Threatening Oman Is Threatening British Armed Forces

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

A month ago I wrote about America’s clumsy attempt at extortion in the Gulf, which was hastily retracted. Now Washington has sunk to a new low by threatening one of the West’s most important allies in the region, where British diplomats and service personnel are embedded in the national armed forces.

Britain has a deep relationship with Oman dating to the 18th century Treaty of Friendship. This was cemented when the Southern Arabian insurgencies began in 1963. Whereas the British government pulled out of Aden, it remained committed to support Oman in their Dhofar War. This was an “undeclared campaign” and although the British Media has focused on the role of the SAS, their involvement was only a small part of the overall British military deployment. For example, my first tank troop sergeant in the 17th/21st Lancers was awarded the equivalent of the Military Medal for bravery in a desert battle and the officer who took over B Squadron from me in 1985 was also recognised for his gallantry when he commanded a troop of Saladin light tanks in the 1970s.

Since then, British soldiers, sailors and air personnel have continued to be embedded in the Omani armed forces on loan service appointments and British military advisors serve in Omani headquarters. In addition, all three British services train there; for example, the series of major combat exercises named Saif Sareea have been vital for identifying lessons that were fixed before operational deployments. The last one involved 5,500 British troops and over 70,000 from the Sultan of Oman’s Armed Forces.

Anyone who knows their history, knows how important Oman is in the Gulf Region and what a good ally it has been to the West. Threatening to bomb Oman is like threatening to invade Greenland. Not only is it illegal, but all it does is store up ill-will and push friends into the adversary’s camp – coercion is not for allies.

Oman In 2016 Before Saif Sareea 3

Domestic Distractions Don’t Disguise Escalation in Ukraine

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

Although the nature of war doesn’t change in the sense of its primeval violence and devastating effects, the way war is waged has changed dramatically in the past year. Throughout history, there has always been a balance between attrition and manoeuvre, or indirect fire and close combat. The invention of the tank in the 20th century gave the advantage to the latter, but missile and drone technology has reversed this in 21st century war.

So what has changed during the past year in the Russo-Ukrainian War? I see three major evolutions. The first is more civilian targeting; 2025 was the deadliest according to the UN and this year the trend has continued, with the grim attack on the Kyiv Flea Market last night as a prime example. The second is strategic targeting; Moscow has always used missiles to hit major cities in Ukraine, but advances in drone technology have allowed Kyiv to strike effectively all over Russia. The third is linked to the other two and is the most depressing of all – the rules of war are being increasingly broken in terms of treatment of prisoners and respect for non-combatants.

This is more and more looking like total war and the risks of further escalation, either in terms of violence spreading into Free Europe, or the use of battlefield nuclear weapons in Ukraine is increasing. So what should we do about it? One thing that isn’t being spoken about, which I believe would help, is to form a separate Air Defence (AD) branch in the MoD. Of course there will be huge resistance from the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, but we must learn the lessons from the Middle East and Ukraine and adapt accordingly to the new character of war.

The Defence Secretary’s First Dilemma

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

It is almost 30 years since I introduced mixed gender training into the Royal Armoured Corps’ recruit training programme at Winchester. During that time, I had to deal with several instances of female complaints about harassment, when I needed to take decisive action against the perpetrators. Our best practice was eventually spread across the individual training system; I am therefore appalled to hear that the measures we established about core values have not been maintained at the Army Foundation College (AFC) and yet again the Army’s reputation is being tarnished by a philistine few.

The AFC was supposed to be the jewel in the crown of recruit training. It takes young teenagers with the potential to succeed in technical corps and provides education as well as military training before they join their chosen regiments. By definition, the recruits are more intelligent than those destined for the Poor Bloody Infantry (PBI). They should therefore be more receptive to instruction about the values, attitudes and behaviour expected in today’s army.

This is the first important challenge for the new Defence Secretary. He has inherited a responsibility to rebuild the Army to cope with the sort of war that we see on the front line in Ukraine; dirty, exhausting, frightening and grim. The sort of fighting that drains the colour and courage from a human body.

To succeed on the modern battlefield, you need incredible self-discipline and stamina. You only have to look at the Commonwealth Games, or elite level sports teams, to know that there are plenty of young British men and women with those attributes. So what has gone wrong at Harrogate? In a word, supervision. Thirty years ago, the Army ensured its commanding officers strictly followed the Investors in People (IiP) conventions. However, our leadership gave this up as too time-consuming and allowed subordinates more leeway in managing their soldiers.

This has now become a fundamental dilemma for the new Defence Secretary. On the one side, he has to increase numbers and instil a tough warrior ethos in the Army. On the the other hand, he has the challenge of young soldiers complaining about their hardships, encouraged by dedicated campaigners against teenage recruiting, amplified by social media outlets and roused by legal opportunists.

My advice to the new Defence Secretary is to take decisive action. Check the complaints are not by people working the system and if they are genuine, immediately replace the supervisors at Harrogate. More importantly, re-introduce the IiP principles and processes to the individual training organisation, so that instructors are themselves well-led by people who follow the rules.

A Member of the House of Commons Defence Committee Meeting Recruits

Timbuktu to Cueta

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

It has been a week of natural and man-made disasters in Europe and continuing calamities in Ukraine and the Middle East. However, I wish to focus on the fact that no one in the media is making the connection between the recent events in Mali and the sudden surge of migrants swimming into Spain.

I have written about Mali before. Timbuktu’s mythical reputation for Saharan gold and inaccessibility always intrigued me when I was serving in Libya. I was also extremely impressed by the British peacekeeping contribution to the UN Stabilisation Mission there and was very disappointed when the Royal Air Force Chinooks; Army Combat Teams; Medical Aid and Logistics Support on Operation Newcombe were pulled out after the Pandemic.

Since then, French influence has been replaced by Russian mercenaries, but they have not been able to quell the Jihadist rebels and Tuareg independence movement. This irregular alliance has recently advanced into government held territory and led to a surge of forced migration from the North African coast and in this case, the crisis in Cueta.

Now we learn that the Russians have reinforced their units with armoured vehicles that slipped through the English Channel recently, onboard the sanctioned freighter, Mikhail Britnev. Inevitably, the fighting will now become more bitter and the humanitarian consequences will worsen. It is time for the UN to roll up its sleeves, not just stand on the touchline.

When The UN Had Teeth

80 Years Ago The Bikini Was Invented

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

July 1946 was a momentous month in history. The American development of nuclear weapons took several strides with Operation Crossroads. This was the fourth and fifth detonations of atomic bombs in the Pacific Ocean, 520 feet above Bikini Atoll. The bomb was named Gilda after Rita Heyworth’s character in a Hollywood Film. Four days later, a French model posed in the first two-piece swimsuit in Paris, where the designer named the garment a Bikini in a tribute to the nuclear test site. The second atomic bomb, named Helen, was detonated below the surface of the sea at the same test site. This was the first underwater test and the contamination was so bad that a third test planned for the following month was postponed until the 1950s.

There was so much else that was going on that month, which was overshadowed by these tests, but they are worth remembering now because of how they impacted on the Cold War and how they are the stem cells for today’s wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. The first was the refusal of the Soviet Union to accept the UN plan to regulate the use of atomic energy. Believing this would preserve an American monopoly, Andrei Gromyko effectively began the nuclear arms race on 22 July 1946.

The second was Operation Keelhaul, the forced repatriation of Russians, Ukrainians and Cossacks who had helped Germany during World War II and were hiding in Northern Italy. People believe that after the end of hostilities peace broke out everywhere, but in reality there was still much violence and blood letting in Europe, such as the Kielce massacre on 4 July 1946 in Poland.

The third other event, which took the headlines that month, was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Ninety-one people of various nationalities were killed in a terrorist attack that led to: the end of the British mandate in Palestine; the creation of the state of Israel; and the start of the Middle East wars that continue to this day.

There are lessons for potential peacemakers in all of these historical events, not least the modelling of the first Bikini in Paris!

Back To Square One?

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

Or worse? The latest strikes this week are unlikely to bring long-term peace in the Middle East and more likely to lead to revenge attacks for the next decade. One could argue that there never was peace in the Middle East. However, before the beginning of Operation Epic Fury on 28 February 2026, there was diplomatic dialogue, free passage for everyone through the Gulf and economic success. Now, there is the chaos that was predicted by American think tanks, which you can see in the slide below.

Having failed to achieve its strategic objectives, the war has descended into tit-for-tat strikes over the control of the Strait of Hormuz, with the Gulf still closed for business (British Airways has not restarted its operations since they were stopped at the beginning of March). From afar it appears that a Superpower is illegally attempting to take what is not theirs through military blockades and coercion; some might call this colonisation except that it is all about Sea Power and Air Power. Gun boat diplomacy sometimes works, but the Iranian regime is unlikely to bow its head to Washington anytime soon.

Twenty-five years ago, we wrote a paper about America’s role as the World’s policeman after the end of the Cold War. At that time, the USA provided the largest financial support to UN peacekeeping and the World supported them by deploying their blue-helmet forces on the front line. How things have changed. Now, the USA has lost friends and allies, while Iran has gained support from rival powers. Washington’s clumsy demand for a 20% tariff this week is seen for what it is: a desperate attempt at extortion to pay for their folly. Surely, it must be time for a change of approach.

Will Dan Jarvis Stay As Defence Secretary?

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

I was asked yesterday whether I thought the new Prime Minister would change the Secretary of State for Defence when he appoints his first Cabinet later this month.

It is certainly true that top Whitehall Mandarins do not like it when a Secretary of State knows more than they do about their business. So it is very unusual for a regular army officer, who has commanded soldiers on operations and held Grade 2 staff appointments, to become Secretary of State for Defence. Not only will the Civil Servants, Cabinet Office and Treasury be cautious, but the Navy, Air Force and Intelligence Services, who compete for Security funding, will be suspicious that Dan will favour his alma mater.

Given this situation and the fact the new PM will wish to reward those who paved the way for his arrival (including the previous Defence Secretary), it would seem that Dan’s days are numbered. And yet…

Defence is not a vote-winner and no longer as important as it was fifteen years ago. It is in a mess both in terms of funding and capability to meet its remit. It needs a root and branch overhaul, so it is unlikely there will be many ambitious politicians eager to take on the role. More importantly, my sources tell me that Dan passed his first important test at the NATO Summit in Ankara and achieved a strengthening of support to Ukraine and an improvement in Defence Industry deals.

The other important factor is that the arrival of the new resident of 10 Downing Street will coincide with the Summer Recess until September. In some ways that is a good time to take of a new job because parliamentary scrutiny is less. However, it could equally be argued that over the summer, we need someone running Defence who knows what they are talking about, so for me, Dan’s the Man.

Is This A Victory Parade In All But Name?

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

The seven day funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that began on Friday in Tehran and continues with a public holiday and processions in Iran and neighbouring Iraq is perhaps the greatest sign yet that America has backed down from its strategic objectives declared in February.

Not only has the Iranian regime survived but it has strengthened its support while the USA has been weakened politically and diplomatically. Don’t get me wrong, the US still has the most powerful military forces in the World. However, Washington has had to relearn three lessons that were ignored by deluded leaders.

The first is one of my regular refrains: Air Power alone does not work. Bombing a civilian population will not help your cause as Hitler found when he Blitzed London for 56 days in 1940 and Putin has found in his war with Ukraine. All it does is inspire hatred and collective resilience.

The second was also plain to see from the beginning. Before starting a war against a regional power, build a coalition first. This was the key to success in the 1990 war to liberate Kuwait and it was the most important piece of advice that the UK Prime Minister gave to President Bush after 9/11.

The third has many aspects to it, but it comes down to this: play by the rules! When I received a briefing from the Foreign Office about the difference between the West and the Authoritarian Regimes that threaten the World, the answer was that we obey international conventions and the rule of law. That means respecting the United Nations and other international institutions as well as complying with the law of armed conflict. I know it is difficult when the enemy is asymmetric, but ethics in war matter because those on the touch line, such as The International Committee of the Red Cross will be keeping a tally.

The First Troop Onto The Basra Road In 1991

What We Really Need Now…

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

Is a combined arms fighting troops exercise in the United Kingdom that shows the British Public what it means to be At War. In the 1980s, the British Army of the Rhine practised their operating procedures with a deployment of 1st British Corps every autumn, after the farmers had collected their harvest. If it was particularly wet, our 60 ton battle tanks were restricted to roads and tracks. This continued in the UK until the Millennium. For example, in 1994, I organised a brigade FTX that took in the East Midlands, Cumbria, Northumberland and Scotland with live firing at Otterburn and Warcop and gruelling combat training in Kielder Forest.

The organisation of a Corps FTX is probably beyond our current crop of staff officers; for example it takes deep knowledge to co-ordinate a move of 3,000 vehicles without coming to a complete standstill and providing the enemy air force with a sitting-duck target. However, it would not be beyond their capability to link the major training areas of Salisbury Plain, Brecon, Dartmoor, and Otterburn with tanks. artillery and infantry moving between each of them.

The benefits would be two-fold. Firstly, we would relearn many military lessons that have been forgotten in the past 25 years. Second, the public would actually see the armed forces do something real at home not just in some far-away place. For too long, the military has been sidelined in the shadows compared with the American armed forces and those on the front line with Russia.

Exercise Lionheart in Germany

Retreating To Comfort Zones

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

There is a tendency in government departments (and especially the MoD) of avoiding difficult choices. An amusing story that illustrates this is the way Michael Heseltine, as Secretary of State for Defence, avoided making the decision to centralise the three Schools of Music after a number of studies concluded that only one was necessary and money could be transferred to front line troops if one of the three was chosen. A less amusing example is the way the Comprehensive Spending Review of 2007 created the Black Hole that subsequently devastated the Armed Forces fighting capabilities.

Senior officers are as much to blame as the politicians. Between 1999 and 2006, I witnessed countless occasions when the Executive Committee of the Army Board avoided difficult decisions about equipment policy and resources and retreated to their comfort zones of cap-badges and uniforms. The Future Rapid Effects System was a classic army project that failed because it was rooted in theory rather than reality. The problems with Ajax are inherited from that failure combined with the MoD’s headcount reduction forced on the Technical Director’s teams in Abbey Wood (e.g the Reliability and Maintenance Group).

History seems to be repeating itself this month. Politicians are retreating to their comfort zones and avoiding the difficult decisions to meet the Nation’s needs for Defence. Despite the reassuring words from Dan Jarvis this week, we are no closer to resolving the key issues of how to build credible capabilities for the next decade – UAVs may be part of the answer, but Air Power alone will not win a modern war as the USA has learned this year. We need strong armour to deal with the threat.