Source: The Independent

What can be done about the state of the press and politics in Britain before someone else actually gets killed?

This short video, originally posted on Snapchat, suggests that the spectacle of British soldiers shooting at socialist Labour leader Corbyn as if by firing squad is, if not a wholly desirable outcome, at least serves as good banter.

It is neither. This new scandal is a tragic commentary not just on our military’s internal culture, but on the state of our national politics. It comes at a moment of intense political danger when a viciously right-wing government teeters closer to collapse.

Meanwhile Corbyn, who could potentially take power from the Tories at any moment – unless another Conservative candidate steps into the breach – was himself physically attacked only weeks ago. Let us also recall: a Labour MP was murdered not too long ago and only yesterday the trial of a neo-Nazi accused of plotting to kill another Labour MP reached a crescendo.

Across Europe and the world (in and out of uniform) fascists are emboldened by victories like those of Bolsonaro in Brazil and Trump in America – their rise precipitated by the terminal decline of neoliberal centrism and the heightened inequality it triggered.

Since the early 20^th century, the far right’s targets have not changed: migrants, the political left and anyone notably different. The footage of the British soldiers shooting at the image of the leader of the opposition both emerged from and will feed back into exactly that kind of politics.

Of course this latest episode raises once again serious questions about the military – as well as cutting through the army’s glossy waffle about diversity and inclusion. The military, as I have argued elsewhere, remains anchored to the political right, functioning at times (by design) as a far-right organisation in which power, submission, obedience, violent mythology and military ancestor worship, shape service personnel’s views and keep them in check so that they are better equipped to carry out violence in pursuit of UK foreign policy goals.

Yet let us be clear our army is a reflection of the population from which it is drawn and the class by which it is led. If we understand that we can take lessons from it. One clear takeaway is that Jeremy Corbyn has been dehumanised by his enemies in the media and the political sphere to the point of being seen as fair game. His death is no more than a joke. Some of the more extreme centrists and conservatives seem at times to ache for it and fantasise over it.

Three years of being falsely accused of being an IRA and Hamas sympathiser both in parliament and in print; being portrayed as a Dracula figure in the gutter press and made the focus of a contrived antisemitism scandal have left Corbyn – and for that matter other prominent people on the left – not just dehumanised, but a potential top target for every gammon, crank and right-wing buffoon in the land.

In 2015 a serving general anonymously threatened a military coup against Corbyn if he was ever to take power. Sadly investigations failed to discover who this “enemy within” was. If only there was a way to find out… perhaps GCHQ could lend a hand?

Regarding the video, the army has said it is investigating itself (as is always the case) and it wouldn’t be surprising if a soldier or two end up going round the corner from their garrison in Colchester to spend a bit of time in the military jail there. But the incident makes the army’s ongoing identity crisis and its growing contempt for democracy at all levels all the more urgent a question to answer.

Far more important though, however bleak it sounds, what can be done about the state of the press and politics in Britain before someone else actually gets killed?

Joe Glenton is an Afghanistan veteran, journalist and the author of ‘Soldier Box’

Ex-soldier Joe Glenton welcomes that Jeremy Corbyn does not cash in on soldiers, sailors and airmen. Reprinted from April 2017

Joe Glenton was court-martialed and jailed in 2010 for refusing to fight in the Afghanistan war he had come to see as unjustified and immoral. His acclaimed book Soldier Box describes the reasons for his decision. 

One method is to weaponise identity politics – race, gender, sexuality – and try to cast him as a bigot of sorts. These attacks are not hard to debunk, given Corbyn’s record and the fact that they are most often carried out via comment pieces dripping with mock outrage and written by Blairites or their natural allies – Conservatives and Liberals.

The other front, through, which Corbyn (and by Corbyn I mean both the man and the membership) is attacked, is on security, defence and foreign policy issues.

We should be clear, that coming from Blairites and Tories, these attacks are not being made from a position of authority, especially given these two closely aligned groups have gifted the world the failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and dubious interventions in Libya and Syria respectively.

Yet these attacks do have bite, not least when laced with the brand of ‘our brave boys’ jingoism which has become so popular these days as a cover for deflecting criticism and colouring the news.

The problem with all of this is that in power, Corbyn would be a better friend to the Armed Forces community than anyone else in Labour, or indeed, in parliament.

He would also better serve their interests than most senior military figures – none of whom, to my recollection, criticised the wars until they had a book to sell.

I’ll take one issue here in the form of veterans’ military mental health and tell you a few of the reasons he is a better bet than anyone else in parliamentary politics when it comes to Britain’s former soldiers, sailors and airmen.

He doesn’t separate the PTSD epidemic from civilian mental health

Another veteran and myself questioned Corbyn on veterans’ mental health at a small meeting held by Unite the Union in August 2016.

Both of us have PTSD as a result of service; thousands of other do as well. Both of us feel iffy about the web of gravy train military charities which many working class ex-servicemen are forced to rely on alongside a struggling NHS.

In response, Corbyn recognised that there is a mental health epidemic in society and set out his plan to deal with it. It is particularly notable that he did not appear to separate military from civilian mental health.

His answer, it appears, is proper publicly-funded treatment for all those in need. Those who are serving in the military get this as part and parcel of being in the military – though there are a lot of improvements to be made to in-service medical care.

Veterans, as I said, rely on charities and the NHS. But it is my firm view that the charities exist, in part, because the NHS has been pared back to a privatised skeleton of what it should be.

One cannot help but think a properly funded NHS would eliminate the need for the over 300, often highly political, military charities in Britain today.

Which major figure in progressive mainstream politics is most stalwartly and meaningfully defending the NHS with a view to reinvigorating it? I can tell you that their name is not Theresa May.

Corbyn doesn’t hero-worship the armed forces

Corbyn is not in love with the military. He does not appear to buy into the trend of gushing over soldiers as heroes whenever he is in front a camera as so many parliamentarians seem to enjoy doing.

Likewise, he does not precede every comment he makes on a military issue discussed in parliament with a giddy spiel about how grateful we must all be for our ‘brave servicemen’ for blowing up pick-up trucks in Syria on our behalf.

Why is this good?

Well, apart from how distasteful and outdated this kind of creaking nationalism is, the hyper-masculine lionisation of soldiers is bad for their mental health because it puts them on a pedestal.

The ‘hero thing’ dehumanises veterans and obscures the fact that they can face serious mental health issues because of trauma and distress as a result of their service.

Dealing with PTSD, adjustment disorder or depression brought on by military service should require – as all illness ought to – a grown up approach to treatment, care and transition and at no point should it include a cynical politicisation – of ‘hero-isation’, if you like – of psychologically-damaged military veterans.

Corbyn does not cash in on soldiers by trying to sound nationalistic or patriotically appreciative. I, for one, appreciate that fact.

He has taken responsibility for Labour’s role in Iraq

Corbyn has taken responsibility for Labour’s key role in the ethical black hole that was the Iraq occupation and in doing so took responsibility for the damage done to all participants.

This, for many veterans of that war whom I have spoken to, means something. In the military you are told to take responsibility for your comrades; to be responsible for your actions; to be honest and frank. In practice this is mostly just wind, but the sentiments are powerful.

Corbyn is the first major political figure to put his hand up and say that the war should not have happened: a view which is as widely held among Iraq veterans as among civilians.

The architects and major backers of the war have mostly since sloped off into the shadows or are fighting a deluded defence of the 2003 invasion based on their suddenly discovered love of the Kurds or opposition to dictatorship or similar.

He is extremely cautious about thrusting troops into armed conflict

What is mistaken for or slurred as a ‘pacifism’ from Corbyn is actually an understandable caution about the idea of going to war. It should be a prerequisite for anyone wielding executive power because, believe me, war is a very messy business.

This is a trait effectively unheard of in Blairite circles where, with the possible exception of Dan Jarvis, there exists in buckets that kind of war horny blood lust for armed conflict reserved for those who will never, have never, been a part of it.

Corbyn’s attitude is precisely what it should be when considering armed conflict: gravely serious and rational.

His views on defence, on which I also briefly questioned him at that recent meeting, appear to reflect a lifelong view that the exercise of violent military force should be a last resort. It is a view shared by many ex-servicemen and women.

Much can be said to recommend a Corbyn defence policy and indeed much will be said when his shadow defence secretary, Clive Lewis – the first man in the role to have worn uniform since Nicholas Soames in the 2000s by my calculations – completes his defence review.

But what we can say right now is that keeping unnecessary foreign wars like the one I served in in Afghanistan to a sensible minimum is a good way to safeguard soldiers’ bodies and minds.

The right-wing of Labour are the quintessential long-range patriots, willing to spill other people’s sons’ blood for US foreign policy goals while they clap at the back. Until such time as they get a handle on this issue, they can’t be allowed to have responsible positions of power…such as control of the military.

Think of them as the clumsy cousin who has to drink from a beaker instead of a glass.

Jeremy Corbyn apologises on behalf of the Labour party for the Iraq War

In 2016, Jeremy Corbyn took the unprecedented decision to apologise for his party, under the leadership of Tony Blair, taking Britain into the illegal and unjustifed war in Iraq. In this video, he explains why this apology is owed to the people of Iraq, the families of those soldiers who died or returned home injured or incapacitated, and British citizens who feel their democracy was traduced and undermined.

Source: The Guardian

The army operates according to ideas that are recognisably of the right: submission, obedience, unaccountable power, nationalism, lethal and racialised violence.

But what does it mean? Well, it refutes the idea that the British military is somehow politically benign. The army has always been a hotbed of politics. How this happens at the top of the military is illustrated by a recent Warrior Nation report from Forces Watch, which examines how senior officers increasingly intervene in, and against, democracy. Less remarked upon is how those at the bottom are engaged politically.

Does this mean the army is now the BNP with berets? No, but in some respects, the UK military – the institution, rather than the people – is itself a far-right organisation. On one hand it is anchored to a violent colonial past that it gleefully celebrates. On the other, the army operates according to ideas that are recognisably of the right: submission, obedience, unaccountable power, nationalism, a commitment to remaking the world with lethal, racialised violence, and so on. Other visible far-right traits include a selective reading of history. The MoD’s recent marking of Black History Month celebrated soldiers, sailors and airmen of colour but failed to mention Britain’s centuries-long military domination of Indians, Africans and others.

To expect an organisation such as the British army, which encourages employees to take active pride in the past suppression of colonised peoples (my own unit was proud to have inherited a VC from Rorke’s Drift), to be compatible with values such as multiculturalism is optimistic, to say the least.

What incentive is there, we might ask, to be multiculturalist when so much military identity – for example, the battle honours embroidered on your unit’s colours – stems from the names of Indian or Afghan towns whose mutinous citizens were ravaged, robbed and raped by the “warrior” ancestors you toast at mess evenings?

What other factors could explain the interest of these young servicemen, who seemed so excited to see one of Britain’s most notorious bigots? The far right makes constant appeals to masculinity, and military men are trained to be men like no others, at least in their own minds.

But there is more to the story, if you have eyes to see it. A quick scan of their cap badges will tell you the young men in the picture are in northern English infantry regiments. In most cases the infantry are the poorest boys, recruited in a targeted way, as per MoD policy, from communities battered by decades of neoliberalism.

Having grown up in one myself, I know that these shattered communities, stripped of identity and solidarity, can be susceptible to far-right ideas. Some sympathy with ideas such as those espoused by Robinson is unsurprising.

The British military prides itself on traditions that, in 2018, serve neither the army nor the country. Tacking on a few platitudes about multiculturalism is not enough to bring those values out of the 19th century, but a mature attempt to take ownership of a vicious imperial past (and present) might help. But as ever, when it comes to it, if you want to steer working-class people – including soldiers – away from hatred, it will take a fair economic settlement that rebuilds communities and restores dignity and opportunity.

• Joe Glenton is a former defence journalist. He was a British soldier for six years. He was court-martialed in 2010, and served a nine month jail sentence, for refusing to fight in what he regarded as an unjustified war in Afghanistan.

09 December 2018 London | United Counter-Demonstration Against Fascism and Racism | Details…

Source: IBTimes

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.

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.

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

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 journalist, an Afghan war veteran, member of Veterans for Peace UK, and author of Soldier Box, published by Verso Books.