Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SOLDIERS IN THE British Army are told that “much is expected” of them, but the Chilcot Report outlines some of the serious pressures put on personnel during the Iraq war.
Family members of personnel killed in the Iraq war described the report as a “damning indictment” of the then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Today, a spokesman for families of killed British service personnel said they were saddened to learn that their loved ones died unnecessarily and without just cause, the BBC reports.
This afternoon, outgoing British Prime Minister David Cameron said:
Taking the country to war should only be a last resort… If we are to take the difficult decisions to intervene in other countries, proper planning is vital.
The report into the welfare of service personnel who fought in Iraq looked at the ‘harmony guidelines’ which set out the conditions for getting work/life balance right.
On 17 January 2003, Tony Blair agreed the deployment of a large-scale UK ground force to Iraq. The Chilcot Report found that:
There is no indication that the potential pressure on service personnel, including with respect to the Harmony Guidelines, was a consideration in that decision.
In 2003, the service personnel board discussed the effect of the operations on personnel welfare, and found that the “shift to expeditionary operations was having a significant impact on people”.
The inquiry was told by Adam Ingram, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, that the government knew the Iraq invasion would put additional strain on the guidelines.
The UK military had been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, engaged in Northern Ireland, had people in Cyprus, Sierra Leone and sub-Saharan Africa, as well as the Falkands, he pointed out.
However, what was the solution? That [Iraq] was then something we then had to attend to.
The inquiry found that the issue of the potential pressure on service personnel was not a consideration in the decision to invade Iraq.
It found that when it came to the contacts between the Ministry of Defence and bereaved families, most were conducted with sensitivity, but: “In a few cases, they were not.”
The MOD progressively improved how it engaged with and supported bereaved families, in part driven by consistent public and Ministerial pressure.
It said that the government should have acted sooner to address the backlog of inquests into the deaths of personnel.
In addition, the government’s decision in 2006 to send forces to the Helmand province in Afghanistan further increased the pressure “on service personnel, on elements of the MOD’s welfare, [and] medical and investigative systems”.
The Chilcot Report found that much of the MOD’s and the government’s effort from 2006 was focused on addressing those pressures.
But it said:
The MOD should have planned and prepared to address those pressures, rather than react to them.
“Irritants”
Service personnel were given an operational welfare package, which included TV, books, films, the internet and a weekly phone allowance.
There were some changes made to allowances given to certain staff members in April 2003. A free packet service was introduced to “recognise the difficult conditions service personnel were operating in and that it was not possible to provide the full spectrum of welfare support normally available…”.
In 2003, a visit by Ingram found that he was impressed by the morale of the troops, but that there were some small-scale and easily rectified “irritants”.
These included insufficient portaloos, insufficient fresh rations, inadequate TVs, the withdrawal of the second free welfare families warrant, inadequate access to the internet, and the desire for a second medal for phase IV operations.
Service personnel were described as living in “basic tented accommodation, existing Iraqi buildings, or fighting vehicles”.
The rest and relaxation (R&R) allowance in Iraq was two weeks, including travel time.
But by 2005, the air support was “so fragile that sustaining and efficient R&R schedule is nigh on impossible”, which was affecting morale.
Initiatives such as a shortened tour length without R&R were examined.
The Defence Committee visited Iraq, and concluded that it was unacceptable that servicemen and women “many of whom are serving greatly in excess of Harmony Guidelines” should have their leave disrupted by the MOD’s inability to provide a reliable air bridge.
The inquiry was also told that the air bridge issues were “disastrous for the reputation of the Royal Air Force”.
Reservists
A call-out was made for reservists for the operation in Iraq in January 2003 – by 19 March, over 5,000 had been mobilised.
In early June, the DOC produced a note on lessons identified on personnel issues during the operation, including that many reservists had found themselves “financially disadvantaged” because of mobilisation and deployment, or had not been paid properly.
There were “big changes” put in place between the first phase of the Iraq operation and the second. During the first phase of the operation, reservists only received four days’ notice – this was changed to 14 to 21 days.
Some families of reservists said they had found it difficult to find the information and answers they wanted, the report says.
The NAO published a report on the MOD’s use of the Reserve Forces in March 2006. It found 41% of reservists intending to leave within one year agreed that inadequate support, relating to welfare and administration, played a part in their decision to leave.
Additional troops
In mid-April 2004, the US made an informal request to the UK to send additional troops to Iraq.
The Chiefs of Staff considered the US request on 19 May.
Although they recognised there were risks and benefits to all the possible options, they agreed that the “best military option” was the deployment of HQ Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (HQ ARRC) and a brigade to replace US forces in the provinces of Najaf and Qadisiyah (option six).
Major General Fobert Fry, deputy chief of joint operations, cautioned against the long-term effects on the armed forces of an additional deployment.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon’s private secretary wrote to Blair’s private secretary for foreign affairs, setting out the Chiefs of Staffs’ advice on this. The letter concluded: “For some, this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and leads to experienced personnel leaving the Service.”
On 15 June, Blair, Hoon, Jack Straw (the Foreign Secretary), Hilary Benn (the International Development Secretary), Paul Boateng (Chief Secretary to the Treasury), Gen Walker and others met to discuss Iraq.
The meeting concluded that the UK: “… should not close the door to the possibility of sending further UK troops. We should keep the option open until around the time of the NATO Summit [28-29 June]. But there was no pressing military reason to send them, nor were we coming under much pressure from the US to do so.”
In February 2005, the UK intended to switch its existing military effort in Afghanistan to the Helmand province.
The MOD paper which informed the decision advised that this option, which comprised “around 2,500 personnel in total”, would: “Place greatest pressure on internal MOD resourcing”.
The MOD paper cautioned that: “… any substantial prolongation of the UK military commitment in Iraq at current force levels would have significant impact on individual personnel, the logistic feasibility of any commitment in Afghanistan, and overall resourcing.”
The deployment of additional forces to Afghanistan in 2006 would demand a surge in air transport requirement.
The DOC said that the operation in Afghanistan “brings with it more pain rather than respite”.
In autumn 2006, there were concerns that the army was “running hot”, and that deployments were well above planned levels.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, Commander-in-Chief Land Command, wrote to Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, on 31 August to say “the demands of the organisation are currently greater than our ability to provide satisfactorily for the needs of the individuals”.
In a report in June 2007, the PAC found: “The increasing frequency of deployments on overseas operations and time away from home are factors causing people to leave the Armed Forces.”
And:
There are indicators of overstretch in specific areas, such as the severe shortfalls in personnel in some specialist trades, such as nurses, linguists and leading hands, and the routine breaking of harmony guidelines.
Northern Ireland
The report also found that a Snatch Land Rover, which was designed for operations in Northern Ireland, was suggested for use in Iraq. It was eventually used even though “protection levels afforded by Snatch may not meet the requirement to counter the local threat”.
This was due to the pressure on resources. General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff (CGS) from February 2003 to August 2006, told the Inquiry:
Snatch Land Rovers were deployed to Iraq because they were available or could be made available as we drew down from Northern Ireland, and without them it would have been completely soft‑skinned Land Rovers. That’s where the state of the equipment inventory was at that point.
Fair treatment
What happened in Iraq and Afghanistan led to a reflection on how British troops were treated. The British government published a written Armed Forces Covenant in May 2011.
The covenant stated that members of the Armed Forces should expect respect, support and fair treatment in return for the sacrifices they made on behalf of the nation.
These two core principles were set out and enshrined in law in the Armed Forces Act 2011:
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Bit of a silly idea really, shipping will be a thing of the past soon with 3 D printers, I bought one recently, would anyone like me to print them another one?
Yeah I’ll have one. Cheers
‘Opposing it is unpatriotic’?
Haven’t we had governments that have used that phrase before?
Seems like a mad idea / publicity stunt
The Chinese bubble is about to burst, that should put an end to this idea.
Nah its not. They own most of America’s debt and also have massive export market. They can go to the wall several times before failing.
Jason, where is Chinas largest export market? The USA, you might want to do a rethink with your comment.
Declan, look at anything you buy and think where was it made. Hell, look at the clothes you’re wearing, providing you’re clothed, they were most certainly made in china. Sure the label might say another country but that country only put a button or such on the garment to be able to say that. The label was printed and sewn on in china even lol
Dont need to Declan. Emerging economies and existing ones worldwide will easily fill the gap the Americans ‘may’ create.
May want to rethink yours tbh.
Sound familiar? ” State-run enterprises controlled most of the money flow, pouring borrowed cash into housing construction and other speculative investments. In 2011, spending on plant, machinery, buildings, and infrastructure made up an amazing forty-eight percent of China’s GDP.”
How long can China continue to keep the lid on wages? The extraordinary rate of growth in the Chinese economy has concealed the smoke and mirrors aspect of their economy and the massive uncontrolled lending and borrowing which powered the growth. The USA looks likely to devalue the dollar soon and that will surely knock a hole in the value of the American bonds held by China { They don’t hold most of the bonds BTW, Saudi and Russian holdings exceed the Chinese ] Looks like fun on the way, not new canals.
Jobs for the buoys…
Why not ? Build it they will come, competition is good right?
Maurice, economically unfeasible, did you not read the article?
Bondholders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are building it with the billions that was extorted from the Irish tax payer. It is refreshing to see our hard earned money being put to good use Mr. Kenny and Mr. Gilmore!
Normal
Is that one of the most ill-researched and poorly conceived comments of all time on the journal? I think so.
Is there any mention of European investment in this article?
Do you seriously think the Chinese are so in need of cash that they’re in some way reliant on the piddling debt of Ireland?
I’d pity the Chinese if they were relying on us to pay off our debt as they’d be waiting a long time for all the people grumbling about burning bondholders to pay their mortgages.
These two things are wholly unrelated but if the Chinese had leant our banks money I’d say they were entitled to it back. It wouldn’t be their fault that every tool in the country thought building houses was the easy alternative to an education and hard work and borrowed beyond their means.
Are you serious?
@Gerard my comment was primarily put out in jest. Neither you are I can state who are the Bondholders that are receiving billions of our taxes.
Given that, the first port of call after the property bubble burst, where representation was made on behalf of the Irish government to increase trade (we were told) was China and they in turn paid a visit to Ireland? Gerard it is a pity we didn’t have experts like you to warn us of the property collapse all you academics kept that information to yourselves. I bet if you had been told in 2007 that Europe’s Economy and the USA were going to collapse you would have stated, ” I’ll researched and poorly conceived comments.” If we didn’t have wannabe Economists like you, we would all be in a better place now!
Name the bondholders Gerard before you criticise, then you can uphold your criticism? Because even if I am wrong you can not prove that, thus remain the unmasked bondholders!
Gerard ” every tool in the country” were advised by the FF cartel to invest in the property ladder and don’ t get left behind. Why are you angry at the people and why did you state that if China ( and you do not know) was one of the unmasked bondholders, that they would deserve their money back? We all didn’t party, most invested for retirement and in their future and their families future and lost everything. The bondholders invested out of greed and lost, but our CRIMINALS in government FF-FG-L are paying them back out of our taxes and when our taxes were not enough they taxed us more and our homes!
“Advised?” Could you not have used common sense?
Sounds like an excellent idea would create a huge boost for Nicaragua after all the wars and suffering it has endured
There are two main reasons this is a bad idea:
1) the massive Panama Canal expansion project that is nearing completion, massively increasing the size of ships that can transit the canal (and thus massively increasing the annual freight-tonne throughput of the canal, again using optimistic forecasts); and
2) the fact that shipments from china to both the east coast of the USA and Europe will be a lot shorter for most of the year if global warming continues and the north west passage becomes more navigable (at least in summer time).
Given that shipment times on this canal will be longer than Panama, the fact it is slightly further north won’t help that much in terms of time saving. They’d need to charge lower fees than Panama to make it worthwhile and with the infrastructure in place, Panama could cut prices in the morning without massive difficulty (albeit it would cause some given the cost of the lock expansion project) as the only competitor they’ve had to date is Cape Horn. Basically, it seems like at best an ill-advised plan and at worst a mad one.
I’m also not sure $40bn is enough or close to it.
Im packing the bags when id it starting
Why does the heading say 30 billion but then the article itself says an estimated 40 billion? Bit of major difference.
Two different currencies.
€ $
Dollars and euros.
have your say