A land unfit for heroes

What a rich irony. The Army announces a series of bravery awards to British soldiers who have been engaged in some of the heaviest fighting of modern times in Iraq and Afghanistan. And on the same day, it is revealed that personnel at RAF Wittering, in Cambridgeshire, have been barred from showing themselves in the streets of nearby Peterborough in uniform, following incidents in which they were subjected to abuse.

Local yobs, it seems, expressed scepticism about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and the Services' role in them. RAF police at Wittering advised the base commander that it might be prudent to avoid provoking the civilian community - especially when it is drunk - by flaunting uniforms in its face.

Amazing, is it not, how things have changed in 65 years? Imagine an RAF policeman in 1943, when the Peterborough area was studded with bomber stations, reporting to a base commander: "Sir," - with a snappy salute - "it seems unwise to allow our crews to venture into the city in blue on stand-down nights.

"Their presence may prove provocative to the civilian population. We hear that some elements are distressed by the pain and suffering which Bomber Command is inflicting upon innocent civilians in Germany."

"I quite understand, chief," says the Group Captain. "Better play safe and tell the chaps they should wear mufti in the pubs. Mustn't upset the locals."

Ho, ho. To be fair, we should acknowledge that even amid the deadly peril of World War II, there were British farmers who moaned about the grief which low-flying aircraft inflicted on their cows, civilians who resented service dominance of their bars - and yes, City spivs who mocked soldiers, sailors and airmen newly returned from the desert, Arctic convoys or night raids upon Germany.

Back in 1916, when my grandfather returned on leave from the trenches and knocked up a country pub in the middle of the night to beg directions to the village where his family was lodging, the landlady slammed the door in his face. We cannot entirely idealise the historic relationship between squaddies and civilians.

But the overwhelming reality of life in the 20th century was that the British people knew what they owed to the men of all the fighting services. Even in the interval between 1918 and 1939, and in the decades after 1945, those who wore uniform continued to command respect, because most of the nation had shared the experience of life in the Forces.

During my own inglorious masquerade as a paratrooper in the Territorial Army in 1963, I always hitch-hiked in battledress, because I knew I thus had a much better chance of getting a ride. "Remember, lads," a thousand Regimental Sergeant-Majors used to tell us all, "wear the uniform with bags of w@#k." And so we did.

What has changed today, of course, is that only a tiny minority of the British people have served in the Army, Royal Navy or Air Force. Few of the young even know a soldier socially.

As the Services have contracted dramatically, barracks in city centres have been closed and demolished. A chasm has developed between those who risk their lives to defend the country, or to fight for its causes overseas, and the overwhelming majority of our people, to whom warriors are as remote as Martians.

Drunken yobs on Saturday nights are as willing to mock or abuse a serviceman in uniform as they are an Asian - maybe even more so. Possessing no values of their own save the pursuit of instant gratification, they recoil from everything which a uniform represents: discipline, order, duty, sacrifice.

I suspect that most of us, reading the Wittering story, were less surprised and dismayed by the notion that ignorant young civilians should abuse men in blue than that the local RAF commander so readily buckled in the face of it.

Senior officers, notably including the head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, have been campaigning energetically for greater recognition of the Armed Forces, and a higher profile for their remarkable achievements.

Recently, he issued a stark warning about plummeting morale and said that troops were feeling "devalued, angry and suffering from Iraq fatigue". The military covenant - drafted in the days of Wellington and which is the guarantee of a duty of care between Government and Armed Forces - is "clearly out of kilter", he said. Sir Richard wants soldiers to be seen in their uniforms more, not less.

He has been warmly encouraged by the success of his initiative to encourage cities to stage homecoming celebrations for local units returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

There have recently been parades and church services in Cardiff, Catterick, Winchester, Liverpool and other centres which have drawn applauding crowds and large congregations. The evidence suggests that many British people, given half a chance, warmly welcome opportunities to see their soldiers, sailors and airmen, and to recognise their contributions.

After years in which this Labour government has shown itself woefully insensitive to the needs of the Armed Forces, there are hints that ministers are being belatedly frightened into activity. They perceive that the public is on our soldiers' side, against mean-spirited and bungling politicians.

Even the great clumsy, insensitive juggernaut of the Ministry of Defence is stirring, in response to service and public pressure. A Command White Paper is to be published later this year, exploring ways in which greater recognition and support can be given to our warriors.

The Americans set us an example. The Iraq war is at least as unpopular in the U.S. as it is in Britain. But most Americans readily recognise that it would be monstrously unfair to blame brave men who are fighting at the behest of President Bush for the follies and misjudgments of his administration. Uniforms are everywhere visible on the streets of Washington and, of course, the Stars & Stripes flies outside millions of American homes. Tons of letters, cards and parcels are dispatched daily by wellwishers to U.S. servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Britain, the IRA campaign of the 1970s and 1980s caused the MoD to decree that soldiers should not be seen in uniform off-base and off-duty, to avoid making them terrorist targets. Even when Irish terrorism ceased, civilian clothes remained the norm for servicemen, as it does to this day.

This is a pity. The consequence is that the Armed Forces have became almost invisible to Britain's people. Their presence among us has ceased to be taken for granted, as it was for centuries.

It is an uphill struggle today to undo this state of affairs. But undone it must be, as Sir Richard Dannatt and his fellow generals agree, to restore the profile of our soldiers, sailors and airmen to its rightful place in national respect.

All three services face recruiting problems, but these are most serious at the sharp end of the Army, among the infantry which plays the critical role in Afghanistan and, indeed, every other theatre where British soldiers fight or will be engaged in the future.

To persuade trained infantrymen to stay in the service - and retaining experienced soldiers is even more important than finding new ones - they must feel valued, not only by the Army and the Government, but by the public. A soldier who comes home from a tough, dangerous stint in Iraq or Afghanistan and finds himself mocked in the pub for putting his neck in the line of fire is less likely to sign on again.

By contrast, a man who marches with his unit through his home city and finds himself cheered through the streets is able to walk tall. He feels useful and wanted. He is likely to be up for the battlefield again.

Senior soldiers place huge emphasis on the care of returning casualties and veterans. A general said to me yesterday: "We have to make the country feel that its veterans are an asset, not a problem."

This is why it has been so right to raise a storm about the Ministry's lamentable neglect of wounded men, inadequate compensation for the disabled, and negligent policy towards veterans who suffer trauma.

Recently there have been cases in which injured troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered shameful neglect on NHS wards - for example, going without pain relief for up to 14 hours.

Others coming home for treatment have been put on wards with civilians. One man from the Parachute Regiment was confronted by a man at Selly Oak in Birmingham and told: "You have been killing my Muslim brothers in Afghanistan."

Then there was the scandal at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre, Headley Court in Surrey, which applied for planning permission to convert a house nearby for injured soldiers' relatives to stay but was opposed by local residents - who objected on the grounds that the presence of so many weeping and distressed visitors might affect the value of their houses.

This is why it stinks that the Ministry now seeks to impose cash charges on service charities which hold fund-raising events on MoD property.

This is why we must sustain the campaign to spend more money on service housing, and pay substantial cash bonuses to experienced soldiers at intervals through their service careers, to persuade them to stay in the ranks.

Prince Harry's recent stint in Afghanistan was immensely valuable to the Army in raising public consciousness of what it is doing there. He has helped to make ordinary soldiers feel that they are in good company when they lay their lives on the line.

What was so utterly wrong about the decision of the RAF base commander at Wittering to ban uniforms in Peterborough was that it implied that the men who earn their pay in such uniforms have something to be embarrassed about, even ashamed of.

If we wish to maintain the extraordinary quality of our armed forces, we all need to do our part to show soldiers, sailors and airmen that we look upon them as an elite, members of one of our greatest national institutions.

Soldiers and civilians need to see much more of each other. Commanders know this matters, but are struggling to translate it into reality when the Army is desperately overstretched, and officers can ill afford time to take on new responsibilities.

It is a crying shame that the good old Royal Tournament, the Services' glittering annual tattoo at Earl's Court - with hugely popular acts such as massed bands, the Musical Ride of King's Troop and the Royal Navy's field gun competition - had to be abandoned a decade ago. Men and resources were no longer available to stage the performances.

Today, the Armed Forces must look to less glamorous and more modest opportunities to show off their skills and shining brass to the public. I have argued for years that service chiefs need to recognise the vital public relations responsibility of reaching out to the civilian community and wearing the uniform with "bags of w@#k".

Perhaps we can never expect inner-city yobs, feral teenagers, to show any more respect for our armed forces than they do for their schools, employers or public and private property. But the rest of us can do our bit by treating soldiers, sailors and airmen when we see them with the regard which they so richly deserve.

I suspect that Group Captain Ro Atherton, the RAF base commander at Wittering, along with the air marshals to whom she answers, is wearing the reddest of red faces this weekend. It will be surprising if sky blue uniforms are not once more to be seen in the streets of Peterborough, in the face of the outrage which their banishment has provoked.

If our servicemen cannot walk with pride in Britain's cities, then we do not deserve to have them fight for us with the courage and skill which they display daily in the dusty defiles of Helmand province.