Should British military casualties be named and honoured in PMQs?

ChrisD

Don't you think that the relatives of the fallen should be consulted on this issue? Personally I think their views should be paramount since their loved ones paid the ultimate price for their Queen and country.
And a mention at PMQ's from the Parliament that sent them to war is not about downplaying the success or failure of an ongoing military campaign, but more about recognising and remembering the ultimate price paid by those brave military men and women.

mitch

If they don't do it they will pretend it didn't happen and that will make it easier next time.

Bruce

Perhaps a member of the public, a woman possibly, could read out the names of the casualties while not being subject to arrest. Yhe honour being given demonstrating that our troops are defending a free society.

wheres the plot

Really though, does anybody care?

Fraser Nelson

ChrisD, I thought exactly as you did before I headed out to Afghanistan. If one dies for one's country, having one's name honoured in parliamnet by the PM seemed to be fitting. The objections I heard raised about this really suprised me - but so few watch PMQs that I suspect the real concern is the general media reporting and that the insurgents are winning the battle of the headlines.

The soldiers, I suppose, are more hardened to the prospect of casualties. Deploy 7,000 soldiers in theatre and you will have dozens killed every year - they are trained to accept this. But political expectations are more naive, as John Reid proved in his notorious "not a bullet fired" remark before sending 3 Para into the lion's den.

What I think lies at the heart of this issue is that Afghanistan is a war of staying power, not military power. I heard that time and time again: the Taleban can't outfight us, but think they will outlast us. That their nerve will last longer than ours. And there is a terrible propsect that they might be right.

Remember the Taliban & al-Qaeda believe that no matter how formiddable Western military becomes, it is ultimately handicapped by a short attention span due to the political cycle. And, after 50 years of peace, no toleration of casualties (amongst voters, not the military).

I went to Helmand expecting to find it a battle about reconstruction, counter-insurgency and cutting poppy industry. Instead, I found the war is a long psychological game with everyone (Russia, Pakistan, India) expecting we'll go home soon, for the above reasons.

Chuck Unsworth

I have served in the Military and have watched PMQs. Both occasionally seemed interminable.

But I think many soldiers or service personnel find the weekly ritual deeply offensive - largely because of the sheer hypocrisy and cant. 'We owe them a great debt' etc. Oh really? Well pay them more, look after them properly when they are wounded, support their families and give them somewhere half-way decent to live. The fact is that even these weekly condolences are now being seen as meaningless political garbage, nothing to do with the realities at all.

Military training teaches one to judge actions not words. That lesson is clearly understood by all those in the armed forces. They are, rightly, deeply cynical as to the good intentions of this Government in particular and, hence, politicians in general. They know that they must now scrutinise each Ministerial 'statement' with a lawyer's attention to fine detail. They know that nothing is as it initially seems.

Perhaps we should follow their example.

Chuck Unsworth

Fraser,

Just a rider to my other comments. True, the levels of casualties are lower than in other conflicts. They are casualties nonetheless. Modern wars can be limited or, as in the Iraq/Iran wars, virtually unlimited.

I do not think it right to imply that there have been 'only' 95 deaths in Afghanistan. Why have there been any at all? That is a measure of the collective and abject failure of politicians.

Perry

The fallen should certainly be named and honoured, and in a way deemed fitting by the troops, their leaders, and nearest and dearest.

Who by?

NOT by some jumped-up little gushing, posturing, bleeding-heart politico.

As far as I know there is no British Wall, similar to that in Arlington or Madingley. There should be.

There are a few discreet, honourable, ex-military men in Parliament and the Lords. They could also offer advice. Several are known by their not-coming-forwardness. (I for one, respect them for that.)

Nick Kaplan

If you want to address the feeling that this war is unwinnable the place to start is the BBC not PMQs. I don’t think I’ve seen a single report in which it has been mentioned how low the casualties are compared to other conflicts, and I certainly haven’t seen anything recently about the improved situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Commondog

wheres the plot.

Yawn yawn. Yet another keyboard rebel trying to be naughty.

"Ooh you really make my blood boil" gnarl, stomp.

There now, see how mad you got me.

Commondog

A very relevant posting Mr Nelson.

I agree that the ones doing the fighting should be listened to and their wishes heeded.

So easy for us to forget there are battles going on every day.

The shame is that the country as a whole is not fully supportive of the efforts and sacrifices of our people in this war, removed as they are by the 'deficiencies' (struggled for that word) of the general media coverage.

Hence, those on the front line are bound to be sensitive about how their work is seen.

Trumpeter Lanfried

What happens when we have a really bad hit and a dozen or more soldiers are killed? Is he going to read out all their names? They should be honoured, of course, but not at PMQs. It's the wrong time and the wrong place.

Arthur

Tony Blair might have regretted starting this tradition but let us all be clear that if it was he that started it, he only did it to salve his conscience in a typical example of New Labour insincerity.

As to whether we should do it, as an ex-soldier I cringe every time I hear it because I know it has simply become part of the "process" rather than an expression of genuine feeling and respect. And they are afraid to stop it lest they be branded uncaring.

I think it would be much more appropriate to name them during prayers at the beginning of each sitting. That way, it is associated with our Christian ethos rather than politics.

Lycurgus

A mention in the gazette and the local papers should be sufficient. No one really benefits from politicians getting in on the act, indeed if there was a major battle where things went seriously wrong PMQs could last most of the day just reciting the butchers bill.

Augustus

It surely is a topsy turvy world when MPs can stand up in parliament to name and honour the fallen, when their surviving comrades, home on leave, are even banned by commanders from wearing their uniforms in the streets of Peterborough and elsewhere for fear of reprisals?

TGF UKIP

This practice had Alastair Campbell's fingerprints all over it right from the start and I don't believe for an instant that Blair truly regretted it

From their point of view it was a triple whammy - it fell in with their general mawkishness, it seemed to put Labour on the side of the military and because the other party leaders had to join in, it further reduced the time Blair had to spend answering questions.

Chuck Unsworth and Arthur are properly authoritative on this and the cynicism Mr Unsworth expresses and refers to is entirely justified.

Fraser Nelson

Chuck, I agree that the praise heaped on the forces contrasts with money spent on them. But please can I be clear: I didn't say "only" 95 and don't for a moment trivialise this sacrifice. I am simply airing the Brigadier's point that the casualty rate is low in this conflict and that one should take this metric seriously. He is worried that fatalities are seen as a metric of failure. Nick, you're spot on - PMQs is a small part of this and it's more the general reporting that's at fault. Casualties make the news far more reguarly than victories.

Every death is a tragedy but I don't think one can disregard his remarks on the grounds that there should be no casualties at all.

Perry, outside the Foreign Office is a memorial with the names of everyone killed in the Bali bomb - British and not. Nowhere in Whitehall will you find anything with the names of soldiers who gave up their lives for their country in Iraq or Afghanistan. This strikes me as deeply odd.

TGF, I share your concern about the theatrics of this. Mentioning casualties was a way for Ming to silence the guffaws that normally accompanied his standing to his feet. I'm not accusing Brown or Blair of doing this just to play the statesman card. Chuck and Arthur's comments are very similar to those I heard in in Afghanistan.

ChrisD

Fraser trust your original instincts on this issue, when it comes to remembering the fallen, their families views should be paramount rather than those in the military or in politics.
And I say that as someone who has family serving in our armed forces.
I spoke to a widow of the Afghanistan conflict just a few weeks ago, we must not be seen to be downplaying their loss anymore than we do in this country already.
At the end of the day, people cannot appreciate the job our military do if either the military top brass or the politicians seek to try and downplay the risks and the ultimate costs of any conflict.
Its the job of politicians and the media to report on our progress in Iraq or Afghanistan honestly.
The problem highlighted by those you spoke to in Helmand, has arisen, because this present government has been less than candid about the situation out there.
They tried to downplay and hide the sheer enormity of the original task. And now it has became obvious that it is going to be a very tough challenge and a long term commitment, we need to make sure that the government is committed to giving our soldiers the best resources out there to do the job.
At the end of the day, the military top brass have not just a duty to their political masters, but also to the men and women who serve under them and their families.
And that is the military covenant that this government has broken, simple because they have sought to run these campaigns solely through the prism of their own short term political ends rather than with the long term objectives of their Foreign policy to the forefront.

Athesius the Facilitator

I was in the Fleet arm on the commando helicopter circuit so I am familiar with the service ethos and I can tell you with certainty that the average serviceman would hate this question time feely touchy crap. But they would appreciate an armed forces debate once every parliamentry session. One that is FULLY attended by the house of commons MPs. The dead and the injured would be mentioned on the order papers. The debate would take place on a friday starting at 9 in the morning and would finish at 12 noon; and as long as they had permission would be allowed to travel on early weekenders.
As it stands now things are pathetic. And the armed forces debate that they do have annually is attended by half a dozen ex armed forces MPs a couple of disinterested stragglers a front bench representative from all sides and a whip. And they wonder why the the public are fed up with them.

Chuck Unsworth

Fraser,

Don't misunderstand me. I do not think that you are trivialising the casualties or the rate of casualties. I'll certainly take your word for the good Brigadier's views and sentiments although I think he has little to worry about on those scores.

It's certainly not a question of being seen to 'fail'. This is an ill-defined, some might argue undefined, mission. There's no clarity as to the final objective simply because that objective will inevitably be shaped by events - in much the same way as that in Iraq.

Right at the outset of hostilities in both theatres of war I and many others asked the simple questions: 'what are the ultimate objectives and who are the enemy?'. Years on there is still no clarity as to either. That being so 'victory' is not definable or achievable, except as a series of political postures by incompetent politicians.

True, there will be tactical successes and these may well be regarded a small 'victories'. But would anyone here care to define 'mission accomplished' - except as a photo opportunity for George Bush, that is?

Die hard Blairite

Underlying all this is the alliance of "realist" right and "anti-imperialist" left who think Afghanistan is a far away country of which we know little. That combined with weak minded politicians who regard Blair's foreign policy as a disaster instead of (as I believe history will show) his finest hour and you get all this.

Just think of how the Mail et al boosted the electoral campaign of Reg Keys (the Mail even suggested he'd win!) and how the BBC list his speech as one of the best moments of the 2005 election.

The second you stopped naming the dead at PMQs that alliance would be leaping up and down in mock anger and inchoate rage. We'd need a better set of politicians that we the ones we have now to stand up to that.

MartinW

I have always felt it was highly inapproporiate to mention casualties in PMQs, and concur with all the arguments expressed above.
Cameron needs to exercise a little courage and stop echoing Brown in this rather mawkish ritual. He won't be castigated for it, and I suspect the three leaders would quickly come to an agreement to bring an end to this Blairite innovation.

mitch

Perhaps I'm a cynic but did blair start doing this because it eats into the time for real questions.

wheres the plot

Not intending to be rebellious or disrespectful. I am of the convinced opinion that not too many people are really interested.
I am ex military, served in R.A.F from 1978 to 1984. It's a very difficult subject and it's easier to say nothing. These young men will continue to die and remembering them and taking care of their family is important. If it eases your conscience then blog away.

DavefromLuton

Blair did it purely as a political act to set a sombre tone and effectively to make it more difficult for the Opposition to pursue an aggressive line of questioning. It has nothing to do with honouring the dead. If parliament wants to honour the dead the Speaker, on behalf of all parties, should read out their names and the details of their mission at the start of each week's business.
With some of the death's I think the opposition would be fully entitled to point out that the death was probably caused by the Government's failure to provide proper equipment etc. Yet imagine the uproar if that point was raised immediately after the statement honouring the death.

dexey

Well, I care. I'm an ex soldier and I think it is a bad idea. Let the politicians put up the money to equip the soldiers properly. A pox on their false sympathy.

Alexius

Tony Blair started this `tradition` to help deflect tough questioning at PMQ`s. Also as an oppotunity to act `statesmanlike` and impress the TV audience with the heavy resposibilities he had to bear. It was a disgusting piece of playacting and, as such, an insult to our brave servicemn and women.

Zut Alors

Tony Blair and the Labour government are responsible for those deaths so Brown should continue to stand up every week to associate himself with his crimes. I hope the deaths hang heavy on his conscience.