Bob Seely: The new emphasis on looking after veterans is one of the most important things to have come out of the Iraq War

Bob Seely served with British forces in Iraq from June 2008 to February 2009 and was awarded the Joint Commander’s Commendation in September. He is on the Conservative Parliamentary candidates' list.

St Paul’s is a special place at best of times: austere yet stunningly visual and on a grand, national scale. On Friday it was even more special as 2,000 troops gathered to remember the achievements of the Armed Forces in Iraq. I have never attended a service in St Paul’s before, and I felt very humble to have done so, especially in such circumstances.

The hymns were broadly in tune with the mood; reflective and thoughtful. The Royal family were dignified; the Duke of Edinburgh, an underestimated figure, looking with care and kind respect at the soldiers, sailors and airmen and women as he walked down the aisle.

Sadly the Archbishop of Canterbury was woolly, his sermon unclear. He should have focused on the themes of integrity and service, and put politics to one side. Instead he equivocated, flirting with the sort of hand-wringing and vague finger-pointing, the kind of which achieves little and which was very out of place. As the reading from Ecclesiastes told us: there is a time for war and a time for peace. This was a time for remembering. By contrast, Gen Sir David Richards speech at the Guildhall afterwards was spot on. He talked about things that mattered to his audience. He put politics to one side, and spoke of the commitment of the 100,000+ soldiers that served in Iraq. He was both moral and practical.

Talking to senior service personnel, it’s clear there is going to be significant change for the better in the Armed Forces in the next 18 months.

Bob Seely: Is Patriotism going to be the next big political idea?

Bob Seely is a former journalist who served with British forces in Iraq from June 2008 to February 2009.

Benedict Rogers’ excellent post on Shariah got me thinking about patriotism, and why it may well turn out to be the next big idea to hit British politics, as well as a potential dividing line between the Left and Right.

Patriotism has always been a tricky subject for many Britons. Like a good suit, it has generally been worn in an understated way. Even Conservatives, especially the more urban elements of the party, have sometimes appeared uncomfortable with patriotism. Overt displays, such as in China where schoolchildren sing the national anthem twice a day, are inconceivable in Britain, and would be greeted by near hysteria from the ‘liberal’ Left were they ever proposed.

Yet viewed from Shepherd’s Bush rather than the salons of Notting Hill, I believe that a moderate patriotism is not only important - as ConHome’s articles on the subject have already shown - but that it has the potential to play a major role in energising our inner cities as part of a wider renaissance of English civic and national identity.

First, what patriotism isn’t. Patriotism isn’t an excuse for being nasty to foreigners, as the Left shamelessly pretend, and it’s not a genie that once unleashed, will play into the hands of the racist right and re-create a new generation of Oswald Mosleys – indeed quite the opposite, it’s patriotism that’s likely to defeat the BNP, not define it.

Patriotism is a very natural condition, it’s a desire to love, cherish, and care for one’s society. Apart from love of family, it is about the most fundamental instinct known to mankind. Patriotism through much of modern history has often been seen as a moral virtue – during the 18th century, for example, supporting the anti-slavery movement was seen as an example of enlightened patriotism. In the US patriotism is the natural condition of (almost) every American, including new immigrants.

Bob Seely: The lessons the Conservatives must learn from the Labour Government's appalling treatment and use of the Armed Forces

Bob Seely served with British forces in Iraq from June 2008 to February 2009. He is on the Conservative Parliamentary candidates' list.

Another part of the wretched facade of this awful Government has buckled with the resignation of Eric Joyce. Whilst the immediate reasons are directly linked to Afghanistan, the resignation is part of a wider collapse of Labour’s defence and foreign policy. I believe it’s important to put this incident in a wider context and to see what Conservatives can learn.

What’s the background? Over the past decade, Labour - and specifically Tony Blair - have found military power to be an increasingly attractive tool, and have used it promiscuously. They began with a successful operation in Sierra Leone to restore law and order, followed by a more questionable humanitarian operation in Kosovo.

Here’s what they learned in their first five years in office:

• On the practical side, Labour discovered that the Armed Forces are extremely effective and, unlike many other organs of the state, could deliver on whatever was asked whilst simultaneously being under-equipped.
• That the British military could be used in the cause of ‘liberal imperialism’.
• Due to the miserable political marriage between Blair and Brown, the armed forces were one of the few areas of Government that the PM could use without having to genuflect to his embittered Chancellor.
• Critically for New Labour, a party both deeply insecure in its relationship with the British people and very party political, wrapping PM Blair around the Services gave Labour huge political advantages. It was counter-intuitively New Labour, stealing yet more Conservative clothing, and gave the impression of decisive action. Both aided Labour’s polling.
• Thanks to the mass media, the role of war leader could now be achieved on a budget: "war leader lite". For example, when Mr Blair spoke to the nation prior to the Kosovo campaign, just eight Harrier pilots were in action. The PM gained all the appearance of being a ‘war leader’ with fewer associated risks than any previous leader in history.

Bob Seely: Seven reasons why Liam Fox is wrong to question Sir David Richards' assertion that British forces may need to remain in Afghanistan for decades

Bob Seely served with British forces in Iraq from June 2008 to February 2009. He was a foreign correspondent in the 1990s, covering the collapse of the former Soviet Union and also worked in Conservative Central Office from 2001 to 2005.

I attended a Help for Heroes event last weekend and it got me thinking about Liam Fox’s reaction to Sir David Richards’ statement that the UK will be in Afghanistan for 40 years.

First, the background. In a recent interview Gen Sir David Richards, said of Afghanistan:

“This is nation-building — not the starry-eyed type, but nation-building none the less. It is not just reconstruction; jobs and simple governance that works are the key ... The army’s role will evolve, but the whole process might take as long as 30 or 40 years.”

His remarks were condemned by Liam, who warned that such commitment was “unaffordable”:

“Any idea of maintaining military involvement for that length of time is not a runner. It would require a total rethink of our foreign and security policy. The military campaign in Afghanistan has already cost British taxpayers more than £5 billion.”

Here’s what worries me about Liam's statement.

First, Afghanistan is a Counter-Insurgency (COIN) campaign, and like most COIN Ops it’s a generational struggle. Our response, as Sir David Richards rightly points out, has to be generational too. That doesn’t mean the UK is committed to fighting a conventional war for 40 years, but it does mean that the UK as part of NATO is likely to have a role in fighting for the next five to ten years, and then training the Afghans for 10-15 years. Let’s remember it took 30 years for the security services to win in Northern Ireland, 12 years in Malaysia and eight years in Kenya.

Bob Seely: We shouldn't have supported Kosovan independence

Bob Seely, a former foreign correspondent, CCO special adviser, and parliamentary candidate, makes the case against Kosovan independence. His new book, The Third Cold War, is being published later next year.

It could have been the 1990s all over again. Flag-waving, photogenic young people, a wave of national euphoria, and major western nationals rushing to recognise the latest brave country to emerge from the shackles of Socialism.

Except this picture is different, Kosovo is neither Poland, Lithuania nor even sleepy Ukraine. This time our rush to recognise the inevitability of nationalism may be wrong.  Indeed, it is an example of an indulgent and foolish foreign policy where a marginal victory is won at the expense of significant damage to our national interest.

The decision to support Kosovo independence is a false step. It will have three outcomes. It will harm our relationship with Russia, extending and worsening the new Cold War. It will diminish the prospects for stability and order in many parts of the world, not least in the Balkans as well as the arc of instability which rings the southern flank of Russia. It will result in a loss of credibility for Western diplomacy.

Bob Seely and Bill Melotti: Lib Dem co-operation on civil liberties?

Bob Seely and Bill Melotti are Director and Deputy Director of the Conservative Liberty Forum respectively.

Lib Dem co-operation on civil liberties? Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.

For sure, on those issues that are up for debate in the House of Commons, it makes perfect sense to cooperate to put this illiberal and intolerant Government under pressure. But more broadly, whilst one should not rule out coalition politics, it raises some serious issues.

One of the most important is this: we have to be ready to cooperate. To cooperate and work towards a common goal means knowing what we believe in, and the reality is that Conservatives have been unprepared for the civil liberty debate.

With customary honesty Dominic Grieve admitted as much when he spoke with Shami Chakrabarti at the Conservative Liberty Forum debate at the last party conference. Dominic said that he and many other Conservative MPs were unprepared for the importance of the civil liberty debate because the Government's attack on our some parts of our traditional liberties has been so swift and so ruthless. Just a few of these include: restrictions trial by jury, DNA databases, ID cards, a Civil Contingency Act that gives the government the power to rule by decree, control orders, the Religious Hatred Bill and a definition of glorifying terrorism that was drafted so widely that the Irish Taiseoch was reckoned to be at serous risk of annual prosecution commemorating the Easter Rising.