Bowler hats off to fledgling news channel GBNews. Their coverage of todays Orange parades was quite remarkable in an age when the Loyalist agenda is so deeply unfashionable. 3 hours of flute bands celebrating King Billy and the Battle of the Boyne is not something that might be found on the BBC but it is a feature that continues to shape life n the Province. Do they not deserve a voice?

The Protestant cause has always sat a little uneasily in the politics of the UK. Nominally ‘loyal’ it would be wrong to overlook their partisan behaviour and unwillingness to compromise. But it is equally unjust to forget their sacrifice and commitment to the Westminster mother ship. Mention of the 36th Ulster Division’s capture of the German third line on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, a feat no other formation achieved, nowadays brings groans of overfamiliarity but it shaped the Ulster landscape and we better not forget it.

Where else in the UK have we seen ethnic cleansing n the last 50 years apart from good old Ulster? The farming communities of Fermanagh and South Tyrone toughed it out in the face of murderous PIRA intimidation but at substantial cost. They may not be the most sociable of people but we should be glad they are on our side. Modern Rhodesians?

GBNews are said by some to be right wing for giving a platform to such uncomfortable bed fellows. This is nonsense. The Protestant sense of betrayal is something we ignore at our peril. ‘No surrender’ may be a football chant to many – to the Unionists it is an unshakeable way of life.

The long-awaited Ukrainian counter offensive continues to attract speculation with regards to timing. Kyiv’s reluctance to go early is understandable – they will only get one shot at this and anything less than total success will mean yet another enduring conflict on the old Soviet border.

But what does total success look like? For the Ukrainians it can only be full restoration of the 2014 border. For the Russians it is the reverse. As long as they retain even the slightest plot of Ukrainian land, they can claim job done. They will be able to muddy the waters of NATO membership and control of the Black Sea ports will lead to a long term shift in Russian capability.

President Zelensky can afford nothing less so I will make a prediction or two. When it comes, the counter will be an all-out commitment. The newly formed tank brigades will be woken in the early hours and its commanders told to drive east bypassing centres of resistance. It will be blitzkrieg and the columns must stop for nothing. – they should smash up logistic and signals nodes as they find them. The already battered Russians will fall apart and in 24 hours a largely intact Ukrainian army will be sitting on the border. Partisan activity will be a particular feature of this phase. The civilian population will turn against its Russian occupiers with particular savagery.

As soon as the last Russian stumbles out of Ukraine a newly enlarged NATO will deploy. This will introduce US air power into the equation. So far it has sat by as the Russian air force has struggled to maintain air superiority. Whatever 2^nd or 3^rd Echelon elements that are currently sitting in depth will fare no better than the first waves as the F-16’s tear them apart.

Risk is inevitable in war but the Ukrainians have done much to mitigate it. I am reminded of the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo. His quote late in the afternoon stated ‘Hard pounding this, gentlemen, we shall see who can pound the longest’. Shortly after he declared ‘Now Maitland now is your time. They will not stand’.

Back in February I made the following prediction;

the Russian people have been led into a fight they did not want. As their economy crumples it is they who will bear the brunt ‘. It is they who will turn on Putin as the price of restoring normality.

As yet another coachload of reluctant conscripts arrives at the Finnish border we are beginning to see the beginning of the end. Once the genie is out of the bottle the embarrassed Russian army must surely wish to see an end to this particular adventure. I also noted that the Russians in suffering death by 1000 cuts would be gradually ground down and vulnerable to counter-attack. It was all very reminiscent of the bite and hold strategy of the First World War.

So, what is my prediction for this update? Winter is approaching and this presents a bigger challenge for Ukrainians. Will they maintain the initiative and keep the Russians on the back foot? Or will the Kremlin use the opportunity to regroup and establish a more effective defensive posture than we have seen so far? The latter is unlikely but you never know. Kyiv cannot afford to take their foot off the accelerator whilst concurrently risking all that they have so far achieved. Those Russian mothers may yet alter the balance.

In a recent twitter thread, I made the point that in retrospect the tipping point of the Russian invasion of Ukraine came on day 2 or 3. The point at which the Russian Commander realised that his desant operation was not going to secure Kiev at an early stage. It meant that wherever any future axis was going to follow the advance would be a slog.

Most readers will have read the pamphlet on British Military doctrine and its emphasis on the will to fight. Rarely will we see it more emphatically displayed than we have with the Ukrainian resistance.  by a thousand cuts is the inevitable end of the invasion force. As another tank turret sails majestically into the air the world realises that geography no longer counts. Whatever strategic location is captured it is the pile of dead Russians that matters. Budlings can be rebuilt.

It is in both sides interest to find an end to it now. The Russians face a hellish occupation if they stay. The Ukrainians need to restore their economic baseline. Remove the failed spectre of Putin and the end can come.

For goodness’ sake if you are going to have a war then have one. The seemingly endless diplomatic toing and froing is now giving me a headache. I’d rather there wasn’t one of course but with all parties claiming victory before a shot has been fired an actual battle seems somewhat unnecessary. Everyone’s a winner.

But hang on haven’t the Russian separatists and their unattributable Russian allies been fighting for several years now in the dismal Donbass pocket against the Ukrainian authorities. So, hasn’t the invasion already taken place?

As the stracom/cyber/fake /information web gets ever more complex can we not just call it confusion.com. Does anyone really know what the plans are anymore – is it not a series of short-term advantages being taken by people with names we can barely pronounce let alone be clear on their motives?

Will the Americans weigh in seems the only question worth asking. If the answer is yes then stand by for more than a loss of face Vlad. If the answer is no then we might as well let the Russians walk in quietly.

D+3 and it would be interesting to sit in on the Russian Commander’s Morning coordination conference.

Russian doctrine identifies a primary and secondary axis of advance but the crucial principal is that of ‘reinforcing success’. So far it seems that the reserves have yet to be committed because it is not yet clear where success lies. Given the expectations heaped upon the post-Afghanistan Russian military this is a critical omission and will give the High Command cause for concern. All the slick propaganda footage which filled our screens before the invasion raises the question of whether the Russian army is actually any good. Cruise missiles seem to randomly strike high rise buildings and the reliance on the Grad multiple rocket launch systems rather calls into question the claims of precision and modernisation.

The traditional reliance on mass remains. Whilst 190,000 men is undoubtedly a lot of potential firepower it is not enough to swamp a dug in opponent in the way their grandfathers did when taking on real Fascists. Perhaps somebody should have reminded Putin that the fighting in Berlin led to a casualty bill of 250,000 men. Mass requires a minimum ratio of 12 to 1.

Of course, the determination of the defenders should not be overlooked. The assumption that the Ukrainian resistance would simply roll over has not come to pass. In much the same way that Manchester United fans believe that their opponents should do as they are told so the Ukrainians’ have unsportingly refused to play their part. The longer they do so, the more concerned the Russians will be. What now does success look like for them?

As the inevitable battle for Kyiv draws closer so we are able to see cracks in the Russian façade. Suicidal helicopter charges, dishevelled teenage tank crew prisoners, logistic shortages after only 48 hours, a very hostile civilian population freely calling the invaders ‘pieces of shit’ and the potential of the Field Army to die a death by a thousand cuts - the cumulative impact will be significant. It is too early to predict how the fight will end but it will be closer than many (myself included) thought.

I make one prediction. The Russian people have been led into a fight they did not want. As their economy crumples it is they who will bear the brunt. It is they who will turn on Putin as the price of restoring normality.

I've contributed some pieces to an anthology recently. This (rightly) didnt make the cut but I quite enjoyed writing it in the style of Hacketts 'World War 3.' 

The following extracts are taken from the Regimental Journal of Summer 1988. It was the first attempt to provide a coherent narrative of the Battle which was fought far behind the armoured spearheads of the Soviet tank fleets. It is reprinted here on the 20th anniversary of the fighting.

The imminent deployment of Cruise missiles into Western Europe pushed President Andropov over the edge. If the USSR was to win the Cold War the only card they had left was their conventional capability ranged across the Warsaw Pact territories. They had watched in alarm as the American economy raced ahead, technically they found their obsolete communications systems rendered ineffective as US satellite capability allowed the exponential improvement of precision guided munitions and strategically the circling of the globe with a dozen Carrier Battlegroups meant that the projection of air power was something to keep the Politburo awake at night. In Spring 1984 Andropov ordered his Generals to prepare for offensive action against NATO by 1 January in the coming year.

Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GFSG) launched its assault on the 3^rd January. The huge tank formations rumbled west but almost immediately experienced significant problems. The Soviet Air Force was systematically shot out of the skies as its obsolete MiG 21 work horses were easy prey for the newly introduced US F-16 anddespite substantial SAM assets the tanks had no answer to the rain of US munitions. It soon became apparent that the ambitious target that put Soviet boots on the channel coast within 2 weeks was a complete fantasy.

The First Battalion were part of the Berlin Infantry Brigade and by Xmas 1984 had deployed to its fighting positions clustered in the Charlottenburg District. That the Soviets were mobilising was an open secret – everyone knew they were coming – the question was when? The Rifle Companies prepared their defences and the German population provided unequivocal support. The memory of the fighting in 1945 was still vivid for many and there was an overwhelming desire to show the Russians that this time ‘Berlin bleibt Deutsche’ was more than empty rhetoric. A large number of communist collaborators were rounded up and the woods of the Grunewald echoed to the sound of gunfire as summary justice was dispensed. ‘Speers Lampposts’ were once again festooned with the unlucky and foolhardy.

2 Platoon of A Company found their citadel position in the ‘Big Sexyland’ Night club. The staff supported the troops in every way they could apart from the obvious. The sentry positions were never short of a mug of tea and a glass of schnapps delivered by pretty young Bulgarian girls. They promised their support to the young Tigers when the time came and could be found in the run up to the new year loading magazines and practicing the application of first field dressings.

The war began for the Regiment on 4^th January at 02.30. A small guard force formed by the Assault Pioneers had been left in Wavell Barracks from where they could easily access their bridge demolition tasks along the River Havel. Private X (all names redacted for security reasons) on sentry with a GPMG heard the sound of multiple helicopters passing close to the Barracks and alerted his colleagues. Silhouetted against the cloudless night sky he saw at least 10 Mi8 troop carrying helicopters circling and preparing to land on the square. It was a tight approach and X held his fire until the first aircraft flared sharply to land. It was a classic coup de main operation and x did not waste time waiting for orders. His first burst riddled the cockpit and the pilot took immediate evasive action. Unfortunately for the 20 men he was carrying in the back and his crew of 4 his rapid climb took him right into the path of the second incoming aircraft. The collision at 200 feet saw no survivors and the projected LZ was showered with burning debris. As the following aircraft attempted to land at least 3 more were shot down. The much-vaunted East German NVA commandos has proved themselves every bit at incompetent or over confident as the rest of the Warsaw Pact troops and the survivors returned rapidly to their mounting base in Potsdam. The Assault Pioneers made themselves scarce.

The following days in the Berlin suburbs were quiet. As the battle of the inner German Border raged the Warsaw Pact Commanders were content to leave the city contained. They believed there would be time enough to secure the besieged city. They were wrong. A patrol from Recce Platoon were tasked with escorting 2  German civilians to an RV on the night of the 12^th January in the backstreets of Spandau. Cpl Y takes up the story:

‘We got to a street kiosk at 02.30. One of the civvies told me to find cover and only to open fire if we were attacked. We waited and saw an NVA officer slide into view and he had a quick conversation with our escorted friends. What happened next took my breath away. A shuffling, scraping sound got progressively louder and out of the darkness I saw some soldiers appear. The civvies were smiling and one of them said ‘Remember, no firing.’ The road was now full of marching soldiers and I recognised the distinctive shape of the NVA helmet. The column made its way past us and I estimate there were 2,000 of then. The civilian was stood next to me and I saw tears streaming down his cheeks. ‘Frei Deutschland’ he said. ‘They are now with us.’

As the Soviet advance stuttered to a halt, mass desertions followed across the East European countries. In Poland the Army fought their erstwhile Russian overlords with particular savagery as did Ukrainian elements of Third Shock Army. The Bulgarian military just melted away by refusing to turn up for work. Either way the GSFG fell apart with astonishing speed. The tank crews of 1 (BR) Corps found themselves fighting through the Sobesse Gap but not in the defensive role they had long anticipated. Map coverage of the ground east of Helmstedt was the single most limitation they faced.

A small number of regimental personnel had found themselves in UK when the crisis struck. They found themselves attached to Bundeswehr units as liaison officers but were largely redundant if the face of a West German – there was no other word for it – blitzkrieg. On the morning of 15 January a Mortar Platoon MFC team hidden in flats overlooking the Staaken crossing point reported seeing unidentified armoured vehicles approaching from the west at high speed. The Battalion net fell silent as the Controller followed up his initial report with the following verbatim sitrep

‘Fuck me, they are Leopards and the lead tank is flying a yellow flag with a black tiger on it. I swear that C/Sgt Z is in the turret. I’m not making this

up………………..

Well, perhaps I am

A withdrawal in contact is said to be one of the more hazardous military operations. How much more difficult must it therefore be when your enemy does not conform to a recognised front line? In a counter insurgency your opponent can be anywhere displaying varying levels of capability from where they can conduct war amongst the people. Under such circumstances how do you deliver a neat and orderly retreat?

It will be interesting to see what the US plan actually looked like before it was overtaken by events. What assumptions were made and on what basis was the worst-case assessment configured? Presumably the Afghan Security Forces were left in place whilst the US military fell back in an orderly fashion on Kabul International Airport? Was there a contingency for catastrophic failure?

Whatever the background the hero of the hour is surely the person who convinced the Taliban to hold their fire whilst the airlift took place. We all saw the carnage created by one attack, imagine the chaos multiple assaults would have caused. Carving out a secure base from where an evacuation could have been mounted would have been unthinkable.

All of which tells us one thing – the Taliban leadership is pragmatic. We may not like them and the things they stand for but we can work with them. The events of the past week prove this and whatever TB 2.0 may look like this surely means they have made a good start?

So, a number of Senior Officers have written to the PM saying that we had a ‘debt of honour’ to those Afghans who fulfilled the vital function of enabling British forces to understand what our allies and opponents were actually talking about. Interpreters and fixers were essential components of our war effort and now that things have gone pear shaped it was only right that we should get them out before the Taliban wreak their revenge.

Moving swftly past the fact that it was the failed strategies of these same Generals that had helped lead to the current predicament I suppose we are faced with a ‘we are where we are’ situation. There is an assumption that Talib justice will be brutal but this rather flies in the face of previous experience. Afghans are pragmatists and deal making is part of the culture – the Taliban will need interpreters just as much as anyone. Who will translate the instruction manuals of all the captured US equipment otherwise?

One of the many questions we faced at District level was how many Taliban judges were active in the neighbourhood. The answer was usually based around the fact that all the judges currently functioning were those who had filled the role under previous regimes including the Taliban. The people accepted them and justice was swift – a change of label was no bar to their re-appointment.

Against such a background can we assume the worst for those who took the NATO shilling. Interpreters were very well paid. I seem to recall USD1000 per month being the going rate. They all knew what they were getting into and were under no illusions about what the downside could be. My guess (and it is a guess) is that most will have already made their way out of the country. Overland to Belarus and then west to Germany seemed to be the popular route. Leaving the unfortunate and desperate and the pudding over-eggers. For it must be said, there will be those who overstate the risk for personal gain.

But who is the constituency and who deserves a seat on the plane (if there is one)? Those under NATO employ, the ANA, ANP, politicians, their families? Will there be Saigon like scenes at multiple locations. Its all rather a mess.

Best to avoid it happening again Generals. If you going to go in then be prepared to stay for a long time.

When the sun eventually dies and mankind reviews what it has failed to achieve, what will be on the list? Obviously, a failure to engineer its own survival will be at the top but running a close second will be resolving the question of the Palestinian state. As the Earth hurtles into a black hole Hamas will still be lobbing their jumble sale rockets into Israel who will still be retaliating with disproportionate air strikes. In our current covid inspired dress rehearsal for Armageddon it is grimly inevitable that the two sides can still find time for a war.

It is a war neither side can win. For all the talk about writing down terrorist groups or hope of UN intervention we all know that the current flare up will end when the Israelis declare success in the face of mounting casualties. Both sides will retire to lick their wounds and regroup until the next time which will inevitably look remarkably similar to this time.

We are faced with two irreconcilable groups where even the moderates are extremists. I spent a year in Jerusalem in 2009 and never ceased to e amazed by the speed with which kind and generous people could be turned into frothing monsters merely at the mention of the other side. The conversation would turn into some ghastly top trumps of human rights abuses and any hope of a rational debate could be swiftly forgotten.

Politicians of all persuasions have little room for manoeuvre. Each flare up reinforces the electorates deep seated fear of each other and the hole that is being dug gets a little bit deeper. For all its religious significance the Holy Land is populated by some pretty appalling people. Compromise on the part of any stakeholder is a distant hope

So, what to do? Waiting for the end of the world is not really a strategy but it seems like the best we’ve got at the moment.

Our American correspondent summarises the inauguration

Well, that went as well as could be expected. Security was always going to be high on the agenda given the recent drama in which the security forces demonstrated their ability to take a metaphorical knee whilst confused Confederate wannabes filed unimpeded past them. The State authorities upped the ante by countering the threat from right wing militias by deploying National Guard units that looked suspiciously like less well-dressed right-wing militia - only fatter. In the end, given the calorie count precluding any vigorous confrontation things passed off peacefully apart from the sustained resistance of the outgoing POTUS.

Trump ultimately was his own worst enemy. It has been said that If he, at any point last year had dropped the pantomime villain act it could have been him being sworn in but I suppose that would be against everything he actually represented. It was not to be and Biden will now spend the next 4 years undoing everything (both good and bad) that the Donald did. 

On the Hill It was a bit like watching an animated version of Where's Wally. With everybody wearing their mask it became difficult to see which grey-haired non-entity was the President. With the exception of the Obama and Clinton dynasties of course who left everybody in no doubt where the charisma really was. The assembled great and good resembled a gang of teenagers attending the unpopular kid’s party. Nobody spoke to the host.

Joe meanwhile had assembled a collection of platitudes and called them a speech. Nobody listened to the host either. To be fair you didn’t have to. It was entirely predictable and it must have been quite disconcerting to have Hillary working the crowd behind him. The look of incredulous surprise she wore fooled no-on as to its real meaning.

The Gaga was the star of the show. Dignified in her own unique way she belted out Star Spangled Banner whilst simulating being attacked by a giant seagull. But didn’t she sing it well. Watch and learn, Roseanne Barr.

In summary, Pence did the right thing. The D did not. Still cannot remember the Veep's name. Biden resembles one of those AI robots currently coming out of Japan. Unnervingly lifelike but still with something missing.

God Bless America!

Joining the army in the 1970’s meant that you were confronted by many contradictory questions.  There was the commonly held view that its leadership was the best in the world but the first thing that you encountered was a lot of people who seemed to want to shout at you. Surely there was no need for the finest leaders in the world to yell so much? But you accept it and soon find yourself shouting too.

Then you realise that the commonly held view was mainly missing the last three words ‘within the army’. Sooner or later you came across the Manual of Military Law and lest you were in any doubt, realised that soldiers were obliged to do what you said. How about that? No ifs, no buts – what you say goes. It may not sound very sophisticated but climbing up Tumbledown probably required some direct action and a bit more shouting.

Whether such an approach is entirely necessary in an operational HQ seems to be in question. Presumably brain power is more valuable but once you get into the habit of shouting it tends to become the default position. I always enjoy hearing the ‘I did it to motivate the troops’ rationale because it is so cowardly. What the speaker is really saying is that ‘I did it because no one dares answer me back’. Perhaps the failure to properly train the team might be considered.

I encourage the top team to sit down with their civilian advisors and ask them what they think about how the HQ functions. You might get some uncomfortable answers but I would suggest that it is something the ‘best leadership in the world’ might do.

Or carry on shouting    

In its mission to leave no social, cultural or employment group free from the category of ‘hero’ the British media has just had a field day lionising the NHS, care workers, supermarket staff and anyone else who continued to work during the Battle of Covid. Presumably a medal will be struck and in future years we will see at the Cenotaph tearfully shuffling down the Mall  the long winding ranks of those who sustained a lonely lockdown vigil from their sofas. ‘It was hell,’ one will say ‘I watched so many Netflix programmes on Mexican Drug Lords that I had no idea who was who.’

But the NHS saved the Nation as it always does. It may be utterly useless at procurement, planning, risk assessment and coming to a consensus on whether to wear a cloth mask but as the dark clouds gathered and the prospect of gazillions of pounds of extra funding came closer the leadership rallied the troops. Britain, a first world industrial nation, managed to clip together a handful of portacabin hospitals and then found the time to stand on its doorstep and clap itself. It was nobody’s fault that they were barely used.

The NHS special forces slipped out of the shadows. No news programme was complete without a Professor of Virology, Immunology or Sociology being asked for their breathless opinion. And they kept on coming, hundreds of them – they had trained for years for this. Unfortunately, they all forgot to bring their plans for dealing with a virus with them. Put that down as a lesson learned but never mind the NHS is still free isn’t it so it didn’t cost us anything did it?

We can be sure that after a long period of reflection the solution will be more money. The venal private sector will be accused of trying to privatise anything that bears the status of public. They will mendaciously point out that they already produce all the kit that hospitals use anyway. The pharmaceuticals, the place of Dentists and Opticians, ownership of the hospitals themselves – a long list of commercial cop outs. We might have to listen to their confrontational declarations that they wouldn’t touch the sector with an American bargepole when we all know that they cannot wait.

Sting once wrote a song called ‘Don’t stand so close to me’. That is our policy right there – what else do you need to know?

I recently attended a Regimental Reunion for the first time since I left the Army in 1989. Why I should be drawn back to it now I cannot explain but I’m very glad I was. Curiosity? Affection? Ageing? Unfinished business? – whatever the reason it seemed that now was the right time.

The first challenge was to accept that everyone had changed. It’s a statement of the obvious but the young Private soldier who you last saw guarding the gate was now a gnarled veteran who had experienced not only Northern Ireland but Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and a host of other troubled places. They had moved from cynical malcontent to proud regimental supporter. It was striking how many talked positively of their time with the Battalion when so often they were more critical ‘back in the day’.

Recognising who was who was clearly going to be an issue. A minority were more or less the same but the question ‘who are you?’ was one I heard and used on more than a few occasions. I can’t help thinking that it is rather rude to have limited recollection of people with whom you spent so much time. But such is life and nobody seemed to take offence. I had a number of ‘Oh yes, now I remember…’ moments in the following days.

And of course, there were those who were not there. I was more saddened than I anticipated to hear the names of those who had passed away. Whilst there are those who grow not old, it is no less poignant to remember those who did but finally succumbed for a host of reasons. Deaths in the family are always marked by a wish that you had said more.

I tried to avoid using the word ‘family’ but in the end it seemed the most appropriate. Like every family you have the core, the distant, the estranged, the angry, the supporters and the downright weird. And like every family the words thank you are not heard enough. So, Mick and the organisers, please accept my gratitude for such an enjoyable evening.

I’ll end with one indulgence. I left the Battalion in 1987 after a tour in Ulster. It has always been a regret that I never found the time to properly express my thanks to all those who served so well in COP. Can I do that now? And if the reunion has let me do that then it was an evening well spent.

You are a public sector Chief Executive officer and you know that what is coming down the line is much bigger than your Hospital Emergency Plan ever envisaged. What are you going to do? Here are my thoughts.

Your task

Direction should come from the government via the Regional Authorities so that you, sitting in the trenches, know what it is you have to do. It will not be that clear-cut – it never is - so it will require initiative from you. Is your job simply to cure people or do you have a wider obligation to the public? However you see it, make sure others see it too because it’s what you are going to be asking them to deliver.

Assumptions

• The crisis will last from 3 to 6 months. Whatever you put in place must operate for the long-term and therefore frontloading all your systems and capability will not allow you to sustain your response. You must have a future planning capability which addresses this.
• The government will find money to support the crisis response. Emergency funding will be inevitable. This should not mean open season cash splashing but a logical and sensible demand for targeted money will be rewarded. See future plans above.
• Clinical requirements are your main effort. The entire organisation must be geared to this outcome and everyone must be aware of their role as either supported or supporting function. Management must be structured accordingly. There can be no room for egos or point scoring

Operational Issues

• Reinforce the Medical Director. Everyone will be busy but he or she will be the busiest of the lot. Whatever clerical or administrative support they ask for then give it to them. If they don’t ask for any give them some anyway. Once you have their attention then a couple of hours of media training will not go amiss
• Separate the internal challenges from the external. Within the four walls of the hospital nothing else matters beyond clinical delivery. The medical and nursing teams should not be encumbered with anything else. All the tasks of external reporting, liaison, coordination, planning, logistics, administration and staffing should be redirected to an operations room.
• Establish an operations room. This will require a 24/7 capability which acts as the focal point for a fully integrated approach. Anything coming in or going out of the hospital must be routed through this. It should be led by a Chief of Staff who provides the Chief Executive and the Medical Director with the wherewithal to deliver their clinical objectives. It also provides environment for daily briefings.
• Planning is an ongoing function. The daily challenge of bed management will remain a clinical task. However, somebody needs to be looking ahead by approximately one month so that surprises and risks are addressed. This commitment is then handed on to a second planner who looks ahead by approximately one week. The aim is to ensure a seamless management program – this is a crucial task which will drive the Ops room agenda
• Security. The extent to which emotions will run high should not be underestimated. Hospitals will provide a whole range of flashpoints which will require more than the usual A&E on-call policeman to deal with. Private security is inevitable.
• Information will be key. The demand for information at all levels will be totally insatiable and the hospital must have the capability to deal with this consistently and accurately. Media briefings should be scheduled and helplines established. The Ops room should be responsible for establishing key messaging which ensures a common approach to questions.

Miscellaneous

There is little doubt that we are entering uncomfortable territory. However, a confident and professional approach will ensure that risks are minimised. We do need to recognise though that existing structures may not be sufficient to sustain long-term response. Resilience comes from identifying the potential weak links and addressing them early. If you do not then you remain on the back foot throughout the crisis. None of the above is difficult to establish but it needs to be done sooner rather than later.

Sustainability will be the main challenge here. The robustness of the hospital staffing team will be sorely tested not just in terms of the sheer hard work they will be required to undertake but also from the point of view of their own vulnerability to the virus itself. It seems facile to encourage people to retain a sense of humour but if you don’t plan that’s all you’ve got.

I hope I am telling you what you already know and that all this is just a statement of the obvious.

Good luck

Francis and Frances Hatton were my great grandparents on the paternal side. Two of their sons deployed as regular soldiers with 1st Rifle Brigade on the outbreak of war. Arriving in France on August 24^th Francis William was taken prisoner during the retreat from Mons just 2 days later on 26 August 1914 and spent the rest of the war in Doberitz POW camp just outside Berlin. It may not have seemed  it at the time but in retrospect he was to be the lucky one. Edward Charles was killed in action at Le Touquet railway crossing on 3 November 1914. A third son, Jack, serving with 1st Northants was wounded at High Wood in July 1916 but died of gangrene poisoning shortly after.

Writing a letter of condolence to the bereaved parents shortly after Edward’s death, CQMS Kirwan of the Rifle Brigade opined that 'a better soldier was hard to find' and that 'he died instantly' both of which may or may not have been true. What he also wrote was that he had found a cake in Edward’s unopened mail from his mother. He had taken the liberty of distributing it amongst his erstwhile comrades rather than sending it back. An eminently sensible and practical step and it is to be hoped that they enjoyed it.

What Francis and Frances thought is unrecorded but the pathos is in the detail. I find the image of the cake unspeakably sad but these were tough times. We owe it to them and the thousands of others like them to recognise that the soldiers of the Great War were not unthinking victims. They fought for each other in their Companies and Battalions, held the line and advanced at the point of the bayonet when asked. And they won the war.

Brexit Saturday. One of the most important days ever in the history of the world ever according to the media. Our MPs doggedly get out of bed on a weekend in order to deliver the collective wisdom and influence that they represent. A nation waits.

And waits. And waits. “What did he just say, what was her point, what do they mean?” Whatever they have to say about the backstop, the customs union and the ECJ is lost in a collection of mumbling, shouting, wining and droning. The power of oratory has a great deal going for it – somebody should tell our exalted decision-makers that if they want to convince people they need to sound, well, convincing. Remainer or leaver, they are all as bad as each other.

Get some media training for Gods sake. If you’re a minister or a shadow minister and sound like a primary school teacher addressing a class of four-year-olds then you might consider you owe it to the nation that elected you to Parliament to put a bit of effort in and sound as if you want to inspire them. I’m not expecting Churchill everyday but neither do I like hearing a third rate amateur dramatic presentation.

I’m assured that only 20% of our communication ability comes through the spoken word. Body language, appearance and bearing make up for the rest of it. Well give yourself a chance and learn how to speak in public. It is uniformly awful listening to the 20%.

And the Hugely Huge? That was the man from the BBC searching for the Epoque defining phrase.

You were Secretary of State for Health weren’t you? Don’t recall too many uncomfortable truths being uttered then. Much too politically savvy to say what only Doctors can say at that point, weren’t you? 

But you are OK with saying that post Good Friday we’re all the same. No, don’t get me wrong, I sort of agree. We all have to adhere to the rule of law and compromise is inevitable. But here’s the thing. Some things you have to earn the right to say no matter how right you are. Would you sidle up to Mo Farah and say ‘you should have run the bend faster’? We could all see it but it’s a matter of good manners that we don’t.

Don’t recall seeing you make a contribution so best accept that a lot of soldiers died and were wounded and leave it at that eh, Jeremy?

A regular feature of the morning and evening briefings was the post-op story board. Essentially a bit of internal PR based around some drone camera footage, it invariably showed the demise of unsuspecting bandits. It was difficult to feel sympathy for them but there was almost always a donkey caught in the blast Even from 10,000 feet they looked forlorn.

A variant was the rogues gallery of prisoners showing recently duffed-up but lucky to be alive Afghan farmers. 'Last night we took out a bomb making facility and captured 5 middle to senior ranking Taliban officials. The first photo shows the group quartermaster.....' Cue a picture of a threadbare catweazle with a pot of nuts and bolts placed at this feet 'Second the Battalion Commander....' Cue a picture of another threadbare Catweazle with a broken jezail dumped at his feet....... ' Third the team Media expert....'Cue....' You get the picture?

I was reminded of all this whilst reading the ever-excellent David Mansfield's latest work on the effectiveness of American air strikes of the drug making infrastructure. Just because we call some plastic barrels and jerry-built distillation tubing a 'factory' doesn’t make it one. The telling stat is that the effect of the campaign could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost by using non-kinetic means.

Maybe, maybe not but I wonder what are our Quartermaster is doing today

There are 5 minutes left on the clock and Eton are losing by 4 points – if only Crichton Minor hadn’t flunked that tackle all would be well. The ball sails into touch just yards from the tryline and there is one last chance. Captain and scrum half Carlton Smith adopts a stern pose with both hands resolutely planted on his hips. ‘Gather round’ he orders ‘the whole school I meant’. Bewildered pupils were rounded up and shoved into listening distance as the annoyed leader worked himself into a sort of angry demeanour. ‘Not good enough chaps’ he sort of fumed. ‘ I’m not pleased with any one of you. The Beak has said that we should all show a little spunk ‘ (the third form sniggered – C-S didnt know why). ‘Why are you sort of shouting at all of us’ said the tousle haired no 8 Coggins Minor. It was Crichton who cocked it up. Sort of shout at him’. C-S sort of snarled ‘We are all in this together, our moral imperative, our resilience, our sense of humour, our next star’

Sometimes soldiers do stupid things. And sometimes so do Generals 

I don’t think that I ever met Luke Griffin.  I did however meet many like him and I’m glad that I did.  The private security contractors who provided the close in support to those like me were almost uniformly outstanding.  Operating with one foot very firmly still in the military ethos and the other tentatively seeing how far the civilian boundaries could be pushed, they kept the show on the road.  Some of my happiest Helmand memories are of the time after the evening brief when everyone would sit around and just have a laugh.  But then when the need arose, they would step up and stand in the way of whatever threat presented itself.

Yes, most were there for the money, but when the shit hit the fan they earned it.  It was perhaps inevitable that a number would become casualties and this week’s attack on the G4 S compound in Kabul proved to be a painful reminder of that fact.  However, the show goes on.

I salute Luke Griffin and indeed all the private security contractors who perhaps never got the recognition they deserved.  There is a donor site at https://www.gofundme.com/luke-griffin-killed-in-afghanistan If you feel so inclined and I hope that you do.

Somewhat alarmingly, I had a significant birthday recently.  In a fit of nostalgia I found myself going through a large number of presentations that I have given over the years and it occurred to me that perhaps now might be the time for a little public spirit.

So, I throw open an invitation to readers of this website. If you or anyone you know is looking for a speaker or presentation on any aspect of the civmil agenda then please contact me. If the cause is worthy there will be no charge (apart from reasonable expenses) – schools, academic centres, charities, businesses, just ask. If there are specific managerial, operational or practical issues you would like covered then I can easily adjust content to make it relevant to your sphere of interest. There are many cross functional issues and the story of international involvement in conflict management hopefully provides an interesting backdrop.

Contact me on pjh@civmil.co.uk

What is the world coming to?  First the GRU and now the Saudis, they need to hang their heads in shame.  If you’re going to deploy a rogue death squad then at least give them some degree of competence in order that they might live up to the name.  But I suppose that that rather negates the sobriquet 'rogue' because if you are state sponsored presumably you are official.  It’s a conundrum and I hope that marketing agencies the world over are addressing it now.

My assumption is that it is virtually impossible these days to hide your identity if you arrive in a foreign country given the number of cameras recording you.  If you're linked to a subsequent event there is sufficient computing power to reverse engineer an understanding of where you’ve been and what you did for the meantime. If you truly wanted to remain clandestine presumably there are plenty of ways of entry to a country without being seen. 

So what are we to make of those who enter a country to conduct death squad business and leave behind them a quickly understood trail.  The only reasonable conclusion is that they just don’t care.  If compromised they will simply deny and deny and deny.  The sponsors state, whoever they may be, will have little fear of retaliation.

What should we do in order to address Russian, Saudi and no doubt others reliance on such activities.  Arrest?  Presumably the diplomatic card will be played thereby immunising the murderous goon squads.  If it can be proven that those conducting such activities are from military units than are not their actions an act of war.  The problem with hybrid warfare is that if you do not address it early then your enemies will keep picking at the seam.  If the Dutch security forces had reduced the GRU unit found lurking outside the OPCW headquarters to a bullet ridden wreck it might have sent out a message that our tolerance only goes so far.

But they didn’t.  And we won’t.  So we can expect more of the same as such shameless regimes continue and doubtless increasingly work on the assumption that their denials, uttered repeatedly, will be sufficient to obfuscate and deter any the western retaliation.

Where should the money go?  International development?  The police?  Defence?  It’s a matter of priorities and the priority of the moment, and every other moment it would seem, is the NHS.  So where does that leave security of the UK?

Well, in a pretty parlous state it would appear.  So what are we to do?

It’s obvious when you think about it.  Why don’t we move the Trident nuclear submarines from the Ministry of Defence to the Ministry of Health?  It only needs a little bit of rebranding, changes to letterheads, that sort of thing and suddenly all of our problems have disappeared.

Under the NHS banner Trident will instantly become ‘much loved and a great British institution’.  It will be beyond criticism, money will always be found, not have to worry about greater efficiencies and the medical profession will have truly achieved the power of life and death over not just patients but entire continents.  As an added bonus our potential enemies will not be able to target Faslane as it would no longer be a military base.

Worth thinking about?

Listening to the radio this morning (LBC since you ask) they had a feature on whether to legalise cannabis.  They interviewed some people who apparently were openly smoking the stuff in Central London undisturbed by the police.  Not surprisingly they saw it as a harmless pastime and the law as a nonsense.  I couldn’t help but think how self righteous they sounded as well as slightly slury in their speech.  Presumably breaking the law is acceptable up to the point where a couple of teenage scooter riders arrive and relieve them of their iPhones at knife point.  It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.

Because that’s the trouble with the law – you can’t pick and choose.  If it needs changing there is a process of doing so but up until then you have to abide by it.  If you don’t you are a potential criminal and the basis of a stable society begins to fall apart.  We learn time and again when we intervene in other countries that if you don’t have the rule of law you have nothing to build upon and corruption becomes the order of the day.

And so we come to the Public Prosecution Service decision to prosecute a British soldier with manslaughter for an incident in 1988.  I make no comment on events which happened at the checkpoint in Aughnacloy, I wasn’t there and I don’t know the people.  However, if a crime has been alleged and there is enough evidence for a conviction then no one is above the law.  It truly is what makes us better than our enemies.  If the government puts people in this position, then it is up to them to ensure that the legal code is fit for purpose and applied fairly to all, soldier and terrorist alike.

This does not imply moral equivalence but perhaps uncomfortably for many, it does mean equivalence before the law.  Emotive appeals to the hardship of the soldier’s life in the province may be well meant but sadly carry no weight except when it comes to sentencing.  It is one more dimension of the hybrid battle.

At long last I’ve just seen strategic communications done well on exercise.  For the first time a political narrative guided the campaign with the military adjusting to the needs of an integrated message.  It was impressive to watch and full credit must go to both the civilian practitioners and the open minded headquarters staff.  Hopefully there is a growing recognition that strategic communications is not some adjunct to PR and the media but an essential political process which will contribute greatly to strategic success.  Certainly it will not stop the column of hostile tanks closing in on your position but it may stop them turning up in the first place.  The message to the military was clear, go kinetic if you have to but don’t assume it’s the only option.

Which brings us to Novichok.  Stalin used to refer to the concept of useful idiots -those people who would support his actions regardless of the outcome for them or their country.  Putin can probably hardly believe his luck.  The great British public appears to be willing to believe anything, no matter how implausible or improbable, except for what is staring them in the face.  At the same time no assertion about how the ruling classes are manipulating events across the Brexit to antisemitism spectrum, is too implausible to avoid comment.  The Russians set hares running and must watch with bemusement as we do their fake news work for them.

Social media would appear to come with no volume control.  It is random, uncontrolled and seemingly divorced from any common sense.  But it is a fact of life and we have to live with it.  In such an environment our ability to provide a message of sanity and consistency is crucial.  And our political messaging - our narrative, to use the buzzword of the moment - must provide that.  If we don’t than those hostile tanks will be a lot closer than we would wish. 

The BBC has chosen to put Adam Smith International in to the firing line because of its alleged negligent handling of a contract to train Syrian police.  The headline suggests that a proportion of British taxpayers’ money dedicated to the project has wound up in the hands of certain Jihadi supporters.  Adam Smith International refute the allegation.  The Panorama programme tonight will make interesting viewing.

I hate to break it to the BBC but if Islamic State have benefited from UK development money then they will be the latest in a long line of less than worthy recipients. Goodness only knows how much cash the likes of al Qaeda, the Taleban, the Sadr militias, Al Shabab and closer to home the IRA will have skimmed off our reconstruction budgets.  If we choose to work in these areas them the risks are significant from both political and criminal opportunists.

Let us agree that the rule of law is a good thing.  One of the things that underpins it is the presence of an effective police force.  So, you have to build it in an environment where chaos reigns.  Your recruits will come from a population you don’t fully understand particularly when it comes to working out who is loyal to who. Furthermore, the policing model that you will use may well be suitable for London or Washington but may not meet the needs or culture of downtown Damascus.  Against such a backdrop what could possibly go wrong?

Third party implementers are the tool used by most governments to bridge the gap between project intent and project delivery.  They will generally be expected to ensure that the official investment is properly spent and to do this they will recruit or employ local staff to provide the wherewithal for implementation.  It is a simple concept in theory but in practice is fraught with difficulty.  Who do you trust as you enter the world of the local fixer?  Where do their loyalties lie when confronted with shed loads of development cash?  The reason you employ them is because of their perceived influence and their freedom of movement in an environment where westerners are usually confined to their compounds and operating bases.  How do you conduct an audit under such conditions?  More often than not you are obliged to take local assurances on trust.  It can be uncomfortable.

It may be a bleak conclusion but ’follow the money’ is always a good principle to observe.  In Helmand, the U.S. Marines were receiving a colossal number of enemy contacts every day.  Approximately 30 to 40 incidents were not unusual.  The point at which they agreed to support the Afghan Local Police model are saw this number drop almost overnight by 80 to 90%.  In short, the local warlords were bought off.  Money well spent?

This piece was deliberately written in advance of the programme being aired.  I hope that Panorama fairly reflects the difficulties of operating in a failed state.  As a country we need to understand what the consequences of intervention are.  In this case money may be going to our enemies - is this a risk we are prepared to take?  Do the potential benefits of engagement outweigh the possible disadvantages?  It is a political judgment rather than a commercial one. 

You’ve done a few years in the forces and the time has come to do something different. You’ve seen the civilian advisers on exercise and thought ‘That looks good, it could be for me’ So you wander over and introduce yourself and ask if you can pick their brains. Here’s what I would tell you

Are you sure? Is the Army/Navy/Airforce really so bad? You get paid every month, don’t you?

Don’t burn your bridges At your dining out in the mess do not tell the CO what a shit he is. He may well be but you might want to come back (and there’s no shame in that). Imagine how awkward that discussion will be.

Get a Masters. Got one? No? It’s entry level stuff so get one. End of.

Money, money, money. You phone up a mate and ask what salary he’s on. He’s lying. Everyone exaggerates so divide the figure by 2 and knock off a 0. Nobody who leaves wants to look as if they have made a mistake – it’s a self-esteem thing.

Field Missions count Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Ulster – you’ve done them all but wearing a uniform. So, it’s off to Southern Sudan you go to get a bit of development time. Imagine that! For the next six months you’ll be waking up in a guest house in Juba. Lucky you.

The Umbrella’s gone This is the big one. You are used to walking around with a weapon and all the support money can buy; If you get into trouble someone will get you out. Welcome to a world where your only protection is the colour of your vehicle. It can be a very uncomfortable feeling.

You Are Not Alone Far from it. It’s a competitive world and getting those contracts is a challenge. I once saw a CV which presented the Guard Commander role at Buckingham Palace as something akin to a CP role in downtown Kabul. Don’t underestimate the determination of others.

What have I missed?

Imagine Obama had said it. ‘He knew what he was signing up for’. It would probably have been set in the context of a soldier’s gallantry in somehow being prepared to take the risk and it would have been presented in, let’s face it, a more media aware way. No one would have batted an eyelid. Trump allegedly says it and is roundly condemned. No benefit of the doubt here but in politics that’s life – or in this case, death.

But is it true? Do soldiers know what they are signing up for? Of course they do but you would have to go a long way to find one who envisages their own demise. Until they get to that point the old staples of service, excitement, adventure and economic necessity apply. Being on the wrong end of a firefight normally invokes thoughts of ‘what on earth am I doing here?’ It’s at that point you really know what you signed up for.

Whoever said what to who I find the faux-outrage and point scoring to be the real problem. Soldiers die and that should be an end to it. There is little dignity in having your name posthumously kicked around like a political football.

So, let us salute Cpl Baldridge and his three colleagues. I suspect that when it came to it their commitment would have been to each other – that’s what they signed up for

Hero or idiot? Whatever your view of ‘prankster’ Simon Brodkin a small part of him must be giving thanks that this morning he is not lying in the nearest hospital morgue

All week the refrain of how well the GMP had served the people of Manchester after the recent bomb blast, had echoed around the hall. And with good reason – coping with a major incident is no easy matter. Yet when it came to ensuring the safety of the UK’s Prime Minister the security system failed completely. It would be wrong to pre-empt any enquiry and in this case the only casualty was seemliness but fail it did in spectacular fashion.

The balnce between accessibility and security is always a difficult issue for a politician – they cannot be seen to be distancing themselves from the people they represent. The threat level and an associated risk assessment will determine what the particular security bubble will look like at any specific time. It might reasonably be claimed that a PM’s keynote address warrants a somewhat heightened level of restricted access.

Presumably the PM’s security detail get direction on their posture for an event but ultimately it is down to the individual operator to decide how to respond to an immediate threat. Perhaps yesterday’s team did not feel that they had to do anything and that they were just as bemused as everyone else seemed to be. However if this were the case then it would be interesting to see under what circumstances they would intervene. Doubtless it is being examined right now but surely someone approaching the PM in such an environment might have sparked some interest?

We should be grateful that the response was not at the other end of the spectrum. A bullet riddled Brodkin would have been taking the joke too far. But for the incident to play out as it did was astonishing to watch. For the record, I thought the PM handled it admirably.

If P45’s are being handed out those who managed the security plan should be a little uneasy.

At the very heart of stability is a functioning legal code. This sets the behavioural parameters and those who break them are subject to criminal prosecution. Without this, society ceases to function. So, if you choose to drive your car into a crowd of people you are a criminal. Equally, if you choose to lob bricks at a similar crowd of people then you are also a criminal. In principle, pretty straightforward.

Why you have chosen to conduct such an action is your decision and there may or may not be mitigating circumstances but that is a matter for an independent judiciary to arbitrate upon. So, off you go to prison to reflect upon your actions and determined, never again, to break the law.

Now the question remains that if you did what you did because you don’t like what your victim was thinking - is that a suitable justification? If the answer is yes then someone, somewhere needs to be very clear as to what constitutes an acceptable opinion and be equally clear what you cannot support. This may not sit well with the principle of free speech but at least society knows where it stands - albeit a little uncomfortably. After all, you are being told what to think

Which brings us to the current ‘Nazis are bad’ debate. I have yet to see the contemporary terms of reference for a bona-fide Nazi or who ultimately passes judgement that an individual makes the grade but let’s accept that if you are carrying a swastika flag then it’s probably fair to assume that you have aspirations. Can I therefore lob a brick on the basis that you had it coming and the world will salute me on the basis that ‘Nazis are bad’? Possibly, but isn’t that what Nazis do?

Left, Right, Centre, Alt…. – think whatever you like. But don’t break the law

Browsing the internet, the other day I came across someone with the title ‘Professor of Counter-Terrorism’. In academic terms, there’s not much higher you can climb (is there?) so presumably the proud titleholder is the place to go for answers and solutions. Alas no, it’s not that simple. There are quite a few similarly titled Professors, Doctors and Experts out there who collectively or individually have yet to develop the counter terror panacea. And they all come with wiring diagrams or acronyms to help us better understand the complexity of the matter which only serve to further deepen our bewilderment.

What’s in a title? We fling around name tags with grand sounding appointments and everyone has an opinion based on what? Over inflated CV’s abound and Advisors and practitioners pass on their unproven strategies to an environment where every CT scenario is different. How on earth do you find the needle in the academic haystack? Who do you believe?

Where is the true expertise in developing a CT solution? In the Civmil world, is there such a thing as an expert or just people with different experience?

With their diet of grass, endless parades and that awful newsreader woman the average North Korean might have one optimistic but wary eye on the possibility of regime change. Arguably they look forward to the day when the Dear Leader gives the US, Japan and South Korea the excuse they need to give him an early call with multiple Cruise missiles - shock and awe becomes fire and fury.

What would be the point of any nuclear exchange? How could life be any worse for the people? Perhaps reducing Pyongyang to rubble might achieve that, surely a scenario we would wish to avoid? If the North Koreans strap a nuclear warhead of any size to anything and fire it then the most rational of heroic resraint should apply, The population should be assured that its the leadership that the world is after and pictures of long lines of relief trucks revving up would not go amiss.

As for the Chinese, they,ll move fast enough if a vacuum appears

I was lucky enough to fly in COMISAF’s private plane in Afghanistan on a few occasions but unfortunately it lacked the luxury depicted in Brad Pitt’s latest movie ‘War Machine’. On board entertainment was limited to a tatty cool box filled with Coke and crisps and there was definitely no alcohol. Perhaps there was another aircraft hidden away for out of country journeys. The real perk was bypassing the tortuous air movements misery of check in. Imagine getting to Heathrow and driving onto the runway where the plane is waiting for you. ‘This is how we roll’ said one excited US one star.

‘War Machine’ is a thinly disguised parody of the downfall of Stanley McChrystal at the hands of Rolling Stone magazine. Pitt plays General McMahon who is sent to Kabul to win the war but as is made abundantly clear by the films narrator the likelihood of achieving this is minimal. Servicemen and civilians who served there will instantly recognise the issues – a hostile population, poverty, ineffectual Afghan led security, no realistic alternative to poppy, warlords, corruption – but to see them laid out so starkly on screen will make you wince. Of course, the reality was more nuanced but the fact that we all got caught up in it is unavoidable. McChrystal, the Warrior Monk, was far from alone.

Ben Kingsley plays Karzai. We once briefed the President and all I can say is that Kingsley gets the tone right. During the briefing a question was asked which required some basic mental arithmetic. Karzai bombarded his bemused Ministers with questions along the lines of what is 23 x 12 or 94 – 27. ‘You should know this’ he insisted of his Minister of Finance.

Marjah offers the opportunity for some shooting. For real, the opposition melted away when Op Mushturaq was launched leaving behind them an intricate web of IED’s. Thereafter the insurgents fought an opportunist campaign as they could never hope to take on the US Marines whose leadership was almost without exception, outstanding. To consider the Corps as anything other than completely realistic about what they were being asked to deliver would be a substantial injustice. I spent nine months in the place and more often than not the locals referred to the enemy as ‘dushman’. Bandits – the description of Taliban was reserved for public consumption.

The film is about hubris. I never met the General or his team but much of the attitude rings true as a commentary on a wider military culture. However, to portray this as uniformly malevolent is unfair. At one point in the film a German politician played by Tilda Swinton says to McMahon ‘I’m sure you are a good man’. I’m sure McChrystal is too.

The film is on Netflix and is well worth 2 hours of your time

It’s a question that might be reasonably asked of any advisor supporting a military campaign – what do you actually do? It’s not intended to provoke an argument but unless it is clear what someone can and cannot offer then it’s difficult to use them effectively. Take, for example, the Gender Adviser.

ADL168 “Role of Gender Advisors and Gender Field Advisors in Operations” is the NATO guidance on the matter and states:

Due to the complexity of current international operations, there is an increasing awareness of the need for both military and civilian personnel to interact with local women and men. Men and women experience conflict and security differently. Consequently, their perspectives on conflict resolution and peace building can vary. It is important that CIMIC personnel working in the civil environment listen and respond to both male and female perspectives. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes our operations more effective and sustainable

It’s a long way of stating the obvious and if I as a Commander found that my soldiers were not engaging with all parts of the community I might have something to say about it. So what do we actually mean when we use the word Gender in a security context? Every Headquarters worth its salt these days has its Gender Adviser who presumably is adding value to the security effort but how and why are they doing this? I suggest we are in danger of creating and perpetuating an ill-defined programme which defies our best -intentioned efforts to understand because we don’t really know what we are trying do. Anyone for FET teams?

So how is ‘Gender’ managed in the Battle Space and how does this help the commander achieve his mission (and it is almost always a he). First let us be honest. Gender as a theme. has come to acquire a female bias. We all know there is more to it than that but if it simply is another way of saying all people are different then why do we need a separate category of adviser to accommodate this? However if it has become shorthand for redressing some element of inequality then there is nothing wrong in accepting this. At least we can be clear what we are talking about.

I’m pretty sure I would have to go a long way to find a commander disinclined to develop an understanding of 50% of the occupants of his area of operations. How that understand is established and exploited is another question but surely it is gender blind. I have yet to hear of military planners or analysts discarding or ignoring information on grounds of gender The security problem is looked at in the round and the female cultural issues are but a subset. Is this not why we have J2 and the equally poorly defined Cultural Adviser?

Is it a human rights issue? I'm hard pushed to think of circumstances in which a disciplined army would be disinclined to intervene in the event of atrocities taking place on its doorstep. Whether they would be given the clearance to do so is another matter but this is not a uniquely female affair. It is abuse and dealt with through clear rules of engagement, training and, like it or not, one pragmatic eye on the cultural barometer. Is this responding to ‘both male and female perspectives’ or is it just addressing a challenge to the rule of law?

So what does the Genad actually bring to the party? Is she (and it is almost always a she) the guardian of the moral compass ensuring the right thing to do is done (although it's not quite clear who arbitrates here). And while we’re at it why should the military get all the Genad attention? Is there not a case for wider engagement across all the lines of operation?

Equality is an important matter so it's important how it is delivered. We have yet to get the Genad model right and we should avoid creating a theme that is so opaque in terms of what it actually delivers. If we are going to load another element of accountability onto our Commanders then we at least owe it to them to be clear on what is required.

You may find it funny or you may not but I pulled this together for a recent training day......

http://captiongenerator.com/91496/Civmil

This section contains new articles. They will be stored under the thematic headings after they've been up for a month or so.

The US Department of Defence is redrafting its manual on Stability. If you haven't had the chance to look at it then I urge you to do so. It is excellent and I'll come back to it in more detail a little later.

Can I however make one observation? I know it is a Joint Chiefs document but the manual carries the title 'Stability'. I looked at the frontcover for the badges of State or USAID but no, its uniforms only. It may be  a small issue but I think it matters. If we cannot show an integrated approach in document covers where does that leave us when it comes to the real thing?

Apparently there is no evidence to suggest that medieval scholars ever debated the concept of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin but it has become a metaphor for a somewhat superfluous discussion. Perhaps the latest review of the term 'full spectrum' might one day assume a similar status?

Just as integrated Approach is a different way of saying teamwork so I would suggest that full spectrum is a different way of saying that everything up to and including the kitchen sink should be considered when delivering security effect.

UPDATE - having written the above in August it was surprising to hear of the latest variation on a theme come whistling along in September. The Army is introducing 'integrated action' which means that Commanders have to think both kinetic and non kinetic thoughts. I almost used the word 'spectrum' there but caught myself just in time. I would have hoped that they were doing this anyway but it does no harm to remind ourselves occasionally. Meanwhile as new concept follows very similar old concept it will be interesting to see the life cycle of integrated action - at the current rate it makes the poor old Mayfly look resilient.