Heseltine: The Iranian farce has been a propaganda disaster for Britain throughout the world

Excellent article from former Defence Secretary Lord Heseltine in this morning's Daily Mail.  Here are some key extracts of a piece in which he lays a large part of the blame on Gordon Brown for underfunding Britain's overstrectched armed services:

This has been a terrible low point for the global reputation of Britain's armed services: "Throughout my career, I have had huge admiration for the armed services, heightened by my spell at the Ministry of Defence. Without them, our liberty would be at risk.  Through their resolution, with our Nato allies we emerged victorious from the Cold War, achieving the end of Soviet tyranny.  During the past three decades, they have helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, rid the Falkland Islanders of foreign occupation, ended ethnic conflict in the Balkans, upheld democracy in Sierra Leone and conducted a host of humanitarian missions throughout the Third World.  In the past we have always been - quite rightly - proud of our armed forces.  But the Iranian farce marks a low point. Everyone, from the Government down, is tainted by its outcome, which has been a propaganda disaster for us across the world."

At the heart of the farce has been Gordon Brown's underfunding of the military: "Frontline units have been starved of resources and personnel, condemning them to severe overstretching, often inadequate equipment and even poor housing when returning to home duties.  And Gordon Brown has shown nothing like the same enthusiasm for funding the military as he has for pouring money into State bureaucracy and his vast welfare schemes.  That indifference towards effective provision seems to have played its part in the Iranian affair, since the Royal Navy's exercise appears to have been conducted without proper equipment or support, making it easy for Tehran's Revolutionary Guards to seize the unit without a fight.  Good communications, armament and helicopter back-up all seem to have been lacking, even though the Iranians had made it obvious that they were looking for a chance to interfere."

The need for a fully inquiry: "Given the extent of this mess, we must have a public inquiry into what has happened. Such an inquiry would have to examine three fundamental issues.  First, it should look into the exact circumstances of the detention of the Royal Navy party, studying in particular the alleged lack of support from the nearby task force headed by HMS Cornwall.  We need to know why the raiding party was so pitifully armed and seemed to have no cover from any helicopter. We also need to find out what actually occurred in Iran, beyond the empty propaganda of the Tehran regime and the stories of the detainees.  Second, we have to find out who actually took the decision to allow the personnel to sell their stories. At what level was it made in the MoD? Was the Defence Secretary consulted, or indeed the Prime Minister? What was the reasoning behind this radical departure from official policy? ...Third, any inquiry must address the damage done to the armed forces' prestige and morale. By all accounts, anger is now running high in the rest of the military, and the families of those lost in recent conflicts are bound to feel betrayed."

Editor's note: "Lord Heseltine is surely right about the underfunding of Britain's armed forces.  Although Liam Fox is looking for ways of better using the existing budget it is vital that George Osborne finds room for a steady year-on-year increase in funding for the nation's defence.  It must be any Conservative Government's first priority and certainly must come before any more squandering of resources on unreformed public services."

Related link on BritainAndAmerica.com: 25 years after the Falkland War - The ten weaknesses of Britain

Comments

[Umbrella Man]

In his tribute to the armed services over the last 30 years Heseltine should have acknowledged the commitment of troops in Iraq and Afganistan even if he does not agree with the respective mission.

[Richard North]

This is the man that approved the Eurofighter, which is to a very great extent responsible for some of the Forces' budgetary problems.

And he is just as wrong on this as he was on that. THERE WERE NO RESOURCE ISSUES. Commodore Lambert, in charge of the operation, had 12 warships at his disposal, but chose to send in two RIBS unescorted.

If this is what passes for political analysis in this country, it is more than the Navy which is a problems.

[Richard Weatherill]

I hope Michael Heseltine didn't use the term "raiding party" to describe the British personnel's mission? (I haven't seen the original article.) I thought they were on boarding duties, which is an entirely different role.

[John Coles]

The First and Second Sea Lords have much to answer for. Their joint or individual acquiescence to the selling of stories and not having a board of Enquiry/Court Martial is a disgrace.
250 years ago Admiral Byng was shot for an alleged failure of leadership. Even in Blairite Britain a resignation or two from the Navy Board would offer some expiation of the shame brought upon the Service.

[anyone but gordon]

Des Browne is under fire this morning and may end up being sacrificed but don't forget that Des is only a stooge of Gordon's and was acting directly on the Chancellor's orders with regard to encouraging the naval personnel to sell their stories.

This is a humiliating shambles and is of Gordon Brown's making. Don't let Gordon do a McCavity again.

[Richard North]

"Even in Blairite Britain a resignation or two from the Navy Board would offer some expiation of the shame brought upon the Service."

It would be a start, but the problems go deeper and are more fundamental. And sorting them out is not even going to start until we get past the simple mantras of "underfunding" and "overstretch".

Seems to me "overstretch" is being used as an excuse for piss poor performance (why did it need 15 people to inspect a freighter, when a boarding team is usually 6?), while the budgetary discipline in the Navy (and forces generally) is so poor that giving the Services more money would be like giving an alchoholic more because he had spent the housekeeping on booze.

However, we can hardly expect the Navy or any other institution to up its game if political analysis and commentary remains at kindergarten level.

[Tory T]

John Coles time was when Defence Secretaries resigned over things like this. Of course, that presupposes a modicum of honour.

It is an excellent article by Heseltine and he was great on News at Ten last night.

I appreciate greatly his call to establish what happened in Iran "beyond the stories" of the detainees. He shows political courage by refusing blankly to accept that these men and women conducted themselves as they ought to have done. The definition of "torture" we were afforded by the youngest sailor in yesterday's Mirror was beyond belief.

I have had to stop reading foreign blogs, such is the universal contempt this incident has excited and I fear, rightly so.

What we MUST remember is that our serving forces in Iraq and throughout the world are not to be characterised by this one incident or these handful of sailors. We must remember the brave young man awarded the VC and the female medic, first of her sex to win the Military Cross (for treating a superior officer whilst under heavy fire at pretty close range). I prefer to hold her in my mind as a true example of our servicewomen than Smn. Turney.

[Tory T]

The story of Private Michelle Norris, MC

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389850-details/Michelle+MC,+bravest+girl+in+the+Army/article.do

The story of Private Johnson Beharry, VC

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1440575,00.html

[Tory T]

From the story of Private Beharry, VC

"Another RPG hit the Warrior. "The flames and force of the blast passed directly over him, down the driver's tunnel, further wounding the semi-conscious gunner in the turret."

Pte Beharry was "forced to drive the vehicle along the rest of the ambushed route, some 1,500 metres, with his hatch opened up and his head exposed to enemy fire, all the time with no communications with any other vehicle."

A 7.62mm bullet penetrated his helmet and remained lodged on its inner surface.

Pte Beharry then climbed on to the turret of the burning vehicle and, "seemingly oblivious to the incoming enemy small arms fire, manhandled his wounded platoon commander out of the turret, off the vehicle and to the safety of a nearby Warrior".

Remounting his burning vehicle for the third time, he drove it through "a complex chicane and into the security of the defended perimeter of the outpost, thus denying it to the enemy". Once inside, he collapsed from physical and mental exhaustion.

A few weeks later, on June 11, another Warrior convoy he was leading was ambushed. A grenade detonated six inches from his head.

"With the blood from his head injury obscuring his vision, Beharry managed to continue to control his vehicle and forcefully reversed the Warrior out of the ambush," says the citation. He then collapsed, unconscious."

From the story of Private Norris, MC:

"Private Michelle Norris, 19, braved a hail of sniper and machine-gun fire from 200 insurgents during a pitched battle in southern Iraq in order to give lifesaving treatment to a wounded comrade.

Ignoring the bullets ricocheting around her - one blasting through her rucksack - the young medic clambered on top of an armoured vehicle to help her injured commander.

It was the first time she had been confronted with a casualty on the battlefield...

On June 11 last year, she "came under heavy, accurate and sustained attack" according to her medal citation, after her unit was involved in "the largest and most intense battle in Iraq since 2004".

After the commander of her Warrior was shot in the face, she climbed out of the armoured vehicle to give first aid despite the obvious danger.

Snipers turned their fire on the Warrior, sending bullets smashing into the turret "inches from her leg", but Private Norris continued administering treatment for three minutes until other soldiers helped her drag the injured commander inside the vehicle.

Thanks to her bravery the injured soldier, Colour Sergeant Ian Page, made a full recovery."

Let's read these stories of courage from our male and female soldiers and remind ourselves of what stuff the vast majority of our Armed Forces are made.

[Richard North]

"John Coles time was when Defence Secretaries resigned over things like this. Of course, that presupposes a modicum of honour."

I think Tory T rather makes my point for me...

Heseltine walks into the controversy as a Johnny-come-lately with a few superficial, ill-founded observations and the Tory chatterati rolls over and lets its tummy be tickled.

Going for the Sec of State is the cheap shot, yet what started this whole affairs were OPERATIONAL FAILURES.

Further, it is evident that the Admiralty is engaged in a major-cover up, part of which, clearly, is an attempt to shift blame from the Navy to the politicians. Heseltine simply aids and abets the guilty men.

Should the Conservatives ever get to government, they will face similar problems and, in this, Fox has (or should have) common cause with Browne. There is an errant, under-performing spending department here (the Royal Navy) which needs sorting.

Lauding the bravery of individuals is one thing, but the politicians responsiblity is also to set up the structures which sustains them.

Support for the Forces is vitally important, but it should be conditional on its doing its job effectively, as a whole, not simply on the bravery of a small number of individuals.

[Sean Fear]

Quite right, Tory T.

[George Hinton]

Tarzan's a bit slow in coming forward to state the obvious.
Gordon has had his dead hand on the piggy bank for a decade, B-liar can only spout the rhetoric, if it doesn't suit Gordo's terms then there's no money. We have seen the Treasury, hack back military budgets over the years, we have seen the actual physical effects, with the Navy laying off ships, the RAF cannibalising parts and restricting flying time, and the Army starved of the proper kit to do a basic job, with squaddies buying personal kit because the stuff procured is rubbish. All services are equipped with kit that is long due for replacement or not suited for today's military confrontations.
We've had 10 years of this, during which time our pacific, socialist PM has embroiled the armed forces in a number of ventures. It is only because of the professionalism of the forces that they have succeeded, "being used to punching above their weight", as it's the only recourse.
NuLab have squandered billions, on the dogma of re-engineering our society, making all dependant on hand-outs, to the detriment of spending on the "defence of the realm". That of course includes our porous borders and a Justice System that is clearly failing. The result of successive Home Secretaries being unfit for purpose. Blunkett of course, sees fit to publish a book that is a vainglorious paean to his success, ignoring the difficult facts and failures as any good and true egotistical maniac would.
This shower of market traders, wide boys, spivs, snake oil peddlars, boiler room sharks should be hauled up before the beak and send down for crimes against the populance.

[Umbrella Man]

Richard,
I agree with you on operational failures but there clearly are spending issues here, too.

[malcolm]

Of course the Navy should be castigated for operational failures but the behaviour of the MOD has been absolutely lamentable. If it is true that the Navy Chiefs were pressured into allowing the sailors to sell their stories as part of a PR strategy devised by Dave Hill as alleged yesterday by Kelvin Mackenzie then Heseltine and Fox is absolutely right to go after Browne.

[Richard North]

There are huge spending issues to do with defence in general, but in this case, there is no evidence that policing of the Northern Arabian Gulf was under-resourced to the extent that it was responsible for the lack of security for the mission in question.

[Richard North]

Posted by: malcolm | April 10, 2007 at 11:03

"If it is true that the Navy Chiefs were pressured into allowing the sailors to sell their stories as part of a PR strategy devised by Dave Hill as alleged yesterday by Kelvin Mackenzie ..."

It isn't true and Mackenzie didn't allege it.

[Ted]

Find myself in unique position of agreeing with both Richard North and Michael Heseltine.

The primary requirement is for an enquiry into the causes of the operational failure that resulted in these people being captured; the prime responsibility of that being with the immediate commanders in the area. The Admiralty or parts of it are at fault. It must not be allowed to happen again.

Where I agree with Heseltine is that the enquiry also needs to look at the circumstances and rules of engagement, set by politicians & the MOD, that put in place this operation and at aftermath of their capture, particularly the involvement of the MoD or No 10.

If Blair or Browne were trying to retrieve the PR disaster by hoping to distracrt us with tales of Iranian misbehaviour that needs to be exposed as well.

[malcolm]

Richard North, Kelvin Mackenzie most certainly did allege it.It was the last item on the Today programme yesterday. You can listen to it on the BBC if you like.

[Richard North]

Posted by: malcolm | April 10, 2007 at 11:34

"Richard North, Kelvin Mackenzie most certainly did allege it.It was the last item on the Today programme yesterday. You can listen to it on the BBC if you like."

I did listen to it, at the time, and blogged it within minutes of the piece finishing. Mackenzie alleged that No. 10 spin doctors were going round, offering the media "help with their editorials". That was last week, before the hostages had been released, while COBRA was still in session.

This decision was taken by the Navy, after the hostages had been released. See Michael Evans in The Times today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1633059.ece

He is better informed than Mackenzie, and cetainly has a better picture than Heseltine.

[TomTom]

A real pity Patrick Mercer is not Shadow Defence Secretary.......he tells it like it is

[Scotty]

I was shocked when the MOD announced that the freed hostages could sell their stories against normal rules for military personal. Then I thought about it and realised that the MOD were trying to deflect the media away from the story and questions that worries them, now they are safely back we can have a proper enquiry into how the Iranians were able to get so near and abduct them with so little protection or support available. More evidence of the damaging shortages which Gordon Brown has imposed because of lack of proper funding?
The last thing he wants just now is the media to scrutinize his lack of serious investment in the day to day running and equipment needed now on the ground for the added safety or our military on active service.
While Macavity was using our troops in Afghanistan to avoid being around when the advice against his pensions raid became public, now he will be trying to distance himself from them if it effects his personal ambitions!

[Richard North]

"More evidence of the damaging shortages which Gordon Brown has imposed because of lack of proper funding?"

I give up.

[Richard]

The Sun Newspaper currently has an online debate taking place as to whether Faye Turney should be awarded the Victoria Cross.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/10196.page

[LoonyTunes]

should be awarded the Victoria Cross.

We'll have to ask Mrs Beckham if she's prepared to give her one

[Scotty]

"There are huge spending issues to do with defence in general, but in this case, there is no evidence that policing of the Northern Arabian Gulf was under-resourced to the extent that it was responsible for the lack of security for the mission in question."
The only helicopter available had to leave refuel leaving the sailors and marines with no air cover at a time when they were vulnerable to attack, why was it not replaced by another helicopter or operations halted until it returned?
Were the soon to be abducted personal informed of the withdrawal of the helicopter or did they just see it fly away while they were in the middle of a boarding operation which left them at their most vulnerable?
Whether at sea or on land the most blatantly obvious shortage faced by our military personal on the ground is a lack of helicopters, the "workhorse" of any army or navy when on active duty.
Des Browne is in the MOD because he is a Brown treasury stodge, his job is to keep the British armed forces within a budget set by Gordon Brown who is more interested in his personal ambition to be PM than funding the armed forces while they carry out Blair's foreign policy crusade!

[Richard Weatherill]

I like the idea of a Brown treasury "stodge", Scotty. Seems to go nicely with the great clunking fist!

[James]

Are you having a bloody joke?! Victoria Cross?!

[TomTom]

Are you having a bloody joke?! Victoria Cross?!

Posted by: James | April 10, 2007 at 14:22

I am being deadly serious - if Mrs Beckham has a cross to spare she could give it to Tugboat Turney...........

It is the only Victoria that comes to mind in connection with The Sun and Tugboat "Topsy"

I shall henceforth regard your postings as a complete joke James; you cannot possibly be taken seriously if you think any other Victoria comes to mind

[George Hinton]

Well, i thought they were referring to a Victoria Cake, with a lovely bit of icing an all the trimmings.

[Richard North]

Posted by: Scotty | April 10, 2007 at 13:29

"The only helicopter available had to leave refuel leaving the sailors and marines with no air cover at a time when they were vulnerable to attack, why was it not replaced by another helicopter or operations halted until it returned?

Were the soon to be abducted personal informed of the withdrawal of the helicopter or did they just see it fly away while they were in the middle of a boarding operation which left them at their most vulnerable?
Whether at sea or on land the most blatantly obvious shortage faced by our military personal on the ground is a lack of helicopters, the "workhorse" of any army or navy when on active duty."

If you had done a little reading around the subject, you could have answered those questions yourself. For instance, try reading this:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/04/start-of-cover-up.html

...instead of BBC digests.

As to your "argument":

Firstly, the operation mounted was in the context of joint operations under the aegis of Coalition Task Force 158. This task force had twelve warships and a number of helicopters (plus fixed wing assets). Other warships were on station, as indeed were other helicopters. It was never the case, therefore, that the Lynx from HMS Cornwall was the only helio avaialable.

Secondly, the Lynx Mk8 has an endurance of four hours. The boarding exercise took 80 minutes. The Lynx helicopter could easily have covered the full exercise.

Third, air cover is not normally provided for coalition boarding exercises and is a poor substitute for a warship on station providing "overwatch" and immediate backup.

As coalition force commander, Commodore Lambert had 12 warships at his immediate disposal, under his personal command (and more available as back-up), at least eight of which could have operated in the shallow waters alongside the freighter during the inspection.

The helicopter issue, therefore, is a red herring. The real question is why Commodore Lambert did not deploy the assets at his disposal and why, contrary to coalition practice, he chose to send two RIBs unescorted into potentially dangerous waters.

[Richard North]

Reference the above, see also this post:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/04/mysteries-grow.html

[Richard Weatherill]

Added to which, one could ask whether the Iranian vessels that carried out the 'arrest' were correctly identified in advance. (Presumably, with all these naval/airborne radars around, someone was compiling a Surface Picture?) If they were identified and they were a) in Iraqi waters and b) heading to intercept the RN boarding party, why wasn't some more suitable air or surface asset sent to investigate?

[IRJMilne]

I believe a helicopter was requested and was not sent to be there. The commander of the boat admitted on TV that he had definitely wanted the helicopter. However, one incident of a helicopter not being available should not be taken to be automatically endemic of a wider problem. One doesn't know who to trust on such matters; Heseltine is electioneering and contributing to the Brown-bashing strategy, but that doesn't automatically mean he's wrong. I suppose some sort of review is in order.

[TomTom]

However, one incident of a helicopter not being available should not be taken to be automatically endemic of a wider problem.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost,
For want of a shoe the horse was lost,
For want of a horse the rider was lost,
For want of a rider the battle was lost,
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

[anon]

It is not smart to make wide spread deductions on the strength of a single incident.

I take it that from now on the standard claim of Tory partisans will be "blame it on Gordon"?

[Richard North]

The broader point I am trying to make - I think - is that it is generally unhelpful, from a political stance, making accusations which do not stand up and can easily be rebutted. I should not need to remind anyone that political attacks are most successful when they expose weaknesses that the government cannot defend.

Therefore, simply "banging on" about lack of resources or "overstretch" in relation to this specific incident strikes me as being a loser. More profitable, I would have thought, is to attack the government's failure - so far - to commission a proper inquiry in to the events which led to the capture of the boarding team.

If these the capture arose as a result of operational failures, those failures need to be identified and addressed - and publicly so. If the government does not commit to such an inquiry, and the publication of the results - with a full and frank debate in Parliament afterwards - it can be accused of being complicit in what looks very much like a cover-up. If the government does deliver a report, the failures identifed can be criticised.

Either way, that looks to me to be a win-win strategy, provided the defence team can be pursuaded to stick to the point and not meander off into irrelevancies.

[dog biter]

A real pity Patrick Mercer is not Shadow Defence Secretary.......he tells it like it is

Yes, we need Mercer back pronto! In fact we could do with a few people who tell it how it is, not all this namby-pamby pussyfooting. I want to know what Cameron thinks about Iraq and the whole business of our armed forces in the Middle East. When will we learn his views?

[Andrew]

"I take it that from now on the standard claim of Tory partisans will be "blame it on Gordon"?"

It might be a bit of a scattergun tactic, but it'll still be correct most of the time.....

[Richard North]

They blew it.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/04/failed-attempt.html

But then, we rather suspected they might.

[Gareth]

HMS Cornwall is capable of carrying 2 Lynx but the Navy is so desperately underfunded that we could not afford to deploy a second aircraft. Whilst there is a degree of culpability at both the tactical and operational level by Naval commanders, the real crime is the disgraceful underfunding of a Navy that can and often does punch considerably above its weight. Bliar, Brown and Browne are to blame, full stop. I'm an angry man about this.