Libya; Where Are We Headed?

Are you, like me, very confused about the UK's involvement in Libya? David Cameron and his cabinet have been careful to observe the legalities and to obtain UN authorization. It is not a repeat of Iraq. Nevertheless, I find myself asking why it is that UK forces are now involved in military action which, at best, the Arab world blows hot and cold about and which Russia, China and Turkey did not lend their support to. In fact, it seems that Italy is threatening to curtail the use of their air bases and the United States are wanting to pass command back to the UN as quickly as possible. All this adds up to a picture of great uncertainty which has been heightened by the public disagreement of government ministers and military commentators about whether a regime change is the object in view or merely a restraining of attacks against the civilian population. This raises the question of whether attacks by Gadafi's militia or the UN bombing itself will, in the end, kill and wound more people and deprive more of the population of the basics for human life and dignity. 

Although the situation is not a re-run of the last war in Iraq, it has produced an unsettling feeling that, once again, we are leaping into a political situation we do not understand and have no end-game plan for. And why take action over Libya but not other Middle Eatsern countries? The stated aim is humanitarian but it seems that the UN is very selective in where, when and by what means it intervenes and there are already voices in the surrounding  Arab nations suggesting that the use of force over Tripoli, Sebha and Benghazi is disproportionate. Clearly the Middle East does not trust the motivation of, particularly, America and the UK. Does this display of force have more to do with oil and with the way Gadafi is viewed by the Americans? Barak Obama has stated that he wishes to see the end of the regime though by economic sanction rather than force. I seem to recall George W. indicating that he would finish the job his father had failed to complete in Iraq by bringing down Saddam Hussein and it is statements like this that throw into question the objectivity of the Western leaders and governments. I would be a great deal more persuaded that this is the right course of action if it was under UN command and nations other than the USA, the UK and France were lending greater active support and involvement.

Our thoughts are with the people of Libya and the service men and women involved in the strikes.

The Armed Forces Community Covenant

With the large number of Armer Forces personnel in the area, I've been giving some thought to what the Military Covenant means. For those of you who, like me, until a few days ago were a bit hazy on its contents, the Covenant (which has existed since 2000) states that the Government
 'expects the Armed Forces to carry out their duties in defence of the state to the best of their abilities, up to and including the possibility of death in action. In return, the Armed Forces expect that they and their immediate dependants will be cared for both during and after service. The nation should respect, honour and endorse the sacrifices made by the Armed Forces on its behalf. This must be a two way relationship and, just as the Armed Forces expect the nation to recognize their 'right to be different', so they must respect the values of the society they represent and defend.'

The Prime Minister recently asked for a report showing how the Military Covenant can be rebuilt and strengthened. The Task Force commissioned to do the job reported in September 2010 with, among other things, a recommendation that an Armed Forces Community Covenant be established. This will enable 'central and local government, charities and society more widely to join together to support the 'Armed Forces Family' - serving personnel, veterans, reservists and their families.

What might the Community Covenant mean? The report recognises that this will have to be worked out differently in every area but some examples of good practice are given - closer links between military services and civilian services and charities, Welfare Pathway Schemes which help families access support from MOD, Local Authority, statutory providers and the voluntary sector from 'one stop' access points.  Some areas already have Armed Forces Community Champions. Scarborough has a 'Heroes Welcome' scheme which allows military personnel discount from local businesses. Help with legal aid, financial management, insurance and finding local employment could also be provided, as could discounted driving lessons and car hire in rural areas and schemes that provide special help for children moving schools. The report gives examples of schemes that benefit both the local community and the military personnel such as provision of extra dental care,  schemes for early learning and greater support for local cultural activites.

Some of the military chaplains and the local clergy are planning a study day together in February to look at what it is possible for the churches and the civilian clergy to get involved with. The report describes Firm Base Programmes where there are Army Super Garrisons. Catterick is one such garrison (others are at Aldershot and Tidworth) seeking to provide geater stability for Armed Forces personnel so that families will not have to move around so much and soldiers will have a better sense of identity with the community to which they return between tours of duty. We need to do some creative thinking around what response we can make to this new approach to working in partnership with our military personnel. All part of the Big Society agenda, I think, and, as much as some scepticism about political motivation might be justified, we would be ill advised to ignore the opportunities to create better social cohesion and to recognise the special place and needs of those who serve their country and their dependants. 

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/military_covenant
or put  army community covenant into your search engine and click on FAQs