Category Archives: Posts

Britain’s post-truth ‘Iraqistan’ memorial insults both veterans and reality, A gilded fiction is still a fiction, after all.

First published on the International Business Times

Given the gulf between Britain’s imperial self-image and the unheroic truth, I always felt that the inevitable memorial to our recent failed wars would be off the mark when it arrived.

Yet first impressions indicate the star-studded unveiling in London’s Victoria Embankment Gardens on Thursday 9 March of a new ”Iraqistan” statue will plumb new depths of post-truthery.

Folding three wars of aggression into one fictional humanitarian aid operation is bad enough, I thought… and that was before I realised this latest extravaganza is the brainchild of the Murdoch press and was part-funded by global arms giant BAE Systems.

This state of affairs rules the Iraq Afghanistan Memorial out of representing the reality of the wars for many of the veterans who served in them or, indeed, the forgotten people of the victim nations.

I am not denying for a moment the immense skill apparent in the artist’s work but he appears to have impaled himself on the same bayonet as the post 9/11 media: reiterating what the establishment says as if it were incontrovertibly true. A gilded fiction is still a fiction, after all.

The surest thing about the memorial is its parentage. It is obviously the progeny of an arms firm, the gutter press and a military and political establishment desperate to draw a line under embarrassing defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan with a view to repeating them elsewhere in future.

This desperation is captured perfectly in a Ministry of Defence promotional video tweeted ahead of unveiling which exhibits depths of self-delusion I haven’t witnessed since I last encountered a senior British military officer.

On the 9 March HM The Queen will unveil the Iraq & Afghanistan Memorial honouring the duty and service of both UK armed forces and civilians pic.twitter.com/FzN7528myc

— Ministry of Defence (@DefenceHQ) February 28, 2017

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

In less than two minutes, the slick and emotively scored promo re-brands three wars of aggression – the signal foreign policy disasters of our time – as a 25 year long humanitarian aid operation carried out in uniform.

In a masterclass of selective memorialisation, it appears there will be no references at all to dodgy dossiers, extrajudicial drone assassinations, massive refugee crises, oil, Isis, a re-energised Taliban, rendition, Tony Blair or any of the other tentacled horrors which have come to define Britain’s recent adventures in the sandpit.

As a recent veteran myself I can tell you I was surprised to find that far from violently occupying those far-off impoverished places, the British military had in fact “championed democracy”, “protected British interests” and, most surprisingly of all, “rebuilt villages”.

One can only assume that the latter activity took place after the occupying forces had levelled said hamlets from the air, which somehow makes the sentiment a little less impressive.

Despite the attempt to soften the wars by folding civilian aid and development workers in with the military, this new addition must be seen in much the same way as the Chilcot Inquiry.

While the two-million word report was the establishment’s investigation of itself, this is the establishment’s memorial to what it wishes the wars had been: just, right, necessary and worth the cost.

Prince Harry, who last year outrageously shook hands with George W Bush at the Invictus Games for wounded soldiers, will headline the opening in his apparently self-elected role as the soldiers’ champion.

Naturally his dear grandmother, who uttered not a squeak in public against the wars, has been booked to look on.

When I first spotted and raised these discrepancies, I was understandably challenged for my view. Some people will appreciate being honoured in this manner, I was told.

I agree. Some people will be taken in by this exercise in bleaching the truth out of history. Just as many others, myself included, will not.

For veterans who have woken up this “Iraqistan” memorial will recall a time when we believed that the UK, and the British military, was fundamentally in the business of good causes rather than imperial adventures. A time which has passed.

For those of us who have come to realize what we were involved in our testament reads differently to that of the government, the military, arms firms or the Sun newspaper.

We will recall Afghanistan as what it was: a knee-jerk war against some of the poorest people in the world. A war in which we engaged initially to stay in with the United States and, after 2006, to recover our image in American eyes after utter failure in Basra.

Likewise we will recall the British role in Iraq as what it was: that of a junior henchman in the mother of all heists. And a failed heist at that.

On reflection, perhaps there is something to this flattering re-brand to delude future generations. Even if only ironically.

It may not be remotely based on what actually occurred in the wars but it captures precisely the new military bluster of the post-truth age combined with the established tendency of our leaders to overreach based on a cocktail of personal ambition, wishful thinking and faulty information.

Joe Glenton is a member of VFP UK and author of Soldier Box, published by Verso Books.

An evening with Ben Griffin, SAS Veteran and founder of Veterans for Peace UK, offering an honest insight into military life and warfare with the opportunity to ask questions at the end of it.

Suitable for anyone interested in the Armed Forces, UK foreign policy, military recruitment and peace activism; it will be especially interesting for you, if you are thinking of joining the Armed Forces, and for ex-service personnel who are looking to like-minded veterans.

Free admission, tea and biscuits provided.

Links

Eventbrite

Facebook

Last weekend a number of Veterans For Peace UK members visited the new VFP base in Goffin Land, Exeter for their monthly meeting at which the Summer Camp was discussed and planned, A meal was provided for all those attending the afternoons public event, a showing of theChild Soldiers International films featuring VFP member Wayne Sharrock’s to members of the local community.

Wayne suffered shrapnel wounds to his face and shoulders after a fellow soldier stepped on a pressure pad that detonated an IED bomb in Afghanistan 2011. The films are a stark and honest account that provides insight as to what life is like in the military, why children should not be encouraged to join at 16 and the struggles individuals face when trying to reintegrate back into the society.

The film was met with much praise and attendees were struck by the aspects of military life that some had not been aware of. VFP members also spoke candidly about their own experiences and were engaged in a series of questions and answers.

Veteran’s for Peace are committed to sharing the realities and cost of war and will continue to engage in the south west, which is a highly militarised region. Veteran’s for Peace believe categorically that the military should not have access to children, but if schools insist on continuing to allow the military in, they have an obligation to give their students the opportunity to learn about the implications of war and what they may face by joining the Armed Forces, so that they are able to make an informed decision.

To get in touch with VFP in the south west please email exeter@vfpuk.org

VFP UK will be holding their Summer Camp at Goffin Land. Thursday 1 June to Sunday 4 June.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1322331134513421/

  ROYAL NAVY RECRUITMENT ADS HIT LONDON

A new recruitment campaign for the Royal Navy’s Trident nuclear submarines has been unveiled in London. The bus stop posters urge Londoners to ‘Become a Suicide Bomber’ by joining the ongoing “suicide mission” aboard the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet.

UK artist Darren Cullen, 33, who designed the poster campaign, says the ads claim that “Nuclear bombs are suicide bombs” because it is “impossible to use these weapons without also killing ourselves.”

Cullen, who worked with Veterans For Peace UK on the Action Man: Battlefield Casualties films goes on to say, “A country with nuclear weapons is prepared to destroy the world rather than lose a war. With a single weapon system we hold the planet hostage by the sort of terror you only get from thermonuclear missiles.”

The posters point budding recruits to a website at royalnavy.org.uk which demonstrates how the crew of a nuclear submarine must be prepared to destroy human civilization on command.  In a series of diagrams the site also shows how the crew of the sub would not survive the launch of Trident, and how even a “limited” nuclear war could wipe out all life on Earth.

“Terrorists are willing to commit suicide to brutally murder innocent people, but so are we. In fact, we’re about to spend £205 billion on upgrading our ability to do so.” Cullen points out that the British government refuses to rule out first-use of nuclear weapons and has stated it may use them even if its ‘vital interests’ are threatened. He goes on to say that, “due to NATO and our alleged Special Relationship, we’re also committed to a nuclear suicide pact with America.”

Ben Griffin, ex-SAS and now coordinator for Veterans For Peace UK said the project, “Highlighted the hypocrisy,” of Trident renewal. “We are told that Trident keeps us safe. But ownership of Trident puts us on the target list of other nuclear states.”

Dozens of posters appeared around London overnight installed by Special Patrol Group (@specialpatrols), a subvertising organisation responsible for a series of posters criticizing the DSEI arms fair and racism in the Metropolitan Police.

Darren Cullen is an artist and illustrator, best known for his work at Dismaland, ‘Pocket Money Loans’ and his Action Man: Battlefield Casualties toy range and advert. His website is www.spellingmistakescostlives.com

THE ROLE OF INDOCTRINATION IN TRANSFORMING CIVILIANS TO SERVICE MEMBERS

Dennis McGurk, Dave I Cotting, Thomas W Britt, and Amy B Adler

The following article is from Amy Adler, Charles Castro, Thomas Britt, ‘Military Life: The psychology of serving in peace and combat (Vol. 2)’, 2013.

The authors describe basic military training with approval as a process of intense indoctrination. By stripping the recruit of their identity, applying stressors and punishments, conditioning obedience to all orders, and dehumanising the enemy, the military replaces the recruit’s former identity with another identity. By the end of basic military training, a young person will obey all orders, including the order to kill another person without hesitation.

The authors are senior US military officers (except Amy Adler, a civilian), and all have doctorates and long research records in social and applied psychology.

“Four brave men who do not know each other will not dare to attack a lion. Four less brave men who know each other well, sure of their reliability and consequently of mutual aid, will attack resolutely” (Ardant du Picq, 1870, p. 48). Taking “less brave” men and women and training them to know and trust each other in order to attack the enemy is what military indoctrination is all about.

Military indoctrination is a process by which civilians are transformed into military service members. To indoctrinate is to instruct in a doctrine, principle, or ideology; to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view (Nichols, 2001). Military indoctrination in U.S. forces goes far beyond this; it is the process of turning civilian men and women into service members—soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. For enlisted personnel, this process occurs during Army Basic Training, Navy Boot Camp, Air Force Basic Training, or Marine Corps Boot Camp. Indoctrination for military officers takes place during Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) training, at one of the service academies (U.S. Military Academy [West Point], the Naval Academy [Annapolis], or the Air Force Academy [Colorado Springs]), or in officer candidate school (OCS). Enlisted training varies in length from 6 to 12 weeks, depending on the branch of service, while officer training is generally conducted during the four years cadets are in ROTC and the service academies or 13 weeks for OCS.

However, all indoctrination has the same overarching goal, to train recruits/cadets physically and mentally and instill in them an understanding of, and willingness to accept values that service members already believe are reasonable, moral, and desirable (e.g., integrity, honesty, commitment).

However, intense indoctrination will be necessary to enable service members to engage in behaviors that represent a more radical departure from their prior experiences and worldview. What types of behaviors require more intense persuasion? Two classes of behaviors in a military context represent (1) killing someone else in the service of a mission to protect one’s country, and (2) the willingness to subordinate self-interests, including survival, in the service of group goals. The leaders of traditional religious, political, and terrorist “cults” employ the process of indoctrination for similar reasons. The more extreme of these groups may require group members to kill other people in the service of their organizations goals, and the group members need to be willing to sacrifice (even by giving up their own life or the life of their child) for the group.

Military Versus Cult Indoctrination

How does military indoctrination differ from indoctrination into a cult-like organization? Unlike cult-like indoctrination, the process of military indoctrination simultaneously prepares individuals to kill and/or potentially sacrifice one’s life while developing more traditionally accepted standards of conduct and socially acceptable values. These latter values, such as integrity and honor, along with adherence to standards, such as killing only enemy combatants, are designed to prevent the service member from becoming an automaton that simply follows any order regardless of its moral consequences.

Service members are not trained for the sole purpose of killing and sacrificing their lives when necessary. Although these behaviors represent a critical aspect of their training and may be necessary during military operations, service members must also be prepared to invoke more complex decision-making strategies to ensure mission success. Current and future operational environments will require service members to operate relatively independently, take on multiple responsibilities, and demonstrate a diversity of skills. For example, in the same operation, a soldier may be required to attack an enemy combatant, negotiate with civilians the war zone, and help rebuild and provide security for a school devoted to the education of local children. To accomplish these diverse tasks, service members will need to demonstrate success at complex decision making that takes place within the context of a detailed professional and ethical framework.

Despite the increased reliance on technology to accomplish military missions, individual service members are still the ‘ones ultimately responsible for mission execution. Thus, the focus on developing individual military values remains a necessary priority (Walsh, 2000). Recruits must learn the values of their organizations, and a good deal of their time is spent being inculcated into a culture with specific values (e.g., Army values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage). These kinds of values guide the military’s actions (Field Manual 7-21.13 The Soldier’s Guide) and are the cornerstone of each of the armed services. The values are intended to guide individual decision making well beyond basic training. It is this emphasis on that serves as a key mechanism by which civilians entering military service are indoctrinated into military culture.

The Process of Indoctrination

Baron (2000) provides an excellent review of the dynamics and stages of intense indoctrination. His description helps to illustrate the ways in which military indoctrination both conforms to and deviates from his global indoctrination model. Ultimately, successful indoctrination results in a dramatic change in the individual’s self-concept, which is both maintained and reinforced by the individual’s social environment. The change in self-concept, which involves internalization of the group’s values, ultimately leads the individual co seek the fulfillment of not only personal goals but also group goals. The goal of military indoctrination is to produce service members who have internalized the values of the armed services so as to drive individuals to behaviors in defense of the nation that may involve killing or sacrificing oneself, while thinking and problem solving in the presence of complex contingencies.

Stages of Indoctrination

Various authors have described different stages that make up the indoctrination process (Baron, 2000; Lifton, 1961; Schein, Schneier, & Barker, 1961; Stahelski, 2004). Despite some diversity in how these stages are conceptualized, these authors construe indoctrination as following roughly the same sequence of stages. Because of its focus on the process of indoctrination across a variety of situations, we use Baron’s (2000) stage model as a basis to illustrate military indoctrination, although we integrate other approaches as well. The fundamental stages of intense indoctrination consists of the “softening-up stage, compliance stage, internalization stage, and consolidation stage” (Baron, 2000, p. 240). A brief summary of each stage and its military application is provided in Table 2.1.

Softening-up Stage

Baron argues that the first stage involves laying the groundwork for the individual to adopt the new values and behaviors of the group by separating the individual from prior contacts and by exposing the individual to a variety of stressors. This initial stage also involves an attempt to decrease an emphasis on the unique aspects of an individual’s identity and, instead, to expose and reinforce the key tenets of the group. It is generally believed that an initial period of stress and some disorientation ultimately provide more fertile ground for engaging in social psychological processes that will cause an individual to de-emphasize his or her: personal identity and embrace the identity of the group. Stahelski (2004) (see Figure 2.1) refers to this stage of indoctrination as “depluralization,” which consists of removing all other group identities from the individual’s self-concept. When individuals encounter stressors such as lack of sleep and intense physical activity on a continuous basis, their attention resources are depleted, making them less resistant to persuasion attempts (Baron, 2000; Easterbrook. 1959; Wine, 1971).

In the context of indoctrination the U.S. Army, recruits are told they have left their family, friends, and all else behind them and are now part of the military family. Recruits work continuously from early in the morning until bedtime, with little time for reflection about how their experiences are consistent or inconsistent with their prior life. In most Army indoctrination settings, new members are allowed minimal or no contact with outsiders, including their immediate families. In addition, military training is very often conducted in isolated environments, away from outside influence. Recruits are generally restricted to the post during the initial phases of indoctrination. Cadences, the songs that are sung when marching or running in formation, are rich with references to things that are “back on the block,” referring to the civilian world as if it is another world. In addition, no tattoos or other group markings are allowed to be seen when in uniform. Taken together, this facilitates what Ward (1999) referred to as the social incubator and enables the indoctrination process to occur.

The softening-up stage also includes Stahelski’s (2004) stage of self-deindividuation, where personal identity is de-emphasized and croup identity is emphasized in its place. This is commonly referred to in the military as “breaking down” recruits before they are rebuilt in the military organization’s image. One striking example of this is when new recruits are no longer referred to by their first name. New enlisted soldiers are called Private Smith or Private Jones, while officer recruits are referred to as Cadet Smith or Cadet Jones. The extreme case of deindividuation is the Marine Corps requiring recruits to refer to themselves in the third person. When recruits want to talk to the drill instructor, they must state “the private requests to speak.” To further stress the formation of a group identity, all recruits wear identical uniforms and have identical haircuts so that everyone looks as similar as possible. Prior research suggests that these types of activities promote a sense of anonymity and loss of self-awareness, leading to a greater likelihood of immersion in the social role or group (Diener, 1975). This stage sets the groundwork for what Goffman (cited in Bourne 1967) termed the “mortification process,” during which the recruit is stripped of his or her previous self. Previous achievement, family, and individuality are ignored, and the institutions’ own indicators of achievements, reference group, and status are demanded in their place. For example, high school sports jackets with uniform numbers on the sleeve are replaced by battle dress uniforms (BDUs), with name tapes that spell out “U.S. Army” sewn over the heart and an Army unit patch sewn on the sleeve.

Stahelski’s Five Phases of Social Psychological Conditioning.

Phase 1: Depluralization: stripping away all other group member identities.

Phase 2: Self-deindividuation: stripping away each member’s personal identity.

Phase 3: Other-deindividuation: stripping away the personal identities of enemies.

Phase 4: Dehumanization: identifying enemies as subhuman or nonhuman.

Phase 5: Demonization: identifying enemies as evil.

Source: Stahelski, 2004.

The process of military indoctrination certainly contains essential features of the softening-up’ stage of general intense indoctrination, but it is also worth considering the ways in which military indoctrination is unique. Although the initial training of service members provides a heavy dose of workload and stressors to ultimately enhance resiliency under the severe conditions of combat, even at an early stage recruits are also trained to recognize morally suspect actions and to take personal responsibility for actions that may have life-and-death consequences for others. A more complex code of values guiding the behavior of service members is introduced during basic training and then is expanded throughout the rest of a service member’s military training. (See Grojean & Thomas, this set, Volume 4.) In this way, the softening up, or deindividuation, plays a role in the adoption of the behaviors necessary to excel and thrive in combat situations, but service members are also trained to be decision makers who are aware of the values guiding their behaviors.

Compliance Stage

According to Baron (2000), the second stage of intense indoctrination involves the individual beginning to experiment with newly learned behaviors: “The recruit tentatively ‘tries out’ some of the behaviors requested by the group, more or less going through the motions or paying lip service to many the demands made by the group” (p. 241). At this stage, individuals are basically modeling what they believe is expected of them to avoid punishment and reprimands, not conforming because of an intrinsic interest in supporting the group.

It is almost certainly the case that military recruits go through this compliance phase or period of engagement in the early stages of training (Bourne, 1967). Behaviors such as singing cadences and group exercises may at first be done out of an extrinsic desire to avoid disapproval or punishment. Even learning and advocating the values espoused by a service member’s branch of the military may ac first be done with a relatively superficial commitment. However, research has shown that behaviors initially performed for extrinsic reasons have a higher likelihood of being internalized by the individual when repeatedly performed and reinforced (Cialdini, 1993). Desired behaviors, such as using proper military courtesies when addressing the drill instructor, are required numerous times each day, and compliance is strongly supported by the group. In addition, group reinforcement of positive actions is encouraged by drill instructors.

Internalization Phase

The third phase of indoctrination represents a more active incorporation of the group’s actions, values, and standards into the individual’s worldview, which is facilitated through constant social confirmation and continued emphasis on group and activities (Baron, 2000). At this stage, the individual has come to privately believe the central tenets of the group and begins to seek inclusion within the group. The private acceptance of group norms and influence represents a critical step in the indoctrination process, as the individual comes to personally adopt the group’s belief system. It is during this stage that the individual starts to change his or her self-conception to one in which membership of the group takes on central importance (Schein et al., 1961).

From the perspective of military indoctrination, internalization will likely take place at different times for different service members, with some service members failing to reach this stage. Service members who are motivated to join the military for relatively extrinsic reasons (e.g., financial rewards, parental approval) may fail to progress from compliance to internalization, and instead may continue to “go through the motions” throughout training. However, service members who internalize the central values of the armed services will be changed as individuals and will be more internally motivated to behave in ways consistent with those values (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Consolidation Stage

The final stage of intense indoctrination involves individuals solidifying their identity as a group member and expressing an unwavering commitment to the group’s goals and activities (Baron, 2000). To simplify their lives, individuals in this consolidation stage, like many individuals, generally categorise people as those similar to them (in-group) versus those different from them (out-groups). In examples of intense indoctrination, the individual may unquestioningly respond to group requests and may even distort reality in the service of maintaining a positive perception of the group.

In discussing this stage as part of terrorist indoctrination processes, Stahelski (2004) notes how this final phase contains a number of processes relevant to how so-called out-groups are treated by terrorist organizations. Terrorist groups de-emphasize the prospective enemy as unique individuals, a process referred to as other-deindividuation. Beyond other-deindividuation is the process of dehumanization, in which the enemy is portrayed as not merely lacking in individuality but as nonhuman. The enemy is perceived to have negative characteristics such as low intelligence, lack of compassion, and/or a corrupt nature. Often the enemy is likened to a rat or other vermin (Stahelski, 2004).

One final aspect of views of the enemy within indoctrination is demonization, when the enemy is identified as evil or of the devil. Differences in religion are often evoked, and enemy soldiers are described as godless. This creates a view of the enemy as less than human and, like dehumanization, makes it much easier to kill them. The former Soviet Union was labeled “the evil empire” by President Ronald Reagan. In some foreign countries, the United States is referred to as the “Great Satan,” and Americans are called infidels. Similarly, some cultures instruct their soldiers that killing the enemy will earn them eternity in Valhalla, 72 virgins in heaven with Mohammed, or other “heavenly” rewards. While these kinds of rewards are not promised during United States military indoctrination, being part of the righteous side of a conflict is emphasized, and “dying with your boots on” is considered an honorable way to die.

Consistent with this emphasis on killing, indoctrination is used to train individuals in the attitudes and behaviors required to kill. It is typically assumed that civilians enter the military with an inherent reluctance to kill, and so the task of indoctrination is to shape attitudes toward killing and to train individuals in the behaviors necessary to kill. The processes used to shape attitudes toward killing include depluralization, other-deindividuation, and dehumanization; the process of desensitization to discharging weapons is used to shape behavior. Whether or not service members remain reluctant to fire their weapons despite this indoctrination has been the subject of some debate (see Grossman, 1996; Marshall, 1947; Spiller, 1988), but this particular goal of military indoctrination has remained consistent. Interestingly, Stahelski (2004) posits that democratic militaries use these methods but are careful to apply these techniques only to enemy soldiers, not noncombatants or civilians. Democratic militaries regard this distinction as critical and pride themselves on limiting collateral damage, injuries, or deaths of innocent civilians.

Overall, whether developing an identity that incorporates che organization’s values or developing attitudes that meet the organization s needs, indoctrination involves a series of systematic stages. stages of indoctrination lay out the pattern that individuals entering the organization follow. The mechanisms underlying these indoctrination stages encompass active methods of persuasion as well as the influence of the group and changes in individual identity.

Mechanisms of Indoctrination

The indoctrination process follows a number of steps. Individuals are removed from their former selves, a new self is formed, and group goals and values are internalized. The mechanisms of such a process involve techniques that have been frequently studied in social psychological research. Many of these techniques, despite their deceivingly mild nature, have powerful effects. While many social psychological theories can be used to understand the indoctrination process, three key theories are described here: persuasion, group dynamics, and identity development.

Persuasion-related Processes

In a sense, indoctrination represents an extreme form of persuasion, in which the goal is to persuade an individual to perform some behaviors that before the indoctrination experience would have been considered ludicrous. Baron (2000) describes in detail the social psychological research on persuasion critical to understanding how an individual progresses through the various stages of indoctrination, the persuasion principle most relevant to the process of indoctrination is related to the diversity of negative emotional states capable of undermining the cognitive elaboration of a persuasive message. The individual is left relying on persuasive cues such as the degree of expertise and/or the authority of the source (Baron, 1986; Gleicher & Petty, 1992; Sanbonmatsu & Kardes, 1988).

The intense workload and sleep restriction experienced by military recruits leaves them little attention capacity for processing the messages they receive about new norms and guidelines that should govern their conduct (Easterbrook, 1959; Kahneman, 1973). Therefore, recruits should be less likely to devote their remaining cognitive effort to judging the quality of persuasive messages and will be more likely to be persuaded by the messages because the messages come from a military authority or expert. Some controversy currently exists about: the extent of attitude and identity change that results from such peripheral route processing (see Petty & Wegener, 1998). However, it is possible that changed beliefs and attitudes as a result of superficial processing may later be consolidated through more thoughtful analysis in later military training programs that do not tax the resources of trainees. (See Grojean & Thomas, this set, Volume 4.)

Group Dynamics and Conformity

Intense indoctrination always occurs in a powerful social context for the recruit (Baron, 2000; Lifton, 1961; Schein et al., 1961). New recruits face immense social pressure to conform to the values of the group or risk psychological (e.g., group exclusion) and possibly physical consequences. Individuals have a basic need to belong to meaningful groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and the feeling that one has been excluded from important and meaningful reference groups can lead to anxiety and a loss of self-esteem (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995).

One obvious way to avoid the negative consequences of being excluded by a group is to conform to that group (Cialdini, 1993). Furthermore, researchers have found that individuals are more likely to conform to existing group norms when experiencing such stressors as time pressure, loud noise, or threat of physical pain from shock (Darley, 1966; Kruglanski & Webster, 1991). As already discussed, intense indoctrination settings are inherently stressful, and therefore the pressures to conform to group and authority norms for proper conduct will be great. Within a military context, conformity during indoctrination occurs on multiple levels: conformity to the actions of fellow unit members, conformity to the demands of authorities (e.g., drill sergeants), and conformity to the more abstract values emphasized by the particular branch of the armed service. In addition, conformity is more likely because all aspects of training are conducted with accompanying stressors (e.g., time limits, while drill instructors are yelling, and/or the threat of physical pain from performing push ups or other physical exercises).

Identity Processes

According to Tajfel, social identity is “that part of the individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (1981, p. 235). In addition, social identity distinguishes itself by calling attention to the competition, real or imagined, between the group with which one identifies (i.e., the in-group) and another group (i.e., the out-group). Social identity, in fact, suggests that identification both stems from and is being fed by a need for positive distinctiveness between the in-group and the out-group. This need is satisfied by intergroup downward comparisons that often heighten group differences (Oaker & Brown, 1986). The group in this approach is based on both perceived similarities between in-group members and differences between in-group and out-group members. We note, however, that although the distinction between the “we” and the “they” is fundamental, the “they” may not have any independent existence, and its members may not have anything in common other than not being a “we” from the definer’s perspective (Deaux, 1996). Social identification theory may capture an intrinsic element of military indoctrination: its emphasis on bettering the self. The process of military indoctrination presumably betters the self by making the individual part of a distinguished group (e.g., “the few, the proud, the Marines”). To both motivate for and maintain this “transformation,” a degree of downward comparison is required. Airborne school instructors, for example, emphasize that paratroopers are better than “regulars” (who are often referred to as “dirty, nasty legs,” implying that regular troops go to war on foot, while paratroopers jump from aircraft).

Each individual has a general orientation by which he/she views the self and others who can be captured by the concept of collectivism. Collectivism represents the general disposition to (a) define the self as part of groups, (b) subordinate personal goals to group goals, and (c) show strong emotional ties to the group. In contrast, individualism (most often construed as the opposite tendency on a single continuum with collectivism) represents an orientation toward self-reliance, independence, personal goals, and achievements. As a general dispositional variable, this concept has mostly been studied at a cultural level of analysis.

Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to investigate cultural factors in military identification processes, we note that the work of Markus and Kitayama (1991, 1994) in Japan and the United States indicates that Asian cultures emphasize the interdependence of the self with others, using the self-in-relation-to-other as the basic unit of self-definition. In contrast, Western cultures emphasize the differences between the self and others and a self-as-distinct-from-others approach to self-definition. Whether collectivism results in quicker military indoctrination or whether collectivist cultures (or individuals) require different indoctrination strategies than do individualist cultures (or individuals) are questions that have not as yet been studied empirically. However, we cannot but wonder about the importance of this general orientation in an individual selecting a branch for service in the United States Armed Forces (“the few, the proud, the Marines” versus “the Army of one” may attract recruits from different cultural orientations). Indeed, if such self-selection is based on collectivism, we can speculate that molding specific military indoctrination strategies for individuals with collectivist and individualist orientation may result in more effective military indoctrination.

The Experience and Success/Failure of Indoctrination

While the processes of indoctrination may be operating on the recruits, the recruits themselves experience the process from their unique perspective. To study the phenomenology of indoctrination, we turned to where the majority of concentrated indoctrination occurs: initial training courses. We identified studies that specifically examined the experiences of incoming military recruits.

In Gold’s (2000) study of West Point cadets undergoing their first exposure to the military during the six-week cadet basic training session known as “beast,” interviews revealed three major stressors identified by the recruits. First, the novelty of the experience is profound. Being thrown into a completely new environment, with a new identity, and a new set of rules and expectations that are not yet clear create the basis from which the old identity can be shed and the new identity can be developed. This period of transition from civilian to cadet is a type of culture shock. The culture itself, the group of reference, has shifted to such a dramatic degree that the cadets are left dazed and confused, but motivated. The importance of the new peer group is critical for transitioning into this new military identity. As one cadet notes, feels like “a thousand of you who are nothings together” (Gold, 2000, p. 149). This camaraderie provides support for surviving this harsh but exhilarating transition.

Interestingly, in a study conducted 30 years earlier with enlisted soldiers drafted into the military, Bourne (1967) reported similar findings. The soldiers experienced what he termed environmental shock, similar to Gold’s concept of culture shock. The worst of this stress is experienced during the phase before the actual training begins, because the individual has lost his identity but has not yet been provided with a new one and also has not yet been able to test himself on the much-anticipated challenges of the training course itself. Self-doubt and lack of confidence place the individual in a stressful no-man’s-land.

The second stressor identified by the West Point cadets was the stress of not being able to anticipate what will happen next. The shifting expectations and demands are a component of stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Again, Bourne also notes that this inability to anticipate demands is a major source of stress for the basic trainees. By focusing on the unknown, individuals are left in an unstable condition that prepares them for accepting a new certainty, the certainty of the group and the groups goals.

The third and final stressor reported by the West Point cadets was the stress of sheer workload in the form of time management pressures. Bourne’s study did not reveal the same stressor but did mention that the draftees worked 20 hours a day, so much that there was little time to contemplate the changes that were occurring (consistent with the softening-up phase described by Baron, 2000).

Despite the externally applied pressure of indoctrination, individuals being indoctrinated, at least in the case of the military, are quite aware that they are being subjected to an active change process. This self-awareness may not be typical of other kinds of indoctrination. In the studies cited here, both the cadets and the basic trainees were conscious that they were in the midst of a life-changing experience. They were quite aware that they were going to be subjected to stressful events designed to turn them into members of the organization. They were motivated participants in that transition. They also contemplated the process itself. In the case of the cadets, Gold reported that even incidental training-related demands were perceived by the cadets as part of the overall training process, as part of some overall plan to prepare them as military leaders. In the case of the basic trainees, Bourne reported that upon reflection, many wished that the training had been harder. They were hoping to see themselves transformed into men by the experience.

Other components of military indoctrination that play an important role in the life of the trainee and that are not typically described in theories of indoctrination are the physical demands of the training. One physical demand is sleep restriction or deprivation. A consequence of sleep restriction may well be reduced resistance, which may reduce the ability of recruits to critically analyze cognitive information regarding attempts at persuasion. Another physical demand is intense physical training. Despite the exhaustion that such a demand places on individuals, a paradoxical effect may, in fact, be to increase an individual’s resistance to stress. Research has shown that physically fit soldiers are better able to cope with stressful experiences (e.g., Brown, 1991; King, Taylor, Haskell, & DeBusk, 1989). Physical training may keep the trainees busy and tired, but it is also a kind of coping strategy that can aid the trainees in dealing with other training stressors. Additional coping techniques Gold identified included relying on social support and the emerging cohesiveness of the cadets. The very dynamic that supports the indoctrination process is perceived by the cadets as a useful tool for handling the stress of “beast.” Other coping strategies identified by Gold included using humor, rationalization, and distraction. While these coping strategies assisted the self-selected and motivated cadets, each cadet also had his or her own unique experience and response.

While the emphasis in the Gold and Bourne papers was on those who completed the training process, not all trainees succeed. Those who are unable to complete the challenge of indoctrination (the military’s perspective) or basic training (the recruit’s perspective) may have encountered a level of expectation and challenge beyond their resources. One of the most difficult aspects of the indoctrination process is that following the period of environmental shock, the self is redefined. The redefinition may be voluntary (in a time of an all-volunteer force), but the process is still externally applied – individual trainees must respect the authority of those in command, they must subordinate their own needs and desires, and they must be able to tolerate the “mortification process” of the loss of identity and the anger chat such a loss engenders (Bourne, 1967) and to meet these challenges consistently. It may be that chose without strong internal defenses do not succeed in making this kind of psychological transition.

Indeed, the research suggests that those who are unable to complete the basic training process are likely to have had a difficult early home life when such defenses and a fundamentally stable self could be developed (e.g., Carbone, Cigrang, Todd, & Fiedler, 1999; Shulman, Levy-Shiff, & Sharf, 2000). Specifically, one of the many common reasons for failing basic training is psychiatric. Those who fail have had less support at home, as demonstrated in a study of Israeli recruits (Shulman, et al., 2000). These recruits have also experienced more abuse as children. In their study of Air Force basic trainees, Carbone and colleagues (1999) found those more likely to be referred for psychiatric exam were more likely to have a history of physical abuse. They also are more likely to have a history of psychological problems (Williams, 2004). In fact, stable temperament is also associated with completing the basic training course, suggesting the need for a stable response to the demands on identity and the self (Elsass, Fiedler, Skip, & Hill, 2001; Lubin, Fiedler, & Van Whitlock, 1996). Good coping strategies are also helpful for those entering basic training. Such strategies include optimism (Carbone et al., 1999) and physical fitness (Pope, Herbert, Kirwan, & Graham, 1999).

Given the high rate of attrition among those entering basic training (a finding reported across many of the services; Carbone et al., 1999; Hoge et al., 2002; Hoge et al., 2005; Talcott, Haddock, Klesges, Lando, & Fiedler, 1999; Williams, 2004), early intervention programs designed to shore up the coping strategies of these recruits should be able to help them confront the psychological challenge of basic training indoctrination. In a study with Air Force recruits, two-session stress-management training did not make a difference in the attrition of at-risk trainees (Cigrang, Todd, & Carbone, 2000), However, in a study of Navy recruits, Williams (2004) describes an intervention designed to reduce emotional reactivity and improve cognitive-behavioral coping strategies in at-risk recruits. Those completing weekly cognitive behavioral skills training were more likely to complete basic training than were at-risk recruits who did not receive such training. This result suggests that recruits provided with ongoing support and new evidence-based skills can cope better with the tough demands of basic training. This kind of proactive support is another way in which basic training differs from cult-like indoctrination. Those who are psychologically strong and stable to start with actually make better candidates for the military’s indoctrination program, which is quite a contrast to the profile of cult recruits (see Lifton, 1961; Schein et al., 1961).

Thus, from the perspective of the recruit who successfully adapts to the beginning phases of military training, the demands of military indoctrination are exhilarating, seen in a context of achievement and life transition. The recruits are well aware that the process is something powerful, and they are eager to embrace it, despite its demands. The indoctrination, while attempting to be a redefining of self, may in fact be, from the perspective of the recruit, a reshaping of their already-strong sense of self. Such an interpretation of the indoctrination process is based not only on the accounts of recruits, but also on the fact that those who do not start with a fundamentally sound self are less likely to succeed in reshaping it. If there was a completely new self, then the lack of a stable pre-indoctrination self would not be a particular disadvantage. The fact that it is suggests that the reshaping is a dual process in which the basic trainee plays an active role.

Future Directions

Indoctrination is believed to be a vital part of successfully incorporating individuals into strongly defined organizations to promote that organization’s agenda and values. The process of indoctrination involves many interrelated steps and procedures that guide the individual’s journey from outsider status to status as a member of the organization who not only understands the organization but also identifies with it. While there are many similarities in indoctrination across a range of organizations, from cults to the military, we have outlined the fundamental ways in which these processes differ.

Much of the research on indoctrination up to this point has focused primarily on case studies and broad questions of social psychological processes that are believed to underlie the indoctrination process. Little systematic research has examined the extent to which thorough indoctrination is indeed necessary for an organization like the military. For example, how can the success of indoctrination be measured? Do individuals perform better if they are more indoctrinated? Does the group function more effectively? Does the individual, once integrated into an existing unit, have less conflict than one who isn’t indoctrinated? Does indoctrination affect intention to remain in the organization? These outcomes are the assumed results of indoctrination but have not yet been studied. Similarly, what aspects of indoctrination would be measured to determine the degree of indoctrination? A valid measure of indoctrination needs to be identified, whether it be duration, intensity, or some other characteristic of indoctrination.

Another area that requires investigation is the most effective way to indoctrinate individuals within the military context. In many countries with strong democratic traditions, the military must balance between having its individuals adapt to a specific worldview that includes following orders and killing when necessary with the need to question unlawful orders and consider the ethics of particular situations.

Facilitating the development of the individual within the military structure as a service member capable of simultaneously following orders, thinking independently, and evaluating the legality of the order is a difficult task. Whether the objective of developing individuals who follow orders and question them is internally inconsistent, or whether the two parts of the objective can be reconciled is unclear. How these goals can be optimally reflected in the indoctrination process is also an area of indoctrination that has not yet been systematically examined. For example, can the recruit learn simultaneously to follow orders while questioning them, or should this be a two-step process? Research into this question could lead to recommendations regarding how best to develop basic training strategies so that individuals are ready to both follow and question orders simultaneously.

As mentioned previously, different methods of indoctrination may be more effective for collectivist and individualistic groups and/or individuals. This may be especially important within the United States because of the diversity of Americans’ ethnic background ranging from strongly collectivist (e.g., Japanese-Americans) to strongly individualistic (e.g., Western European-Americans). An evaluation of whether collectivism results in quicker military indoctrination or whether collectivist cultures (or individuals) require different indoctrination strategies than do individualist cultures (or individuals) could prove beneficial to the military.

While we have discussed indoctrination, assuming it is a prerequisite for successful functioning and survival of the organization, it is not clear to what extent indoctrination is a requirement for organizational sustainment. For example, there is great diversity in the degree of commitment to the organization on the part of service members. Some decide to leave the service after their initial obligation, while others remain until retirement. Yet, each has undergone similar types of indoctrination experiences. Clearly, early indoctrination is not the cause of deep organizational commitment, which leads to the question of whether additional indoctrination continues to influence members of the military beyond that found in basic training. Another possibility is that there are personality differences that affect how the indoctrination process influences individuals or that individuals arrive at basic training in different stages of indoctrination readiness. Some may be highly skeptical and some may be quite ready to assume the values of the organization (see Grojean and Thomas for a discussion of the importance of the individual x experience interaction, volume 4), or perhaps indoctrination is not the driving force behind organizational commitment.

Indoctrination into the military is epitomized by the experience of basic training. Reflected in film and novels, the world of basic training is portrayed as a harsh, intense, and unforgiving experience in which individuals are turned into killing machines. This portrayal contrasts sharply with the reports of basic training from the recruits themselves. While psychological processes evidently are at work that influence individual identity, individuals are not passive participants in the process. Recruits make a conscious decision to join the ranks of the military. The trainees are as much a guide in their developmental journey as is the external process itself. The future of research examining the dynamics, components, and effectiveness of indoctrination would do well to remember that turning civilians into service members is a multi-determined, iterative, and interactional process.

I made this mock Army Advert shown above recently after seeing Darren Cullen’s (SpellingMistakesCostLives) reinvention of the latest “this is belonging” Army advertising slogan to “this is belonging, to the state” (see bottom of page).

I showed a friend my “This Is Killing” version and asked what he thought and should I share it. He said “Think that might be appealing? At 18 I would have thought, yeah!”. And I agreed. When I was far younger than 18 this would have seemed appealing to me. “To kill the enemy” was heroic and what you hear about in the big hollywood films right?

But surely if the younger generation think killing is cool we have failed as a society?

On a cold November day in 2006 I made the long journey to the Infantry training centre in Catterick. I made this journey on my own after years of obsessive focus directed towards arriving at this moment.

But what was I here for?

For the rush, for the challenge, for the action, to help, to protect, to serve are just a few of the phrases used on the Army’s TV adverts and I wanted a bit of all of it. I had seen the adverts, read the recruitment material and watched the DVD’s they had given me at the recruitment centre over and over again. I had read every SAS book I could buy in Waterstones and watched every TV show and film available. What I saw in all of this was more powerful than anything else I had ever seen. I was 17 and wanting to prove my “manhood”, my worth and wanted to feel proud.

Like many others that turned up on the doorstep of the Infantry training centre that day I had failed at school. I was never going to make the high rungs of the corporate ladder, and I didn’t want to either. I had something even more elusive in my sights. To fight in a war for my country.

When I entered training I wanted to go and fight in a war and kill the enemy. But if push came to shove there and then was I capable of it? could I have pulled the trigger? Who knows.

What I do know is that after just 26 weeks in that training regime there was now no question. All I wanted to do at the end was go to war and kill the enemy. This ethos took over my entire life and was all that mattered to me. Civilian life could take a hike as far as I was concerned.

Is this normal?

I understand that not every kid wants to join the army to be on the front line. The more astute may gain a trade and learn skills. But let’s be clear that no matter what job you do in the army you are aiding in some way for the killing to take place.

Looking back on my life and my though process leading up to and during my army career the one thing that I keep coming back to is the realisation that it wasn’t normal. I had the glorification of war and killing coming at me from every angle. TV, Books, Games and advertising all goading me to join up, fight for your country and be a hero.

Wanting to kill people is not normal or healthy. Following orders without question is not normal. Having your rights taken from you is not normal, but this becomes the norm!

What happens when the killing is over?

So after 7 years in the army, multiple mental and physical conditioning courses, two tours of Afghanistan and a few near death experiences I decided to call it a day. I left assuming I would slip into civilian life. In my mind, I was mentally and physically superior to civilians.

I will tell you the dirty secret of what happens when it is over. PTSD, Depression, Anxiety, Poverty, Alcohol abuse, Isolation, an inability to interact with the people world around you and a complete lack of support from the institution you put your life at risk for. And if you’re really unlucky suicide waits for you.

Yes this is killing… Killing our minds, Killing our imaginations, Killing our rights and Killing our health and the more we allow it to carry on unquestioned the more minds we allow to be damaged.

Wayne Sharrocks is a member of VFP.

Veterans For Peace UK has a membership with a wide range of political views. That is one reason why we don’t get involved in party politics. Another reason is that it doesn’t matter who gets elected, Labour, Conservative or a coalition government, the wars just keep coming.

So if we don’t get involved in domestic party politics, it is a given that we do not interfere in the party politics of a another nation.

8 years ago people proclaimed their support for President Barack Obama. They praised him for saying he would end the war in Iraq and close Guantanamo. They even gave him a Nobel Peace Prize.

President Barack Obama went on to sign orders that led to the killing of thousands. He sent american troops into bases all over Africa. He attacked Libya, turning a functioning state into a basket case. He upgraded nukes and during his final weeks as president he ordered american tanks back into Europe, advancing them into Poland. The war in Iraq continues and Guantanamo is still open.

To sum up, Barack Obama chose to serve the war system.

On Friday, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the President of the USA and people are calling for anti-Trump protests. The rallies are being painted as anti-war rallies, but they are not. They are partisan, party political and will not challenge the underlying war system.

Some of the people calling for these protests have been missing in action from the anti-war movement throughout Barack Obama’s reign of death.

Some of the people calling for these protests completely ignore the war mongering of Hillary Clinton. You have to ask the question, would these people be calling for similar anti-war protests had Hillary Clinton won the presidential election? I think you know the answer.

Trump has not yet been to war, nor has he ordered the U.S. military to bomb, invade or occupy other countries. As far as I know he has not ordered the assassination of anyone. However I am certain that like every president before him, given time, he will be a humble servant of the war system.

Our VFP UK Statement of Intent challenges us to liberate people, the environment and resources from the war system. We will continue to agitate for this no matter who is elected to govern the UK, the USA or anywhere else.

But when it comes to the internal politics of the war system, we shouldn’t be taking sides.

Ben Griffin is a founding member of VFP UK

Dear Secretary of State

We are writing to ask you to raise the minimum age for joining the British armed forces from 16 to 18.

As veterans of every conflict in which this country has been involved since the Second World War, we are convinced that 16 and 17-year-olds are too young to be recruited and trained for war.

We have been through military training; it is a brutal form of psychological conditioning designed to fundamentally alter the way your mind works, leaving the army in control of what you value and how you react. These values and reactions are very difficult to switch off and cause all sorts of problems later on in civilian life. No other country in Europe subjects 16 year olds to this process, it’s time this country caught up

We have seen conclusive research showing how joining the army early jeopardises the wellbeing and life chances of the youngest recruits. 16-year-old soldiers are much more likely than adults to be given jobs in the frontline infantry, where they face the toughest training and also the greatest risks once they turn 18 and are sent to war. Infantrymen were six times as likely to die in Afghanistan as soldiers in the rest of the army.

Military training is no place for 16 and 17 year olds, our children should be in real education until they turn 18. Then they can decide, at the age of adult responsibility, whether or not they want to join up.

We thank you for your attention to this and look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Veterans For Peace UK
http://www.vfpuk.org

If you are a veteran and want to get involved in the campaign to raise the enlistment age to 18, here are three things you can do:

1. Email Child Soldiers International

rtaylor@child-soldiers.org with a quote they can use publicly (e.g. in campaign documents or on the website) on why you personally think the recruitment age should be raised.  They can use it anonymously if you prefer, but it’s helpful if you can include: your age when you enlisted (it doesn’t matter if you were over 18) and which branch / regiment / role you were in.  You don’t need to include facts and figures, it’s your opinion that counts.

2. Write to your MP

You can get their details by typing in your postcode here – http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

Writing to MPs doesn’t change anything in itself and getting a standard response can be frustrating, but in this campaign it is very useful because people are constantly contacting ministers and policy makers for all the major parties to discuss this issue.  The more time the issue crops up in correspondence from their constituents, the more they feel that there is a public interest in the matter (= ‘votes’) and the more likely they are to get involved.   Even the MPs who are most hostile to the campaign will feel the pressure.

• When you write, start with the magic words: “As your constituent, and an armed forces veteran…”.  MPs get thousands of letters a week.  Most go into the bin.  Yours will not.
• Briefly tell them why you believe the age should be raised – one or two paragraphs maximum is enough.  Try to keep the whole letter within one side of A4.
• Ask them to ‘raise the matter with the Minister of Defence and ask for a reply’. These are also magic words – if you do this, the MP has to contact the Minister and the Minister must provide a response. If you don’t ask for this, the MP can read it and do nothing, and so can the Minister.
• Ask them to sign EDM 694 (link:https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/early-day-motions/edm-detail1/?edmnumber=694&session=2016-17).

If you get a reply, it’s useful but not essential if you can let us know.

3.  Speak up in the media

Keep your eyes and ears peeled for stories on relevant issues and contribute to the debate whenever you can – letters to newspapers, radio phone-ins etc.  Local media are important – and more likely to give you time than national outlets.  If you keep a standard letter ready in your email drafts, you can ping the same one off whenever something crops up so it doesn’t take you too long. And when you see these opportunities, try to circulate them to other VFP members so they can add their voices too. You don’t need to know all the statistics and policy details – what media really want is to hear personal stories from people with experience.  But if you do want to brush up on the figures, you can get most of them here – https://www.child-soldiers.org/shop/the-british-armed-forces-why-raising-the-recruitment-age-would-benefit-everyone

Thank you for getting involved – we cannot win this campaign without you.

Since forming Veterans For Peace UK in 2011 we have used a variety of logos. For the last twelve months we have been working on a logo that crosses borders and can be used by Veterans For Peace in any country. During development we kept in mind that the new logo should be bold, clear and be suited to multiple uses both online and offline. What follows is a history of the logos used by VFP UK since 2011 all the way through to our new logo.

In 2011 we adopted the UK Veterans badge as our symbol and subverted it with a CND “peace” logo. We figured that every UK veteran would have this badge.

We then removed the crown but due to the attachment of the clasp to the crown, this design was unworkable.

In 2012 we adopted the logo of Veterans For Peace (USA). It was seen by some as too American and by others as unrecognisable as a helmet.

In 2013 in the run up to the 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War we decided to adopt the “Tommy” helmet as our symbol.

The first draft featured an Edwardian font.

We decided to use the same font as VFP USA for our logo and also accentuated the shape of the helmet.

In 2015 we created an outline logo which could be used on numerous backgrounds and adopted the colour UN Blue which is the colour hex #5B92E5.

In early 2016 we decided that whilst the “Tommy” helmet logo had served us well it was too focused on the past, too UK centric and also failed to work on multiple platforms. We looked into designing a logo that could cross borders, be recognisable to soldiers operational during the 21st century and that presented well on multiple platforms both on and offline. We started off with a generic 21st century helmet.

Because VFP is an international organisation and aims to reach veterans of all nationalities we decided that the words “Veterans For Peace” in English should be removed from our logo.

Our new logo is not confined to the English language. It reaches across borders and we invite other international chapters of Veterans For Peace to adopt this logo if they so wish. This logo is recognisable by modern soldiers and complements our statement “War is not the solution to the problems we face in the 21st century”.

It was with great pleasure that this “Yank” joined others who attended the 2016 Annual Gathering of the VFP UK in November at the Friends House in London.  The atmosphere was warm and gracious, and the members of this organization should be commended for their crucially important work in informing and educating the average UK citizen of the deadly cost of militarism and its harmful effect on their society.

“Never Again” is their message as it should be noted that just like in the US, UK military recruiters prey upon the young and vulnerable to support imperialistic adventures and participate in illegal, immoral and unjust occupations of foreign lands.  Meeting in the George Fox Room, there were groups from all over the UK including Birmingham, Bristol, York and especially London. Their Statement of Intent declares that “War is not the solution to the problems we face in the 21st century”.

It was especially moving on “Remembrance Day, November 13, to join such determined men and women in their silent procession to lay a wreath of white poppies with the word “Peace” inscribed on each one. There were many units, mostly military, with some bands performing, along with the “Army Cadet Force” which is the equivalent of the “JROTC” in the US, and the “Sea Cadets” which Chris from Birmingham said he was “allowed” to join at the age of 11!   All marched to Britain’s War Memorial, the Cenotaph, where each group placed its wreath of red poppies at the base of the monument. In Britain, the red poppy is used to honor the “Glorious Dead.”  Others see the red poppy as discounting the cost of war and the militarism it promotes. Refusing to take part in the official ceremony, the VFP members, 65 strong, marched silently to the memorial where the youngest member, Afghan veteran Wayne Sharrocks, placed the wreath of homemade crocheted white poppies as a stark contrast to the others.

After the placement, WW II vet Jim Radford sang a song called “1916,” which was followed by Ross DeFreitas reciting the poem “Suicide in the Trenches” by Siegfried Sassoon.  Finally, Mic Haggerty played “The Last Post” on a bugle.  After a moment of silence, Mic finished with “Reveille.”  As the VFP UK and some VFP US veterans walked back in silence, the remaining crowd of people applauded the group with enthusiasm.  It appeared they were endorsing the message of “Never Again”.

Perhaps citizens of both the US and the UK ought to read the poem by WW I soldier Wilfred Owen entitled “Dulce Et Decorum Est: Pro Patria Mori,” in which he describes the horrors of war and its ugly ways of dying.  Translated, the poem states, “It is sweet and seemly to die for one’s country.”  No, it is not, as VFP UK demonstrated through its participation on the day that the UK commemorates its fallen.

Will Thomas, Coordinator

NH VFP (A. J. Muste Chapter)

Would you join a cult?

Would you let your children join a cult?

What would you do if someone you loved joined a cult?

These are questions that most of us don’t have to consider in our lives. However there is an organisation in the United Kingdom which is rarely criticised but displays all of the characteristics of a cult.

This organisation aims to gain 10,000 new members each year and focuses on recruiting children (16 and 17 year olds) often beginning the grooming process at 13.

I was a member of this cult for fourteen years. From the age of thirteen, whilst still at school, I wore their uniform and accepted their ethos. When I left school and joined full-time I became a zealot, a true believer.

My time within the cult led me eventually to Baghdad, Iraq where without question, I and my comrades attacked families in their homes and took innocent men away to be tortured. Why did we go along with this?

The following is from a website that specialises in recognising cults, most of it will be familiar to anyone who has served in the army:

“Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups”

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused.

The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioural patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a cult scale, or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

• The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader(s) and regards the groups belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
• Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
• Mind-altering practices such as stress positions, chanting, speaking in a special language, denunciation sessions, sleep deprivation and debilitating work routines are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
• The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel.
• Leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to behave, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth.
• The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members.
• The group has a polarised us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
• The leader is not accountable to any authorities.
• The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviours or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group.
• The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt and/or fear in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure, group punishment and subtle forms of persuasion.
• Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
• The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
• Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
• Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
• The most loyal members (the true believers) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Now ask yourself again, would you join a cult?

Would you let your children join a cult?

What would you do if someone you loved joined a cult?

Ben Griffin, VFP London

One year ago today, I gave you them both back,
‘Worthless trinkets’ I said, for Libya and Iraq,
There’s no pride or honour in those medals for me,
Just guilt wrapped in ribbons for worshippers to see.

I got mine for invasion and occupation of foreign land,
Dividing a country, destroying a nation, those politicians planned,
Heroes for our service, built on nothing but lies,
To rob, kill and steal, black gold was the prize.

There will come a time when you’ll realise some day,
That patriotism isn’t enough to keep your conscience at bay,
Berets and blazers at the ready, marching to remember the dead,
Drums of war beating in the background, never again you all said.

The media plays its part with the propaganda they peddle,
The military is where it starts, the myth of the ‘precious’ medal,
You wear them on your chest but they belong on the floor,
That’s why I’m a Veteran For Peace,To see an end to war.

Daniel Lenham, VFP Durham.

• 16-year-old recruits outnumber any other age group and are made to serve 50 per cent longer than adults
  
• Courts rule MoD has unlimited powers to discriminate against young recruits

Figures released today reveal that the British Army has increased its intake of 16-year-olds in the past 12 months, defying calls from the UN, children’s rights organisations and others campaigning for an end to the recruitment of minors. In the 12 months to 30 September 2016, the Army enlisted 1,000 16-year-olds[1] (up from 870 in the previous 12 months)[2], accounting for 13 per cent of total enlisted intake. This makes 16-year-olds the single biggest age group entering the Army, for the first time since 2012. The overall intake of minors as a percentage of enlisted recruits rose to 24.1 per cent (up from 22.5 per cent in the previous period), while intake of adults decreased.

The Army’s recruitment policies state that it uses recruitment of minors as ‘an opportunity to mitigate Standard Entry [adult] shortfalls, particularly for the Infantry’.[3] The Infantry has the highest fatality and injury rate of any major branch of the armed forces, with infantrymen in Afghanistan seven times more likely to be killed than personnel in the rest of the British armed forces.[4] Army policy also imposes a longer minimum service period on those who enlist under age 18 than on adult recruits.[5]

“Polls show overwhelming public support for a minimum enlistment age of 18. But whatever you think the right age is for joining the Army, nobody can justify targeting 16-year-olds for recruitment into the roles adult recruits don’t want to do, and then forcing them to serve for longer than their adult counterparts.” said Rachel Taylor, spokesperson for Child Soldiers International.

The Royal Courts of Justice heard a claim against the Army’s minimum service period for minors brought by Child Soldiers International in June 2015. In his judgement, Justice Kenneth Parker agreed that the rules discriminated against minors as they did ‘treat those recruited under 18 less favourably’.[6] Despite this, he accepted the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) claim that European and national law entitled it to discriminate against Army recruits on the basis of age or disability, without any limits of proportionality. An appeal against the judgment was scheduled to be heard earlier this month at the Court of Appeal, but was withdrawn.

“The MoD claims it is offering disadvantaged young people an opportunity by enlisting them at 16 but in reality, it is exploiting them. These policies put the army’s convenience above young people’s best interests,” said Rachel Taylor.

“If the MoD was serious about offering opportunities to young people, it would encourage them to stay in education until 18 and then offer them a full range of armed forces roles.  Instead, it actively encourages them to leave school early and then offers them only the most unpopular, dangerous roles in the armed forces alongside substandard qualifications.”

These recruitment figures are released on the same day that the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee will decide on a proposal to increase regulation of armed forces’ visits to schools.[7] The proposal is supported by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner for Scotland, Tam Baillie, who has provided evidence to the Committee. All four of the UK’s Children Commissioners have previously called on the MoD to raise the minimum enlistment age from 16 to 18, in a campaign backed by a range of national and international children’s rights organisations, teachers, faith groups, veterans, parliamentarians, and former Defence ministers.[8]

A nationwide IPSOS Mori poll in 2014 found that 78 per cent of respondents who expressed a view thought the minimum army recruitment age should be at least 18.[9] In June this year, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child condemned the British army’s safeguards for ensuring informed consent of child recruits and their parents as “insufficient”[10] and called on the UK to raise its enlistment age. A recent report by medical professionals examining the recruitment of minors in the UK also found that current recruitment practices ‘do not meet the criteria for full and informed consent’ and that military recruitment materials ‘take advantage of adolescent cognitive and psychosocial.

Notes for Editors:

• Ministry of Defence, UK armed forces biannual diversity statistics 2016, 1 October 2016.  Released today and available athttps://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-2016. Table 8a shows intake by age in the 12 months to 30 September 2016. The figures cited refer to enlisted personnel so exclude commissioned officers, who cannot join below the age of 18.
• Summary of trends compared to previous 12-month period:

o   The Army enlisted 1,860 minors, of which 1,000 were 16-year-olds. 16-year-olds accounted for 13.0 per cent of intake of all ages, up from 10.8 per cent (870 recruits) in the previous period. 17-year-olds accounted for 11.2 per cent of total Army intake, down slightly from 11.6 per cent (930 recruits).

o   The proportion of the Army’s intake aged under 18 increased from 22.5% to 24.1%.

o   The RAF, Royal Navy and Royal Marines also increased their intake of minors, although in these services 17-year-olds still significantly outnumber 16-year-olds. The proportion of the Navy’s intake aged under 18 increased from 10 to 13 per cent, while intake of minors into the RAF increased, from 7 to 10 per cent.

o   The armed forces as a whole recruited 1,140 16-year-olds and 1,250 17-year-olds, from a total of 12,300 new recruits.

• In 2014 Child Soldiers International launched a judicial review against the terms of enlistment of minors which, if successful, would have forced the Army to stop imposing a longer minimum service period on minors than it does on adult recruits. Although minors have a right to be discharged before their 18th birthday, after this point the so-called “Catch-22” clause commits them to serve until they are at least 22 years old, regardless of their age when they joined. This means the youngest recruits have to serve for longest – 16-year-old recruits have a total minimum service period of six years, while 17-year-olds must serve for five. In contrast, adults can be discharged after just four years’ service.
• The large majority of countries worldwide now recruit only from age 18 or above. The UK is the only  permanent member of the UN Security Council which still recruits 16-year-olds. In the United States the minimum recruitment age is 17 years, but minors only account for around 5 per cent of annual intake.  (Full figures available on request).
• Supporters of the campaign to raise the enlistment age include: Child Soldiers International, ForcesWatch, Veterans for Peace, Children in Wales, National Union of Teachers (NUT), Medact, Children in Scotland, Wales UNCRC Monitoring Group, Wales Observatory on Human Rights of Children and Young People, Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights), Amnesty International UK, Children England, the Children’s Commissioners for the four regions of the UK, Children’s Rights Alliance England (CRAE), Liberty, The Who Cares? Trust, Northern Ireland Children’s Law Centre, British Institute of Human Rights, the Church of Scotland, the Church in Wales, General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, Methodist Peace Fellowship, Baptist Peace Fellowship, Quaker Peace and Social Witness, Pax Christi, Plaid Cymru, and the Green Party.
• The Defence Select Committee (2005, 2013, 2014), the Joint Committee on Human Rights (2009, 2010) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2002, 2008, 2016) have all called on the MoD to review the minimum recruitment age with a view to raising it to 18 years.
• Child Soldiers International is an international human rights research and advocacy organisation seeking to end the military recruitment of any person under the age of 18.  Our research on child recruits in the British armed forces is available athttps://www.child-soldiers.org/uk.

[1] Ministry of Defence (MoD), UK armed forces biannual diversity statistics 2016, 1 October 2016, Table 8a, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-2016.

[2] ibid.

[3] MoD, Policy on recruiting Under-18s (U18), 2013, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Ref. FOI2015/00618, available at https://www.child-soldiers.org/freedom-of-information-requests. In 2015/16, 41 per cent of army recruits aged under 18 were enlisted into the infantry, versus 31 per cent of adult enlistees. Hansard: HC Deb, 25 May 2016, no. 38553; MoD, UK armed forces biannual diversity statistics, 1 April 2016.

[4] D Gee, The Last Ambush: Aspects of mental health in the British armed forces, 2013, (London: ForcesWatch), p.57, http://www.forceswatch.net/content/last-ambush.

[5] The Army Terms of Service Regulations 2007 (as amended), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3382/made. See Notes for Editors below.

[6] Child Soldiers International vs. Secretary of State for Defence. 2015 EWHC 2183 (Admin) case number CO/4671/2014, 24 July 2015.

[7] Available at http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/armedforcesvisitstoschools.

[8] Open letter to the MoD from Children’s Rights organisations, 23 May 2016, https://www.child-soldiers.org/shop/open-letter-to-the-ministry-of-defence-from-childrens-rights-organisations-1.  See Notes for Editors below for full list of supporters.

[9] Ipsos MORI, Nationwide poll conducted in July 2014 by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd, full data available athttp://forceswatch.net//sites/default/files/IPSOSsurvey2014-Forces_age.pdf. Poll question ‘In your opinion, what should be the minimum age to join the British army? Please answer regardless of whatever you believe the minimum age is at the moment.’

[10] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CRC/C/GBR/CO/5), 2016, available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2fC%2fGBR%2fCO%2f5&Lang=en

[11] Medact, The Recruitment of Children by the UK Armed Forces: A Critique from Health Professionals, 2016. Available at http://www.medact.org/news/recruitment-children-uk-armed-forces-critique-health-professionals/.

The United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US) Governments military invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. As of 11th October 2015, a total of 456 British forces personnel or Ministry of Defence civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since start of the war. Of these, 405 were killed as a result of hostile action. (49 are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents, or have not yet officially been assigned a cause of death pending the outcome of an investigation).

Whilst opening a new front, fighting a dubious war on ‘terror’, the war on drugs continued, wasting the lives of UK service personal. Failure, war, corruption, abuse of human rights and the needless deaths of 1000’s of innocent civilians – This is what the UK government and its allies have brought to Afghanistan.

The UK government openly admits failure in attempting to stop the illicit supply of the world’s biggest producers of heroin at its source:

“Opium production still remains a very serious problem in the region. The UK has played a role in trying to tackle the drugs trade, including helping Afghan authorities to eradicate poppy fields. We have also helped farmers to grow alternative legal crops. But results have been varied, with the worst results to date reported in 2013 (United Nations (UN) Office on Drugs and Crime report, 2013). Tackling the narcotics trade will be a long, uphill battle.”….

…. “After 2014 we will continue to help the Afghan government develop its law enforcement capabilities. Afghan counter narcotics police have already tripled their drugs seizures in recent years. We will also work with partners to disrupt supply networks.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uks-work-in-afghanistan/the-uks-work-in-afghanistan

With the tripling of seizures, do we see the tripling in a reduction the amount of illicit heroin to the market? Of course not, we see the exact opposite.

Has the destruction of poppy fields worked and the supply network been disrupted? Clearly not, the United Nations World Drug Report of 2015 presents clear and unequivocal evidence of the dismal performance for the drug policy of prohibition that has no impact on the illicit market.

“…..global opium poppy cultivation in 2014 reached the highest level since the late 1930s. This was mainly attributable to the fact that opium poppy cultivation reached historically high levels in the main country in which opium poppy is cultivated, Afghanistan, where potential production of opium also continued to increase. Global opium production reached 7,554 tons in 2014, also the second highest level since the late 1930s, though global seizures of opium, heroin and illicit morphine decreased by 6.4 per cent from 2012 to 2013” http://www.unodc.org/wdr2015/en/opiates.html

The UN and all governments involved with the war on drugs have systematically missed any of the targets and objectives of the war, it could never be won when it was started and will never be won in the future.

Why are we allowing the governments of the world conduct a war that causes more death, destruction, corruption and mayhem than any drug use could ever achieve? Drug prohibition is no deterrent to people producing, selling or using drugs.

The Royal Navy (RN) often gets praised for its contribution to the war on drugs, but the Royal Navy Finance Department does not routinely analyse and collate the costs of the involvement of RN assets in counter narcotic operations. The department is not required to provide this information and does not have to provide reports on the costs for this type of ‘defence’ activity.

Why this is classed a ‘defence’ activity and why is there no methodology or process in place within the Department to do this? Surely the government has a responsibility to the tax payer to understand how effective and how much it’s spending on its policies.

In the past 5 the UK government has no idea about the arrests or how many convictions have been made in connection to any of the drug seizures. This is because the majority of the RN’s counter narcotic operations happen as part of Atlantic Patrol Tasking (N).

Under this construct the RN works with US Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDET). It means that all arrests and prosecutions happen under US jurisdiction. This means the UK are not privy to the outcome of any interdictions in the form of arrest and/ or prosecution within another State.

Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) ship deployments involving counter narcotics in the past 5 years

Table 1

Of those deployments the operations with a foreign Navy or Coastguard are as follows:

• RFA Wave Ruler on Joint Interagency Task Force (South) JIATF(S)
• HMS Lancaster with LEDET
• RFA Wave Knight with LEDET
• HMS Argyll with LEDET
• RFA Lyme Bay on JIATF(S)
• HMS Mersey on JIATF(S)

The following are the excerpts taken from https://www.gov.uk/…/second-royal–navy-mediterranean-drugs–bust-in-a-fortnight and www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and…/141208-argyll–drug–bust.

The propaganda of the war is in full flow with the reports of drugs seizures and praising the crews.

If we dissect these statements, which inevitably get exaggerated and when reported in the main stream media, we see the war on drugs is propagated with stories from the military presented as fact.

There is very little, if any, investigative journalism or challenge to the statements being made to challenge these so called facts and so the merry go round of the war continues.

Second Royal Navy Mediterranean drugs bust in a fortnight (10/12/2015)

‘The Royal Navy has carried out its second drugs bust in the Mediterranean in as many weeks with HMS St Albans seizing around 320kg of cannabis.

Having left Portsmouth on a nine month deployment less that a fortnight ago the Type 23 frigate stopped the drug smugglers during a routine security patrol and prevented around £1 million worth of narcotics reaching European markets.’

The cost of drugs in the illicit market is always grossly exaggerated, and of course the retail value of the drugs is only this high due to the business being controlled by organised crime.

‘It is the second drugs bust carried out by a Royal Navy vessel in the area in the past two weeks, as HMS Richmond also recovered 1,015 kg of cannabis worth around £3 million.’

Again the inflated price of drugs due to the illicit market is apparent; the cost of the operations is then justified by the price of the seizures.

‘While on patrol, HMS St Albans spotted a small boat acting suspiciously and so launched her Merlin helicopter, this spooked the small boat crew who then tossed several large packages into the water before speeding off into the dusk.’

It’s not clear how a boat ‘acts suspicious’? ‘Spooked’ the crew who sped off ‘into the dusk’? This paragraph could be lifted from a work of fiction, what it really says is a speedboat boat crewed by criminals involved in the illicit and lucrative drugs trade, saw the Royal Navy vessel and the launch of its helicopter. They threw the cargo overboard because it’s easily and immediately replaceable, escaped and evaded capture.

‘I’m proud of my sailors for reacting so quickly and helping to keep these drugs off the streets.”Lieutenant Commander Jeff Gulliver RN (St Albans’ Second in Command)’

Keeping the crew believing they are serving Queen and Country, doing a good job in following these orders; they will have no idea that the supply of cannabis is not affected by their actions.

‘The frigate then sent one of her sea boats to investigate the packages which later turned out to be approximately 320kg of cannabis resin.’

 “The Mediterranean is a well known smuggling route for drugs into Europe and the UK. The team has trained long and hard at home for tasks such as this. Having only just deployed from UK last Monday, it is great for them to prove themselves so soon.”

Drug smuggling routes are well known yet the military are not able to control these well known trade routes. How much does the ‘long and hard’ training cost the British tax payer and what did the crew prove to themselves in accomplishing this task?

‘Armed Forces Minister Penny Mordaunt said: “After just two weeks on operations HMS St Albans is already having a tangible effect in ensuring the security of the UK by keeping these illicit drugs off our streets.’

What tangible effect? How is this evidenced? What investigation was used to measure the effectiveness of this seizure, what threat do cannabis users pose to the security of the UK? Where is the evidence that there is less cannabis available on the streets since the seizures? Or that any seizures of this type have any lasting effect on the availability of drugs? (See table 2 for seizures)

‘Providing an eye in the sky was a Merlin Mk 2 helicopter from 829 Naval Air Squadron based at RNAS Culdrose in Cornwall. Lieutenant Commander Lauren Hulston, who is in charge of the Merlin Flight, added: “This was the perfect demonstration of the versatility and capability of a Merlin and its crew.  “With the ability to send live imagery back to the ship, the team was able to act quickly to disrupt this drug smuggling activity and recover a lot of the cannabis. “We hope it’s the first of many on this nine month deployment.” St Albans is on a nine month deployment, protecting UK interests’ worldwide and will return to UK shores next summer.’

Here we have a statement seemingly used to justify the cost of the Merlin helicopter and an admission that only part of the cannabis haul was actually recovered. How exactly do these operations protect UK interests, and what are those interests? The cost of the deployment is not even known

HMS Argyll Seizes £10M cocaine from Atlantic drug smugglers (29/10/2014)

‘HMS Argyll has seized cocaine with a wholesale value of £10 million from a yacht in the Caribbean, just 24 hours after helping in the aftermath of a hurricane. The Type 23 Frigate immediately switched from conducting disaster relief duties in Bermuda where she had been assisting authorities with the damage caused by Hurricane Gonzalo.’

Whilst applauding the disaster relief operation, it’s a shame that the ship was taken away from saving lives to take part in operations for the war on drugs which takes lives. Again we get the exaggerated cost of drugs, this time giving the wholesale cost which is subjective at best; the price is determined by uncontrolled illicit market forces.

‘The crew of the ship’s Lynx helicopter spotted the yacht in the Atlantic and alerted the ship, which sped towards it and forced it to stop. A search by the US Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET), working from HMS Argyll, uncovered 10 bales of cocaine which was confiscated before the two crew members were taken into custody. HMS Argyll and her crew are playing a key role in disrupting the drugs trade which blights the UK. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: “This is yet another clear demonstration of the flexibility and versatility of the Royal Navy. HMS Argyll and her crew are playing a key role in disrupting the drugs trade which blights the UK. “The British people should be proud of the work that they undertake on our behalf.”

More statements that have no real meaning, there is no proof that the operation disrupted the supply of cocaine and indeed it can be argued that it’s the policy of prohibition that blights the UK. Are regulated markets of other commodities and goods considered to blight the UK? And why should the British public take pride in work that the RN does, they have no say in it and it can be argued that it is being done in the interest of the political elites, not the British public.

‘This is HMS Argyll’s second bust in two months having seized £21 million in cocaine in August. The ship is operating as part of a 15-nation collaboration to deny criminal organisations access to regions of Central America, with a focus on arresting the illegal movement of drugs from South America to the western world.’

‘HMS Argyll’s Commanding Officer, Commander Paul Hammond, said: “I am extremely proud of my ship’s company; we put in a significant effort to assist the citizens of Bermuda and to sail and immediately conduct a slick interception of a drug smuggling vessel demonstrates dedication and the utmost professionalism.”

Disaster relief is good use of the military; it clearly demonstrates that the armed forces can be used for good. It’s true the armed forces are a professional fighting force; the question is what are the crew dedicated to? The crew will carry out orders without question. Being diverted from disaster relief to conduct operations for the war on drugs is nothing to do with either of these things; they are simply carrying out orders.

Types of drugs seized quantities of each seizure and estimated street value

The Royal Navy Financial Department base their assumptions on street values of Cocaine at £40,000/kg and Cannabis at £2,880/kg.

Table 2

The many proponents calling for change; to end the war on drugs, fully legalise everything currently prohibited, for the full adoption of harm reduction strategies, treating drug dependence as health issue, do not need to prove their case.

The evidence is already there in abundance. The time for debate and argument is over, it has been won.

It’s now up to the prohibitionists to answer the questions we are asking of them. Where is their evidence of success of the war on drugs? They can’t defend their case because it’s not evidence based, it’s based on lies, racism, media hype and propaganda.

Prohibition and the war on drugs caused and continues to cause huge human suffering from the death penalty through to corruption on all levels in society. War is not an appropriate or proportionate response to substance use in society.

Chris Paling, VFP Birmingham.

This years Annual Gathering was held over four days in London. In total over 100 members of Veterans For Peace attended. We were joined by comrades from the USA, Germany and Ireland.

The weekend began on Thursday 10 November with a guided tour of the Bloomsbury area, led by James Florey of VFP London. He walked a group of twenty around places of war, peace and activism. This was a great opportunity for those from outside London to become acquainted with the area and for informal chats along the way. The tour finished at The Jeremy Bentham pub where a well attended welcome reception was started with the recital of the poem Boy Soldier by Ross de Freitas of VFP London.

On Friday 11 November we held our Annual General Meeting at Friends House. Our new Handbook was ratified and priority campaigns were identified for 2017.

• Boycott the War System.
• End Child Engagement by HM Armed Forces.
• Stop Trident renewal.
• Shut down the Arms Fair.

Six members of VFP stood for election to the Policy Group. It was proposed by Aly Renwick that all six be elected, this was agreed unanimously.

A workshop was held by Turning The Tide which focused on the skills we have in VFP, relationships, spreading power and decision making. It became clear during the workshop that it is all too easy to slip into military behavior and attitudes. The military is 90% male and encourages sexism towards women. Sexism harms our women members deeply and degrades us all. We must actively stand against sexism within VFP.

Before lunch Rachel Taylor of Child Soldiers International gave a short presentation on how VFP can help in the campaign to raise the recruitment age of the British Army from 16 to 18.

In the afternoon we broke off into regional groups to begin discussions on action for 2017 and also to identify possible new Action Groups that could be formed. Scotland could be up and running soon and Manchester will be re-started in the new year.

The AGM ended with instructions for our Remembrance Ceremony at The Cenotaph.

On Armistice Night we put on a Band Night at The Water Rats. D-Day veteran Jim Radford kicked off the evening with three folk songs including a rendition of “And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda”. Fenya then sang “Christmas Truce” live for the first time. James Toler played a set before VFP band Batang Kali took the stage. Batang Kali is a project started by Ian Olliver. He uses the words of veterans to craft songs that reveal the true nature of military service and war. They were joined by Megaciph who also played some of his own songs. The band night was a success and we will look to put on another one at next year’s Annual Gathering.

On Saturday 12 November we held our Annual Public Conference. This was led in the morning by anthropologist and VFP member Steven Gardiner. The theme for the day was “Creating Enemies: Critical perspectives on the justification of war”.

Kathryn Piquette (VFP) and Andrew Gardner (UCL) gave presentations focussing on ancient Egypt and Rome, “Creating Enemies: A long view from history and archaeology”.

Steven Gardiner (VFP) gave a presentation on “How to Make Enemies & Mobilise Aggression”.

A panel discussion was then held on the theme “Creating Enemies: Social perspectives”. This featured  Bilal Ahmed (Souciant.com) who focussed on Islamophobia in France, Omran Belhadi (Reprieve) who focussed on the drone assassination program and Lena Mohamed (Islamic Human Rights Comission) who focussed on the Prevent Strategy.

During lunch we screened a new VFP film by Arla Albertine. You can watch it by clicking here.

VFP member Stuart Griffiths gave a presentation titled “Memory of Time: British soldier snapshots”. The images were both brutal and moving.

The final panel chaired by Ben Griffin was entitled “Creating Enemies: In military training & on the battlefield”. Wayne Sharrocks (VFP UK) spoke about growing up with a soldier dad and serving in Afghanistan. Matthew Hoh (VFP USA) spoke about the effects advertising had on his young mind and also about the creation of “Hero’s” to dehumanise the enemy. Phil Clarke (VFP UK) spoke about his role in creating the enemy as a soldier in the Intelligence Corps. Joe Glenton (VFP UK) rounded off the day by fleshing out the idea of the veteran as an enemy. There were numerous questions from the floor.

After two days of intense meetings it was time to unwind at The Exmouth Arms…

On Sunday 13 November we held our Remembrance Ceremony at The Cenotaph. 68 members of Veterans For Peace turned up to walk under the banner NEVER AGAIN and lay a wreath of white poppies. This was our fourth year and our largest turnout out yet. We received a respectful reception from the many people still lining the streets.

The film of the ceremony has been seen over 300,000 times, to watch it click here.

The Annual Gathering was put on at no cost for those attending. Veterans For Peace UK has no paid workers. We rely on small regular donations to cover the costs of our organisation. Please consider making a regular donation to VFP UK via Paypal or Standing Order. For our bank details please email accounts@vfpuk.org.

A boy was born one summer’s day,
A normal child that loved to play,
Good at heart and soft in spirit,
Loved any game with action in it.

He grew up fast did good at school,
Was bullied once but was no fool,
He stood his ground and others too,
For protecting them was all he knew.

His time at school had come and gone,
No office job did he belong,
He went to find some work in town,
And walked the high street up and down.

He came across the solider store,
And signed up fast to fight the war,
On terrors doorway soon he stood,
He faced his fear for greater good.

A braver soldier never seen,
He did his duty for his queen,
His country blessed the war he fought,
Protecting them or so they thought.

A day before the end of tour,
He learnt the bloody cost of war,
Laid on muddy blooded sands,
18 years old without his hand.

For this young man stood up to fight,
With improvised explosive might,
Lost more than hands there on that day,
Keeping friends Out of harm’s way.

Giro checks now he must sign,
Right there on that dotted line,
Just like the day his Sergeant yelled,
Boy join the army see the world!

Yet this man can’t now write at all,
When sanctions come he feels a fool,
For he wouldn’t need to claim a dime,
If not for signing on a line.

Ross de Freitas, VFP London.

The fallen never fell,
They were ripped apart by shells,
The trenches weren’t filled with glory,
Crimson painted, bloody, gory,

Bones and bodies broken by bullets,
Boys blown apart by turrets,
Faces scarred and covered in mud,
Hands shaking, covered in blood,

Eyes filled with shock and fear,
Bloodshot and covered in tears,
Horrors haunt those not to die,
Sent forward on just a lie,

The final resting place for many,
The rest returned without a penny,
Or a shilling to their name,
Killing, only a poor man’s game,

Medals pawned to feed the family,
All wars are but a tragedy,
‘Never again’ you once said,
Is the best way to honour the dead,

Just two minutes of silence,
Quickly returning to the violence
Romanticise the wars of yesterday,
‘The ultimate sacrifice’ you say.

Daniel Lenham, VFP Durham.

“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.”

So said Marcus Garvey, a Jamaican leader of the struggle for black liberation around the world.

What was true then, and is still true, of oppressed black people is also true of those who have served at the spear-tip of imperialism and colonialism.

One of the lessons which our Remembrance weekend events insisted upon is that what we recall of our own history is crucial. We cannot allow it to be decided for us.

The official narrative which runs through the Royal British Legion-led event is one of war without politics, without context and without proper historical analysis. Remembrance has become a festival of obedience.

But there is another story. Put simply, British military history is about more than one thing. It as much a story of rebellion, mutiny and resistance as it is one of dutiful sailors, disciplined soldiers and obedient airmen fecklessly doing what they were told, whatever the cost.

What I tried to sketch in my talk on the final panel is that there is another history of veterans and soldiers.

Knowledge of this other hidden history is critical to understanding what we are, what our struggle means and its enormous potential to help push history onto a course away from war, bigotry and barbarism and towards a fairer order.

I hope this knowledge will allow us to position ourselves in the world and that it will strengthen us in the daily arguments we must have with other veterans, soldiers and civilians.

I spoke about four major periods of military unrest: the Leveller-soldiers of 1647, the Resistance and suppression of demobilised veterans after the Napoleonic wars, the mutinous stirrings during and after WW1 and the WW2 Cairo Parliaments.

Each movement was a unique period of large-scale resistance. There were and are many smaller rebellions and mutinies at different times in between these episodes and since.

What these eruptions generally share is that in each case real-world issues – pay arrears, poor treatment, unwillingness to deploy, racism and mismanagement – collided with big social movements with big ideas about how society is ordered and who, precisely, does the ordering.

Times like those are recognisably upon us again now. While we are none of the movements movements we walk in the same path.

It is an unfinished rebellion from below which is ours to complete if we so choose.

To that end, and after being asked by a number of members, I have am going to link or recommend some of the materials I drew on for my talk.

On the Agitators, Chapter 1 of Paul Foot’s The Vote is essential reading. I would also recommend Christopher Hill’s The World Turned Upside Down for chapters on both the Leveller and Digger movements. Not cited in my talk is John Rees’ very recently published The Leveller Revolution which shaping up brilliantly.

Examples of soldier and veteran rebellion and suppression after the Napoleonic Wars include the murder of veteran turned activist John Lees, the plot by the Cato Street Gang and the introduction of the Vagrancy Act 0f 1924.

Of WW1 perhaps the best starting point is the Etaples Mutiny – anniversary next year – and various articles on plans to crush and divide returning soldiers.

In reference to WW2, I focused on the Cairo Parliaments in which soldiers started to elect their own leaders while deployed in Egypt and vote on how they would order the world some of them that they had won.

Additionally, the vital subject of the US GI movement was raised by our American sisters and brother.

That monumental struggle by soldiers and veterans against the Vietnam War is a critical example of the same age-old fight by soldiers against their commanders and against war, racism and a horrific imperial foreign policy being reprised in the modern world.

There are no agitators, Levellers, Chartists, Etaples mutineers or Cairo parliamentarians left to tell their stories, but we are blessed to have ongoing connections with many of those who were there in the fight against the destruction of Vietnam.

I would point out in conclusion that David Cortright’s brilliant Soldiers in Revolt on the GI Resistance – which toppled the war and tested the US ruling class to the limit – is a book of frankly biblical importance for those with an interest in military rebellion.

Joe Glenton is a member of VFP London.

Counter-militarism graffiti has been found on and around Glasgow monuments which celebrate British colonialism and empire. The graffiti which appeared last week is an image of a red remembrance poppy and the words ‘Remember: Militarism is Murder, Colonialism is Theft’.

The counter-militarism slogan can be seen at the 1888 ‘Doulton Fountain‘ in Glasgow Green which elaborately depicts four colonies of Britain; Australia, Canada, South Africa, and India. Above these four scenes are four foot soldiers, representing the Black Watch, Grenadier Guards, Royal Navy and the Irish Fusiliers, above these are four female ‘water carriers’, and finally Queen Victoria stands on the apex. Plaques dedicated to soldiers of the Great War surround the monument.

One of activists, ‘Asha’, said “These monuments glorify a shameful past of slavery, racism and militarism. Our act is one of remembrance for the people who suffered due to the violence of British imperialism, including civilians and soldiers. WW1 was a colonial war, and this fact has been hidden behind a veil of nationalism, jingoism and ‘Poppy memorabilia’. As Remembrance Sunday is approaching we feel it’s important to ask; what are we encouraged to remember? And in turn, when does remembrance itself normalise and conceal the brutality of the British war machine?”

As well as other locations in the city, the graffiti can also be found at the Lord Roberts monument in Kelvingrove Park; a tribute to Roberts (1832-1914) who fought in many wars and battles of colonial conquest during Queen Victoria’s reign. Lord Roberts participated in the punitive British Expedition to Abyssinia in Ethiopia (1863, 1867-1868) the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880), and the Second Boer War (1899-1902) in South Africa. There, he invented a strategy of control using a lethal combination of ‘scorched earth’ policy and concentration camps. This incorporated the mass burning of farms and relocating local populations to concentration camps where 28,000 women and children died due to lack of sanitation and care. Lord Kitchener succeeded Roberts in this post and continued the use of concentration camps.

Roberts, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for being wounded while brutally quashing the Indian Mutiny of 1857, went on to become the commander-in-chief of the colonial Indian Army in 1894. The monument, which was unveiled 100 years ago in 1916, heralds military power as a symbol of Britain’s virtue and civility.

Another of the activists, ‘Jo’, commented “There are statues like this all over the country. If we are unwilling to face up to Britain’s history of colonialism, murder and theft then we shouldn’t be surprised when the far right emerges, like it is now. We act with respect to the dead and want to challenge the imperial present.”

These monuments were erected before the ‘War to End All Wars’ had drawn to a close, and those who designed them would not know the horrors of industrialised killing of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. By highlighting how colonial violence overseas was transformed into legacies of glory and heroism at home during the Victorian era, these activists hope to encourage critical thinking around the use of memorialisation and the growing militarisation in today’s era.

-Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori-

Creating Enemies: Critical perspectives on the justification of war

Date: Saturday, 12 November 2016
Time: 10:00–17:00
Place: William Penn Room, Friends House, 173–177 Euston Rd, London NW1 2BJ

10:00–10:20 – Registration & coffee

10:20–10:30 – Welcome – John Bourton (Chairman VFP UK)

10:30–11:00 – Creating Enemies: A long view from history and archaeology
Kathryn Piquette (VFP UK)
Andrew Gardner (University College London)

11:00–13:00 – Creating Enemies: Social & anthropological perspectives

11:00–11:45 – How to Make Enemies & Mobilise Aggression, Steven Gardiner (VFP USA)

11:45–13:00 – Panel: Chaired by Steven Gardiner
Bilal Ahmed (Associate Editor, Souciant.com), 10 mins
Omran Belhadi (Caseworker, Reprieve), 10 mins
Gareth Peirce (Lawyer, Bindbergs), 10 mins
Lena Mohamed (Islamic Human Rights Comission), 10 mins

12:30-13:00: Discussion: 30 mins

13:00–14:00 – Lunch (self-catered)

(13:30–14:00 Screening of new VFP film by Arla Albertine)

14:00–14:30 Memory of Time: British soldier snapshots
Stuart Griffiths (VFP UK)

14:30–15:00 Panel: Creating Enemies – In military training & on the battlefield, part 1
Chaired by Ben Griffin (VFP UK)
Matthew Hoh (VFP USA) and Wayne Sharrocks (VFP UK) 15 mins each

15:00–15:15 Coffee/tea break

15:15–15:45 Panel: Creating Enemies – In military training & on the battlefield, part 2
Chaired by Ben Griffin (VFP UK)
Phil Clarke (VFP UK) and Joe Glenton (VFP UK), 15 mins each

15:45–16:15 Discussion

16:15 Closing Remarks

17:00 BUILDING CLOSES

Some military thinkers in the United States believe we could have won the American war in Viet Nam if we had just stayed a little longer. After years of bombing and wounding and killing, they thought they had finally stumbled onto the winning formula.

The new plan had several interlocking parts. First, eliminate the draft. That gets a few million pesky demonstrators off the streets. Second, minimize the deaths of US soldiers by increasing the use of airpower and mercenaries. Third, restrict media access to America’s wars. Pictures of crying mothers and burned children don’t help sell a war. Fourth, replace mass bombing and search and destroy operations with “precision-guided bombing” and selective murder through the secret Phoenix Program.

Although these tactics didn’t have time to “win” the Viet Nam War, they were used and studied in what the Pentagon called our “low-intensity conflicts” in Central America, Angola, and Afghanistan in the 1980s. (They are not low-intensity for the people in the affected countries.) But as the last fifteen years have shown, our military is only winning the freedom to keep us in a constant state of war.

The tactics used in Viet Nam and refined in the 1980s are being used again today in Afghanistan. Afghan president Ashraf Ghani said that when we had 150,000 US and NATO troops in Afghanistan we also had about 400,000 contractors. Since contractors do many of the jobs that were done by soldiers they should be counted as soldiers. So at the height of President Obama’s surge in Afghanistan we had more soldiers there than the 535,000 we said we had at the height of the Viet Nam War.

Now that there are only 8,500 US soldiers (and about 40,000 contractors) in Afghanistan, the media, instead of asking questions, repeats whatever the Pentagon tells them. Using special operations and drones has given the military the freedom they have sought since Viet Nam—the freedom to wreak havoc quietly.

In “The Secret History of SEAL Team 6”, The New York Times tells us “the Omega Program” that guides special operations activities in Afghanistan is “modeled after the Vietnam-era Phoenix Program, when CIA officers and Special Operations troops conducted interrogations and assassinations.” Buried deep in a three page story, we learn that these US death squads break into people’s homes at 3 am and, with silencers on their rifles, kidnap or kill Afghan “suspects.” Some of the SEALs, not satisfied with knives, use custom-made hatchets during their home invasions. We know that the lunatics of ISIS behead people in public. But we don’t know how many people have been beheaded in the middle of the night by our “heroes.”

We see pictures of Syrian children wounded by the Russian and Syrian Air Forces. But we don’t see pictures of Afghan children killed and maimed by the 1,200 cluster bombs that the Pentagon says it dropped on Afghanistan between October 2001 and April 2002. We don’t see pictures of children being dug out of the rubble caused by US bombs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, or Libya.

The most successful propaganda tells a small part of the truth while ignoring the larger picture. Our bombs and missiles are presented as clean —almost antiseptic. But our weapons scientists have worked hard to make our bombs more deadly. Napalm wasn’t deadly enough for them so they came up with the thermobaric bomb (or thermo-barbaric, as a friend of mine calls them.) These bombs create a cloud of flammable aluminum dust, then ignite it, killing every living thing within the cloud in a flash of fire. The New York Times story about the SEALs says they “were equipped with a new generation of grenade—a thermobaric model that is particularly effective in making buildings collapse.” One type of Hellfire missile has a fragmentation sleeve to produce more shrapnel.

Only one question is asked about our precise weapons: do they hit the aiming point? But that is the wrong question. When we think about the atomic bombings in Japan we ask what happened to the people on the ground. But the professional misleaders in our military have switched our attention from the effects of the bomb to an irrelevant question—did it hit the target. This is knowingly dishonest on their part.

The US government and, by their silence, the American people, have given themselves permission to execute “suspects.” How does someone become a suspect, eligible for murder without a hearing? What “intelligence” is required? Rumors? Anonymous tips from political enemies?

Our media accurately describe the Russian and Syrian bombings of Aleppo, Syria as barbaric, but they downplay the barbaric behavior of our military as they bomb, shoot, and hack their way across country after country, creating more enemies and hatred as they go.

The New York Times reporter Michael Gordon repeated all the lies about Iraq that Dick Cheney fed to him. He is now the chief military correspondent for The New York Times and writes most of their stories about Syria. He is facilitating war against the list of target countries that Senator John McCain identified in numerous radio and TV interviews on September 11, 2001.

Americans , were we misled into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? If your answer is yes then you can probably see that it’s happening again!

Bill Distler is a Viet Nam veteran and member of Veterans For Peace Chapter 111 in Bellingham, WA. Email: peacevet47@gmail.com

In order to understand the mechanism of obedience, the roles within it and the power dynamic that coincide with it, I will take a look at Stanley Milgram’s ‘Obedience to Authority’ (1961) experiment.
Whilst Milgram’s experiment isn’t carried out in a military environment per se the participants and processes involved can be extrapolated into any model of life. This is especially true of a militaristic model given the hierarchy and authoritative rank structure within.

The aim of Milgram’s experiment was to determine how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person, specifically when the instruction came from a figure of authority. In this case it involved three roles (teacher, learner and figure of authority), a dummy electric shock generator with 30 switches ranging from 15-450 volts and a controlled environment consisting of two rooms, partitioned by a door to separate the ‘learner’ from the ‘teacher’ and ‘figure of authority’.

The learner and figure of authority were colluding with one another to monitor the behaviour of the ‘teacher’. Prior to commencement of the study the teacher was initially given a low voltage shock to demonstrate the capability of the machine whilst adding an element of realism to the experiment (although no shocks were delivered to the learner during the experiment).

The role of the teacher was to read out a sequence of words and then test the learner on his ability to recall said sequence. When the learner incorrectly recalled the words he was ‘shocked’ by the teacher using the generator. The shocks started at 15 volts and increased in voltage with each mistake made by the learner. Pre-recorded audio responses to each shock given were played at shock intervals. When some participants vocalised their concern during the experiment, they were prompted to continue by the figure of authority (who was wearing a lab coat).

The prompts used by Milgram and his assistants were, “Please continue”, “The experiment requires you to continue”, “It is absolutely essential that you continue” and “You have no other choice but to continue”. These prompts were enough for all participants involved to dispense shocks of up to 300 volts whilst 65% delivered 450 volts, a potentially lethal and life threatening shock.

Stanley Milgram was born in New York City in 1933 and the son to Jewish immigrant parents. The motivation for Milgram’s experiment is interconnected with his lineage as much as it is with the time it was conceived. The trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the major architects of the Holocaust, was already underway.

Milgram invokes the Nazis within the introduction of his 1963 paper: “Obedience, as a determinant of behaviour, is of particular relevance to our time,” he wrote. “Gas chambers were built, death camps were guarded; daily quotas of corpses were produced … These inhumane policies may have originated in the mind of a single person, but they could only be carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of persons obeyed orders.”

This idea is interesting because it supports the compartmentalisation process which is prevalent within the military. An overall mission along with the orders to carry it out is broken down into segments for individuals and/or groups of people to complete. Whilst this may make logistical sense it’s also a mechanism to detach and disconnect all serving personnel from a complete comprehension of the collective nature of their actions. This simultaneously protects and abdicates all involved from any meaningful responsibility.

This fits in with Milgram’s ‘Agency Theory’. He explained that people actually have two states of behaviour in a social situation.

The autonomous state – this can be described when people direct their own actions and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.

The agentic state – this can be described as when people allow others to direct their actions and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.

Whenever evidence is uncovered or released of any military abuse, torture or crime the military establishment goes into damage limitation and self-preservation over-drive. The upper echelons of military hierarchy will attempt to deflect, discourage and deny any involvement and project responsibility onto a ‘few bad apples’. This alleviates them of any kind of involvement and protects the overall system which created the very conditions for such atrocities to take place. So whilst most military personnel primarily operate within the agentic state it’s only when abuses, torture and war crimes come to light that the focus is switched to the autonomous state and those directly responsible are hung out to dry.

Milgram carried out numerous variations of his experiment (approximately 20) where conditions were changed, including proximity of participants, change in environments and the roles involved. All presented changes in obedience rates but subsequently highlighted that when the conditions and circumstances are apt, approximately two thirds (65%) of people will inflict lethal levels of harm upon others.

‘Situationism’ and ‘Identification’ also play integral roles in understanding the importance of the Milgram experiments. Situationism is the theory that human behaviour is determined by surrounding circumstances rather than by personal qualities. ‘Identification’ is the belief that a conflict of importance exists between carrying out a behaviour/action and whether or not the person carrying it out identifies with the subject in question. Both theories are applicable to a military environment.

Can a soldier, sailor or airman maintain personal qualities and strict adherence to morals, ethics and international law when placed in a foreign, hostile and uncertain situation?

Can a soldier, sailor or airman identify with people from foreign lands who speak different languages, who partake in different cultures, follow different religions and live different ways of life?

Milgram’s experiment highlights the harm and abuse that one human can do to another in a controlled environment when instructed to do so by a figure of authority, encouraged with simple prompts.

What would happen if you conditioned a person via an intense military indoctrination programme; enshrined them with exceptionalism, sent them to a foreign land after telling them everyone who looks and speaks a certain way is the enemy and then exposed them to un-imaginary conditions?

Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, My Lai, Mau Mau, Amritstar to name but a few.

Would they become heroes or villains?

Daniel Lenham served in the Royal Air Force and is a member of Veterans For Peace UK.

Public health charity publishes damning report and calls for minimum recruitment age to be raised to 18.

The UK stands apart from most countries worldwide in recruiting children into the armed forces. This needs to change. Most people and many bodies concerned with the rights andprotection of children think that the minimum age for consent to enter the armed force
should be eighteen years.

In this report, we describe the biological and physiological reasons why children should not be encouraged to make a decision to join the armed forces. 16 and 17 year olds (and to a lesser extent, many young adults as well) are still maturing emotionally and intellectually. This period of development is characterised by more impulsive and emotionally driven decision-making, which is only tempered by cognitive and rational decision-making processes further on in the developmental trajectory.

On top of this, this report describes how military recruitment is concentrated among 16 and 17 year olds who may be particularly vulnerable to marketing techniques and materials that glamorise war, and fall short of being comprehensively truthful about life in the military.

All too often, the claim is made that military life can be good for troubled adolescents. The argument is that the military can provide discipline and a sense of purpose for individuals
who may be struggling with education, or who are engaged in self-harming or antisocial behaviour. There are two things wrong with this viewpoint. First, there is evidence that military life may be harmful to the health and wellbeing of those recruited as adolescents. Second, there are other ways to support adolescents who are struggling with their education and social situation, and if the military is presented as the only viable option, then the recruitment of under 18s cannot be considered to be consensual.

This report is focused on the wellbeing of children, and particularly those that are recruited into the military. But by challenging this practice, it also speaks to a wider issue of how the military interacts with our school systems and society more generally.

In our view, the UK’s over-reliance on the use of military force to ensure national security is misguided, and results in part from an over-militarised culture that crowds out the need to use preventative measures to combat the threat of war and violent conflict. Indeed, the peace agenda has become all the more important owing to a growing recognition that national security cannot be achieved in isolation of a global security that meets the basic
needs of all countries, and all peoples.

As the world shrinks and the earth degrades, national security will only be achieved if we are more intentional and forward thinking about seeking peace, preventing violent conflict and promoting equity. We know from the scientific literature that the determinants of peace include, among other things, democratic governance; gender equity; strong legislation on arms control; and tolerance across religious, ethnic and national divides.

If we invested more in the disciplines of conflict transformation, peacebuilding and peace education, developing positive peace initiatives across all strata of society, more children would recognise that military force is not the only way to secure their future. In the
meantime, it’s time to join all other permanent members of the UN Security Council and all other countries in the EU, and end the recruitment of children into the armed forces.

Dr David McCoy
Director of Medact, medical doctor, public health physician and academic

“In harmony we all shall live,
And share the earth together;
In Virtue train’d, enlighten’d Youth
Will love each fellow-creature;
And future years shall prove the truth
That Man is good by nature:
Then let us toast with three times three
The reign of Peace and Libertie”
Robert Burns

The aspirations of Burns, shown in his rousing last stanza in “why should we idly waste our prime” is as pertinent today as it was in the 18th century. Written in a political climate that had resulted in an erosion of civil liberties, as war with France loomed. As the advocates of peace and freedom faced transportation, torture and the gallows.

Today we face an altogether harder task, they exercise their power with gaslighting and deception. Physical oppression has been replaced by marginalisation of objective thinking. Cultural imperialism which intends to put the MOD beyond criticism. Those who dissent are routinely labelled as hating the nation – a rebranding of sedition. Sedition the charge levelled at Thomas Muir, a contemporary of Burns, a practising advocate promoting democratic ideals. He was branded a traitor and deported, yet as the former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates said in 2015 “the convicted traitors of one age become the martyred patriots of another.”

Nowhere in society is this display of contempt more exposed than with the current policy that allows children to volunteer for military service: contrary to the UN Convention of the Rights of Child (CRC) and the Paris principles. The UN states that a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years. The UK continues pick and chose our inalienable rights, isolating our standing in the international community and happy to share a policy with Iran, Zimbabwe and North Korea.

The question has to be asked why? Why allow ourselves to shown as hypocrites? Wherein British diplomats advocate human rights abroad but condemn and ignore them at home.

If all that wasn’t enough, we are now aware of the “drip-drip” policy thanks to Colonel David Allfrey. Its intention, to raise awareness with children as young as 7, over a ten year span, to promote joining the army. Think marines abseiling from stands onto football pitches: we all appreciate the spectacle, but what of the virtue? Adults rejoice in the little lies they tell kids – santa, easter bunny and the tooth fairy – but should we pacify war fighting?

Now what about military school visits. The MOD 2007 document ‘Engagement with UK schools’ states that engaging with a school is to encourage good citizenship. Does it aye? Citizenship is a right from birth other than being granted by the authorities. The military has no input in citizenship: therefore, let’s assume they’ve got other intentions in mind: drip drip drip…

The MOD will deny that recruitment is the purpose of school visits or that any child is recruited at school. Yes, no child signs up at school, and just as well because the recruiters would quickly find themselves in the International Criminal Court.

Here we find that the authority over “military school visits” is held with headteachers, as the purpose is dressed as educational – however unenlightened. What then follows is consent or lack thereof. You may ask why should parents be asked to give consent – however it is within Parental Rights provided under article 5 of the CRC.

What about after school? Helpfully the MOD created “Camouflage”. The website states “if you’re 14-16 years old and looking for more info on Army life, then Camouflage is for you. It has been developed by the Army so that you can get up close to real soldiers.” This is none other than a public funded organisation, to recruit children for active service.

In 2003 the UK ratified the ‘optional protocol’ (UN legal speak for amendment/add ons). All articles become legally binding. Including Article 1 which states “States’ Parties shall take all feasible measure to ensure that members of the armed forces who have not attainted the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.”

Yet we know from MOD figures that twenty 17 year-olds served in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can say with sorrow and confidence that as far as the UK is concerned the CRC is null & void.

Article 3 of the CRC, if enacted, would mean risk assessments of 16 and 17 year-olds in recruitment offices by independent health care professionals and consultations to make parents fully aware of the terms of service and obligations on their children.

We can go through each Article of the CRC in turn and continue finding grave violations. The problem is not only about children volunteers. It is about the future and truth. Why if we scoff at laws drafted to protect children from war, can we then expect rights we have to be respected?

Burns ends with “The reign of Peace and Libertie” (freedom) being the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. The rights children volunteers give up before they had the chance to exercise them.

Conor Patrick is a member of Veterans For Peace UK

We were really poor when I was growing up. One Christmas my Dad gave me an empty box, on seeing my puzzlement, he explained that it was an Action Man deserter. A joke but one that has been in the public domain for a while.

Darren Cullen has done nothing more than take something from the public domain and used his freedom of expression to create slightly macabre toy dolls. A project undertaken with the backing of many veterans of the armed forces. Art imitating life. Poorly in this instance. The wounds that I treated as a combat medic and sustained as an infantry soldier are much more outrageous than any pastiche.

The plastic figurines will not spend more than thirty plus years undergoing surgery and further amputations. Nor will they spend a lifetime remembering when they could walk to the toilet unaided. Certainly none of them will actually drink themselves to death. My colleagues do and will.

I do not consider myself to have pilloried, as has been suggested by a politician, by a piece of modern art. Rather I consider myself pilloried by the cost conscious bureaucrats who at the behest of these same politicians determined that my disability was one percentage point below pensionable. I consider myself pilloried when my bus pass is withdrawn. I consider myself pilloried when raising funds for a colleagues prosthetic limbs that are denied him under the NHS. I consider myself yet more pilloried when a politician with a record of voting for military intervention, serving a party responsible for illegal wars expresses faux outrage on my behalf.

The reality of joining the Armed Forces includes the chance that one may become wounded, a perk of the job as it were. Aspects of this are addressed during training. The reality of being wounded involves being removed from a nominal roll that you have dedicated everything hitherto to appearing on. You are placed on something known as a “Y” list and forgotten until discharge.Then you find yourself confronted by the benefits system. None of this addressed at all.

On leaving the Forces you discover that the same politicians that sent you to war are the ones cutting your benefits and means testing your pension, whilst granting themselves inflation busting pay rises and selecting a new war.

It is certainly better business to be outraged over a doll than removing one’s nose from the trough.

Steve Neville served with the British Army, he is a member of Veterans For Peace UK.

I was 17 when I went into the Army Reserve here in the U.S. It was one of the most awesome times of my life and had a positive enduring impression. Now that I have said what was good about it, here is the bad.

Old men training and sending young boys to war. Young boys who are trying to find their manhood being trained to kill and die many more times than not to enrich a small group of people – greed. It’s all wrapped up in patriotism and fighting for what is right. Like killing humans is right.

There are other occupations that I could have been training to do that would have given me the same confidence and maturity I gained from basic training. Occupations that are helpful to humankind, not destructive.

Finally let me say to the good soldiers and lovers of soldiers out there – my son also served and I respect service members. But the truth is they use us. Sure there are “bad guys” in the world, however our leaders are not really trying to solve the conflicts and problems that produce angry people willing to kill. In fact, that is what they made us. Then we go back home, many of us scarred and mentally broken trying to piece our lives back together, while the ones who sent us to war get richer and gain accolades as great leaders.

Yes, care for and love the soldier. And distrust our so called leaders. Watch them and think outside the box and you will soon find yourself really disliking most of them. Malcolm X once said, “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

Those “leaders”, they don’t give a damn about any of us. At all my brothers and sisters…at f’n all!

Peace is Possible, but we have to work for it and train for it, just like they taught us to train for war.

Michael T. McPhearson is the Executive Director of Veterans For Peace (USA).

It is 15 years since the UK & US began their attack on one of the poorest countries in the world. Thousands of Afghans fleeing the fighting that invasion created have fled to Europe to be met with walls, bigotry and reaction.

Both phases of the war there (2001 and then 2006 onwards) failed to achieve their stated ‘humanitarian’ aims. There has been no apology from Labour as there was over Iraq. There is no hint of a properly timetabled inquiry. Only silence over a sordid, hubristic little war.

A lot of my work now is on veterans of that war, but I harbour no illusions that these are the real victims of the war. Most Afghans can’t ‘go home’. They are home. Home for them is a war zone of our own creation. Or the gauntlet of fleeing to reactionary Europe.

Signed: an Afghanistan veteran and retired true believer in the insipid fantasy of Britain’s moral role in the world.

As most doctors & nurses were killed in the atomic blast a horse vet had to scoop out the burnt and useless right eye of Mariko Higashino’s grandmother. There was no anaesthetic or antiseptic for the terribly injured 42-year-old woman. Amongst Hiroshima’s ashes & corpses Makiro’s then 17-year-old mother listened to the screams of her mum and thought they were in living hell. She knew at that point, on that August morning in 1945, that all war must be abolished and people must never go to war again.

Mariko is a 2^nd generation Hiroshima survivor (or ‘Hibakusha’). Born in 1952 – the same year that the UK detonated its first nuclear bomb – she luckily escaped the radioactive poison inherited by so many of the children of Hiroshima’s survivors. Her mother and grandmother were both in the city the morning the atomic bomb was dropped from the specially silver-metal-plated US Army Airforce B29 bomber. Both survived. Mariko’s mother only opened up about her experiences three years ago. Mariko has now been officially certified by her government to pass on the story, which she does around the world.

The Hibakusha

Hibakusha is the name given to the survivors of the 1945 nuclear bombings. It literally translates to ‘explosion effected people’. Two categories of Hibakusha are recognised by Japanese authorities, those who were in or around the hypo-centre of the blasts, or those who were born to the survivors. Today over 160 of the 170,000 Hibakusha have dedicated themselves to an on-going global peace mission. The ‘Peace Boat Hibakusha Project’ travels around the world, its special passengers calling for the abolishment of nuclear weapons and power. This week (October 3^rd & 4^th) saw the Hibakusha peace boat docking in London. Five of the Hibakusha began their mission to share their testimonies of survival and death and build momentum to ban nuclear weapons.

At the Quakers Friends Meeting House, in central London on Monday 3^rd October a few of the Hibakusha gave their testimonies of painful survival and violent death in front of a small audience. No press or media seemed to be there, no glaring cameras, snapping photographers, pushy reporters, or sniffing newshounds. The event seemed to have gone under their radar. At the same time that the Hibakusha told of their horrors it seemed the mass media were composing and publishing endless streams of near-hysterical new nuclear arms race stories, warning of the threat of nuclear war, of good vs evil in the guise of the west vs the east, the USA v Russia. Like a sport, or a film.

The Hiroshima bomb

Mariko told her mother’s story, a story of death, suffering and survival in the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. The bomber, Enola Gay, piloted by Colonel Paul Tibbets, dropped its atomic bomb at 8:15am. The air burst detonated 580 metres above the city. The blast was the equivalent of 16 kilotons of TNT, the blast area covered a mile.

Mariko continues the story, “My mother was only 17 but had been mobilised as part of the war effort. She was working as a nurse in Funairi hospital 1.8km from the hypocentre. Her and two of her friends had been given the day off. They planned to go swimming and to meet at 8:15 in the morning. At 8:10 she realised she was running late. She yelled to her mother, ‘I’m off’, took a look in the mirror by the front door and suddenly saw a huge flash then a huge BANG! She was knocked unconscious and blown 30 metres into a nearby sweet potato field. As she woke up she saw a huge billowing cloud. Then it began to rain, black raindrops – this was the radioactive fallout. My mother looked down the street and she saw melting people coming towards her. They were calling for water saying, ‘it hurts!’ Their calls grew fainter and in groups of about 20 or 30 they lay down and died. For those not killed in the blast and vacuum but caught in the black rain it took them three days of washing to get the rain off of them. My mother was a nurse so she instinctively tried to take care of injured people. But she had no help so went into the city centre to look for doctors and nurses. The city was completely destroyed and turned to ash and cinders. She came to the river which was just packed full of the red bodies of people. She looked for help in vein. There was no life in the city. Eventually she found her mother who had been caught in the blast but was alive. The bomb had exploded on the right of her mother. She was completely burnt black down her right side and her right eye was bleeding severely. The nurses and doctors had almost all been killed and they died – like many others – bleeding from their mouths. A horse vet was the only medically trained person my mother could find to treat my grandmother. He decided her eye must be removed and he had to do it with no aesthetic and no antiseptic. As he scooped her eye out with her horrific screams in the air my mother thought that they were all in a living hell – she knew there and then that all war must be abolished and humans should never again go to war with each other.”

70 – 80,000 men, women, children, soldiers, Korean slaves, & Allied POWs had been killed instantly. Another 70,000 were injured by the blast and radioactive fall-out and would die painfully some time afterwards. Three days later US President Harry Truman ordered another nuclear bomb attack on another Japanese city.

The Nagasaki bomb

A brown faded old photograph of four cheerful looking children survived the Nagasaki blast, flash and fall out from the plutonium bomb. Three out of four of the children pictured had been killed. Johji, then 14, today 85 years old, survived to bear witness of nuclear holocaust. Both he, and the photograph were some distance away from the hypo-core of the bomb blast, dropped on the city of Nagasaki on 9 August 1945. The weapon named ‘Fat Man’ was carried by a US Army Airforce B29 bomber Bockscar. The flight commander, Major Sweeny, had originally been ordered to target the city of Kokura but his aircraft was running low on fuel so at 11.01am the secondary target of Nagasaki was attacked instead.

“My mother, my two brothers and sister were all killed.” Johji remembered. “Everybody who was 1000 metres within the hypo-centre were killed instantly. People who were 3000 metres away took a week or longer to die from the radiation fall-out – including my 12-year-old brother Kouji.” As a teenage factory conscript in Nagasaki Johji was working at the Mitshubishi munitions factory located 3.3 kilometres from the centre of the blast. The factory wasn’t put of action and Johji was uninjured. “I remember seeing a huge cloud, and feeling tremendous heat. In the hypo-core temperatures were as hot as the sun.” Many victims caught in the blast quite literally left only their shadows burnt on pavements, walls or steps behind. Johji continued, “The blast blew buildings and people to pieces but there was also a terrific vacuum which sucked up bodies and bits of debris and created a huge cloud.”

Johji ventured into the city and towards the hypo-core looking for his family. “My house was located 600 metres from the hypo core. My brothers and sister were all killed. Akio was 10, Machiko was 5, Kouji was 12. When I went back to the city centre at the hyper-core was there was nothing left but ash. I looked around for my house and for my family. I found my brothers’ bodies in different parts of the city. The blast and the vacuum had thrown bodies all around.”

At the same time that the USA, with the backing of the UK, were bombing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to death, The USSR attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria. The Japanese government quickly surrendered on the condition they keep their emperor, Hirohitho. Much has been argued about the conventional and nuclear bombing of Japanese civilians. It’s worth considering however that one conventional bombing raid by the US Army Air Force in March 1945 killed between 100,000 to 200,000 people – greater than the deaths of the nuclear attacks. Yet when faced with a battle against the Red Army that August the Japanese promptly surrendered. Crucially then were the two nuclear bomb attacks a mere political message from President Truman to the USSR?

The decades after the end of the Second World War were the years of a nuclear arms race and the Cold War. The USA, USSR, the UK, France, China, Israel, India, others all armed themselves to the teeth with countless nuclear war heads. None have been used. In 2016 The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) cites, ‘Nine countries together possess more than 15,000 nuclear weapons. (with 93% of the arsenal) The United States and Russia maintain roughly, 1,800 of their weapons on high-alert status – ready to be launched within minutes of a warning.’

The five Hibakusha visiting London this week all give testimonies to what these weapons can and have done to them personally. Noriko Sakashita was a two year old little girl in Hiroshima. Her house was 1.4km away from the hypo-centre. She was blown several metres away by the blast. She was injured by glass, and debris cutting her little head. Nokiro suffered from radiation sickness afterwards as she was caught by the black rain. Takaaki Morikawa was in hospital 10km from the Hiroshima hypo-centre. He was just six when he was exposed to black rain, and ingested contaminated food. Toshiko Fukahori survived the Nagasaki attack aged 10. Her home was 2.7kilometres from the blast centre. Toyoko Tagawa endured the same atomic attack 9.2kilometres away. Her brother, a medical student, was only 500 metres away from the hypocentre and took 10 days to die in great pain in front of his family.

Members of the UK parliament recently voted to renew and update the British nuclear weapon system, Trident. The UK Prime Minister Teresa May with one firm word told the world, ‘yes!’ she would be prepared to unleash nuclear weapons that would kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people.

Abolish nuclear weapons immediately!

The Hibakusha response to this is simple, “We survivors say that what we experienced should never happen to another person ever. What we went through we do not want anyone else to endure.”

“It’s impossible for anyone to understand the effects and harm of a nuclear bomb unless you have survived an attack. The sights, the sounds, and the awful smells are hellish. The misuse of the atom should be stopped immediately – in war weapons and for energy use. I urge everyone alive who can to work towards this. I call on the UK to abolish their nuclear weapons immediately and never go to war again!”

James Florey is a member of VFP London.

Sources:

 9^th Peace Boat Hibakusha Project
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
‘The Second World War’ – AJP Taylor, London 1975

Personal testimonies by Mr Johji Fukahori, Toshiko Fukahori, Takaaki Morikawa, Toyoko Tagawa, Noriko Saksashita, Mariko Higashino

On Sunday night two establishment media outlets tried to use a veteran-endorsed satirical art project to attack Momentum and Labour.

Let us be clear. The superb ‘Army, Be The Meat’ project and the ‘Action Man: Battlefield Casualties‘ films, which were launched 18 months ago, are nothing to do with Labour or Momentum.

The credit belongs to the artist who conceived and created it and, spiritually, to the hundreds of veterans who endorsed it. This work was conceived in response to years of dishonest army recruitment material and we continue to endorse it.

The establishment response has shown two things.

Firstly, it has highlighted the important and popular work done by Darren Cullen and VFP to educate people about the brutal reality of modern warfare and the possible negative outcomes of military service . For this we are grateful.

Secondly it has brought into the open the amateur journalism of sections of the press and the willingness of the elite to exploit soldiers and veterans for political capital.

We might linger over the appalling journalism involved in this pathetic hit piece. In their jingoistic ardour for clicks, the reporters clearly did not even bother to check into the background of the project.

That this project was backed by hundreds of veterans – many of whom bear the wounds of active service in wars from D-Day to Libya – was as difficult to discover as typing words into a search engine and pressing enter.

We might also note that Johnny Mercer and Dan Jarvis, both former military officers turned politicians, both self-appointed “veteran’s champions”, used the Murdoch-owned Sun newspaper as a platform to attack the project and, by extension, attack the veterans involved in it.

This is the same newspaper group whose senior editorial staff acquired the personal details of dead soldiers, apparently by paying MoD officials.

The same Sun newspaper which slurred the working people of Liverpool over the Hillsborough disaster – a city from which many soldiers are recruited and to which many veterans return after service.

The same Sun newspaper which cheered on the misconceived, illegitimate and ultimately failed wars which saw thousands of UK troops killed, mutilated and mentally injured.

Johnny Mercer and Dan Jarvis, if you attack the efforts of former service personnel in the Sun, or even speak to the Sun, you are no champions of soldiers or veterans.

The British establishment, the Sun, the ‘hero’ charities, Jarvis, Mercer and their like, have for too long been trading off the backs of ordinary veterans and soldiers to push their pro war agenda. Those days are drawing to a close.

Veterans For Peace UK
www.vfpuk.org

Poor recruitment figures show that young people in the UK have little interest in joining the army. Much like Armed Forces Day, “Reserves Day” is another desperate attempt to hoodwink our youngsters into joining the reserves, the army cadets and the regular army.

Army recruitment teams prey on children and portray life in the army as glamorous, rewarding and exciting, they remain silent on the possible negative outcomes of military service. The army is nothing like the army brochures and the videos you see online. Here are a few things that a recruiter won’t talk about;

• MOD studies confirm that there is an excess
  risk of psychiatric injury for reservists deployed to war.
• You can’t change your job in the army without the army’s permission but the army can move you to another job without your permission.
• The Army Foundation College in Yorkshire is really just an army training camp and it only does three courses; English, maths, ICT. The courses aren’t GCSEs, they’re less than half as long, and so basic that they’re almost worthless.
• Sexual abuse is rife within the army. The army accepts that sexual abuse is higher in the army than in civilian jobs.
• Since 2001 the British Army has been used covertly or overtly to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. None of these countries posed a threat to the people of Britain. Our wars have nothing to do with defending the people of the British Isles.

We know from experience that army recruitment teams are not to be trusted. For more information on the negative consequences of army service please go to dontjointhearmy.co.uk

It is time for us, as a society, to accept that warfare is not the solution to the problems we face in the 21st Century.

Don’t believe the hype, don’t join the army.

Thursday 6 October

7:30pm to 9pm

Friargate Quaker Meeting House, York

Ben Griffin of Veterans For Peace UK will be speaking at The Quakers in York.

For more details:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/1565916250383708/
Email: york@vfpuk.org

Monday 18 July
6pm Parliament Square
Meet under the VFP Flag

The date is set. Parliament will decide on whether or not to spend £205 billion on replacing Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system, on Monday 18th July.

Trident is a militarily useless weapon of mass destruction, and we need to make sure that we get the comprehensive debate we deserve – it’s an opportunity for MPs to have a complete rethink about how Britain responds to the 21st century security threats we face. Simply replacing an extortionately expensive cold war relic will not do.

CND has called an emergency protest. Join us at 6pm outside Parliament to say Stop Trident as MPs debate the issue inside. MPs will begin debating at 3.30pm and they are set to vote at 10pm.

• Sign up to the protest on Facebook and share with your contacts

• On Wednesday 13th join the mass lobby of MPs. A number of MPs have already changed their mind as a result of our campaign. Make sure you speak to your MP ahead of this crucial vote
• Stop Trident public meeting. After the mass lobby of MPs, join us in Parliament at 6pm for a public meeting chaired by Caroline Lucas MP
• Help promote activities and express your views on Trident using the #StopTrident hash tag on Twitter. Keep up to date with the latest developments by following us @CNDuk
  
• Donate to fund the emergency protest at Parliament

National Day of Action – 18th July

In addition to the emergency protest in Parliament Square, Stop Trident actions are set to take place across the country on the day of the vote. Please keep an eye on this page for further details, and please email us with details of actions you are planning.

• Bristol
• London
• Nottingham

Ian Runciman and I were unable to join the rest of Veterans For Peace UK in London on Wednesday, so we decided to stand in solidarity a little closer to home at Newcastle’s Monument Square where we held a vigil with Newcastle Stop the War (NSTW) campaign.

It was a sombre occasion for all and one that commenced with a minutes silence to remember not only the 179 service personnel needlessly killed during the invasion and occupation of Iraq but also for those of the Iraqi people who have suffered and continued to suffer daily for the decisions made and actions of US and UK foreign policy.

We heard many speeches including that of NSTW secretary Alex Snowdon and our very own Ian Runciman but the stand out speech was delivered by Chandni Chopra, member of NSTW steering committee. An impassioned and from the heart delivered address which reminded us all of the horrors of the Iraq war and those who yet still somehow manage to evade justice for the millions dead and displaced since 2003.

Personally, I’d attempted to distance myself from my own singular involvement in Iraq in the hope that if I pushed it to the furthest recesses of my conscience then it somehow didn’t occur. No doubt this was a sentiment shared on Wednesday by all veterans involved in Iraq. Gulf War veteran isn’t a badge I wear with any pride or honour but it’s a part of who I am. Once you’ve identified and understood that, then and only then can you push forward to promote peace and attempt to educate those unaffected by war to the true nature of it in the hope we can prevent it happening again.

We exist in the hope of convincing you that war is not the solution

Daniel Lenham served in the RAF he is a member of Veterans For Peace UK.

When John Chilcot said ‘…flawed intelligence and assessment…’ at the unveiling of the long overdue Iraq Inquiry report I was immediately reminded about a discussion I had with a senior military officer in 2000.  Working in an intelligence team as a desk head, a senior officer said to me ‘I have a theory – find intelligence to prove it’.  So I went away, did much analysis and reported back that the officer’s theory was incorrect and that in fact my assessment based on intelligence was the opposite of the theory.   I did try to explain the one makes assessments based on all the intelligence collected, not select intelligence to back up a theory and completely ignore intelligence that did not support one’s theory.  My report was dismissed and the senior officer found a pliable intelligence analyst to write a report using incorrect intelligence to support their theory.

Unfortunately, during my time working in intelligence this theorising and presenting reports that senior leaders thought officers and ministers wanted to hear became the normal way of working and reporting.  The ‘dodgy dossier’ Blair and Campbell presented to Parliament to justify the war in Iraq was an example of this.

The background to this was in 2001 the Cold War was over, Northern Ireland was over and intelligence services were desperately trying to justify their existence and protect budgets.  So leaders of the various UK intelligence services pandered to political leaders, civil servants and senior military officers in an attempt to keep their budget lines and status.  They ‘encouraged’ intelligence analysts to over emphasis threats; they could not believe their luck when 9/11 occurred.  The 9/11 attacks should have prompted political leaders to thoroughly review how the intelligence services managed to completely fail to predict this attack.  Instead the intelligence services used this as an opportunity to increase budgets – yet they still do not manage to do their job properly, as we have seen with the failure to predict 7/7, the Arab Spring, the civil war in Syria and the rise of Daesh.

Intelligence is about predicting threats to our national interest; it is about working out how and when attacks will be carried out.  Intelligence failure after intelligence failure has led to further increases in their budget lines despite austerity.  A few leaks to compliant journalists in thrall to intelligence services means the press and narrative is against cuts to their budgets.

Until the intelligence services and their leaders are held to account and they learn to stand up to ministers rather than pandering to political whims, the constant failures and production of flawed intelligence and assessment will continue.

Phillip Clarke is a former military intelligence analyst and a member of VFP UK.

Ben Griffin of VFP UK urges health workers
to join the struggle to end the War System.

Former SAS soldier Ben Griffin quit the army in disgust at the conduct of operations carried out during the occupation of Iraq. He spoke outside the Queen Elizabeth Centre in central London, as protesters gathered to await the Chilcot report.

He said Chilcot is “the establishment giving their version of the Iraq War. We have no confidence that it is going to be a full, frank or honest version of events,”.

Ben said, “Our government and armed forces unleashed a war of aggression on the people of Iraq. Then in a joint enterprise with the USA we executed an occupation that defied the Geneva Convention. There’s no doubt about these facts.”

“That invasion and occupation caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and sectarian violence has gone through the roof. The people at the top should face criminal investigations for what happened.”

Ben said that former Labour prime minister Tony Blair knew what the consequences would be before the war began. “He was briefed that terrorism would increase – and it has,” he said.

“We’ve had the 7/7 bombings here. But that pales into insignificance compared to the rise of terrorism in the Middle East.”

Ben Griffin addresses an International Peace Conference
2005.

Ben warned that those responsible would try to downplay the devastation their war unleashed.

“They’re going to try and paint this as a one-off,” he said.

“But look at what they’ve done since 2003. We re-invaded Afghanistan in 2006, sending 10,000 troops into Helmand Province causing death and devastation for no obvious outcome. We have attacked Libya smashing that country into pieces, leading to a state of chaos.”

“We have bombed Syria and Iraq again, and are currently aiding and abetting Saudi Arabia’s attack on Yemen, leading to thousands of people being killed and injured.”

“Iraq wasn’t the end of anything, in effect it was the start of a new era of UK military aggression.”

We need to win people to the idea that war is not the solution to problems the world faces. It doesn’t solve anything – it makes things a whole lot worse.”

Ben Griffin outside Chilcot
2016.

Not every soldier is serving his country,

Not every soldier swears an oath to his queen,

Not every soldier is a fully trained fighter,

Who follows convention, claims he’s morally clean,

Not every soldier agrees with the advert,

“be part of a team, be part of the best”

Not every soldier will conform to his orders,

Thank fuck there are some not afraid to protest,

Not every soldier is a gifted tactician,

Who can plan in advance for misfortunes to come,

And not every soldier can keep cool in a crisis,

Has respect for his buddy or faith in his gun.

Not every soldier wants to peace keep the planet,

Predicting the outcome, finding reasons for war,

And not every soldier craves an enemies terror,

Not every soldier wants their pain to endure,

And does every soldier want a posthumous medal,

Given the choice would he pray for his life,

Because not every soldier wants their flag covered coffins

Paraded through wiltshire in front of their wife.

Not every soldier who loses a limb,

Wants help for a hero or your false sympathy,

Not every soldier can acknowledge their nightmares,

So suffer in silence from ptsd,

Not every soldier can become a civilian,

Not every civvy knows a serviceman’s pride,

Few understand what some soldiers have been through,

The trauma that drives some to commit suicide,

Not every soldier will agree with this poem,

Each line is not written to dispel all they lose,

And many are braver than the guy who is talking,

They’ve earn’t the right to think as they choose,

And not every soldier will want me to read it,

Again i’ve no right to dispel their belief,

Because not every soldier is simply a robot,

I’m sure they would tell me i’d shat on their grief,

Yes…

Not every soldier from the ranks that i served in,

Could cut through the bullshit and political lies,

Too many youngsters content with excitement,

Had neither the courage or guts to ask…

Why.

John Poet served with the British Army, he is a member of VFP UK.

Ahead of the publication of the Chilcot report on Wednesday, Veterans For Peace UK have released the following statement on the 2003 Iraq War and its consequences.

Whatever the Chilcot Report says, this country and its armed forces executed a war of aggression on the people of Iraq in 2003. 

In a joint enterprise with the USA, we prosecuted an occupation of Iraq that defied the Geneva conventions.

Under the Nuremberg principles, those ultimately responsible should face trial.

Whilst Tony Blair is the obvious villain and in our opinion should face a criminal investigation, it is the UK as a whole that needs to change.

Since Iraq, our forces have attacked Helmand, Libya, Iraq and Syria. We are playing a key role in the Saudi Arabian attack on the Yemen.

Our aggressive military action has led to:

• Huge numbers of dead and injured. 
• The destruction of vital infrastructure.
• Environmental damage.
• A significant rise in terrorism globally. 
• A huge refugee crisis.

We need to accept that war is not the solution to the problems the world faces in the 21st Century.

email: coord@vfpuk.org

web: www.vfpuk.org

On Armed Forces Day members of VFP from all over the UK hit the streets of London. We handed out counter recruitment flyers based on our new website (DON’T JOIN THE ARMY) and engaged in conversations with the public on the aspects of military service that you won’t find out about in the Army Careers office or on their website.

The army is not only trying to lure in people as young as 16, they are also attempting to capture the imagination of our society. They want us to believe that all soldiers are heroes. That army life is all fun. That we go to war to defend the people of this country. This just ain’t true.

In the week running up to Armed Forces Day we launched our new counter recruitment website (DON’T JOIN THE ARMY) which features information gained from the experiences of hundred of veterans.

Unlike the official recruitment material our website reveals the negative aspects of army service. If you know anyone who is thinking about joining the army or if you know a school which invites the army in to speak to children then please direct them towards our website.

Trying to get somebody to cover a shift during the last weekend in June in Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue service is not easy, so i’d resided myself to the fact that I wouldn’t be able to get to London and make the gesture of handing back my medals to Downing Street on Armed Forces Day. (I think we can all look back to those times when we were in the forces and missed out on those special events that only happen on weekends and we were stuck on guard duty). So i’d accepted the disappointment that i’d be stuck in work but what I hadn’t counted on however was that the Fire engine i’d be riding that day had been ‘booked’ to attend an Armed Forces Day parade. It turns out that we had received a request for attendance which was happily accepted my management without question or consultation with any of the crew who would be attending. The turn of fortune from what I was originally planning to do, to what I was now having to do could not have been greater, and I wasn’t well chuffed! So I decided to write an email to the Chief Fire Officer as follows –

Dear Mr O’Reilly,

I’m writing to you due to my concerns regarding GMFRS’s presence and support for ‘Armed Forces Day’ events this coming weekend. I have many concerns as to why we should not attend, however i’ve condensed them down to three main arguments.

Firstly, Armed Forces Day is promulgated as ‘A chance to show your support for the men and women who make up the Armed Forces community’. When a phrase such ‘Support our troops’ is used, it becomes very difficult to engage in any critical discussion. It is an emotive discourse and the parameters for debate have been set purposefully narrow. There is no mention of what ‘our troops’ are being asked to do and whether or not we agree with it. If we asked members of our community those questions then it would be quite reasonable to assume that we would get many different answers with passionately opposing views on either side. Therefore, in having a presence and showing our support for Armed Forces Day, then we are not representing our community as a whole.

Secondly, Armed Forces Day events are celebrated with bands, bouncy castles, barbecues and bunting waving. They are ‘fun’ events and it is easy to see how they act as excellent recruitment tools for impressionable young people, along with the promise of sport, travel and adventure. Little mention is made of what life is actually like in the armed forces and what life may be like when people leave. The statistics are easily available and vary from study to study so I won’t quote any here, however documented evidence shows that there is a high correlation between service in the armed forces and mental health issues leading to such things as violence/domestic violence, suicide and homelessness. GMFR’s knows this as we are at times called to deal with the aftermath of these incidents.

My third and final concern is that of security and relates to the first point about passionately opposing views within the community. We have seen many times now, how people have become radicalised and committed acts of terrorism, both internationally and domestically. The armed forces are seen as a high target for such acts. It is my belief that we will be increasing our chances of being the victims of such an attack if we are present at, and show support for Armed Forces Day events. I believe the fire service should be a neutral institution and seen as such by the whole community.

I hope you can see that I have no criticisms towards members of the armed forces themselves. My concern is the fire services association with the armed forces as an institution, particularly with what functions it performs and whose interests it represents. The Iraq Inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot will report more on this on 6th July. However, it is my belief that the armed forces as an institution, firstly, do not represent the interests of the whole community, secondly, contribute to mental health issues leading to violence/domestic violence, suicide and homelessness, and finally, increases our risk of becoming a target of terrorism. For those reasons I believe it would be wrong to associate ourselves with them.

Regards,

Steve Jefferies
Blue Watch S21
To his credit Mr O’Reilly got back to me straight away, and to my surprise he invited me to visit him at Fire Service Head Quarters for a chat about the matter. Its not often you get invited to see the Chief, as far as i’m aware, you only see him if you’re in big trouble and about to be disciplined or you’re retiring from service and you get to chat about the good old days and how things have changed.

It was an opportunity not to be missed so I took him up on the offer and met him this morning. He was very approachable, listened and agreed with all the points that I raised. He told me of his early days as a firefighter during the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland and how the Fire Service remained neutral and was respected for that. He explained that as a ‘Community’ Fire Service we get asked to attend lots of different events such as Armed Forces Day, or Manchester Pride and he is aware that sometimes opinions are polarised but we can’t always please everybody. I conceded that its a difficult decision to tell somebody that you will not be attending their event and I can well imagine the potential for adverse publicity if there was a refusal on political grounds from the Fire Service to not attend and Armed Forces Day Parade. Although as a Veterans for Peace, I would personally welcome it so we could debate the hidden agenda that lies behind Armed Forces Day, instead of allowing them to hide behind the brass bands and bunting waving.
Steve Jefferies served in the Royal Navy and 148 Commando Bty RA between 1989 – 1998 and is a member of Veterans for Peace UK

IRAQ INQUIRY PROTEST

Wednesday 6 July
1000 to 1200

Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
Broad Sanctuary,
Westminster,
SW1

Tube – Westminster

VFP will gather from 9am under our flag.
Please wear a VFP hoody or t-shirt.

Don’t Join the Army’ is a project of Veterans For Peace UK. It is a response to the Army’s consistently misleading and exploitative recruitment campaigns aimed at young people.

Based on the experiences of hundreds of veterans, Don’t Join the Army provides young people with information about military service often missing from the official recruitment material.

Pre-order the Veterans For Peace Limited Edition t-shirt ‘DON’T JOIN THE ARMY’. Available for a limited time only. Get it while you still can!

Go to everpress.com to order today.

https://everpress.com/dont-join-the-army