The Army's (and RAF and RNs) deadliest enemy is at home

There are high-profile prosecutions (many of which collapse) resulting from alleged misdeeds in Iraq ; fears about the impending deployment in Afghanistan ; regiments disbanded and recruitment ailing; controversy about the treatment of recruits. The Sunday Telegraph reported last week on despondency at Catterick's Infantry Training Centre, where instructors live in fear of accusations of abuse.

The other night, I met a friend who has a son in the US Army in Iraq . Like every American soldier there, he told me, he finds himself knee-deep in "comfort boxes" and goodwill messages from unknown admirers at home. "Do British soldiers in Iraq get the same sort of stuff?" he asked. Not nearly as much, I said.

In this country, it's an unpopular war. It seems deplorable that our soldiers, doing a difficult and thankless job at risk of their lives, should be tarred with the same brush as Tony Blair, the man responsible for sending them to war.

Prosecutions brought against soldiers accused of misdeeds are utterly unrepresentative of the fine things being done daily by thousands of young men and women on the battlefield. President Bush's Iraq adventure is quite as controversial in the United States as it is in Britain . Yet Americans perceive the distinction between the war's demerits, and a duty of loyalty to those who fight under their country's flag.

Why do we hesitate to do likewise? Soldiers who mistreat prisoners or civilians must be punished. But it seems sorely mistaken to use these cases, or for that matter allegations of bullying in British barracks, to compromise the regard in which the Armed Forces have always been held by the British people.

We are getting ourselves into a shocking tangle about what we expect from warriors. Throughout history, it has been understood that wars make unique demands on those who fight them. These can be met only by creating a service ethos utterly different from civilian life, not least in its willingness for sacrifice.

Today, politicians and lawyers have thrust upon the Armed Forces restrictions and legal burdens designed to drive them into line with modern civilian practice. This is madness. Those who administer the Infantry Training Centre at Catterick are scarcely allowed to impose discipline on new recruits, lest they quit or sue.

Many line battalions have to run their own training programmes for alleged trained soldiers from the ITC, to render them fit to serve. Faced with the most rudimentary discipline - punctuality, kit inspections, morning runs, obedience to orders - many young men literally pack up and go home.

The excesses of European Human Rights law are bad enough in civil life, but disastrous when imposed upon the Services. The current issue of British Army Review carries a letter from a veteran warrant officer, suggesting that young soldiers no longer find it acceptable to give "casual salutes" to officers. The First Sea Lord, Sir Alan West, said this month that the Armed Forces face "legal encirclement" from human rights. Every officer knows what he means. Circumstance and misguided policy unite against discipline, confidence and morale.

An unpopular war, unfavourable publicity and a sense among the young that the Services are uncool, have hit recruiting and made many parents reluctant to see their children serve. Shortage of bodies, together with the culture of litigation, make officers and NCOs - especially corporals at the sharp end - increasingly hesitant about the management of those in their charge. Civilian officials and lawyers intervene with increasing energy in the traditional process of military justice.

Training is suffering severely from budget cuts. Large-scale exercises are cancelled, equipment programmes delayed. Finally, draconian political restraints imposed by this Government make senior officers reluctant to open their mouths publicly.

Those at the bottom of the chain of command need a lead, to restore their confidence. Politically-imposed silence at the top can only be construed by those at the bottom as meaning: "You're on your own if it goes wrong, mate."

The Armed Forces exist to do an extraordinarily tough job in harsh circumstances. Unless men can be conditioned for the tests every warrior faces on the battlefield, how can they meet these? Almost all military operations are carried out in heat, cold or wet, often in the dark watches of the night, by men who must risk their lives when tired and hungry, far from home.

One of the oldest military maxims is "train hard, fight easy". If Britain 's Armed Forces are obliged to conform to the social and legal standards now prevailing in civil life, their future is bleak indeed, because these will render them unconvincing warriors.

A retired general tells me of conversations with several officers who have left the Services: "They say they find civilian life a breath of fresh air, because they no longer have to work with all the taboos and restrictions that are making uniformed life fantastically difficult. It's becoming easier to give an order in a civilian business than in a service unit."

Most of us have always taken pride in the fact that Britain's Armed Forces may not be the biggest, but man for man are the best. This will no longer be true, unless we change course. It is vital to get politicians and lawyers off the soldiers' backs. Political correctness may be a cliché, but for the services it has become a curse.

Right now the Services are feeling unloved. We should try to change that. Anybody who wants to write or send a parcel to a serviceman in Iraq or Afghanistan can find addresses on the net through BFPO.org.uk. The Armed Forces are among Britain 's finest institutions. It is shameful that they are taking so much of the pain for this Government's deceits and failures.

Back To Homepage