Labour’s new Cabinet line-up will likely lead to the continued feminisation and under-resourcing of UK defence, says former 22 SAS commander Richard Williams in the Telegraph. The truth is our peacenik elites want to abolish hard men. Here’s an excerpt.
I’m not persuaded by the naïve optimism of those that say John Healey will be generous to the Ministry of Defence now that he’s been promoted to Chancellor.
And nor do I expect that there is real substance to the hint from Wes Streeting, the new Defence Secretary, that spending on Britain’s military will increase.
Instead, I believe that the identified investment gap will remain unfilled in real terms and that only the bare minimum will be spent to comply with Donald Trump’s revised Nato demands.
Very creative accounting and snappy PowerPoint charts will be used to show the UK hitting a (bogus) 3% of GDP defence spending target in the future.
Further, I am not confident that, even with Keir Starmer gone, our heroic veterans of close-quarter combat will be protected from endless lawfare and the retrospective, ideologically motivated misapplication of human rights legislation.
The new Prime Minister has sent seriously worrying messages with his Cabinet picks to those of us who want the UK to be capable of dominating and winning any defence or security crisis.
The combination of Wes Streeting in the MoD, Chris Bryant as Northern Ireland Secretary, Ed Miliband as Foreign Secretary, Ellie Reeves as the Attorney General, and the obviously compliant Chief of the Defence Staff, will most probably lead to the continued feminisation and under-resourcing of UK defence.
The lanyard class wants to see the purging of the old, messy, violent men who win wars,and to allow the new high-tech, human-rights-compliant, lower-cost substitutes to flourish.
I was once one of those necessarily violent men, as commanding officer of 22 SAS – the British Army’s most elite Special Forces regiment.
But I fear that in the coming years the aggressive, war-fighting nature that the SAS embodies will disappear, its claws clipped, its teeth filed down.
Instead, we will get a socially-acceptable, relatively harmless, human rights-compliant and cheaper pocket gendarmerie that will never again be capable of fighting necessary overseas wars – expensive and unpopular as they can often be.
‘If you don’t have it, you can’t be made to use it’, is the suicidally passive, ideological logic that drives the eradication of all of the country’s legacy ‘intervention instincts’.
Those pesky veterans who know from experience that human rights law cannot be applied to the ‘kill or be killed’ actions of armed combatants fighting each other will be totally isolated from any positions of authority.
In this way, the peaceniks will finally achieve the obliteration of what most of the Labour Party saw as the flawed and dangerous post-cold-war defence ambitions outlined in Tony Blair’s seminal, pro-intervention 1999 speech in Chicago.
Britain will instead become a weapons-manufacturing hub for other nations to exploit.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Me: A good man is hard to find
Mae West: A hard man is good to find
Excellent article by former SAS Commander Richard Williams. The only point I would disagree with is this:
“that will never again be capable of fighting necessary overseas wars – expensive and unpopular as they can often be.” There are no necessary overseas wars.
Globalist A: “How can we stealthily weaken the Armed Forces of the West?”
Globalist B: “Nothing easier, comrade! Cut their funding, reduce their troop numbers, destroy their warrior group loyalty with DEI, send them to be killed and maimed in foreign wars, keep deploying the Special Forces abroad, help the enemy kill and capture them while keeping the public in the dark, import an Army of Hostile Third World Aliens, and make sure the civilians are all legally disarmed, except for Sikhs & Muslims.”
Patriots barging into the room: “Change of plan, traitors. We need all our warriors here at home, so we’re bringing them all back to protect our borders and organize mass deportations to the Third World, abolishing DEI and mutual defence treaties, and telling the EU, UN, WHO, Big Pharma, and every other international organization to get stuffed! You are now under Citizens Arrest.”
Globalist Traitors in dismay: “But where are you taking us?”
… Read more »
I guess they expect to “fight” remotely in future and will be using psy-ops and needles to inflict harm. Women and feminised men are perfectly capable of doing that, as we saw with the Covid Tyranny.
Do so few people realise one puppet was just replaced by another puppet, who will do as he is told. It has been going on for a while in little Gb.
Modern warfare is a much more remote affair when contrasted with historical conflicts. These days, unless you are infantry, you may not actually ever see your enemies in the flesh. I am reminded of a female weapons sytem operator (Tornado back seat) who topped the “kill leaderboard” in AFG for a while.
SF are a different kettle of fish, of course, and are needed for deep-insertion roles and a lot of the undeclared stuff which goes on out of the public eye. Such tasks often require incredible physical stamina, the ability to turn on and off fearsome aggression as appropriate and extreme bravery. There are women who certainly embody these qualities, but as yet, not to the degree required to make the grade at SF selection.
I know a chap who was (and maybe still is) in SBS, he terrified me (although he was always a lovely bloke face to face) but still claimed to live in fear of his missus.
The choice of words is interesting. How can ”the continued feminisation” be used as a term to describe an entire UK sector which has all white men in positions of overall leadership, plus the male personnel vastly outnumber the females? That’s quite a feat. Pity Helen ‘Pick me!’ Andrews isn’t around to comment. I guess the old ‘feminisation narrative’ is just the pejorative that keeps on giving, irrespective of what objective reality is showing us.
It does seem rather grounded in the old-fashioned notion of women as “the weaker sex”, doesn’t it? “Softening” would be a better choice of word.
Is “Softening” not feminine? It’s not really associated with maleness so it must be due to feminisation.
Ask the people (mostly men) who used to be in the front line of necessary violent capabilities. Their view is that a significant proportion of female commanders do not have the necessary aggression to prosecute their roles.
This is not being anti-women, but men have the aggression as they have much more testosterone.
And who are the people in positions of leaderships who make these decisions? Men. A quick search tells me there’s just shy of 12% female regular personnel distributed across all of the armed forces. That’s some alleged ”feminisation”. I would say ”emasculation” might prove a better and more accurate descriptor, which is undeniably being pushed by the men who run the show.
In my opinion, continued budget cuts and poor recruitment/retention levels are more problematic in the real world than blaming everything on some alleged ”feminisation”, because at least I can see evidence to support the former.
I’m sure that you are correct in your comments in the last paragraph. I also think that I am correct in what I say as well.
I’m really not being anti-women, but undoubtedly there are things that women would find difficult to do where a man might not. Nothing in this sphere of activity is easy, I know a few ex-SF people and some of their off-the-record tales are simultaneously impressive and heart-rending at the same time.
Women are brilliant at defending their children, maternal instincts are very powerful.
”…but undoubtedly there are things that women would find difficult to do where a man might not.”
Which is precisely why the vast majority of jobs undertaken by women across all armed forces are in non-combat roles, with the RAF being far and away their preferred branch. You can serve your country and be good at something which doesn’t involve ground combat, you know. It’s telling how the men always get defensive and jump to the ‘front-line combat’ example, though, when there’s an insignificant number of females actually serving in this role.
Well, you are partially correct, but the problem is that it’s not just in combat that these effects begin.
I’ve listened to people who understand this and have been there and seen changes that don’t benefit the mission of that service brought in. There is a need to understand what is needed and how to provide it, if that means altering the way the various roles are structured then the end justifies the means.
I quite understand that there are some roles that are completely independent of sex, I have no problem with that.
Who makes these decisions? Seems to be mostly feminist men that generally despise their own sex, probably sit down to pee, don’t eat red meat, have no manual skills at all and like to bang on about toxic masculinity. The pathetic types that would actually say the words, “I love you” in the House of Commons.
Bunch of back-door bandits.
Oh, and they would never disagree with a woman because they might get called a misogynist.
Observing your mental gymnastics when it comes to feminisation is rather amusing.
The fact you always come up empty handed when it comes to providing actual supporting evidence is as hilarious as ever. Your obsessive need to always blame women, because men in positions of power must never be held responsible for their actions, just confirms what I already know. Evidence which doesn’t support your narrative must be avoided and denied at all costs.😏
A British Forces feminization has been in progress since 1970 (2% now 12%)
There is a problem:
‘Lt. Col. Erez Shabtay commander of the Caracal Battalion (70% women): ‘We have female fighters and officers who are amazing…cognitive ability, their creativity, their bravery and their courage….I don’t need my battalion to deal with carrying heavy packs for 40 kilometers (25 miles) like in Golani. That’s not a level of fitness we need.’
‘IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir recently suspended a pilot program training women for elite special forces.’
The hazard to women of men competing in women”s boxing further illustrates the problem. Some military roles are more amenable to feminization than others. In close quarters battle hand to hand fighting as in boxing, running, weight lifting and so on, violent men will prevail and that is what Special Forces soldiers have to be able to do.
Precisely, this is what I meant with my comments earlier.
Having read some books by female aircrew on fast jets, I know that some of the E&E courses and the ones that test you in a captured and almost being tortured environment are scaled back for the women (they’re not allowed to end up totally naked, whereas the blokes are). I would have thought that anything that allows them to build up the mental resilience required is a good thing, and everyone knows what naked people look like anyway. The enemy won’t care, especially the misogynistic ones.
You are aware that the vast majority ( 80% – 85% ) of jobs across all of the military are non-combat, aren’t you? And that women make up a tiny number comparatively ( recent figures say 2.2% ) for those in combat roles? So how on earth does an increase of 10 whole percent over the course of 56 years equate to ‘feminisation’? Answer: it doesn’t.
If you are going to overlook the very real problems that the British military are experiencing ( and have done for years ) and instead use some lazy argument about a fictitious non-issue, all because it supports your obvious bias, then we’re done here because you’re unable to come up with any evidence to refute my assertion.
My question, once again: where is the evidence to support the existence of alleged ‘feminisation’ within the UK military? Or does the mere presence of women suffice, in any rank and any role, as far as you’re concerned?
I should think the British military have way bigger things to worry about than a few women in their ranks. From 2023;
”A flagship Ministry of Defence policy to recruit women into frontline combat units has so far resulted… Read more »
I’m beginning to realise you don’t know what ‘feminisation’ means. It may be wise to lay out some definitions for future discussions.
According to the Cambridge dictionary, feminisation is:
“a process in which more and more women become involved in an activity where there are traditionally more men”
Not great but not an especially new problem.
The plot od the classic High Noon is the story of a town that would rather appease the violent bandits taking over the town and abandon the courageous sheriff to fight the bandits off alone.
The ultimate story of the repudiated hard man.
At least that town apparently recognised that violent bandits were taking over. Our government seems totally complacent about the current threats to the UK’s economy, culture and society. Does it perhaps recognise that there won’t be any point in fighting wars with people from abroad once we have enough sleeper cells here to bring us down from within?
Variously attributed to Kipling, Churchill and Orwell…
“…We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
With Corporal “Stonewall” Streeting fighting them in the human rights courts and always surrendering, Putin, Xi and the Ayatollahs will be quaking in their boots.
Britain will instead become a weapons-manufacturing hub for other nations to exploit.
Unlikely with the highest electricity prices in the World and in fact defence companies are relocating abroad because dealing with the MoD is such a nightmare and costs them profits. Better to relocate to a cheaper, better business environment closer to customers you can make a profit from.
Just now, not far from where I live, there is a drone manufacturing site being constructed. Years ago, it was a car factory for a while.
Does “Net Zero” allow us to make steel in the UK? With the large amount of various fuels, electricity and carbon involved? I fear the days of the cold steel going up’em are over. Maybe the new Net Zero minister can find a way of decarbonising steel and its production.
The new Net Zero minister needs to be returned to Liberia, permanently.
Where she damned well belongs.
Given ‘carbon steel’ is actually a thing, decarbonising it fully will be quite the challenge… 😉
I wonder why a global cabal of Marxist elites would spend the last few decades emasculating society? Absolute puzzler.