Latest news with #DefenceStaff
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Gagging the military is a mistake
Some weeks ago at an army conference I listened to senior officers discussing the lethal, agile, 'integrated' British military of the future as set out in the government's recent Strategic Defence Review. Unfortunately I can't tell you what they said. The Chief of the General Staff Sir Roly Walker answered questions on what the SDR meant for the army. I can't tell you what he said either. Officers attending the conference were apparently told that, if they found themselves in accidental conversation with a journalist, they were to extricate themselves immediately. At a time of increased focus on national defence, it was a poor day for transparency. This was not a one off. A new Downing Street diktat bans senior officers (and also civil servants, diplomats and other public officials) from speaking at events that include question and answer sessions, or where the media is expected to be in attendance. Only ministers can now represent the government position. Officials have even been told not to speak to journalists on background. This unprecedented gag weakens public understanding of defence, is self-defeating, and displays an astonishing lack of trust. Relations between soldiers and governments have never been easy. Senior officers have often plunged into the political fray to gain institutional or budgetary advantage. Churchill's generals bemoaned his interference in military affairs; he in turn criticised their politicking and lack of strategic acumen. More recently, the concentration of financial and political power within the Ministry of Defence at the expense of the individual military services has curtailed open professional policy discussion. Post-Cold War spats over defence cuts, and the course of conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya also left a legacy of distrust. David Cameron famously told his generals in 2011 to do the fighting while he did the talking. Although governments have always sought to control 'the narrative', recently a persistent pattern has emerged of the government trying to prevent those working in defence in the public sector from communicating with the outside world via experts, think tanks and the media. In January 2024, General Walker's predecessor was slapped down for his misinterpreted comments about Britain needing a 'whole of nation' approach to defence (a wise view now embedded in the SDR). In April this year, the Chief of Defence Staff Tony Radakin addressed the National Defence University in Beijing. The MoD did not tell the public about the visit or what he said; we all first heard about it via the Chinese Ministry of Defence. Keir Starmer has promised 'transparency in everything we do', but defence reporters tell me that No. 10 is obsessed with a narrow defence message about jobs and domestic growth, not the risk of war with Russia or why investment is required. Backdrops, buzzwords and bland platitudes are prioritised over informed content. Media visits to defence establishments have been reduced and briefings curtailed; Labour ministers have decreed that every MoD press release should have a political message. The situation is not helped by a reactive, defensive MoD press operation focused on the news of the day rather than wider themes. Spin often gets in the way of substance. This is all unwise. Firstly, the clamp down reduces public understanding. Hard pressed ministers do not have the time nor professional knowledge to be able to explain the breadth and complexity of activity across defence. Some are better communicators than others. Those checking speeches in No. 10 lack experience, often erring on the side of caution, further reducing clarity. This means the official view can be poorly reflected, or reflected in strange ways by blocking mid-ranking subject matter experts from engaging directly. Secondly, the gag actively works against the government's own agenda. Defence is now the stated top priority of this government. The SDR recommended 'reconnecting defence with society'. This will be difficult. With the UK military so small, the public see less and less of it. Fewer have a direct family connection with it. Only half of the population believe spending on defence should increase. Less believe that increasing defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, as promised the recent Nato summit, should come at the expense of health, welfare or benefits. Changing these perspectives requires more, not less, public discourse to build understanding and confidence. Thirdly, although politicians – rightly – should be the primary voice for a 'national conversation led by the government' on defence, senior officers and officials can assist them by explaining, supporting, clarifying and emphasising policy. Political sensibility is a prerequisite for the highest ranks of the military and civil service; the government should use those officials to strengthen defence ties with society. They should not marginalise them. Abroad, diplomats should be free to explain UK policy to our allies, not be prevented from doing so. Lastly, openness is a key principle for public life. No. 10's pettifogging tendency for ever greater centralisation and its evident distrust for its own officials goes against the empowered, unshackled and 'emboldened civil service' that Starmer says he wants. Control freakery diminishes the public realm. The first anniversary of Labour's election has found Starmer at the lowest point of his premiership. A shake up is due. But not everything is political; a 'whole of society' approach on defence means just that. It's time that Walker and his colleagues are uncorked.
The Print
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Print
Why was war not goal? If we don't reclaim PoK now, then when—Gogoi asks Centre in Op Sindoor debate
Operation Sindoor was a series of missile attacks by the Indian armed forces on nine terror targets in Pakistan and PoK in the early hours of 7 May 2025. The strikes drew military retaliation from Pakistan, including attempts to target Indian air bases. Gogoi, the Congress's Deputy Leader in Lok Sabha, who was the first speaker from the Opposition side, also questioned the government's silence on reports that India lost an unspecified number of Rafale fighter jets during the operation in May, citing remarks by Chief of Defence Staff Anil Chauhan and India's defence attache to Indonesia Captain Shiv Kumar. New Delhi: The Opposition Monday opened the Lok Sabha debate on Opposition Sindoor on an aggressive note, with Congress's Gaurav Gogoi questioning the sudden halt of the military strikes against Pakistan, asserting that 'war' and reclaiming of Pakistan-Occupied J&K 'should have been the objective' of the government to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack. 'The country and the opposition stood with the prime minister, but suddenly we were told that there was a ceasefire. If Pakistan was on its knees, why did you surrender? Whom did you surrender to? US President Donald Trump has claimed 26 times that he used trade as a warning and forced the two countries to end the war. He also claims that five to six fighter jets were downed…Every jet is worth millions and millions. Losing even some is a big loss, I feel,' said Gogoi. Speaking in the Lok Sabha earlier today, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh stated that Operation Sindoor has only been paused and will be resumed if Pakistan engages in any misadventure again. He also underlined that it demonstrated India's resolve to enter Pakistan's territory and carry out strikes against forces inimical to India's interests. To this, Gogoi countered, 'Were we not told this exact thing in 2016 and 2019? That we have entered their territory and demolished terror infrastructure. We were told after the Pulwama attack that we have sent our jets and Pakistan will not show the courage to attack us again. Now he (Rajnath) says that Operation Sindoor is not over yet, as Pakistan may come for us again. How has it been a success then?' The MP from Assam's Jorhat added, 'He (Rajnath) stated that war was not our objective. But we ask why was it not our objective? It ought to have been. He says land was not our goal. We ask, why not? If we are not reclaiming Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir now, then when?' In his speech, Gogoi also targeted Home Minister Amit Shah, who was present in the House, as he spoke. Shah, he said, cannot 'take cover' behind Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha for the security lapse that led to the attack and the death of 26 people at Pahalgam's Baisaran Valley. 'If someone has to take the responsibility, moral responsibility, it cannot be the L-G, but it has to be the home minister. You can't take cover behind the L-G. And the government is so cowardly that it even blamed the tour operators. That they didn't know that tour operators were taking people to the tourist site,' Gogoi said, referring to claims made by certain officials of the security establishment in an all-party meeting held after the attack at the Parliament annexe. Gogoi was also unsparing of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was on a visit to Saudi Arabia when the attack took place. 'When the PM returned, he should have first gone to Pahalgam. Instead, he went to Bihar and delivered a political speech,' Gogoi said, triggering protests from the treasury benches and Speaker Om Birla who asked the Congress leader to desist from placing 'wrong facts' in the House. Gogoi also questioned the reason behind the defence minister skipping any mention of China in his speech, despite the recent remarks of Deputy Chief of Army Staff Lieutenant General Rahul R. Singh that China provided vital support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor. 'You boast of showing red eyes to China, then why did you not mention China even once in your speech? We want to know from the prime minister and defence minister on the extent of help Pakistan received from China,' Gogoi said, claiming that even New Delhi's 'traditional allies' have hyphenated it with Islamabad raising a question mark on India's foreign policy. (Edited by Insha Jalil Waziri) Also Read: India wanted a stable, prosperous Pakistan but our peace efforts were mistaken for weakness: Rajnath
NDTV
13 hours ago
- Politics
- NDTV
"Opposition Should Ask If Terror Bases Destroyed": Rajnath Singh On Op Sindoor
New Delhi: The opposition's questions on the Pahalgam terror attack and losses suffered during Operation Sindoor - specifically the number of Indian fighter jets shot down by Pakistan - "do not adequately represent our national sentiments", Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said in Parliament Monday afternoon. Mr Singh urged the opposition to ignore "issues... that remain comparatively small (and) can divert attention from national security" as he waved away criticisms and questions. In an hour-long speech to open the debate on Pahalgam and Op Sindoor, Rajnath Singh rebuked the opposition and said the questions that should have been asked were "how many enemy aircraft were shot down" and "did India destroy terrorist bases". "A few members of the opposition have been asking... 'how many of our aircraft were shot down?' I feel their question does not adequately represent our national sentiments. They have not asked us how many enemy aircraft we shot down," the Defence Minister began. Last month sources in the Indian military told NDTV six Pak jets had been shot down, in addition to at least 10 armed UAVs, or unmanned aerial vehicles and a C-130 Hercules transport. "If they must ask a question... it should be 'did India destroy terrorist bases?' And the answer to that is 'yes!' If they have a question, it should be 'was Operation Sindoor a success?' And the answer is 'yes!' They should ask 'were terrorist leaders killed?' The answer is 'yes!'" "And if you have more questions to ask, ask this... 'were any of our brave soldiers harmed in this mission?' The answer is 'no, none of our soldiers were harmed'," Mr Singh thundered. The Defence Minister's sharp remarks were a direct response to the opposition's questions about damage to Indian military infrastructure and assets during Operation Sindoor. Pakistan had claimed its air defence network had shot down six Indian fighter jets. India has confirmed damage but refused to give specifics; Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan had said, "What is important is... not that the jet was shot but why they were..." That question was raked up last week by United States President Donald Trump, who continues to wrongly claim credit for the India-Pak ceasefire and, this time, claimed five fighter jets had been shot down during the India-Pak conflict. He did not say if the the jets were Indian. The comment, though, was picked up by the Congress' Rahul Gandhi, who asked, "(Prime Minister Narendra) Modi ji... what is the truth behind... The country has a right to know." The Defence Minister hit back today at these and other points argued by the opposition, including possible intel failures that allowed the Pahalgam terror attack in the first place. At the outset he declared Op Sindoor "a story of valour of India", drawing parallels between the military action and the vermillion mark married Hindu women wear on their foreheads. " Ye sindoor ki laali, shaurya ki kahani hai. Bharat ke mastak par veerta ki nishani hai ('this vermilion is a story of valour. It is a symbol of bravery on the forehead of India')," he said. READ | PM Modi Named Pahalgam Response Operation 'Sindoor'. Why? The military operation - India's first tri-service mission against Pak since the 1971 war - had been named by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in honour of the women whose husbands were among the 26 people, most of whom were civilians, killed in the Pahlagam terror attack. Rajnath Singh also praised the Indian military and underlined precision strikes that destroyed nine terror camps in Pak and Pak-occupied Kashmir and killed over 100 terorrists. All of this, the Defence Minister said, was accomplished in nine minutes in attacks that caused no civiliian casualties, despite what Islamabad claimed. And India's air defence systems, drone countermeasures, and electronic equipment had together "foiled Pakistan's attacks", he said. "Pakistan could not hit our targets... there was no damage to any of our important assets," he continued, addressing widespread speculation that Pak's missile and drone attacks had damaged Indian military infrastructure and shot down at least one of the new Rafale fighter jets.
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
In Lok Sabha, Rajnath Singh reveals why India paused military action against Pakistan
Defence minister Rajnath Singh said on Monday that India had halted its military action against Pakistan in May as it had met all its political and military objectives, and not under any pressure. Defence minister Rajnath Singh with Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan, Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Dinesh K Tripathi and Defence Secretary, Rajesh Kumar Singh after paying tribute to fallen heroes on the occasion of Kargil Vijay Diwas at National War Memorial, New Delhi, on Saturday. (ANI) "India paused its action because the predecided political and military objectives were achieved. Saying that this operation was paused under any pressure is baseless and absolutely wrong. In my political life, I have always tried not to speak lies ever,' Rajnath Singh. said. The defence minister initiated the discussion in the Lok Sabha during Parliament's Monsoon Session on Operation Sindoor, India's military's response to the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, in which 26 people were killed. Also Follow | Parliament Monsoon Session live updates Rajnath Singh asserted that the armed forces are ever vigilant to defend India's borders, and Operation Sindoor was an effective and well-coordinated strike against nine terror sites. Opening the debate in the Lok Sabha on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, he said seven terror camps were fully destroyed. He said India has proof of the damage incurred inside PoK and Pakistan. The entire operation was over in 22 minutes, and the Pahalgam killings were avenged. Also Follow | 'Never asked how many enemy jets shot down': Rajnath Singh slams Opposition over Operation Sindoor The attacks, he asserted, were non-escalatory in nature. "Before executing Operation Sindoor, our forces studied every aspect and chose option that would cause maximum damage to terrorists, while ensuring no harm to innocent civilians," Singh said.
Business Insider
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Insider
Nigeria strengthens military ties with breakaway Sahel states amid insecurity
Nigeria's Chief of Defence Staff, General Christopher Musa, has confirmed that the country remains firmly aligned with the military forces of Mali, Burkina Faso, and the Niger Republic in a joint effort to confront shared security threats across West Africa. Nigeria aligns collaboratively with Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger to address regional security concerns. Chief of Defence Staff General Christopher Musa emphasized the importance of defense cooperation across porous borders. Nigeria maintains its commitment to regional cooperation amidst evolving geopolitical dynamics. Speaking at the University of Ibadan during a lecture organised by the TETFUND Centre of Excellence in Security Management, Musa affirmed that the military alliance between Nigeria and the Sahel states remains active despite political tensions and recent withdrawals from regional blocs. He highlighted that the increasing fragility of state security, compounded by porous borders, has made cross-border cooperation not only necessary but urgent. According to The Guardian Nigeria, Musa noted that Nigeria cannot afford to be isolated in the fight against transnational threats. He warned that instability in neighbouring countries, if left unaddressed, could spill into Nigeria's territory. 'If we don't help them to stand strong, the effect will come on us,' he said. To tackle one of the most pressing issues of border insecurity Musa renewed his call for the fencing of key sections of Nigeria's borders. He described the initiative as a strategic and intentional move that Nigeria must adopt, referencing Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan as examples of nations that have implemented effective border fortifications to safeguard national security. While political developments may have altered regional alliances, Musa asserted that military cooperation continues undeterred. He stated, 'Politically, the three countries of Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso may have exited, but militarily we still work together. ' He noted that crises such as climate-driven migration, terrorism, and economic disparity have created fertile ground for instability, particularly in already fragile states like Nigeria. Nigeria embraces 'big brother' role Amid the unravelling of traditional regional alliances in West Africa, Nigeria is reinforcing its role as a stabilising force by deepening diplomatic and military engagement with the breakaway Alliance of Sahel States (AES), comprising Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Despite the trio's formal exit from ECOWAS in early 2025 and their increasing pivot away from Western influence, Nigeria has resisted isolating its northern neighbours. Instead, it has adopted a pragmatic approach—one that prioritises security collaboration over political estrangement. The AES bloc—comprising Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger—emerged after the trio's joint withdrawal from ECOWAS in early 2025, marking a major shift in regional alliances. While the bloc has strengthened ties and rejected Western influence, Nigeria has opted to stay engaged, aiming to preserve its leadership role. In an earlier report by Business Insider Africa, Nigeria's Foreign Minister, Yusuf Tuggar, reaffirmed Abuja's commitment to regional cooperation, stressing that Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger remain crucial to West Africa's economic future despite their exit from ECOWAS. Analysts argue that Nigeria's deep ties and shared borders make disengagement untenable. With jihadist insurgencies, arms trafficking, and humanitarian crises spilling across borders, Abuja appears determined to sustain operational links with the AES states—even outside traditional multilateral frameworks. Whether this deepening engagement leads to lasting realignment or remains a temporary response to crisis is still uncertain. For now, Nigeria is positioning itself as both mediator and partner in a region increasingly defined by fragmentation and uncertainty.
