Patriotism is first refuge for Tories at County Hall

Well, there’s a surprise. One of the first things that the new Conservative County Council administration decides to do is hoist the Union Flag and the St George’s cross outside County Hall.

Apparently it’s to demonstrate their pride in our national heritage and to show respect for ’fallen servicemen’.

I don’t have too much of an issue with the first of these as I too am happy to acknowledge many of the positive things that Great Britain has stood for in the past and to recognise some of the excellent things that British people have achieved throughout history.

For Queen and Country?

However, being British (or being English, which seems to be much more important to many people) is merely an accident of birth and the notion of being proud of  a country (any country), the achievements – or faults and crimes – of which, you have no power over (and very little say in these days), seems a bit odd. 

If we’re proud of our heritage, are we equally ashamed of our part in the slave trade, the subjugation of other countries through colonialism and our contribution (politically or militarily) to a whole variety of wars and conflicts stretching back hundreds of years?

Which brings us to the military connection. The Nottingham Evening Post article that reported on the return of the flags emphasised the various military backgrounds of the main movers within the County Council for this new patriotic display and it seems that this was perhaps a greater motivation to the Union Jack going up again than anything else. Which is very sad.

It seems that we are never able to separate our national flag from conflict (and ultimately death). Possibly this is because we are such a belligerent nation and our flag has become synonymous with warfare; possibly because fighting and making weapons is one of the few things we are still good at… or because we still cling to the archaic notion that military service (and particularly dying in battle) is the greatest and most admirable purpose that any true patriot can aspire to… Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

I don’t think it should be and I don’t think the most honourable use for our national flag is for it to adorn the coffins of dead soldiers returning from Afghanistan or Iraq.

Elizabeth Cross: A memorial to wasted lives?

The Queen has apparently approved  a new honour in her name for members of the armed forces who are killed in action or as a result of a terrorist attack. It’s called the Elizabeth Cross and will be available to the relatives of all those killed in conflicts since the end of World War II.

Not many then you think, if it only starts from 1946?  Well, think again. There have been over 50 conflicts involving our forces since then and over 16,000 service personnel have died on behalf of the UK in a variety of scenarios from ‘hot war’ (a military term; not mine) to ‘anti-terrorist’ actions and peacekeeping missions.

The Elizabeth Cross. Sign of a grateful nation or a guilty one?

But if you look at some of these ‘glorious deaths in the service of our country’, the new Elizabeth Cross could just as well be a tribute to stupidity, futility and colonialism, Over 800 British soldiers killed in Palestine between 1945 and 1948, fighting Zionist terrorists (many of whom went on to join the Israeli Government after the end of the British mandate; a political embarrassment that prevents these deaths being properly acknowledged even today) with subsequent deaths of UK troops in Malaya, Korea,  Suez , Kenya, Cyprus, Congo, Borneo, Northern Ireland, Rhodesia, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, amongst others.

In almost every case, these were colonial wars, fought to keep control of British ‘possessions’ overseas or were ‘political’ ones (Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance) where there was no clear or achievable military objective.

There are some honourable exceptions, of course. Peacekeeping missions in Rwanda, The Balkans, the Congo and East Timor were well intentioned but, ultimately, had little effect in protecting civilians from harm.

The Elizabeth Cross may bring comfort to bereaved families and a sense of pride and recognition for their loss. For that, it’s obviously a good thing. But, if we continue to pretend that the life of every UK soldier, sailor or airmen lost in conflict has been sacrificed for the peace and security of the homeland, or even in the interests of a particular civilian population, we are destined to constantly repeat history and to lose many more brave men and women for nothing more than political whim and expediency

Honesty offensive needed in Afghanistan

Tributes have been paid to “a brave, versatile and committed Rifleman from Kirkby-in-Ashfield” who died in an explosion in Afghanistan on Thursday. He was one of four to die in the country last week. His family was rightly proud of him because I’m sure they think that he was doing something that was important to the UK’s national interests.

However, comments by two senior British commanders in Afghanistan have confused me as to what our interests in the country now are.

War on terrorism or propaganda war?

According to the BBC, Lt Col Nick Richardson said: “With heavy heart we report another extremely sad situation, where lives of our courageous soldiers have been sacrificed for the greater good of the Afghan people. And Brigadier-General Richard Blanchette, spokesman for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, said of one of the soldiers: “He made the “ultimate sacrifice to bring hope and peace to the people of Afghanistan”.

Both comments emphasised that British troops are there to improve the lot of the Afghan people. If this is true (and it’s not actually clear that it is, with violence increasing and the position of women in the country now reported as getting worse) then it would be a commendable aim. But didn’t Tony Blair send the troops to Afghanistan because George Bush told him that Osama bin Laden was there and that the US needed help to destroy Al Qaeda and prevent the spread of global terrorism?

Whilst I don’t think many people would argue that not having the Taleban in Afghanistan would probably be a good thing (in the same way as not having Saddam Hussein in Iraq is), British troops were surely not sent to fight and die to bring ‘hope and peace’ to the people of the country were they?

If that is indeed their mission, when can we expect invasions please of Zimbabwe, North Korea and Sudan. If we could fight for the greater good of those people too and bring them hope and peace, we can then move on to about another dozen countries in other parts of the world.

The USA and the UK went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan supposedly to fight terrorism. If we’re not doing that now, fine. But then I would ask the Government and the media to be honest about what we are doing there and whose interests we are serving. We should then also stop treating every serviceman killed by the Taleban as a national hero.

Sadly, from a British point of view, their deaths are unnecessary and futile.