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

How The Intelligence Community Has Regressed

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

There is a lot of news this week about International Security, but none of it is good. What links the wars in Ukraine (and Russia), the Middle East and British Defence Strategy? In a word – Regression. Putin’s refusal to meet Zelenskyy as the war stagnates; Trump’s continued miscalculation about Iran; and the Treasury’s refusal to fully fund the re-equipment of British military forces are three related themes that have been running through most of 2026, but the Media have been very poor at bringing fresh stories to the public about important issues for the country, such as the failure of Ajax to meet its in service date. However, rather than dwell on these tired stories, I thought I would complete my triptych of intelligence blogs because I was struck by what C had to say yesterday.

Listening to the Chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service between 2020 and 2025 on Test Match Special, there were five observations that caught my attention. The first heartening statement was that the intelligence relationship between the USA and UK is in good shape despite political differences. The second, which I thoroughly agree with, was his suggestion that now is probably not the most dangerous period since World War II, quoting the Cuban Missile Crisis and the early 1980s as being closer to Armageddon. He qualified this by doubting whether President Putin was thinking of nuclear options for Ukraine (he would know better than I).

However, it was his other assertions that really opened my eyes. The admission about the ineffectiveness of the UN Security Council was not surprising in itself, but the fact that there seems to be no British intelligence efforts to strengthen the international order does surprise me. The final comment that pricked my ear was his confession that the CIA and our Secret Intelligence Services were embedded deeply in each others work at all levels. Effectively, he was admitting that Britain’s intelligence community has regressed so much that it is no longer independent.

Now we know from Ralph Peters that the USA loves instability in other countries and that it regularly works to undermine governments that it disagrees with; we also know that politically the USA opposes constitutional monarchies. If that does not sway the argument for an independent British intelligence community then the economic case should. At the moment there is absolutely no military threat to Britain from China; however Beijing and Washington are military adversaries in the Pacific and intense rivals to be the top economic power in the World. In this current volatile climate, we need to be very careful about allowing MI6 to undermine our government’s trade options by allowing the CIA access to our political thinking.

Ajax In The News Again

If Politicians Make Mistakes…

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

In 1916, Britain (and France) went through the toughest time of World War I. It was a year of ever-increasing strain, catastrophe and disappointment. While the French were bled white at Verdun, the Easter Rising in Dublin changed the assumption that the Irish would wholeheartedly support the Allies. The disaster at Kut in April, where 13,000 troops were marched into captivity, altered the perceptions about the “side-shows”, just as Gallipoli had in 1915. On 1 June, the Royal Navy’s losses at Jutland shocked the Government and four days later the country went into mourning when the Secretary of State for War, Lord Kitchener, was drowned en route to Russia.

The second half of the year was even worse for Prime Minister Herbert Asquith. The Battle of the Somme, which began on 1 July, became synonymous with the waste of life that embodied the war in France. The Arab Revolt launched in June fell flat and the rate of British merchant vessels sunk by submarines increased dramatically (41 ships and 176,248 tonnes in October).

Against this background, Lord Lansdowne wrote a memorandum about peace terms with Germany. Asquith hesitated for too long and was evicted from Downing Street, to be replaced by the dynamic David Lloyd George. In response, John Buchan (one of my favourite authors at school) wrote: “If politicians make mistakes, it isn’t from lack of good instruction to guide their steps.” He might have added that the failure to articulate clear objectives and clear policy is a political death trap.

On both sides of the Atlantic, we are currently seeing political leaders who are hesitating in their decision-making just when they need to offer clarity to their followers and the wider public. My advice to both of them is don’t make the same mistake as Herbert Asquith and listen to your best advisors, not the loudest voices.

Operation Torch and The Capture Of Tunis

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

I am looking forward to giving my talk on the Allied battles in French North Africa tomorrow in Winchester, especially as it was the 83rd anniversary of the capture of Tunis by Lieutenant General Horrock’s IX Corps on Thursday.

This is another forgotten campaign that was pivotal in the defeat of Nazi Germany. Although it lasted only six months (8 November 1942 to 13 May 1943), it is important historically because it was the first occasion in WWII when British and American formations fought together side by side. It also introduced key American military leaders such as Eisenhower, Clark, Patton and Bradley to armoured warfare. It turned France from foe to friend. And its result was as devastating to Hitler as Stalingrad, with 350,000 of his best soldiers killed, or taken prisoner and 3,000 aircraft lost.

After the successful landings on Operation Torch, the USA made many mistakes, such as their flirtation with Nazi sympathiser, Admiral Darlan (who fortunately was assassinated on Christmas Eve). When II (US) Corps failed in battle, tensions between the Allies were tested. Monty put it pithily in his memoir “It was the old story: lack of proper training allied to no experience of war, and linked with too high a standard of living. They were going through their early days, just as we had to go through ours…When the Americans had learnt their lesson, and had gained experience, they proved themselves to be first-class troops. It took time; but they did it more quickly than we did.”

In preparation for my talk, I have been reading Eisenhower’s memoir and two stories strike me as important in the development of US forces from a peacetime army to a mission-focused, well-oiled machine. The first was in Algiers when he found that his orders to support British First Army in the Race for Tunis “were not clearly understood nor vigorously executed” An American Brigade commander had asked for M3 Half Tracks to take his troops the 700 miles to the front line, but the American staff officer to whom he was appealing had refused permission “on the ground that the march would consume half the useful life of the vehicle!” This staff officer had not accepted that war is synonymous with waste and that “every positive action requires expenditure”. Within five minutes of this issue reaching Ike, the brigadier was on his way with the orders he sought.

The second story is how Eisenhower dealt with II Corps after it failed in the battles of Kasserine Pass and Fondouk. He had a long discussion with General Alexander and asked that II Corps should not be removed from the line of battle. but instead should be employed as a whole in the final assault (Op Strike). Partly, this was because he realised that the bulk of the ground forces required by the Allies to defeat Germany would have to come from America and the need for more battle training was self-evident. There was also an urgent need to provide a sense of accomplishment to the people back home and to generate an effective sense of partnership. II Corp’s subsequent successful capture of Bizerte on 7 May fully justified Ike’s decision.

Since the British Army is currently suffering from peacetime-itis, they would do well to study this campaign for its important lessons about success in war.

IX Corps In Tunis

ANZAC Day – My Tribute

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

There is still much to be said about the wars in Ukraine and Middle East as well as Britain’s Strategic Defence Review, but today is ANZAC Day and so, I wish to honour the brave soldiers, sailors and air personnel who lost their lives fighting for a free world. My father was extremely proud to serve in the Australian Army for two years during the Korean War and he would be delighted that the Royal Family participated in the commemorations in London today.

Although the Aussies claim ownership of the Gallipoli Campaign, I believe their most important contribution in the two world wars was in North Africa in April 1941. This was the defence of Tobruk by Major General Leslie Morshead’s 6th Australian Division after the British 2nd Armoured Division capitulated in the desert battle with Erwin Rommel. The first hand-to-hand combat between Australia and Germany in World War II was a victory for the Southern Hemisphere and more importantly it showed the world that Hitler’s up-to-then invincible Blitzkrieg was beatable. But it came at a cost.

Rommel had ordered his armoured troops to attack the outer perimeter at 1700 hours on Easter Sunday. After a fierce artillery exchange, a breach in the line was exploited by the Afrika Korps. Sensing this critical moment, 22 year-old Lieutenant Austin Mackell of 2/17th Australian Infantry Battalion took out a fighting patrol and stumbled on a major enemy position with six machine guns, mortars and field guns. Mackell was involved with three enemy soldiers and called for help. A giant of a man from Wagga Wagga, Corporal John Hurst Edmondson, who was wounded in the neck and stomach, came across and rescued his platoon commander. Sadly he died of his wounds, but for his conspicuous bravery and sacrifice he was awarded the first Victoria Cross to be awarded to an Australian in World War II (14 April 1941).

The siege of Tobruk continued until November, when Colonel Sydney Hartnell of 19th New Zealand Battalion, part of General Auchinleck’s relief force, symbolically shook hands with Brigadier Arthur Willison, commanding 32 Brigade. The ANZAC bravery continued in North Africa in 1942, with five of the six VCs awarded in Egypt being presented to New Zealand and Australian soldiers. The full story is in my book, Liberating Libya.

I was never fortunate enough to be sent to the Antipodes during my time in the Army, but I did have an outstanding young New Zealand artillery detachment under command in Bosnia in 1995. When we were attacked by the Bosnian Serb army, they all performed in combat in the finest traditions of their distinguished predecessors, who earned fame at Tobruk and El Alamein 50 years before.

Alamein 1942

Lord Robertson Is Right, but…

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

The eminent former NATO Secretary General bravely tackled the Welfare Budget issue yesterday, but he failed to talk about the two enormous elephants in the room. The first is how Britain’s education system has deliberately sabotaged the Armed Forces by denigrating military life and putting off young men and women from joining-up. The second is how money for the uniformed services has been syphoned-off by Security Mandarins in Vauxhall.

Twenty five years ago the Army’s Student Presentation Teams reported growing difficulty in accessing some urban schools even though they offered to deliver some of the National Curriculum’s mandated lessons. At that time, I spoke to over ten thousand head teachers and community leaders in towns and rural areass throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They were overwhelmingly supportive of the Armed Forces and the need to instil in young people a sense of duty to the country and high achievement, which in turn provided positive encouragement for a military career. However, since then, under the misguided banner of anti-elitism and the naive assumption that Britain is not under threat, military careers have been put in the dustbin and Lord Robertson’s “corrosive complacency” has taken hold in Whitehall.

The second “elephant” can be traced to the publication of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. That was the moment when the security services, which had been underfunded for decades by the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, licked their lips because they suddenly had access to the Armed Forces’ money. Adding a second whammy of making the MoD pay for the nuclear capability meant that the Army in particular was hollowed-out so much that it could no longer deploy and sustain a full armoured brigade on operations abroad. The mantra under successive governments was that the old way of fighting with main battle tanks was over. However, what has been made absolutely plain in Ukraine and Iran is that Air Power alone will not prevail and you still need large mechanised armies to defend your country.

The third issue was touched on briefly by some Media commentators yesterday. Why did it need an 80 year-old former MP to raise this issue? Winston Churchill was under 60 years old when he took up the re-armament issue in the early 1930s when appeasement was holding sway. He and others such as Hugh Dalton, a Welsh Labour MP who was three years younger than Churchill, were accused of warmongering, but they were proved to be right. So the real question is: where are the current MPs who will take up this cudgel, before it is too late?

A Time When Tanks Were Valued

Arctic Security

Posted on by Rupert Wieloch

I have written before about my early experience with the ACE Military Force, when I patrolled inside the Arctic Circle as part of NATO’s northern flank protection mission, watched by Soviet Bear aircraft. Apart from three months winter warfare training in Northern Norway, we also took our tanks to Esbjerg, where I learned about Danish history at first hand. What impressed me particularly was the way Denmark rebuffed a megalomaniac bully in World War I and saved most of their Jewish community after Hitler invaded in World War II.

Danish DNA is one of the main constituents of British people, especially in the North East of England. We only have to look to the last century, when a Danish princess became Queen Consort of the United Kingdom, to see how close we are. And a wise Danish king, who ruled England one thousand years ago, gave us one of the most important freedoms ingrained in British law: a freeholder’s right to protect their crops and domestic animals from harm.

I have given talks about civil-military co-operation in Oslo and Stockholm and had the honour to command a courageous Danish detachment in Baghdad. So, it pains me to see the current dispute that is threatening to break the North Atlantic Alliance. The reasons why the international order that has lasted 80 years is failing to keep the peace are complex, but the proposed US land-grab of Denmark’s autonomous territory is a symptom, not a cause.

Trump’s justification for taking Greenland by force is similar to Argentina’s occupation of The Falklands, or Mussolini’s intimidation and invasion of Albania. It doesn’t help that Europe has neglected Arctic security since the Cold War and did nothing about the US intervention in Venezuela. But, history tells us that bullies cannot be appeased, so any unwelcome US seizure of territory belonging to a European sovereign state must be resisted.

British Tanks In Northern Norway