Cracks in the military
IT SEEMS that discontent in the British armed forces
has found a new channel. There is serious discussion about a new �forces
federation� to represent the interests of those serving in the forces
and the reserves, as well as veterans of both. The idea of a federation
first surfaced on the army rumour service website (www.arrse.co.uk) and
has gained high-ranking support.
Colonel Tim Collins, whose speech to troops on the
eve of the invasion of Iraq was pinned up on Bush�s wall, and who was
later investigated and cleared of mistreating civilians and
prisoners-of-war in Iraq, said: "I think such an organisation is needed
at the moment because confidence in the chain of command and general
morale has collapsed across the army. Senior officers don�t represent
the interests of subordinates at all, not just in terms of accusations
involving legal or disciplinary action, but also health care or even
simply finding accommodation for the families of personnel".
Jeff Duncan from Save the Scottish Regiments said:
"All they are asking for is some respect and to be treated fairly and
honestly. Many within the military have reached breaking point, either
leaving en masse or attempting to protect themselves via this
organisation".
Recruitment problems have led the Army to increase
the weight limit for male recruits from a body mass index (BMI) of over
28 to a new limit of 32, that is, two points over the World Health
Organisation�s definition of obesity! (BBC website, 8 January)
Lack of professional troops mean reserves are being
sent to Iraq for six-month tours of duty - twice the normal length - and
are increasingly complaining that they are given no support when this
causes them problems such as being sacked by their employers. They are
also overstretched, particularly with the recent decision to send 5,700
Royal Marines to Helmand province in Afghanistan (one of the strongholds
of the insurgency there), while the US and Britain have no exit strategy
from Iraq.
The massive unpopularity of the invasion and
occupation of Iraq has given a new edge to frustration over the
shortages of basic equipment, for example, body armour. This caused a
scandal when Sgt Steven Roberts was shot dead near Basra in 2003. He was
not wearing body armour; he had been asked to hand his in because it was
in short supply.
A ten-point proposal for the federation currently
circulating (dated 23 January) states categorically that "the federation
will not be a trade union and, above all, it will not conduct or condone
any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed
forces".
Members of the armed forces are banned by law from
joining a trade union or an association that has political activities.
Lord Garden, a Liberal Democrat defence spokesman and former RAF
marshal, emphasised that it would not be able to organise strike action
or challenge political decisions by the government: "It could not say,
�we will not go to Iraq� but it could say, �we would like enough body
armour�." This raises the interesting question, however, of what
response the federation would make if its request for enough body armour
was not satisfied.
The armed forces are an essential wing of the
British state and such discontent within it � among all ranks � is a
warning to the ruling class. Traditionally, the army recruits its
officers from the children of the upper-class, and its privates from the
most deprived working-class areas where the army is seen as an escape
from poverty or a way to learn a trade.
These young working-class recruits are asked to risk
their lives, minds and health for the military adventures of the British
ruling class, and are usually abandoned afterwards. According to Crisis,
the homelessness charity, up to 30% of homeless people under 25 are
ex-servicemen. Veterans� support groups estimate that more ex-service
personnel who fought in the Falklands war have committed suicide since
it ended (255) than were killed in the war itself, and that 800 of the
53,000 UK soldiers who served in the 1991 Gulf war have died of Gulf war
syndrome and thousands more are affected. A �forces federation� that
represents soldiers� grievances through a collective voice would be a
major step forward.
Many of the people involved in campaigning for the
federation, it is true, have reactionary views or aims. But the very
logic of collectively campaigning on bread-and-butter issues opens up
the possibility of increasing class tensions within the armed forces.
Marxists understand only too well the role of the state in class
society: to serve the interests of the ruling class at the expense of
all other classes including, if necessary, suppressing opposition
movements by force. Socialists will therefore welcome attempts by
rank-and-file soldiers to assert their own class independence and
interests, however confused and contradictory these may be at the
moment. We would encourage any steps which could bring rank-and-file
soldiers towards the workers� movement.
One of the major reasons for a federation being
raised now is the issue of prosecutions for abuse. Soldiers feel that,
as well as putting their lives at risk for the (doubtful) political aims
of the government, they are sacrificed to protect the army heads and
government when allegations of abuse surface, as they have done
frequently in Iraq.
We have to condemn unreservedly the vicious and
dehumanising abuse against civilians and prisoners-of-war in Iraq that
has been carried out by soldiers from the British, US and other armies.
Members of the armed forces who have carried out abuses should, without
question, be prosecuted for their offences. However, the high-ranking
officers and government ministers who have encouraged or allowed this
abuse to continue must also be brought to account.
There are two fundamental reasons for the abuses.
Firstly, bullying and abuse is rife in army training, and has been
covered up time and again by the tops of the armed forces and the
British government. The truth behind the �suicides� of four young
trainees at the Deepcut training barracks has been suppressed, and no
substantial action has been taken over the video of bullying during the
training of army recruits in Catterick released last year. The BBC�s
defence correspondent said that some of the pictures in the video "are
uncomfortably similar to images of prisoner abuse in Iraq".
Secondly, the abuses carried out by US, British and
other soldiers in Iraq are what happens during a colonial occupation.
They are one of the many consequences of the decision to invade and
occupy Iraq. You only have to look at the history of British colonialism
in Iraq � and elsewhere � to see this.
The increasingly open discontent of the military top
brass with the political wing of the ruling class should be noted. The
British state, historically the most stable state capitalism could
boast, is being pushed headlong into a new and volatile period. Drunk
with confidence and military firepower, the political elite in the US
and Britain are flexing their muscles, with little thought for the
medium- or long-term consequences of their actions - internationally or
at home.
At the same time, Britain�s political masters are
trying to impose on the armed forces a limited version of the same
neo-liberal policies that are destroying public services like the health
service and education onto the army and police. This is a dangerous game
for the ruling class, which may increasingly politicise a layer of
service personnel.
Naomi Byron
|