Large Dave
21st May 2002, 00:26
Amen to this:
Labour is putting spin before security in Afghanistan
By John Keegan, Defence Editor
(Filed: 21/05/2002)
Something peculiar is going on with the management of defence news. Traditional newspaper readers will say that it is peculiar for any attempt to be made to "manage" defence news.
That is absolutely right. In times past - only as long ago as the Falklands conflict in 1982 - the MoD either said nothing, on the grounds that security required silence, or else said as little as possible, but that clearly, simply and accurately.
Now, it seems, someone in the enormous world of the government information machine has decided that national security matters less than the reputation of this administration's ability to conduct military operations in a fashion that is seen to be dynamic, creative and successful.
Tony Blair's Government has derived enormous benefit from the services provided to its foreign policy by our Armed Forces. They - meaning largely the Royal Air Force - fought and won what the Prime Minister decided to proclaim as the first "progressive" war, the expulsion of the Serbs from Kosovo. They - meaning chiefly the Army, supported by the Royal Navy - rescued Sierra Leone from barbarism.
They - in this case, the Royal Marines - are now prosecuting Britain's share in America's war against terrorism inside Afghanistan. The difference on this occasion is that the Government has appeared to tire of applauding its troops' achievements.
The commander of the Royal Marines deployed force has been cast in the role of a difficult man "off-message". His own Ministry of Defence information service has been "briefing" against him.
There is little gratitude in public life, as if we did not know that already. The Armed Forces are the only branch of the public service to have made a real contribution, by way of financial economies, to New Labour's huge spending programme.
While they have shrunk in size, they have continued to perform at the peak of their abilities, which the Prime Minister takes pride in proclaiming to be world-class.
The Chancellor, meanwhile, denies them their due. A tiny increase in defence spending, £150 million, is trumpeted as a major investment, though it is only three per cent of the money paid to a private company to run Railtrack while it is in administration.
As General Lord Guthrie, a former Chief of Defence Staff, said last week, the Services are seriously short of money and, if an operation goes wrong, the Chancellor may well be to blame.
What has gone wrong in Afghanistan, however, does not appear to have a financial cause. Instead, it seems that the Royal Marines' commander, Brigadier Roger Lane, has displeased people within the political system and is being blamed for some imaginary operational shortcomings.
It is not true that he is relieved of command of 3 Commando Brigade. Tours of command have been reduced to 15 months, to increase the number of senior officers with command experience. When Brigadier Lane goes, in June or July, he will have actually served more than his allotted span.
Moreover, he is highly regarded by his brother officers, admired as a strong leader by the soldiers and liked by all ranks. His commitment to his men and to the Corps may lie at the root of the trouble. Notably outspoken, he contradicted the MoD as long ago as October, when it was rumoured that the Marines would leave immediately for Afghanistan and he said they were not ready.
More recently, there has followed a passage of assertions and denials about the nature of the operations being undertaken against al-Qa'eda and their success. It seems that Whitehall wanted to portray the campaign as more difficult than it has proved and to exaggerate the intensity of the fighting. Brigadier Lane refused to co-operate in hype.
If there is a political attempt to massage the news from Afghanistan, it would fit into a current pattern. The Ministry of Defence, and particularly the Royal Navy, to which the Royal Marines belong, has been taking a very curious line recently about the decision to withdraw from service the Sea Harriers, which provide the carriers with fighter cover.
Correspondents who have deprecated the move have been told that the replacement Harrier GR7 has an equal capability, which is patently incorrect. Even more curiously, a bogus letter appeared in The Times a fortnight ago making the same case, purportedly signed by a Royal Navy and an RAF pilot. The letter could be dismissed as a prank, had not the Navy's PR department recently been blatantly indulging in spin.
When I wrote a few weeks ago that the Falklands expedition would be difficult to mount again because, among other things, of a decline in the size of the merchant fleet since 1982, I was told that its size had recently increased.
That is strictly true, taking 2001 against 2000. Since 1982, however, the whole merchant navy has shrunk in tonnage by half and in number of ships by two thirds, information supplied by Lloyd's List, the world authority on the shipping trade.
The suspicion must be that New Labour's insatiable urge to get the news it desires has now spread to its presentation of British defence policy and performance. That is understandable. The Armed Forces have done New Labour a succession of good turns, not that, to quote Lord Guthrie again, they have had much appreciation in return.
Policy is one thing. It can be argued about for ever, leaving the public little the wiser. Performance is another thing altogether. If the Government hoped that, by sending the Marines to Afghanistan, it could reap the same sort of public relations returns that it won in the Balkans, it was foolish to do so.
It is wrong to call Afghanistan a graveyard of military reputations. Although Britain lost one war there, it won another and came creditably out of a third. The country, however, is undoubtedly a very difficult place in which to pursue a quick, clear-cut military decision, particularly if the enemy is few in number.
The Marines have been doing no more than keep the remnants of al-Qa'eda on the run and that is all that could have been expected. To his credit, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, has just said as much. Spin doctors elsewhere seem to be to blame for the confusion that surrounds the blameless Brigadier Lane. They should pipe down.
Labour is putting spin before security in Afghanistan
By John Keegan, Defence Editor
(Filed: 21/05/2002)
Something peculiar is going on with the management of defence news. Traditional newspaper readers will say that it is peculiar for any attempt to be made to "manage" defence news.
That is absolutely right. In times past - only as long ago as the Falklands conflict in 1982 - the MoD either said nothing, on the grounds that security required silence, or else said as little as possible, but that clearly, simply and accurately.
Now, it seems, someone in the enormous world of the government information machine has decided that national security matters less than the reputation of this administration's ability to conduct military operations in a fashion that is seen to be dynamic, creative and successful.
Tony Blair's Government has derived enormous benefit from the services provided to its foreign policy by our Armed Forces. They - meaning largely the Royal Air Force - fought and won what the Prime Minister decided to proclaim as the first "progressive" war, the expulsion of the Serbs from Kosovo. They - meaning chiefly the Army, supported by the Royal Navy - rescued Sierra Leone from barbarism.
They - in this case, the Royal Marines - are now prosecuting Britain's share in America's war against terrorism inside Afghanistan. The difference on this occasion is that the Government has appeared to tire of applauding its troops' achievements.
The commander of the Royal Marines deployed force has been cast in the role of a difficult man "off-message". His own Ministry of Defence information service has been "briefing" against him.
There is little gratitude in public life, as if we did not know that already. The Armed Forces are the only branch of the public service to have made a real contribution, by way of financial economies, to New Labour's huge spending programme.
While they have shrunk in size, they have continued to perform at the peak of their abilities, which the Prime Minister takes pride in proclaiming to be world-class.
The Chancellor, meanwhile, denies them their due. A tiny increase in defence spending, £150 million, is trumpeted as a major investment, though it is only three per cent of the money paid to a private company to run Railtrack while it is in administration.
As General Lord Guthrie, a former Chief of Defence Staff, said last week, the Services are seriously short of money and, if an operation goes wrong, the Chancellor may well be to blame.
What has gone wrong in Afghanistan, however, does not appear to have a financial cause. Instead, it seems that the Royal Marines' commander, Brigadier Roger Lane, has displeased people within the political system and is being blamed for some imaginary operational shortcomings.
It is not true that he is relieved of command of 3 Commando Brigade. Tours of command have been reduced to 15 months, to increase the number of senior officers with command experience. When Brigadier Lane goes, in June or July, he will have actually served more than his allotted span.
Moreover, he is highly regarded by his brother officers, admired as a strong leader by the soldiers and liked by all ranks. His commitment to his men and to the Corps may lie at the root of the trouble. Notably outspoken, he contradicted the MoD as long ago as October, when it was rumoured that the Marines would leave immediately for Afghanistan and he said they were not ready.
More recently, there has followed a passage of assertions and denials about the nature of the operations being undertaken against al-Qa'eda and their success. It seems that Whitehall wanted to portray the campaign as more difficult than it has proved and to exaggerate the intensity of the fighting. Brigadier Lane refused to co-operate in hype.
If there is a political attempt to massage the news from Afghanistan, it would fit into a current pattern. The Ministry of Defence, and particularly the Royal Navy, to which the Royal Marines belong, has been taking a very curious line recently about the decision to withdraw from service the Sea Harriers, which provide the carriers with fighter cover.
Correspondents who have deprecated the move have been told that the replacement Harrier GR7 has an equal capability, which is patently incorrect. Even more curiously, a bogus letter appeared in The Times a fortnight ago making the same case, purportedly signed by a Royal Navy and an RAF pilot. The letter could be dismissed as a prank, had not the Navy's PR department recently been blatantly indulging in spin.
When I wrote a few weeks ago that the Falklands expedition would be difficult to mount again because, among other things, of a decline in the size of the merchant fleet since 1982, I was told that its size had recently increased.
That is strictly true, taking 2001 against 2000. Since 1982, however, the whole merchant navy has shrunk in tonnage by half and in number of ships by two thirds, information supplied by Lloyd's List, the world authority on the shipping trade.
The suspicion must be that New Labour's insatiable urge to get the news it desires has now spread to its presentation of British defence policy and performance. That is understandable. The Armed Forces have done New Labour a succession of good turns, not that, to quote Lord Guthrie again, they have had much appreciation in return.
Policy is one thing. It can be argued about for ever, leaving the public little the wiser. Performance is another thing altogether. If the Government hoped that, by sending the Marines to Afghanistan, it could reap the same sort of public relations returns that it won in the Balkans, it was foolish to do so.
It is wrong to call Afghanistan a graveyard of military reputations. Although Britain lost one war there, it won another and came creditably out of a third. The country, however, is undoubtedly a very difficult place in which to pursue a quick, clear-cut military decision, particularly if the enemy is few in number.
The Marines have been doing no more than keep the remnants of al-Qa'eda on the run and that is all that could have been expected. To his credit, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, has just said as much. Spin doctors elsewhere seem to be to blame for the confusion that surrounds the blameless Brigadier Lane. They should pipe down.