Bring the troops home, says Lance Corporal Joe Glenton

It’s not easy to speak out on your own – let’s hope that more members of our armed forces will join Joe Glenton and return home safely to their loved ones.

John Millington reports in the Morning Star:

A British soldier who is refusing to return to Afghanistan has handed in a letter to Downing Street calling for the withdrawal of all British troops.

Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, from the Royal Logistics Corps, says he will not return to Afghanistan on combat duty to fight “an unjust war.”

Mr Glenton, who joined the British army in 2004 and has already done a tour of duty in Afghanistan, believes that politicians should not put British soldiers’ lives in danger unnecessarily.

In a strongly worded letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Mr Glenton acknowledged the suffering of British soldiers and their families but also the damage done to the “noble people of Afghanistan.”

“I have seen qualities in the Afghan people which have also been for so long apparent and admired in the British soldier,” he states in the letter.

“Qualities of robustness, humour, utter determination and unwillingness to take a step backwards.”

Continuing this war, Mr Glenton’s letter adds, “will only lead to more heartbreak within both our societies.”

Mr Glenton, who is married to trainee lawyer Clare, will face a court martial on Monday, with further proceedings to follow.

If found guilty on charges of desertion, he faces up to two years in prison and a permanent record.

As the soldier from York delivered his letter to Downing Street, a huge scrum of photographers and journalists was lying in wait.

Running the media gauntlet with calm and composure, Mr Glenton articulated his reasons for not returning to Afghanistan.

With senior military figures in full desert camouflage looking on disgruntledly, Mr Glenton stood defiantly for pictures outside the Ministry of Defence with his wife and anti-war supporters.

Speaking to the Morning Star afterwards, Mr Glenton said that he had been “amazed” at the amount of support he had received even from people “he did not know.”

Revealing how his opinion of the war had changed, Mr Glenton said: “I thought I was going over there to help the people of Afghanistan.

“But we are not helping them by splattering them all over the place.”

Mr Glenton added that he believed the aim of the occupation was to “dominate a strategically important country so oil could be extracted from the Caspian Sea.

“That is not why I signed up,” added an emphatic Mr Glenton.

A 90% tax on banker bonuse: who could object?

Not the Daily Mail.

Who’s scared of the bankers? I mean, it can’t be any worse than Deal or No Deal, surely?

We could get Noel Edmonds on the phone to these guys…

Would he be any worse at it?

Truly the drunks are running of the brewery, the vampires are in charge of the bloodbank, the lunatics have taken over the asylum…

The Morning Star reports:

Labour MP John McFall tore into Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Parliament on Thursday over obscene bonus payments to bankers.

Mr Brown went along to a question and answer session with senior MPs hoping to fob them off with a tame document suggesting a few feeble banking “reforms.”

But the terrier-like Mr McFall made Mr Brown squirm, telling him: “I put it to you, Prime Minister, that the horse has bolted.”

He instanced the average bonus of half a million pounds each for bankers at Goldman Sachs announced just this week.

The West Dunbartonshire MP, who is chairman of the Treasury select committee, protested that the recent £9.6 million pay package for Royal Bank of Scotland chief Stephen Hester “is very similar to Cristiano Ronaldo’s contract at Real Madrid.”

He added: “The City has won. Like Ronaldo, they are running rings around both the government and regulators.”

Mr McFall demanded that Mr Brown must act to make sure that ordinary citizens can “trust the banks” and get a “fair deal from the banking system.”

Pale with tension, Mr Brown could only fall back on his prepared brief as he faced Mr McFall and other members of the Commons liaison committee in the Boothroyd Room in Portcullis House.

The Prime Minister agreed that “excess payments” to bankers were “unacceptable.”

Then he added weakly: “It is only on the basis of long-term performance that we can guarantee the bonus system.”

He said that an interim review of banking governance published on Thursday recommended that “bonuses and remuneration should be over a five-year period.”

Mr Brown stressed that there also needed to be “proper transparency” and a regulatory system “to take action where necessary.”

Thursday’s review was drawn up by City bigwig Sir David Walker – who was director of Lloyds Bank between 1992 and 1994.

He urged that non-executive directors of banks should be “better informed” and actually attend to company duties a bit more often. He suggested they spend “up to 50 per cent longer” at the bank.

Bonus schemes should include a “significant” deferred element to discourage short-termism, he added.

His wishy-washy report said: “Many boards inadequately understood the type and scale of risks they were running and failed to hold the executive to high standards of sustainable performance.

“Bonus schemes contributed to excessive risk-taking by rewarding short-term performance. And shareholders failed to exercise proper stewardship.”

Mr Brown told the MPs’ committee that Sir David “makes some very clear recommendations which I believe will be adopted.”

Tory MP Edward Leigh asked him whether there was any truth in press reports of plans for 20 per cent cuts in public spending.

Mr Brown dismissed this as “quite ridiculous,” but then added that “there are tough choices that have to be made.”

He said that £9 billion of cuts were being made in back-line public services “so that we can increase spending in front-line services.”

And he confessed that extra spending on the Iraq and Afghan wars had amounted to £14bn.

Let them eat guns!

Bring them home

The Guardian is trying to spin that the public support the war in Afghanistan. I don’t know anyone who understands why the troops are there – the reasons keep changing. First it was to get Bin Laden, then to help kids go to school – now what?

The Morning Star isn’t spinning anything – which is probably why the newspaper reviews on Sky or BBC News don’t feature the country’s socialist daily.

Here’s their editorial:

Put a stop to blood-letting

Sunday 12 July 2009

We make no apologies for returning to the subject of Afghanistan for two days in quick succession in this column.

For, hard on the heels of Saturday’s editorial came one of the most ludicrous statements ever made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, closely followed by yet more drivel from Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth.

This was supplemented by a contribution from US President Barack Obama which purported to be an expression of sympathy to the families of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan but was clearly an attempt to back up his faithful British lapdog Brown.

A total of 184 British servicemen and women have now been killed in Afghanistan since operations began in 2001 – surpassing the death toll of 179 in Iraq.

And for what? Messrs Brown, Ainsworth and Obama assure us that it is to prevent al-Qaida attacks in London, New York and points west.

But quite how this is to be done is always conveniently glossed over, and to claim a developing success on the back of the bloodiest week of the entire campaign is as cynical as it is unworthy.

The identification of the Taliban with al-Qaida exists only in the imagination of Western politicians.

For, if al-Qaida is anything at all, it is an organisation that exists across borders with no direct national links to any one country.

Its mobility, flexibility and lack of a national identity mean that, quite simply, it cannot be defeated by conventional military action and any attempt to do so is doomed to failure.

It is undoubtedly in political, not military, actions that any resolution to the problem exists.

And it is not the British army’s task to deliver civilian aid and economic development, the objectives that first John Reid and latterly Mr Ainsworth have identified.

One wonders at the lack of ability to learn from earlier mistakes of our political figureheads.

Can Mr Brown, not a fool by anyone’s standards, really not see that al-Qaida was not a problem in Iraq until the war began? Why can’t he draw the obvious conclusion that a similar intervention in Afghanistan will result in a similar outcome?

And can he really believe that, in the highly unlikely event of any great military success by Britain and the US, al-Qaida will vanish from the scene entirely?

No-one involved in international politics can surely be that foolish or that naive.

And what happens if the Western allies drive al-Qaida elements from Afghanistan into Pakistan?

Neither Mr Brown nor Mr Obama can surely be reckless enough to believe that their war without end can be extended into that country.

No, the answer to the growing problem of Islamist terrorism does not lie in the military might of the West, but in international politics.

It lies in justice for the Palestinians and the establishment of a Palestinian state, in controlling Israel and guaranteeing the integrity of Palestinian borders.

Islamist terrorism arose from a sense of massive injustice at the maltreatment of the Palestinians and from the growing habit of the West of using Islamic countries as the site of its wars of acquisition and political control.

And it is in remedying those injustices that a solution to this problem lies.

Not in importing ever more soldiers and ever-heavier armour into a country which they cannot subdue.

And not in continuing to spill the blood of the sons and daughters of Britain onto the ground of Afghanistan, a country which is not guilty of any acts of aggression against Britain, any more than Iraq was of having weapons of mass destruction.

War without end is an unworthy means of achieving an unworthy goal. Both our own soldiers and the Afghan people deserve better of this unworthy leadership.

Guns before butter

From Socialist Appeal, the priorities of our ruling class:

Afghanistan: Guns Before Butter

By Ewan Gibbs

Wednesday, 08 July 2009

As the Pakistani army continued to be bogged down in a ferocious battle against the Taliban inside its own borders and yet another British soldier is killed in Afghanistan, to date the one hundred and seventy-sixth since 2001, it is evident that the British military is engaged in a war it cannot win. Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth has outlined desperate measures which entail a wholesale reform of the Territorial Army. Gone forever will be the image of a glorified Dad’s Army as the TA is to be integrated with the rest of the army and better prepared for wars abroad.The plans will see the TA trained more quickly for deployment abroad, and will come alongside an attempt to bolster the TA’s numbers which have halved to just 330,000 in recent years. Unsurprisingly when presented with the prospect of having to risk their lives in a deployment to either  Iraq or Afghanistan fewer people have signed up to the TA or the military as a whole during the last few years. Under the conditions of the recession this is starting to change. Faced with either the dole queue or the army many young people, in particular male sixteen year old school leaver opt for the latter. The military knows this and in recent months has upped its recruiters’ presence in areas with a high rate of unemployment, disgustingly exploiting the situation that the capitalist crisis has put many working class people in. False Hopes For The Imperialists However, even the increasing numbers of economic conscripts that are signing up for the US and British militaries are not enough. The US and its junior partners thought they were on to a winner when they started their predatory wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These imperialist adventures aimed to establish political hegemony and secure control over natural resources, including oil and gas for the Americans and their allies. Initially all seemed to be going well. Who could forget Bush’s  Iraq War victory speech delivered on board an aircraft carrier, complete with his very own presidential action man uniform? The period since has seen the American’s success turn into its opposite. Iraq and Afghanistan have become death traps for the military forces trying to contain the insurgency and suck up billions upon billions of dollars that even the world’s biggest military and economic power cannot sustain indefinitely. Next to no resources, aside from Afghan opium which comes alongside a flight of skilled labour, are being reaped from either country whilst this whole area of the world has been destabilised. The departure from Iraq seems to be well under way following Obama’s inauguration, and an undignified retreat from Afghanistan will have to follow at some point. Yet it is clear we have entered a new period of global instability that will lead to more so called ‘small wars’ as the recent episodes in Georgia and the Gaza strip have demonstrated. TAs In Trouble Ainsworth has said in words that the proposed changes will leave intact the TA’s ability to come to the country’s aid in the event of a national catastrophe, whilst the plans presented suggest otherwise. Actions speak louder than words. Reservists already account for 9% of British troops deployed in Afghanistan and over 17000 TA troops have been deployed abroad since 2003. (BBC News 28/4/09) It is clear the government wishes to see these figures rise. It must be noted that these measures have more than just an immediate military purpose. The expansion of the TA and the increasing presence of the Officer Training Corps and Cadets in universities and schools represent attempts to build an auxiliary state military apparatus outside of the army itself. Perhaps the layer of ‘economic conscripts’ to the regular army, recruited because they had nowhere else to go, are unreliable? Could they be trusted to fire upon working class people in this country? Better perhaps to rely on some gung-ho volunteers who were not forced into the ranks of the military outside of economic necessity alone. The Officer Training Corps and Cadets are invariably dominated by middle-class youth who are much more likely to be sympathetic to the reactionary role they will be asked to play. The same applies to the TA. Armed Bodies Of Men Engels famously explained that the capitalist state could ultimately be reduced to armed bodies of men standing in defence of private property. The actions of the police at the G20 protests in London brutally revealed the true nature of the British state. The reservists being trained and sent to oppress and kill workers and peasants in Iraq and Afghanistan today could well be deployed on the streets of Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow or London tomorrow if Britain were ever to face a revolutionary situation. After spending so long telling us the money was not available for even the most basic reforms, government found the money to bail out the bankers at the drop of a hat and is continuing to fight and fund their wars. The resources have been found for this whole sale rejuvenation of the TA that will see infrastructure, training and structure renewed, whilst billions are being poured into the Trident nuclear weapons programme. All this leaves working people asking where their bail out is as they face unemployment and repossessions. Clearly the only form of Keynesianism boost to the economy this government is interested in is the same kind Ronny Reagan was: military Keynesianism! That shows where their priorities really lie and who they serve.

Police state in the UK?

A former securocrat issues a warning:

Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, has warned that the fear of terrorism is being exploited by the Government to erode civil liberties and risks creating a police state.

Dame Stella accused ministers of interfering with people’s privacy and playing straight into the hands of terrorists.

“Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy,” Dame Stella said in an interview with a Spanish newspaper.

“It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state,” she said.

But wait – there’s more! International criticism now:

In a further blow to ministers, an international study by lawyers and judges accused countries such as Britain and America of “actively undermining” the law through the measures they have introduced to counter terrorism.

The report, by the International Commission of Jurists, said: “The failure of states to comply with their legal duties is creating a dangerous situation wherein terrorism, and the fear of terrorism, are undermining basic principles of international human rights law.”

The report claimed many measures introduced were illegal and counter-productive and that legal systems put in place after the Second World War were well equipped to handle current threats. Arthur Chaskelson, the chairman of the report panel, said: “In the course of this inquiry, we have been shocked by the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures in a wide range of countries around the world.

“Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.’’

These warnings aren’t being heeded. In fact the nebulous category of “extremist” is to be broadened:

The government is considering plans that would lead to thousands more British Muslims being branded as extremists, the Guardian has learned. The proposals are in a counterterrorism strategy which ministers and security officials are drawing up that is due to be unveiled next month.

Some say the plans would see views held by most Muslims in Britain being classed by the government as extreme.

According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote Sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Contest 2 would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur’an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces. But opponents say the strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and alienate them even further.

This counter-terrorism “mission creep” into the realm of politics is worrying. Not least because it will be counter-productive.

If the government truly wanted to tackle violent extremism it would pull our armed forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This would also be a hugely popular move – most especially for military families who are seeing their loved ones killed and injured in conflicts that can only make us less safe.