It Had To Be The NUT...

This week as I arrived at the famous Midland Hotel in the centre of Manchester, I noticed a messy table, in the otherwise immaculate foyer, which was covered with stacks of paper and empty cups. I checked in at reception and the concierge arranged for my luggage to be taken to my room. I passed the table, which was now surrounded by people, and made my way towards the elevator, only to notice the logo of the National Union of Teachers on it. 'It must be their AGM' I thought to myself, and not being very fond of the union anyway decided to forget about it. I got to my room, unpacked a few things, and had a drink from the mini bar, before switching on the television and BBC News 24.

"...The National Union of Teachers is criticising the existence of faith schools and at their Annual General Meeting in Manchester today..." blared out the television. I couldn't believe it, all this way for a holiday and the NUT had to be holding their annual conference at the Midland that very day. The television then shot to images of people giving out free copies of the Socialist Worker in the foyer in which I had just been standing, and showed clips of the conference in full flow. Despite having to drink in the same lounge as several badly dressed teachers for the next few days, some with Che t-shirts on and others wearing ones with the Hindu Aum on them, I did manage to conduct myself in a respectful manner. The NUT later vowed, at the conference, to boycott military recruitment activities in schools, claiming that the Armed Forces use 'propaganda' to glamorise war.

One leading NUT member said "...if people aren't old enough to vote, drive or drink at 16, then they shouldn't be allowed to fight for their country...". The NUT also said that they will back staff who send in 'anti-war' speakers to give pupils an alternative view, and openly stated that their aim is to deepen the military's manpower crisis and force the return of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the NUT do not have the power to stop the Armed Forces from recruiting in schools, but the stance they have taken in this instance I see to be very sad. The truth is that although 16 year olds can join the Armed Forces upon leaving school, they cannot take part in actual military operations until they reach 18. The military has given a sense of belonging and hope to many young people who may be failing at school, who know, because of school recruitment, that the Armed Forces will give them a career even if they don't get any GCSE's. What better way is there to channel the frustration and sense of rejection which many disaffected and unskilled school-leavers face, than to put them in a military setting?

If it were up to me, National Service would have been brought back along time ago. A mandatory 2 or 3 years service in a highly motivated, disciplined, and educating environment would do the same good today, as it did 50 years ago. My Grandfather, the seventh son and eighth child of 2 working-class parents, would never have seen 1950's Egypt, Algeria and Cyprus had it not been for his National Service. He would not be able to speak Sudanese Arabic nor have the cultural understanding of Arabs today had it not been for those brief 3 years when he was my age. I see so many people now, whom I'm sure you're aware, that have never been abroad and don't have any plans to do so. I see so many people now, who are claiming benefits because their parents have never taught them the value of motivation or hard-work. Crime is rising fast, we allow school age children to terrorise the streets and damage public property, we fail to bring up our children as a nation and then expect the government to find them a prison place. Why not let the military teach our children respect, loyalty and pride, and show them diversity of the world by taking them around it first hand?

To take a country which implements national service for example, Israel is a key role-model here. The streets of Tel Aviv are said to be some of the safest in the region, and the amount of law-abiding citizens aged between 16-24 there put our country to shame. The principles of respect, loyalty and pride passed down to them because of national service have ensured the Israeli youth are not the type to mug or beat one up should one past by them in the street. A reality which is normal and widely accepted in many parts of the UK after 6pm.

Many teenagers from disadvantaged areas have traditionally seen a career in the military as a way to improve their prospects, and for this reason I hope to God that teenagers take no notice of the NUT on this matter. If the National Union of Teachers could have their way, disadvantaged kids would be at home for the rest of their lives and not be given the opportunity to join the military; better prospects or not. All the NUT care about is damaging the Armed Forces as much as possible by brain-washing our children, a process which is happening while we, safe in the knowledge that our children's teachers are 'educating' them, are at work. If anything it's time to promote military recruitment in schools, Labour has already cut spending on the Armed Forces to stupidly low levels in recent years, surely the people most loyal to our Queen and country do not deserve another cowardly and unnecessary blow from the left.

My stay at the Midland last week was, I'm glad to say, a pleasant one. But I'm not surprised that if anyone was going to have an annual conference then, it had to be the NUT...

(Picture 1: The Midland Hotel Manchester.)
(Picutre 2: British troops on duty in Iraq.)

Happy Anniversary...

Hurrah Hurrah, what a week. We've seen the first day of spring and the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. So many docudramas, documentaries and news reports to choose from, from the award winning 'Battle for Haditha' to Dispatches specials, and of course to the semi-revealing efforts of John Snow. Yesterday as President Bush spoke in a speech marking the anniversary, saying that US work with Sunni Muslims in Iraq was yielding the first large-scale Arab uprising against Al-Qaeda, many held anti-war protests in several U.S cities amid continued opposition to the war. But despite all the media hype and independent reports about political stability since the invasion, the question on everyone's minds is still: Has Iraq improved? It would seem that glancing at figures related to violence in recent months that levels look to have gone down, but does it really have anything directly to do with the operations of coalition forces?

The answer is of course yes, for without the removal of people like the infamous Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Al-Qaeda's most detested war criminal after Bin Laden himself, the Iraqi Government would find it almost impossible to sustain enough confidence in the country to be established at all. And despite what lies we might hear from those who detest the U.S and all it's allies, coalition forces are not occupying Iraq, but are there to do a job; to eradicate the insurgency in Iraq and the remnants of the Iraqi Army under Ba'ath Party rule. Once this has been done, with the help of the Iraqi Government, coalition forces can begin to withdraw. I find it harrowing whenever I hear people imply that Al-Qaeda in Iraq 'might have a point' in fighting foreign invaders, even though the majority of Al Qaeda in Iraq are in fact foreign fighters. Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, Algerians, the list goes on and on, but that is how the left justify themselves. The 'It's their country and we're not meant to be there' mentality perpetuated by the left, is the same ignorant twaddle which assumes that Christmas Carol services in primary schools are an affront to Islam. Despite the fact that Jesus is accepted by Muslims as a Prophet, and is mentioned in the Koran.

As I've spoken of before, these facts do not matter to the left. All they want to see is the complete secularisation of schools, the failure of coalition forces in Iraq, and the overall de-stabilisation of the establishment. If the neo-conservative Bush administration were to fail in attempting to rid the world of Al-Zawahiris and Al-Zarqawis, the left would deem it a great success. For to see such a mightily strong super-power fall at the hands of liberal adolescents shouting 'I told you so', would give them more credibility than they could ever achieved by conventional means. A tempting prospect which has been to hard to resist for those without morality or honour. Political gain to them, is more important than than the future of Iraq, or the removal of zealous mass murderers.

There is a difference between being a coward and being able to question the actions of Western forces abroad. Watching 'Battle for Haditha' on Channel 4 last week, it did not shock or surprise me to see the biased representation of American Marines killing Iraqi civilians, after all that's how awards are won. But for a few moments I did begin to question our very presence in a country which would do our reputation no good. Being a free thinker is important in this day and age, and I would remind anyone reading to always question, to always think independently. Questioning an invasion that I've always supported wasn't easy, but I see that it was healthy, for how many people against the invasion have ever dabbled on the other side of the fence for a few moments? just to see how it fits. I could see on screen the violent shooting of women, children and old men, along with the sound of shouting Americans and rapid machine-gun fire.

I knew the story was probably true, I knew that those innocent people who were shot for no reason other than to satisfy anger probably did feel pain; and I was truly sad. For me to feel anything but despair for another human being in pain or harms way would make me in-human; a stone without a conscience. For a split-second I detested every American, every Westerner, every soldier; and I hoped that one day some IED might blow those evil men to pieces. Then I remembered. I remembered the trusting jump suited American Nick Berg, the Liverpudlian Ken Bigley and others who have been subjected to horrific deaths at the hands of the insurgency. Where was the justice in that? I do not for one moment think that the lives of those really killed in Haditha were worth any less than those of Berg and Bigley, and that is how we should see all injustices, as equally bad.

It is easy to forget that we are at war every day. Even if Britain pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, we would still be fighting against the vast network of terrorist cells which are spread across Europe. The current main battlefield in the 'War on Terror' is in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what does the left think will happen if we withdraw our troops from those countries, apart from the emergence of two more rogue states. Do they think that jihadis will stay in those countries happy that we have gone? The current situation in Iraq acts as a jihadi magnet in the region, attracting terrorists of all nationalities to fight its newest tourist attraction, Western forces. But if the forces leave for the borders of home, the jihadis will surely follow, and IED's might begin to be planted on our roads instead. War is a horrible thing, and wicked men will always use it as an excuse to do things which we simply cannot advocate. Such actions have blinded people's judgement in many past wars, but winning this war is what should be focused on the most five years after the invasion.

For the betterment of future generations, the world must be made a safer and fairer place now, and the 'War on Terror' is plays a major part in that. We in the West should be promoting Democracy and Justice to those in Iraq, for if we are not convinced that the insurgency is wrong, then why should they be?...

(Picture 1: Baghdad and the Tigris in March 2003.)

Shame on Stop The War...

Liverpool, named 2008 Capital of Culture, has always been synonymous with unions, industry, football, and of course the success of the Beatles; but a row has been sparked in recent weeks about the invitation of a Hezbollah activist to a Methodist Church in the Toxteth area of the city, by local anti-war campaigners. Ibrahim Mousawi, chief spokesman of the extremist Lebanese group, is due to speak at a 'Stop the War' rally on Tuesday evening, to talk about the invasion of Lebanon. Mousawi, who is currently banned in France and Ireland, is known to have been in charge of a 30-part 'documentary' which claimed Jews were behind a secret plot to take over the world, and is also known to have said in an interview with Australian broadcasters that '...pain is the only language the enemy understands...' when referring to the deaths of Israeli civilians. Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, has been criticised for allowing Mousawi into the UK, even though the Government has safeguards to prevent the entry of such people; David Cameron has also condemned the visit by the Hezbollah spokesman, claiming it to be a mistake.

The Stop the War Coalition was formed following the events of the September 11th, openly declaring at the time that they were opposed to any form of response by the U.S against those responsible for it. Amongst it's ranks are Communists, Islamists, and other 'do-gooders' who seem to have known in advance that there would be bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan should the countries be invaded. It is most famous for it's 'Not in My Name' posters and it's mass rallies in London; and claims to be opposed to; the American War of Independence, the American Civil War, World War I, and World War II. The group however seems to advocate armed resistance, like in movements such as those against the state of Israel, which from the start jumps out to me to be their first and most obvious ideological flaw. Though it might be too much of me to ask that they look for the trees of hypocrisy, beyond the their dense forests of bigotry.

It seems to me that such an organisation cannot ever gain the credibility it requires to bring about the changes it strives for. Being part of a pacifist movement (like those in many strands of Buddhism) does not involve the advocating of any form of violence or aggression, physical or otherwise; and most certainly does not see armed resistance as acceptable. The Stop the War Coalition is a coalition of left wing, anti-imperialists, many with individual aims and ideologies. Some are anti-capitalist, others anti-Jewish, and some members even claim 9/11 was an American conspiracy executed in order to justify it's subsequent foreign interventions. Despite what their more trivial personal quarrels may be, members of the group rely heavily on common values to get air-time and press-publicity, giving the Government and members of the public the illusion that most people in Britain are opposed to 'War' full stop.

Another problem with the group, due to the fact that it claims only to be 'Anti-War', is that there are many people on the right who also do not agree with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, yet they are not involved at all. Nick Griffin of the ghastly BNP, Peter Hitchens an admirable journalist and critic, and many old-style Conservatives such as Kenneth Clarke and Michael Heseltine, I can't however see any of them joining the coalition any time soon. Could it be perhaps that the Stop the War Coalition has additional agendas as well as the false claim of supporting pacifism, knowing jolly well that anyone (including Islamic militants) can aid their cause quite substantially by speaking at their wretched rallies, thus gaining even more support from people who despise the West we live in.

If the Stop the War Coalition wish to gain any ounce of credibility from the message they so persistently preach, perhaps they should study the true pacifist nature of the Buddhist monks protests in Burma last year, where their behaviour gained them world wide support. The Stop the War Coalition should hang their heads in shame for inviting such hate-fuelled racists to Britain, and Jacqui Smith for allowing it. Although the desire for the abolition of war is something which is to be admired, it is only practically existent in an ideal world. Also it should not be associated with radical political groups which claim to be something that they are not, but rather with true pacifist religious groups like Buddhists and the once existent Cathars of Medieval Europe.

The Stop the War Coalition is now so against what it sees to be a threat to it's leftist ideals, that it is now importing enemies of the West and our allies to talk in our towns and cities. God only knows where the bloody hell such deplorable people would have been put at Dunkirk, probably in the sea I suspect...

(Picture: Ibrahim Mousawi at a recent anti-war rally in Birmingham.)

Mistaking the Mehdi...

Yesterday the leader of Iraq's Shia Mehdi Army, Muqtada al-Sadr, extended the August 2007 ceasefire by an additional 6 months, amid fears that violence could once again rise in the country should the ceasefire run out. The group, which was formed in 2003, has been fighting against coalition troops and Iraqi security forces since its creation, and has made many efforts to also concentrate firepower against Sunni/Kurd-insurgent groups such as Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna. Although suicide-bombings are looked upon as 'Haram' by members of the group, roadside-bombs (known by coalition forces as IED's) are not; and the discovery of high-tech weaponry used by the group has risen speculation that neighbouring Iran may play a part in it's initial and continued arming.

To me the move by the cleric doesn't make sense. The Mehdi Army has never been afraid of violence, hence its voluntary creation in the first place; and ending fighting, or denouncing violence would render Muqtada al-Sadrs leadership as pretty pointless, (unless the group was to become a political entity, rather than a purely paramilitary one). Another possibility is of course that the group just wants to re-stock up on arms, and the expected delivery date from Iran has been delayed. Iranian-post huh, but hey what did they expect?

As a long standing supporter of both the Iraq & Afghanistan invasions (both for different reasons), I find it hard to admit that coalition governments may have underestimated the cultural, religious and ethnic tensions left as part of Saddam Hussain's notorious legacy in Iraq. As is known, the Sunni-dictatorship which ruled Iraq horrifically persecuted both the majority Shia, and Kurdish populations of the country; using weapons of mass destruction, in operations like that of the Al-Anfal campaign, to do so. Since the invasion, both Sunni & Shia Muslims have been treated very much the same by coalition forces, which perhaps mistakenly saw them as just 'Iraqis', rather than seperate entities. By examining past events in History, perhaps I can further highlight what could have been done in utilising the political climate to our gain.

Last month here on the Isle of Man, I went along to a lecture on the English Civil War which was conducted by a leading man in the field, Professor Ronald Hutton of Bristol University. The professor outlined in the lecture that even before King Charles I raised his banner at Nottingham in 1642, declaring war on Parliament, the religious and cultural tensions within society had already decided which members of the population would side with who. Professor Hutton likened the situation to a rock which has been thrown against a wall with force. The rock will not break in a random fashion, but rather along pre-existing fault lines already existent within the rock. Studying these fault-lines before the rock is thrown could enable us to predict how the situation will unfold, and therefore help us know how to use it to our advantage.

The same could be said about Iraq, without understanding the tensions between Iraq's communities prior to the invasion, the hard-road might have been taken in trying to unite its reluctant peoples. The coalition governments, upon removing Saddam Hussain from power, expected the liberated Iraqis to take over the country, much as most liberated peoples have done in ages past. The people however were divided by tensions, and inexperienced in leadership and free-thought, deeming them incapable of anything to begin with. The crisis of the growth in violence and continuing political instability in the country was the impact of that rock hitting the wall, and the events that followed could have been known.

In my view, more of an effort should have been made to appease the majority Shia population in the forming of a new Iraq, rather than the Sunni. The Sunnis had their chance in ruling the country under the Ba'ath Party, and can't have felt anywhere near as persecuted as the Shias and Kurds. This desire for revenge by the Shia population was not appeased by the trial and execution of Saddam Hussain, but was split, bent and directed towards coalition forces and many innocent Sunni civilians in anger. This upsurge in violence by the Shia community could and should have been predicted by coalition governments.


A surprised realisation of the violence, followed by an attempt to stop the Mehdi Army using force, has not only encouraged the desire by Shias to make coalition forces their enemy, but has also ensured the group now has backing from Iran. British bases in Basra reported frequent rocket-attacks by Shia militias before the handover to Iraqi security forces in December, since then Iraq's second largest city has been much quieter. During the attacks however, some people in the nearby streets were heard by several inhabitants of Basra speaking 'Farsi', the language of nearby Iran; and many shells were also understood to be from across the border.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now, and has been since the invasion, a huge threat to the national security of the country. With foreign fighters actively recruited and imported by Al-Qaeda to fight the U.S. and Iraqi security forces, suicide bombings are commonplace and are seemingly very hard to prevent. The might of the Mehdi Army, had the Shias been properly utilised by coalition forces, could have been used to fight the Sunni Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq; and with the right support, could have potentially wiped out Al-Qaeda from Iraq all together. Instead, the road in making Iraq a democracy again has been made much harder due to the failure to understand community tensions, making coalition forces an enemy of both the Mehdi Army, and Al-Qaeda in post-invasion Iraq.

Despite what might seem as being harsh criticism towards strategic operations in Iraq, I have overwhelming faith that the country will one day become a fully democratic, fully in-control one thanks to the continued presence of coalition forces there, and every day the Iraqi government's mere existence is living proof of this. I hope also however that the fury of the Mehdi Army can somehow be tamed before Iraq arrives at what is generally considered to be the most deciding factor in the future of middle-east politics...

(Picture 1: Leader of the Mehdi Army and Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.)

(Picture 2: Members of the Mehdi Army during a street march.)