When Cameron says we would defend the Falklands, who does he mean by 'we'?

Once upon a time joining the armed forces meant joining a huge extended family which would look after you at all times. That meant, not only the guys around you in a hostile area but also the more senior members of the family in positions of power and authority. As the report in my previous post indicates this is no longer the case; at least as far as those senior family members are concerned.

Now it seems that a soldier must go into battle, be prepared to endanger his life in that battle, just so the politicians can argue afterwards what kind of battle it was and whether any of the opposing forces had their 'yuman rights' violated.

Well the plain truth is that it really doesn't matter what kind of battle it was you can still end up the same kind of dead.

Let me put it another way. A platoon of British soldiers in an advance recconnaisance party come across a squad of hostiles (it doesn't matter whether they are IRA terrorists, insurgents in Afghanistan or Argentinians). A firefight ensues and our guys prevail with several hostiles being catured alive.

A few miles back down the road more of our guys are advancing in battalion strength. It is obviously a priority to discover any fortified or entrenched positions, armoured vehicles, mined areas or IEDs may lie ahead.

Time is of the essence. So would our soldiers be justified in using robust interrogation methods to gain information which might save the lives of their advancing comrades and further the aims of the politicians back in Whitehall?

But it's not really a question a soldier has time to indulgently ask himself. The guys down the road are fellows he eats with, drinks with and who would unquestionly support him in the same circumstances. So he does what he has to do knowing that the enemy would not hesitate to do the same.

When he picks up his gun again to resume the patrol in ever more hostile country, he needs to know that his actions are not going to be picked over by politicians whose political aims are totally different from the ones who started the military action in the first place and 'yuman rights' lawyers whose only aims are the pursuit of personal wealth. It is simply not fair on him, or justifiable to his family, to ask him to ask it of him without that political and legal support.

However it seems that David Cameron expects our troops to go into action again at his request over the Falkland Islands. Of course it may just be sabre rattling by both sides. But this is what Cameron said yesterday to Andrew Marr when asked if the UK would fight to keep the Falklands:

Of course we would

.

By 'we' of course he does not mean himself or any of his cronies. He means a number of underpaid and under equipped service men and women whose jobs are utterly insecure and who he will stab in the back at the first hint of legal action in Strasbourg.

So I say, in the light of the way the UK government is treating former paras who fought in No. Ireland and his mistreatment of the soldiers enquiring into the deaths of six military policemen in Afghanistan, bollocks to the Falkland Islanders. If they are so important to Cameron he can bloody well fight for them himself.