I fear that by going along with a ‘war consensus’, we are endanger of elevating soldiers and troops to a position that is above the law. One of things I do fear is that justice will not be bought against soldiers who have been found of abusing civilians in Iraq, or indeed any prisoner of war. We are quite happy to condemn US abuses at Guantanamo Bay, but when it comes to ‘our own boys’, we scourn any criticism or scrutiny, and blame it upon the lack of support from the Government. This is a ‘war consensus’ and one that is prevelant at the moment.

I know my opinion may be seen on the ‘fringes’, but I would stress as someone who has ascertained a degree in War Studies, that we cannot treat soldiers as being defenders of the great and the good. In most towns housing barracks, many locals complain about racous and violent behaviour from squaddies, however this rarely gets reported. I think we all should remember that training in violence, however disciplined that training might be, would occassionally create bouts of violent temper in volatile or pressured environments, and this would lead to abuses in both their job capacity, and also in the capacity as a civilian.

I would really quite like to see the Liberal Democrat leadership raise the issue of Armed Forces Day in the House of Commons, and to pose bolder questions to the Government and to the Conservatives on their ‘beer goggled’ opinion of the ordinary soldier.

Luke – I happen to agree with you that the party should and could have been louder and stronger in its opposition to the war.

However I still think the Lib Dem leadership were right to make a distinction between criticising the decision, by politicians, to go to war, and criticisng the individual troops, who have been sent to war by others.

I don’t think the leadership has said that all troops are ‘heroes’. They are, however, people who accept a significant risk to themselves in the service of their country, and that, in my view, deserves due credit.

It is not the case that the Lib Dems failed to scrutinise the way the war was waged, and the decisions that were taken. far from it, they have been vocal in scrutinising all aspects of the war.

• noun (pl. heroes) 1 a person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage or outstanding achievements. 2 the chief male character in a book, play, or film. 3 (in mythology and folklore) a person of superhuman qualities.”

The first part can be applied to nearly anyone who believes they have courage or achieved something outstanding. I gained a 2:1 in my degree by completing a dissertation in five weeks alone (15,000 words), I consider that pretty outstanding, but I wouldn’t be so bold as to call myself a hero.

I think what angered many of those anti-war activists was the Lib Dems quick shift to a ‘wartime consensus’ in which they failed to scrutinise the troops and the military, after all, they’re the ones on the ground. For myself, that is why I left the party back in 2004, I felt the Lib Dems didn’t pull enough wait, nor galvanise the support they would have had from a strong anti-war movement, and thus appeared inconsistent on the issue after a year.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before mindless personal abuse made its appearance.

Why do people hold politicians in such low regard, I wonder?

“But his [James Graham's] posts on that thread and elsewhere make it clear that Kennedy (and the Lib Dems) were consistently against the war.”

Well, perhaps he’ll speak for himself, but I think that is over-stating it. At the least he accuses the party establishment of not being at all clear about their opposition to the war – and even at one point of “[seeming] to suggest that our opposition to the war would end the moment a British troop set foot on Iraqi soil”.

On the other hand, I see Rupert Read on that discussion thread does accuse the Lib Dems of “backing the war”. I don’t think that is at all fair (though of course his excuse is the awkward line pursued by the party of “supporting the troops” but not “supporting the war”).

One thing I do think, though, is that if the other parties and the local press devote as much “air time” to Rupert Read as the Lib Dems are doing at the moment, it will give a big boost to the Green campaign. Probably Oscar Wilde’s dictum about “being talked about” is even more valid in 21st-century by election campaigns than it was in Victorian society.

Clearly Read feel that our troops didn’t need his support.

I suppose it was inevitable that this story would turn out to have been “improved” somewhat. After a little Googling I found a report from the Norwich Evening News, dated 22 May 2004, according to which Read “removed most of his clothes and put a hood over his head to reflect the abuse of prisoners in Iraq”.

Though not something I’d have done myself, the action does become a bit more comprehensible in the context of the storm of publicity that had broken the previous month, over the abuse of prisoners at Abu Graib, who were stripped, hooded and worse.

That would have been my first reaction too.

But you may be interested to read some of the discussion about that on the web page I linked to – including the comments of James Graham, not known as a fervent supporter of Rupert Read…

Although of course Read says he asked Kennedy “why he hadn’t consistently opposed the war on Iraq”, which is rather different.
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/06/17/those-fibdems/#comment-51134