A parody of reality

The latest news from Afghanistan is of a third soldier being killed yesterday, making five in less than a week and bringing the total to 174 dead. The latest casualty is another from the Welsh Guards, killed while on foot by a "contact explosion". He was taking part in a "deliberate operation" near Gereshk, as part of Operation Panthers Claw.

Given the intensity of operations and the hazards of war, it is inevitable that we are seeing a spike in the casualty rate and, to put it in perspective, the current losses are modest compared with most other campaigns.

We are told, of course, that in war, "risks must be taken" - usually by the people who are not taking them. But that risk must be balanced by the rewards. If the operation in Afghanistan was succeeding, with progress towards a stable, peaceful and prosperous country – with our expenditure of blood and treasure really making the difference – then we could concede that it has been worth it.

Not so, says Stephen Grey, freelance journalist and author of the bestselling book Snakebite, who recently gave evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on the "Comprehensive Approach" – the supposedly co-ordinated inter-agency system which is tasked with bringing peace and re-development to Afghanistan.

"We owe it to all those that are sacrificing themselves in Helmand, to be brutally frank about what is going on there and what is going wrong," Grey tells the Committee, "because it is only with that frankness that I think certain things can be put right."

One admires his optimism as he then goes on to declare that, "From the perspective of those on the ground, I think the Comprehensive Approach has largely been a parody of reality. In some ways the failure to get that right has done as much to stir up conflict and cause what is happening as it has to bring peace to Afghanistan, which surely is the ultimate objective there."

Taking a measured look at that statement, Grey is telling us that the upsurge of violence in Helmand province is a result of our presence there, and that, in effect, the 174 lives lost, the hundreds more injured and the expenditure to date – over £3 billion on the military effort alone – has achieved precisely nothing. In fact, it has made matters worse.

Stephen's full evidence can be read here and needs to be read carefully by anyone who wishes to gain a greater understanding of what is going on out there.

So inadequate and ill-co-ordinated are our efforts that, according to a soldier who has e-mailed Grey with his views, the sentiment that most accurately summarises our efforts is "a sense of total lack of delivery of promises." The view is that "very little of what is talked about is actually being put into practice."

"All we really did," says this soldier, "was to fight and kill the Taliban." He adds: "The numbers are staggering, and why is that? Because we are good at it, structured for it and resourced for it, but that should not be the centre of gravity of our efforts."

Indeed it should not be the centre of gravity of our efforts and one remedy that Grey offers is "roads". More specifically, he says:

... there are ways of tailoring development projects so that they can be both doable in terms of advancing security and development, for example, road building. Roads are much more difficult to completely destroy than a new clinic, for example. They both enhance security and they boost the economy, allowing people, for example, to take legitimate crops to market as well as allowing a much more efficient security deployment.

Grey also suggests that much of the development effort must be militarised. "The military need to have the people that can do this side of the work," he says.

As to the official information coming out of theatre, Grey recalls his experience in Iraq when soldiers were being briefed for the visit of the Prime Minister. They were choosing junior officers, certainly young soldiers, who would be in line to talk to the Prime Minister and what they should tell him. The "lines-to-take book" had got up to 130 pages.

The whole thing to Grey seemed completely circular - basically politicians going out to be told what they wanted to hear. Officials disseminate an "almost a professional optimism" to politicians "which is not borne out by the private opinions of many of the same people that make these public statements."

Finally, for those who would wish to make partisan political points out of this situation, Grey gives them plenty of material. With so many different agencies at work (not), the strategic commander of all UK agencies is the Prime Minister. "There is no other place where it comes together," he says. "So there was no-one in charge apart from the Prime Minister ... and [he] has got other things on his mind." That is the real problem, Grey states.

He concludes that, "Britain's interests need to be combined into one role, an ambassador that combines the role of both military commander and civil commander." If such a person exists, he has yet to emerge but, unless he (or she) does – and soon – others may conclude that Britain's interests are best served by departing as rapidly as possible. At least then, we would not be making the situation worse.

COMMENT THREAD

Intensely political

With two more British soldiers killed today, there is every indication that the defence debate raging in today's newspapers is about to ramp up a notch, especially as one of the reported casualties is a soldier from The Light Dragoons, who was killed by an IED. The Light Dragoons are known to operate Jackals and a recent Dragoon casualty, L/Cpl Nigel Moffet, was also killed in a Jackal.

According to The Times, however, the Light Dragoons soldier was killed by an explosion while he was on foot and the other soldier, from the Mercian Regiment, died when he was hit during a rocket-propelled grenade attack against his Scorpion (sic) armoured reconnaissance vehicle. That does not sound right – the Mercians do not operate Scorpions (which were withdrawn in 1994), while the Dragoons actually operate Scimitars. There may be a mix-up here.

Anyhow, despite the intensity of that debate in the media, as we have observed several times in the last few days, it really is quite remarkable how the political classes have opted out. For once, the MSM has its finger on the pulse but go to the British political blogosphere and you would hardly be aware of the controversy. Other matters are of more concern.

Peter Hitchens has a thing or two to say about this, and the Conservatives in particular, which rather puts contemporary party politics into perspective – hence the picture. While the Tories and their blogging claque indulge in their own obsessions, the world goes on without them.

Hitchens himself expresses his frustration about the response to Lt-Col Thorneloe's death and the use of "unsafe" Vikings, asking why it is that the Opposition has not demanded a proper debate about it. But then, as we have noted, the Tories – along with Labour and the rest of the MPs - don't "do" defence any more, along with "Europe", immigration and many other issues.

The trouble is that, in leaving the debate to the media, you get the sort of editorial we see in The Sunday Telegraph, telling us that "Frontline troops must now be a spending priority". This frames the debate in a way that neither government nor opposition politicians would prefer.

With pressure on public spending, like never before, the last thing the Tories will want when they take over the administration next year is to be confronted with the prospect of increased defence spending – and exactly the same complaints of "underfunding" that they have been flinging at Labour.

Had the Tories got their wits about them, there is plenty of evidence in the MoD of waste and miss-directed spending, sufficient for them to argue that defence effects could be achieved with little or no extra spending, and even with a modest reduction.

However, having opted out of the debate, the way is left clear for The Sunday Telegraph to argue that the purchase of the weapons and vehicles that "those serving on the front line need and demand – must not merely be maintained. It must be increased." Anything less, the paper says, "would be a criminal failure to honour the responsibility politicians have to the men and women they order into battle."

In the Observer, we see a similar line taken, with Henry Porter asserting that, "The soldiers give all, while the politicians starve them of cash". And, with The Times yesterday also equating equipment shortfalls with lack of cash, offering the strap, "Money is scarce but there is no excuse for conducting a battle with inadequate equipment," the terms of the debate are being set outside the control of the politicians.

That is the bizarre aspect of this whole issue – politics without politicians, the latter having vacated the field. They, as well as our troops and ourselves, will be the losers.

COMMENT THREAD

They should not have died

I am sorry if it offends – and it certainly does upset some of the military types, and the "consultants" and designers responsible for the Viking and the decision to deploy it to Afghanistan – but, on the basis of all the evidence we have, Booker and I both have come to the conclusion that Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe and Trooper Joshua Hammond should not have died.

More on Defence of the Realm.

Another break ...

... from the real news. First reaction to Sarah Palin's resignation announcement over on Your Freedom and Ours. A victory (if only temporary, I suspect) for the political establishment that does not tolerate real outsiders. Well, sometimes it is forced to tolerate them and that is what I hope will happen here.

Oh yes, happy Independence Day to all our American readers.

In the media

Read this and then read this. Now read the offering from The Times and wonder.

Looking at the bigger picture, Matthew Parris reckons we can't win, while Tim Collins, on a narrower front, writes about Rupert Thorneloe and ventures that this was war. "Things like this happen, and often they are flukes," he says.

We beg to differ. We all accept that, in war, soldiers die. What is not acceptable is unnecessary deaths - deaths which could have been avoided with a modicum of care and forethought.

In Aden in the 60s, British forces were issued with mine/IED protected vehicles. In the 70s, the Rhodesians developed a range of such vehicles and saved many lives. In Bosnia, the designs were used by British troops. In Iraq, US forces developed a greater range of such vehicles, which reduced IED casualties by 80 percent.

Col Thorneloe's death was not a "fluke" - it was a duff piece of kit called the Viking, that was not armoured against an underbelly threat. It should never have been allowed into theatre. Our military vehicle designers, the MoD and the military have sat on their hands for nigh on 30 years, ignoring the mine/IED threat.

This is the result - 35 percent of our dead in Afghanistan have occurred in poorly-protected vehicles. In the one properly designed vehicle we have out there, the death rate has been nil. Go figure.

Rarely has the death of one soldier invoked such an intensity of comment – and never in recent times. Ainsworth has been forced to defend the MoD's position, insisting that British forces in Afghanistan were "better equipped than they have ever been". Many are not entirely convinced.

In one thing, therefore, we were absolutely right, suggesting that Col Thorneloe's death was "a major incident with huge political ramifications". Our earlier pessimism about the behaviour of the media was perhaps unwarranted, although it is largely The Times making the running. It was The Daily Telegraph that made the running yesterday.

The Times has Michael Evans reporting that Thorneloe's death "reignites equipment row" – although he is falling for the MoD line that the Viking was adequate when it was introduced to theatre – which it never was – and accepts uncritically the idea that the Warthog replacement will resolve the problem. It will not.

In another piece, Deborah Haynes compares US performance with the British in delivering MRAPs to theatre - 12,000 as opposed to Britain's 235. She does not go into why that is the case, and why the British Army is so reluctant to embrace mine/blast protected vehicles. Exploring that might give her (and her readers) some real insight into what is going on.

Instead - and in both pieces - Liam Fox is quoted. In the first, he is blaming the lack of helicopters on Mr Brown’s refusal to supply adequate funds for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan when he was Chancellor. "Gordon Brown denied the Armed Forces the funds they needed," he declares. As always, little Liam has never sussed the real story.

In the second piece, he asks, "Why is it that other countries are able to give their armed forces what they need, when they need it and where they need it, but under the current Government we are unable to do the same?" His answer to his own question is not recorded.

Fox, therefore, is offering the usual, low-grade, formulaic stuff but, even then, he is on his own - other than renta-mouth Mercer who, like Fox, is complaining of shortage of funds. But then, the Tories have never been able to get their heads round the fact that this is not about money. Their stance is politically maladroit and illogical. It is in their interests to find cheaper ways of doing things as they will not be able to throw money at the problems. They are setting themselves up for a fall,

Nevertheless, the lack of focused opposition does not entirely surprise us. Nor does the lack of engagement in the political blogosphere. When we see this, however, we suspect they have lost it.

I don't know what is more worrying – the piece itself, or that there are 197 comments (at the time of writing). If this is in any way indicative of the future under a Tory administration, our troops would be well advised to look for a quick exit.

COMMENT THREAD

More ...

... on Defence of the Realm. What a bizarre media we have!

Goodness me, people resign?

Some light relief for our readers while the boss concentrates on the really important news of the day. But it seems that in some countries highly placed officials resign after being accused of misusing public money.

The chap in question is The Director of the Spanish Secret Service, CNI, Alberto Sáiz, who resigned after several weeks of revelations and claims about him in the press, led by newspaper El Mundo.

There are some entertaining aspects to the story:

The paper printed a list of claims saying that Sáiz had made private use of the CNI facilities, including international hunting and fishing trips, and used his post to help family and friends.

When the revelations about him surfaced in the press he was then accused of using sophisticated lie detector equipment against his own agents in an attempt to track down the leaks to the press.

I wonder why some of our people, politicians and officials have not thought of those "sophisticated lie detectors". Or, perhaps, they did and they do not work any more than the less sophisticated thumb screws do.

The Times has some details on the accusations.

COMMENT THREAD

Time to get this sorted

With the recent deaths of Lt-Col Thorneloe and Trp Joshua Hammond, the number of service personnel killed in Afghanistan by mine strikes and IEDs while riding in poorly protected vehicles rises to 49 by our estimate.

With 140 KIA, that amounts to 35 percent of deaths due to enemy action (or accidental minestrikes from legacy mines). Perhaps twice as many service personnel have suffered very serious injuries, losing in total 150 or thereabouts skilled personnel. Without taking into account the huge financial costs, the Military cannot afford this unnecessary attrition.

More on Defence of the Realm.

How the media blew it

I first heard that there had been another IED strike on a Viking early Wednesday evening, long before there was any media coverage. This was from Thomas Harding of The Daily Telegraph, who told me two soldiers had been killed, and more injured.

At that time, we did not know that Lt-Col Rupert Thorneloe had been killed. Thus, to us, there was only one story – another example of men being killed in the perilously inadequate Viking, so lightly armoured that it is incapable of resisting even a minor IED hit under the belly or tracks.

As the details of Thorneloe's death came in the following morning, to us the tenor of the story did not change. In fact, it reinforced the line and made it both more tragic and more outrageous. Although every death counts, there is still something special about a senior officer – and a very highly regarded one at that – being killed. The utter, devastating waste of life, arising from this useless vehicle, was very much in our minds.

Harding's story reflected that outrage. On the other hand, Newton Dunn who went out early breaking the embargo to claim an "exclusive" for The Sun, focuses on the claimed "massive hidden bomb" rather than the vulnerability of the Viking.

Michael Evans, who has previously written about the Viking, followed up with a piece in The Times. He thus wrote of "the rising number of deaths among soldiers travelling in Vikings, which are driven by the Royal Marine Armoured Support Group" and of the "growing concern to the troops in Helmand."

From there, however, it went downhill. The story was then covered by The Daily Mail which focused mainly on the fact that Thorneloe was the highest ranking casualty since the Falklands.

Initially, The Guardian pasted in a Press Association release, which made no mention of the Viking. On its own though, the Press Association offers another piece, with the headline, "Commanding officer shot in Helmand". This is picked up, uncritically by hundreds of local papers throughout the land, not a brain cell between them as they paste it into their websites.

Needless to say, the vehicle was only briefly mentioned by the BBC, without comment. Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent of The Independent also fails to pick up the thread.

Then The Guardian followed up with a piece by Richard Norton-Taylor. He, like Newton Dunn, retailed a description of a "huge bomb" that shattered the armoured Viking tracked vehicle. This time though, that detail came from a "defence official", reflecting the MoD's determination to "talk up" the size of the IED in order to divert attention from the weakness of the Viking. Even in death, politics plays its part.

Here, The Daily Express excels itself. Col Thorneloe, it tells us, was travelling in a tracked Viking armoured vehicle when it was hit by a blast from an IED. Then, trotting out pure, undiluted MoD-ese, it tells us, "The Vikings have been given extra armour but nothing can guarantee protection if a bomb is big enough."

With the news out, the MoD posted some details of the incident itself.

We are told that the two soldiers were killed by an explosion whilst on convoy along the Shamalan Canal, near Lashkar Gah. Travelling in a Viking, Lt Col Thorneloe had left the Battle Group Headquarters on a resupply convoy so that he could visit his men. At 1520hrs local time an IED was detonated under this vehicle. Lt Col Thorneloe and Tpr Hammond were killed by the blast.

The rest of the lengthy post is taken up with eulogies, the text forming the bulk of the copy used by the media, drowning the limited operational detail.

The Times follows this line. Despite Michael Evans offering critical detail of the Viking, his newspaper offers a "commentary" by Crispin Black discussing how "Rupert Thorneloe's death will affect Welsh Guardsmen deeply", with not a word about the manner of his untimely death.

In a second piece, Tom Coghlan offered his reflections of Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, the man, and then another piece where he described an earlier ambush on a Viking supply convoy, completely missing the point. How the MoD must love him. We will review this piece separately.

James Blitz of the Financial Times came in with his own piece. By now, the MoD was briefing freely and the focus again was entirely on the "commanding officer" aspect of the death. The MoD was cited as saying that only six Army COs have died on operations in command of their units since 1948.

There was no reference at all to the Viking. This, and its extreme vulnerability to IEDs, was gradually being filtered out of the narrative as the "damage limitation" mechanisms went to work.

Reuters had its staff reporter Peter Griffiths write up the story. He also failed to include details of the Viking. This report will be reproduced in thousands of MSM reports.

So it was that, progressively, an "inconvenient truth" was buried. The Viking has been written out of the script, and with it the dire role of the MoD in providing completely inadequate equipment. Unable to see beyond the narrow confines of a story and lacking the imagination and skills to report the real story, the media pack has sold the pass. Of the blogs though, at least A Tangled Web got the point.

But when men (and women) continue to die, who will share the blame? Not the media, of course. They just report the news.

COMMENT THREAD

Welsh Guards CO killed

Recorded by Thomas Harding of The Daily Telegraph, Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe (pictured on patrol), CO of the 1st Bttn Welsh Guards, has been killed in Afghanistan by an IED.

He is the first CO to be killed in action since the death of Lt-Col H Jones of the 2nd Bttn the Parachute Regiment in 1982 at Goose Green in the Falklands War and the highest-ranking British Army officer to be killed in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Thornloe's death comes less than two weeks after the death of Major Sean Birchall, also of the Welsh Guards. He is the third Welsh Guards officer to be killed on the current roulement, with Lt Mark Evison killed on 12 May after sustaining injuries whilst on patrol outside Check Point Haji Alem in Helmand.

The first bare details were reported early Wednesday afternoon by AFP, which released details of an incident in which a bomb blast (IED) had killed two and wounded six in southern Afghanistan, bringing to 158 the number of international soldiers to lose their lives in Afghanistan this year.

It took until mid-morning today for the MoD publicly to confirm what has been known to the media since yesterday – that they were two of ours, "one soldier from 1st Bttn Welsh Guards and the other from 2nd Royal Tank Regiment."

The MoD website, however, makes no mention of Lt-Col Thorneloe or of the injured – although two were very seriously injured, one of whom is "critical". No other names have yet been given, in accordance with normal practice. Tpr Joshua Hammond of the 2 Royal Tank Regiment has now been named. He was, presumably, the driver.

This, according to The Daily Telegraph and others, brings the number of British personnel killed since the start of operations in October 2001 to 171. The explosion, we are told, happened whilst on a deliberate operation near Lashkar Gah, the media informing us that they were taking part in Operation Panther's Claw.

According to The Daily Telegraph, Lt-Col Thorneloe, with the others, was riding in a Viking as it was negotiating a canal crossing. The explosion took out the rear compartment of this articulated vehicle, as well as the tractor. That would bring to eight the number of troops killed in Vikings, with Thorneloe the most senior, regarded as a "high flier" and former aide to defence secretary Des Browne.

If the unverified details are correct, then they would seem to reinforce the intelligence coming out of theatre that the Taleban are resorting progressively to much larger IEDs. However, such information as is available suggests this was not a massive bomb, and possibly survivable in a MRAP such as the Mastiff.

With the known vulnerability of the Viking, and its scheduled replacement, the use of this vehicle was supposed to have been restricted. With such a high-profile death, this may bring into focus the use of this tragically vulnerable vehicle, and call into question the entire MoD protected vehicle policy.

Note: Release of Lt-Col Thorneloe's name was originally embargoed until 10pm this evening, but The Sun has now published details on its web site. We have, therefore, now decided to publish our own post.

COMMENT THREAD

Watch the video ...

Then read the script on Watts up with that. Warming? What warming?

Details to follow ...

Two British soldiers were killed and six injured in a bomb blast in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today, via The Times.

A "big bomb" is said to have struck a combat vehicle carrying British troops close to Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand, yesterday. Everyone in the vehicle was killed or injured. Next of kin have been informed. The two dead soldiers were from 1st Battalion Welsh Guards and 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, respectively.

We have learned that this is a major incident with huge political ramifications, but details have been embargoed until 10pm to allow the next of kin time more time before the news breaks. This blog is respecting that embargo and offers our greatest sympathy. We will publish more at 10pm or sooner if the embargo is broken.

COMMENT THREAD

The Baroness Kinnock in place

There she was, our Glenys, in her place as Minister for Europe, answering or, rather avoiding, questions about the second Irish referendum as to the manner born. Apart from being economical with the truth about the Irish government not being bullied or pressurized into that second referendum, she gave no explanation at all as to why it is needed. After all, the people of Ireland have spoken.

Another point she omitted to explain, despite being asked by the Lord Pearson of Rannoch is what happens if there is no Accession Treaty either with Croatia or Iceland, the latter country not having applied for membership yet. Or if there is a treaty in the near future, how near is it and what happens to those "legal guarantees" in the meantime?

No doubt, the Baroness Kinnock (any sign of Master Kinnock following mummy and daddy into the House of Lords?) intends to go on as she has started.

COMMENT THREAD

Crap and fade

Read the post here and follow the link. Likewise here. One can only marvel at the fact that there is a political debate, even if we support the losing side.

In the UK, of course, we already have crap and fade. It is called the European Trading Scheme (ETS). No debate here ... another example of how the EU completely emasculates political discourse. Instead, our MPs are rushing through a Bill further to emasculate their own powers. In Brussels, the issue du jour is whether to keep José thingy on as commission president.

You can understand why so many people find US politics more interesting than our own. Weep while you can.

COMMENT THREAD

A small cheer

One small clause in the Bill to establish a statutory code of conduct for MPs' has been defeated - by three votes, including John Reid and Margaret Beckett.

The clause sought to make statements by MPs in the House subject to actions in the courts, threatening the centuries-old Parliamentary privilege that affords MPs immunity from prosecution for defamation.

It is a victory, but a small victory, but not enough ... and since so few people now listen to what MPs say in the House, one can hardly believe it matters.

COMMENT THREAD

Green dole

While the stupidity of president Obama continues to break new records, one would struggle for find anything more facile than his claim that his obsession with global warming will create millions of new green jobs and so spur the US economy toward recovery.

Now, even Reuters is beginning to notice, offering a details of a Spanish report which rather confounds Obama's enthusiasm for Spain as an example to follow.

The report is produced by economics professor Juan Carlos of the University of Madrid, who has found that for every green job "created" by the Spanish government, an average of 2.2 other jobs have been destroyed. And, of those fabulous green jobs, only 1 in 10 was permanent.

"Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the US should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created," writes professor Gabriel Calzada in an introduction to the study.

"The study's results demonstrate how such 'green jobs' policy clearly hinders Spain's way out of the current economic crisis, even while US politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil," Calzada writes.

However, Reuters has found a way of dismissing this inconvenient truth, relying on a Wall Street Journal clog which notes that Calzada, as the founder of a libertarian think tank, "might not be completely objective" – as against railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri, of course, who is totally objective.

COMMENT THREAD

This is politics

We've known for a long time that we've got the focus of this blog wrong, wasting our time on issues like global warming, immigration, defence, the EU and other, sundry trivial matters. We should follow in the footsteps of the Great Leader and concentrate on the important things.

COMMENT THREAD

Twice as much for less protection

With the results of the closely-fought M-ATV contract to supply off-road protected vehicles to the US armed forces in Afghanistan being announced yesterday, US Armed Forces are to get their protected vehicles for Afghanistan at half the cost paid by the British MoD, which has selected one of the unsuccessful bidders.

This is another classic example of MoD waste, strengthening the argument that throwing money at defence is not going to solve its structural problems.

Sadly, this message is not percolating into the general consciousness. In The Daily Telegraph letters column today, for instance, we get Philip Congdon, writing from La Bastide d'Engras, Gard, France, opining that, "the real problem is profligate spending on a myriad public-funded schemes, many of which have wasted billions of pounds and achieved nothing."

He is, rightly, referring to the enormous waste in the public sector generally, and it is certainly an argument that, had so much money not been wasted, defence could have been better funded.

However, up front in the ranks of waste is the MoD. Over term, we have identified billions than have been poured down the drain for little or no effect. Thus, while a case can be made for more defence spending, the more important issue is to improve the spending performance of the MoD. Otherwise, we are just throwing good money after bad.

More on Defence of the Realm.

Toxic leadership

The Army has problems, according to Thomas Harding. Associated Press via The Guardian picks the same theme. Our "take" on the situation is on Defence of the Realm.

Meanwhile, The Guardian offers its "take" on the Army's latest glorious triumph.

COMMENT THREAD

Strategic thinking?

.... there are other, potentially greater, threats to the security of the nation than the distant prospect of an invasion by an unidentified superpower, or an attack by a rogue nuclear state. The consequences of climate change in terms of water supply, mass migration and unrest in parts of the world on which we rely for energy constitute just as great an existential threat as existed during the Cold War.

That is the view of the world's favourite newspaper. The source of this tosh, however, is the IPPR - 147 pages of it. They'll be rolling out the European Climate Change Corps next.

UKNDA believes the IPPR authors are "barking up the wrong tree". The IPPR recommends a move away from Britain's traditional focus on the alliance with the USA, towards a Europe-centred Defence policy. "We must continue to stand alongside America - that is absolutely fundamental ... It would be sheer folly to retreat to the role of European bit-player, heavily reliant on France and Germany," says UKNDA. We could hardly disagree.

COMMENT THREAD