene profit. Veterans who are struggling through a dark period will engage and connect with other Veterans because they know that individual has at least an idea of either what they’re going through or the circumstances that have caused it. And Veterans care about other Veterans; LNMB’s Facebook page is testament to that fact.

So let’s not be the next group to suffer at the hands of another poorly-executed outsourcing exercise. And let’s not continue to allow charities and volunteers to do the heavy lifting that a consolidated service should be doing.

We’re Veterans. Never victims.

The first female Royal Marine?

By James

On January 20, 2019

In Military Matters, Topical

Surgeon Lt Lara Herbert on the All Arms Commando Course

With the news hot off the press that the first woman has passed the Potential Royal Marines’ Course, the four-day initial selection process for potential recruits, the reality of women serving in front-line combat units is now fast becoming a reality rather than an aspiration.

The introductory image shows that of Surgeon Lt Lara Herbert on her 30 miler, the last of the Commando tests that she passed as part of the All Arms Commando Course, the AACC. Lara received far less attention for her achievements than that of Captain Pip Tattersall, the darling ‘G I Jane’ of the press and media. Which is a shame, because in contrast to Tattersall’s dubious success after several attempts, Herbert powered through the tests and succeeded on her first attempt.

But, this was the AACC, formerly 8 weeks but now extended to 13 and open to service personnel from all three branches who wish to earn the Commando qualification that will allow them to serve with the Royal Marines on operations. The young woman who recently passed the PRMC will now go on to attempt Royal Marines’ training; 32 weeks in duration.

From the off, soundbites and confident statements from MoD spokespersons declared that there would be no difference in treatment or standards for female recruits. Cynics are already pointing out that the MoD have reneged on this statement by removing the minimum height and weight criteria for women, while retaining it for men. They also point out that, where on week one day one the men form an orderly queue at the barbers to have their hair shorn, the females will not have to undergo this loss of personal identity. They will not shower with the men but will live in the same accommodation to avoid having the female recruits being isolated from the remainder of the troop.

While a lot of old and bold may disagree, I don’t believe that Royal Marines’ Recruit Training has physically changed all that much from when I went through it in the late 1980s. I entered the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines, CTCRM, at Lympstone, Devon as a pretty scrawny specimen. And I found training hard. Very hard. Commando training, by design and necessity must be hard in order to provide the foundation that these Marines will need to prepare them for front-line operations. For me however, much of my suffering was the result of the attrition on my skinny little frame from 32 weeks of physical exertion, lack of sleep, poor diet, heavy weight carrying, and constant activity. By the time the Commando tests had come around, my webbing burns had progressed to open sores, weeping pus as the wounds became infected, my run-down immune system failing in its role. But I did what every other recruit did; padded and taped the wounds up, put the webbing back on and cracked on, passing out of training and recovering at my first Unit where better diet and more rest got me back to normal.

So, when I think about women joining the Royal Marines as opposed to the AACC, I don’t automatically think of them being unable to pass physical tests or carry a bergan on exercise, I think about the degrading of the body throughout that 32 week process and the impact on health and fitness. Typically, a male has a larger frame and more muscle bulk than a female with which to offset such long-term attrition, mitigating the negative impact on the body somewhat better than their female counterparts.

I also think about cohesion. The Royal Marines training that I underwent was free from bullying or unnecessary screaming and hysterics. This was because my Training Team told us what was expected of us and that it was our job to meet that standard, that when it wasn’t met we would be punished harshly for it. To that end my troop, (and I’m assuming all other troops at CTCRM) conducted a lot of self-policing; getting a grip of the serial offenders responsible for the group punishments inflicted upon us. Mostly, this was a case of investing a bit of assistance to an individual who wasn’t quite at the required level and helping them get there. On other occasions however, harsh words and strong verbal confrontations were necessary. It is one thing to deal with being on the end of one of these confrontations as a male member of the troop, quite another when you are the only female and probably already feeling some exclusion or isolation. It also throws up the issue of sensitivities, i.e., what man is going to feel comfortable giving a woman the same level of confrontation as he would another male member of the troop?

A good example of this hit our screens on the channel 4 series SAS: Who Dares Wins where, for the first time, female candidates were allowed to attempt the 2 week event. One of the women, when given the opportunity to select a partner for the milling, chose a man as her opponent. The man was warned by the instructors that he was not to go easy on the woman but to fight her as an equal. And he did. The woman took a fair old pounding from her opponent but stood her ground. Most people probably thought this was a good effort and, for the woman, it was. Her opponent however, was devastated at having punched hell out of a female and struggled to come to terms with his actions. So, arguably nothing to do with the woman, but down to males being unable to set aside generational gender behaviours.

Predictably, opinion is divided on the practicalities and effectiveness of gender inclusion in combat-focussed units with some claiming 21st century values catching up with 19th century policy, while others take the stance of social experimentation at the cost of military effectiveness. I wrote more on this subject in a previous article, Women on the Front Line, where I covered examples of females in combat: https://www.jamesemack.com/women-on-the-front-line/

So, to my knowledge at least, we now have the first female to attempt the full Royal Marines’ Commando training course. Being the first of your kind at anything ensures massive media interest and I have no doubt that this woman will be no exception to the rule. Hopefully, like all other recruits, she’ll be far too busy to acknowledge or even care about this. So, I for one, hope she does well, grits her teeth and gets through her 32 weeks of pain and exhaustion to earn her Commando Green Beret: Providing that the standards, criteria, and treatment remain identical to that of her male colleagues.

And that, at the end of the day, women in the Royal Marines is proven to be an enhancement to the capability rather than a mere experiment in gender inclusion that benefits none.

When not writing makes you a better writer…

By James

On August 16, 2018

In Writing and Publishing

Writing books is tough. No two ways about it. You do it alone, day in-day out because you’ve got to produce the work that readers are going to expect. You constantly second-guess your story and your characters; Are they good enough? Is this really going to work as a novel?

I can’t speak for other writers, but I know that I get very focussed once I’m into the writing process. I’ll be hammering away at the keyboard all day and don’t like distractions that pull me out of my zone, so to speak. It was only two days ago that I learned the lesson that, while this is productive, there is a balance to be struck.

I have my partner to thank for highlighting this to me. I’d had a good day writing my latest work in progress and we were talking about our plans for the next day. I mentioned that I would, as usual, be behind the computer, smashing through the word count. As an aside, I happened to mention that one of my literary heroes, Gerald Seymour, was giving a presentation at the Edinburgh International Book Festival. My partner asked me why I wasn’t going to see him and I came up with the usual ‘…prioritising my writing…’ justification.

She then stated that I should really go to the event, that I would enjoy it and probably learn some valuable points from such an esteemed author. I countered with several reasons revolving around the expense of travelling down to sit in a room with a huge crowd and not really have any engagement. Her next statement surprised me and gave me pause for thought: ‘You should really go. You never really do anything outside of the writing.’

Now, she wasn’t complaining about our social lives as we make sure that we enjoy our free time together. What she was getting at was that when it comes to writing, all I do is write. Here was the chance to meet ‘the best thriller writer in the world’ according to the Sunday Telegraph, and I was dismissing it to spend another eight or so hours typing in the porch? She told me that I should definitely go and guaranteed me that I would enjoy it.

Her words struck a chord and I recognised the truth in what she was saying. The writing can’t just be about the writing. Influence, inspiration, validation, motivation. None of these traits can be completely nurtured by the self; they require external providers from time to time to refresh them.

So, I found myself taking the train to Edinburgh, (editing a first draft MS throughout the journey. Old habits and all that…) moderately enthused about the forthcoming event. Entering the event location I was stunned to see so many people in attendance. The thriller genre is clearly alive and well among the readers visiting the EIBF. Gerald then took to the stage with the compere and made their introductions.

For the remainder of the presentation I was absolutely rapt. Gerald was witty, smart, self-deprecating and a great speaker. He spoke of his writing process, his approach to research, how he remains current despite being in his fortieth year of writing books based around espionage and suspense. His anecdotes were fascinating and he related how he fed them into his novels.

I left that presentation with a renewed sense of motivation and determination to be good at what I do. I picked up some real gems of information to aid and assist my writing from one of the world’s best. In short, I had one of the most productive experiences of my writing career, despite not spending eight hours on the lap-top. And all because my partner gave me the kick up the arse that I needed to recognise the real value in something.

I read my first Gerald Seymour book, Harry’s Game, in 1984 and bought his latest, A Damned Serious Business, yesterday, 15 August 2018. Having started reading it last night, I am already as invested in ADSB as the sallow, 16-year old me had been in the pages of Harry’s Game.

This was a good lesson for me. That, yes, a writer needs to write otherwise there is nothing for people to read. But also that we need to step away from the keyboard now and again and expose ourselves to positive influences and experiences to help motivate us and maintain our passion for what we do.

In short, sometimes it’s necessary to close the lid of the lap-top to inspire us to be better writers.

Fear of the Dark available now!

By James

On June 6, 2018

In Uncategorized

Available now in Kindle and Paperback Formats.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07DK976FZ/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1528312442&sr=1-2

Final steps…

By James

On May 22, 2018

In Writing and Publishing

Initial cover for my latest novel. Looking good and happy with the overall effect. Different from Only the Dead in that this book centres around a small team of rural Police Officers thrust into a life and death situation while completely cut off.

Similar themes of PTSD and maladjusted, former Special Forces soldiers remain but have maintained my character-driven form for the premise of the novel.

Have also leapt upon one of the comments from my review team who coined the phrase ‘First Blood meets The Bill in this cracking read.’

That’ll do for me!

Victimising our Veterans…

By James

On May 22, 2018

In Military Matters, Terrorism and Counter Terrorism, Topical

The conflict in Northern Ireland was referred to as ‘the Dirty War’ by many of us who served there, both because of the way it was fought and the appalling impact it had upon the victims.

The Good Friday Agreement was presented to the public as the panacea that would bring the violence to an end once and for all. It was an extremely bitter pill to swallow for the relatives of those who had died at the hands of the paramilitaries over the years and had then had to watch these murderers return to their communities feted as heroes.

It was also a bitter pill for the Security Forces and the Intelligence Services to digest, reflecting on the risks and toil over the years it had taken to put these killers where they belonged in the first place.

Too much was asked of our soldiers when operating in Northern Ireland:

They were expected to prevent physical violence between communities of opposite sides of the sectarian divide, hell bent on killing each other.
They were expected to fill the void left vacant by a Police Force that could not carry out the most basic of functions due to the physical threat to their lives.
They were expected to endure verbal and physical abuse as they went about their tasks without responding or reacting in order not to risk escalating the situation.
They were expected to return to the streets and countryside days after witnessing their friends and colleagues killed or injured, again, without reacting or responding in any manner that could be deemed aggressive by the local populace.
They were expected to completely switch from core infantry fighters to peacekeepers after conducting 8 weeks or so ‘theatre specific training’.

The republican PR machine, with its backers and sympathisers from the UK and the USA, was very effective in portraying British soldiers as murderers carrying out a state-sponsored ‘shoot to kill’ policy. The real truth is that soldiers in Northern Ireland actually dreaded the day when they would have to use their firearm because they knew too well the legal consequences of the action and the pressure that the republican movement would heap upon the Government for punitive measures to be taken against the individual.

An example which I believe typifies this is the horrific killing of Army Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes. These two soldiers were murdered in the most brutal manner by a mob of republicans, all recorded by a helicopter’s camera from above. The point here is that both men were armed but the only shot that was fired was fired into the air to attempt to get the mob to retreat. The majority of soldiers who watched the incident unfold or saw it on later coverage were puzzled as to why the men never fired at their attackers. It is my firm belief that, like most soldiers of that era, they had been so used to following the wisdom of never firing your weapon that when the time came when it was absolutely necessary, the mindset just wasn’t there.

We have entered an era where we seem very keen to illuminate the actions of our past with the enlightenment of today’s knowledge, statutes and protocols which have no comparison to the muddled mission statements and directives that soldiers followed through the years of the the Troubles.

Under the GFA, the paramilitary murderers and criminals returned to their families and friends. Those who were On The Run from the law were issued official letters confirming that they could also return with no threat of incarceration hanging over them. Yet we now find we have a government in power who want to pursue former soldiers, some of them well into their 60’s and beyond, for mistakes made while carrying out the country’s domestic security policy? I thought I’d seen it all with the Phil Shiner affair but clearly not.

Don’t hound these veterans for the actions carried out decades before under the most difficult of circumstances. Don’t judge their historic actions using today’s comparisons. Don’t pretend there is anything to be gained other than to pander to the republican victimhood agenda.

But if the government is determined to follow this course of action, then every minister, policy writer and senior MoD official linked to the formulation of policy for military operations during this period should also be held under the same scrutiny. Deployed Service personnel are merely a physical representation of a government’s domestic or foreign policies; nothing more.

Here’s an idea: Level the playing field. Give our NI veterans a ‘Good Saturday Agreement’. Acknowledge that mistakes were made while operating under stressful conditions with muddled directives and policies. Acknowledge that no party with any involvement in the Northern Ireland conflict will ever be satisfied and therefore also acknowledge the futility in highlighting one party, the veterans, for investigation.

Give the veterans their own official letters, letting them know they have nothing to fear from legal reprisals. Allow them to remain at ease in their homes with their families. In short, allow them nothing more than that which was afforded to the terrorists and criminals who dragged Northern Ireland through a senseless conflict for over three decades.

Sleeping with the enemy…

By James

On March 18, 2018

In Military Matters, Terrorism and Counter Terrorism, Topical

It may seem an odd title for a post regarding the Russian poisoning of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury but bear with me, as I’m hoping it will make sense.

I, like many of my generation, have struggled to understand the rising popularity of Jeremy Corbyn as a future leader of the United Kingdom. However, I have no axe to grind with those who support him as I believe that the individual votes for the candidate that they believe represents their views and positions the best. And it would be nothing short of arrogant of me to shout them down by implying that I am fully cognisant of their entire personal circumstances.

As I say though, I am pretty sure that it is a generational issue. I am of an age when I remember Corbyn’s unflinching support for the IRA, attending terrorist’s funerals and standing shoulder to shoulder with the very people who were bombing London, Manchester, Warrington and other UK cities and killing innocents as they went about their daily lives. I remember well his support for communist and left-wing regimes that sanctioned and conducted state-sponsored murder and executions of any opposition, real or imagined. Jeremy Corbyn seemed, to me at least, to hate the UK so much that he would leap at the first opportunity to embrace any cause that ran contrary to our national interests.

But that was all happening as I was growing up. Corbyn’s bedrock of support is sustained in no small part by the younger demographic. And the younger demographic will always seek to go against the trends and values of their previous generation as they always have. This is human nature and something we do almost without thinking. More significantly though is the fact that the younger generation who are championing Corbyn et al, grew to maturity in a very different time than people of my age.

Consider it for a moment: They grew up when the IRA were on a ceasefire and had signed up to the Good Friday Agreement. Not for them the daily grind of grim news reports of sectarian murders and bombs on British streets. They grew up after the Berlin Wall had been torn down. No sitting open-mouthed in front of the television watching as a couple were mown down by machine gun fire as they ran the gauntlet of razor-wire entanglements to reach the West. Yes, we have the dread of Islamic fundamentalist attacks as a feature in today’s society but these are franchised actions with amorphous links and relations to an ideology rather than an actual physical entity.

In short, they grew up without their country experiencing a definitive threat. They grew up without any exposure to an actual enemy. Because that is what both Russia and the IRA were to the UK; our enemies. That word sounds almost anachronistic even as I write it. A term discarded long ago as we seek to convince ourselves that in our new enlightened age there can be no such thing as enemies, that somehow any conflict or aggression can be solved with dialogue and political detente.

Which is great if the whole world follows this ethos. But of course, they don’t. But what they do, is exploit the good intentions and soft-skills approach to their own advantage. Russia has used our 16-year distraction in Afghanistan to develop and hone their asymmetric conflict tactics to great effect. Their mastery of information operations to subvert and sabotage smaller states and countries is actually well-ahead of most nations. We just need to look at Georgia and the Ukraine as past examples and the Baltic states as current ones where the Bear’s malign influence is being wielded.

And now we have the Labour leader in the UK categorically refusing to support the call for punitive measures against the country that has, to all intents and purposes, committed an act in contravention to NATO Article 5; a state-sanctioned, armed attack on a member country. By Friday, he softened his tone somewhat by declaring that he was willing to accept the possibility that ‘McMafia’ type criminals may have been responsible. What is encouraging is the way his own backbenchers have distanced themselves from him and are openly giving their support to the PM in defiance of their leader’s directive.

Yet still, we have a significant amount of people who, like Jeremy Corbyn, are pushing out the narrative that this was nothing to do with the Russians and even worse, that our own intelligence agencies carried out the attack in order to whip up national fervour and support for…well, your guess is as good as mine.

But here’s the point; Russian info-ops count heavily on the acceptance and support for their narratives and the subsequent spread on social media. And those who, like Corbyn, utterly reject the facts in favour of half-baked conspiracy theories, are assisting the Russians. Jeremy Corbyn’s pantomime performances in Parliament over this issue are edited and re-broadcast in Russia where the population there is led to believe that he is the last bastion of truth in a corrupt and feeble UK government. And the message to the people is clear; the Russian government had nothing to do with this attack and even the UK’s most popular politician is saying this.

Vladimir Putin just won another election term based on no small part on his strong stance on the international stage. The Kremlin’s aggressive foreign policies distract from the everyday suffering of ordinary Russians under Putin’s leadership and the narrative very cleverly controlled by the state media outlets. There is no independent outlet to counter these messages or broadcast the truth. Instead they take well-edited snippets from people like Jeremy Corbyn and mesh these with their domestic reports to create the illusion of international suspicion that the UK carried out these attacks.

Even now, the UK has deployed thousands of Service personnel to the Baltic states to provide a show of force and a deterrent to Russia’s recent aggression. And the reports are already coming back of Russian info ops setting up off-duty soldiers in PR coups and stings that are then reported as criminal acts against the Russian populations within Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Russia had almost succeeded in portraying Latvia as a failed state, just as they had achieved with the Crimea. Their next phase was obviously a physical invasion of the small country disguised as a ‘defence intervention’ on behalf of persecuted Russian communities in Latvia. Our deployment alongside that of our allies has, if nothing else, put the brakes on the momentum for this invasion if nothing else. But for how long is really anybody’s guess at this stage.

So when I read of people, especially those who should know better, repeating the Russian narrative, I get pretty annoyed. They are falling for the political equivalent of the ‘Nigerian Millionaire-Prince Scam’. But the impact here is far greater than that of an idiot being relieved of some cash. It is assisting a hostile foreign power who are murdering people in our own country to get away with it.

I’m not advocating that we should never challenge our government or our Security and Intelligence Services. I actually believe that questioning and challenging are healthy accountability processes that encourages these agencies to be as transparent and compliant as possible. But there is a giant difference between questioning and challenging and championing the Russian narrative. And those who do this are sleeping; keeping their eyes and minds closed to facts and reality. Sleeping through scientific reports that name and date the source of the poison. Sleeping through the very strange deaths of other individuals who have escaped their Russian masters. Sleeping through the ill-concealed pride and glee that the Kremlin is reacting to the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter with.

But they are not just sleeping, as their actions have impact beyond themselves. Their sleeping through fact and reason gives strength to the Russian cause. To the enemy cause.

Sleeping with the enemy.