Painful Truths

Iraq's message to the British army: good riddance!

The British occupation forces (BOF) today formally left Iraq, six years after they joined the Israeli-inspired and US-led invasion of the country. (UK seeks deals amid Iraq pullout)

In those six years, the BOF lost 179 soldiers. They had invaded a country that posed no threat to Britain. They went to Iraq to kill Iraqis and to ensure that Israel remains militarily predominant in the Middle East. They died thousands of miles away from their country, defending no British interest worthy of mention.

At the same time, over one million Iraqis have been killed. (More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered) 

However, judging by BBC radio and television coverage of the withdrawal, and the repeated mention of the 179 dead, one would think that the British army had saved Britain from an existential threat, that it had fought a mighty enemy and emerged victorious. Nothing is said, of course, about the fact that it had invaded a sovereign country with a demoralized army that was equipped with dilapidated, Soviet-built 1970s- and 1980s-vintage weapons.

There is nothing heroic about what the British armed forces have done in Iraq. They invaded on the basis of a lie, achieved nothing and left the place  in a mess. History will judge them, and those who set them off on the invasion, harshly.

I say to the British armed forces: good riddance! I look forward to their American masters leaving, also in ignominy.

Britain's Gurkhas

The British government has suffered a shock defeat in the House of Commons, parliament's lower chamber, on its policy of restricting the right of many former Gurkhas to settle in the UK, the BBC reported today. (Brown defeated over Gurkha rules)

Personally, I don't understand what's all the fuss about.

According to the BBC, Gurkhas have been part of the British Army for almost 200 years (Who are the Gurkhas?). 

"Following the partition of India in 1947, an agreement between Nepal, India and Britain meant four Gurkha regiments from the Indian army were transferred to the British Army, eventually becoming the Gurkha Brigade.

"Since then, the Gurkhas have loyally fought for the British all over the world, receiving 13 Victoria Crosses between them.

"More than 200,000 fought in the two world wars and in the past 50 years, they have served in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Borneo, Cyprus, the Falklands, Kosovo and now in Iraq and Afghanistan."

In other words, the Gurkhas are mercenaries. They fight for money. Why else would they risk death and injury fighting for a foreign country?

There is nothing romantic or honourable about someone who fights for money. The fact that the Gurkhas come from a poor country and may see service in the British armed forces as a means of attaining a relatively decent standard of living does not change the fact that they are soldiers of fortune.

In the course of the campaign to make Gurkhas' pay and pension rights comparable to those of regular British soldiers, and to give them the right of residence in Britain, Gurkhas and their supporters often cite the Gurkhas' love of, and devotion to, Britain. 

Rather than endear them to me, I am sorry to say that this makes me contemptuous of them. Why would a Nepalese mercenary love and be devoted to the country that has hired him to kill? 

In a nutshell, unless enhanced pay, pension and residence rights are part of their mercenary contracts, why should the Gurkhas be put on par with the Britons who volunteer to join their country's armed forces. And why should they have residence rights?