Military

Earlier this week, there was a European Court of Human Rights ruling that is worth dwelling on. To summarise: the Court held that the UK’s human rights obligations apply to its acts in Iraq, and that the UK had violated the European Convention on Human Rights in its failure to adequately investigate the killing of five Iraqi civilians by its forces there. The judgment overturns a House of Lords majority ruling four years ago that there was no UK human rights jurisdiction regarding the deaths. The obligation on soldiers to protect the vulnerable during military operations is not, of course, new. It underlies the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (as well

Another day, yesterday, to remind us of the precariousness of everything in Afghanistan. With David Cameron in the country, it was announced, first, that a British soldier had gone missing from his base; and, then, that the same soldier had been found dead with gunshot wounds. “His exact cause of death is still to be established,” said a spokesman, “and the circumstances surrounding his disappearance and death are currently under investigation.” His is the 375th British military death in the country since operations began. And, of course, the politics quiver on in the background. There had been reports at the weekend (£) that up to 800 more British troops could

Talk about an own goal. Whatever Air Chief Marshall Sir Simon Bryant thought he was achieving when he told MPs that the RAF were “running hot” because of the Libya intervention, the result has been to fuel the debate about the appropriate role of military officers in the public debate – and, in the latest instalment of the debate, if the current military leadership is actually up to the job. It is an important question – nothing should be taboo in a democracy and since Britain has none of the parliamentary oversight that the US congress has over military leaders, this debate is an important form of scrutiny. In my

Charles Moore’s column in the Telegraph today makes a very good case against enshrining the military covenant in law. As Charles argues, once the lawyers and the judges get their hands on it there could be a whole slew of unintended consequences. Judges could decide, for instance, that the court martial system does not offer soldiers ‘fair treatment’. Indeed, it is worth noting that the Major General, now retired, who drafted the covenant does not believe that it should be made law for precisely this reason. There’s no doubt that under the last government were expected to fight wars on peace time budgets and that spending on the military overall

Recent wars have given rise to an unusual phenomenon in British civil-military relations: frequent, and often high-profile interventions, by serving or recently retired senior military officers in public debates. The latest has been the intervention of Britain’s chief naval officer, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, who questioned the Navy’s ability to sustain the Libya campaign. Different prime ministers have dealt with this kind of outspokenness in different ways. Tony Blair was too weak to rein in Army chief Sir General Richard Dannatt, while Gordon Brown did not have the credibility, vis-à-vis the military, to do so either. David Cameron is different. He is at the height of his powers and determined

Last night, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, said that the aircraft carrier and the jump-jets that were scrapped in last year’s strategic defence review would have made the mission in Libya more effective, faster and cheaper. His comments follow Robert Gates’ assertion that Britain and France were struggling to lead the Libyan operation without substantial American support. It follows, in the mind of Stanhope at least, that defence cuts are impeding Britain’s military capability. This morning, Rear Admiral Parry (rtd) supported Stanhope. He told the Today programme: “I believe that he should have said that the Strategic Defence and Security Review was flawed – it defied strategic

Robert Gates may be one of the best defence secretaries the United States has had in modern times. But in slamming European allies, like he did in Brussels on Friday, he was wrong. I have since long upbraided Europeans for under-investment in defence capabilities and making the wrong kind of investments. And defence expert Tomas Valasek published a fine pamphlet a few weeks ago, showing how European governments could do more for less, including by cooperating better. But they chose not to. This is not only foolish — as we live in an uncertain world where the ability to defend territory, trade, principles and people is paramount — but it