Tuesday 2 March 2010

Oliver's army

Declan McManus (aka Elvis Costello) had his ups and downs, but one of his definite ups was his 1979 hit single Oliver's Army, which was inspired by a visit to Belfast.

Oliver's army is here to stay
Oliver's army are on their way
And I would rather be anywhere else
But here today

Hong Kong is up for grabs
London is full of Arabs
We could be in Palestine
Overrun by a Chinese line
With the boys from the Mersey and the Thames and the Tyne

What's that? The Mersey, Thames and Tyne? Where is the Lagan, the Bann or even the humble Bush?

Well, it seems that Costello may have been prescient. A brief look at the death statistics of the British army in Afghanistan between October 2001 and 1 March 2010 – 267 deaths – shows a meagre three from 'Northern Ireland' - and one of them wasn't, he was from Scotland (Sean Binnie).

So NI has provided 0.75% of the British military effort! And yet it has around 3% of the UK population – even if you exclude Catholics the evidence is that Northern Irish Protestants are a little reluctant to lay down their lives for London's colonial wars.

One death in 2006, and one in 2009.

This blog has touched on this subject before, but nothing seems to have changed. As the US and its poodle, Britain, launch yet another pointless offensive in Afghanistan it seems to still be the boys from the Mersey and the Thames and the Tyne who are doing the fighting and dying.

Britain's most loyal are not really so loyal after all. Perhaps this is why unionist politicians are so determined to host parades of 'returning' soldiers – to hide the fact that the evidence on the ground is that their own sons and daughters are not exactly flooding into the recruiting offices.

22 comments:

andrewg said...

You can't infer that from the data supplied. Perhaps the regiments from NI were deployed in less dangerous areas?

Anonymous said...

Do you have a breakdown of deaths accrued as a percentage of the region they're drawn from Horseman?

Horseman said...

andrewg,

Sure, maybe. But most of the British army is not made up of 'locally recruited regiments'. This isn't WW1. Where are the unionist paras, riflemen, RAF, bomb-disposers, etc?

Sitting at home.

And it is better for us all that they are. They thereby kill fewer Afghans, and get killed less themselves. Oh, and they thereby loosen the 'debt' that Britain will feel it owes them. So its all good.

Horseman said...

Anonymopus,

The breakdown, and lots of other data (including a map showing where the deaths came from) are all on the BBC site that I linked to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7410931.stm

Nordie Northsider said...

Am I the only one who finds this a bit distasteful?

Horseman said...

Nordie Northsider,

I know what you're getting at, but my point is simply that unionists profess great loyalty to Britain, yet appear to see it more as a source of benefits than a 'shared duty'. They are, it seems, very willing to live off the generosity of the British tax payer, but seem to give back proportionately less than others.

Using death stats is an unfortunate necessity, as the British army doesn't publish the details of where its soldiers come from, but does publish the details of where its dead soldiers came from. So I am obliged to use the dead as a proxy for the living.

Anonymous said...

Ye, pretty poor stuff this Horseman - even by your standards.

Looking at the numbers, Ulster Unionists make up about 1.5% of The UK population and have provided 1.1% of the deaths in Afghanistan. Given how low the actual numbers are (3), I'd say the statistics are meaningless. Hardly the Somme is it?

In addition, as the site says:

"When no information is available on an individual's birthplace the location of their base has been used instead."

This makes the statistics even more unreliable.

Better luck next time?

Anonymous said...

Horseman said:

"I know what you're getting at, but my point is simply that unionists profess great loyalty to Britain, yet appear to see it more as a source of benefits than a 'shared duty'. They are, it seems, very willing to live off the generosity of the British tax payer, but seem to give back proportionately less than others."

Superb!

What about Northern Ireland's Nationalists who spent thirty years killing British soldiers and are now (as then) "very willing to live off the generosity of the British tax payer, but seem to give back proportionately less than others".

LOLOLOLOLOL...

Anonymous said...

I'd have to disagree - whatever (anecdotal) evidence I have indicates that Ulstermen have a significant representation in the UK Armed Forces. A better analysis would be achieved by submitting an FOI or PQ on the homeplaces of Armed Forces entrants.

Coll Ciotach said...

'Twas always thus - the OO stopped parading in the emergency as it would have been embarassing if the English saw so many loyal sons of Ulster walking the streets instead of volunteering for King and Country

Anonymous said...

'The Emergency'? Was that when Ulster and the rest of The UK was fighting to the death against the might of Nazi Germany whilst The Free State was neutral and led by a clown who commiserated with The Nazis on the death of Adolph Hitler?

'Twas always thus'

LOL

Paddy Canuck said...

Anonymous (a.k.a. "Giggles")

"What about Northern Ireland's Nationalists who spent thirty years killing British soldiers and are now (as then) "very willing to live off the generosity of the British tax payer, but seem to give back proportionately less than others"."

Well, given their druthers, I think they'd rather be living where they are but off the generosity of Irish taxpayers. ...Care to give them their druthers, Giggles? :)

Paddy Canuck said...

"'The Emergency'? Was that when Ulster and the rest of The UK was fighting to the death against the might of Nazi Germany whilst The Free State was neutral and led by a clown who commiserated with The Nazis on the death of Adolph Hitler?"

Yes, the same clown who smelled a rat and turned down Winston Churchill when he secretly offered to hand over the keys of loyal Ulster in exchange for Ireland's participation in the war and having England's back, yeah... that guy.

Anonymous said...

Paddy Canuck said:

"Well, given their druthers, I think they'd rather be living where they are but off the generosity of Irish taxpayers. ...Care to give them their druthers, Giggles? :)"

Problem is that The ROI can't afford Ulster's Irish Nationalists, but The UK can (easily).

Anonymous said...

Paddy Canuck said:

"Yes, the same clown who smelled a rat and turned down Winston Churchill when he secretly offered to hand over the keys of loyal Ulster in exchange for Ireland's participation in the war and having England's back, yeah... that guy."

Hang on though, if Dev 'smelt a rat', that meant Churchill had no intention of delivering a United Ireland at all. If Dev didn't 'smell a rat', then why the hell did he turn down the offer?

In any case The UK's back was to the wall in a fight for national survival. Better lose an arm than a life. Stalin offered Hitler Russia to the Urals at the same time apparently.

Paddy Canuck said...

"Problem is that The ROI can't afford Ulster's Irish Nationalists, but The UK can (easily)."

Yeah, yeah. We keep hearing that. No one ever actually fronts any numbers, but it's taken as received wisdom. Oddly enough, the Republic seems to manage to float about two and a half times NI's population and do it with a standard of living comparable to, if not better than, the average for the UK. So pray tell us all, please, what exactly is it about Northern Ireland's lifestyle that prices it outside the ability of the Republic to make up the difference between what the proud statelet earns and spends? Do Ulstermen not already part of the Republic wipe their asses with gold foil? Do they dine exclusively on larks' tongues on beds of patéed panda livers, washed down by jugs of 3rd century B.C. wine dredged up from shipwrecks in the Aegean? Do their butlers' chauffeurs' valets' cleaning ladies wash the dishes in champagne, or is that too gauche and they just throw the dirty dishes out at the end of the meal? What, precisely, makes Northern Ireland so expensive that not only can it not pull its own weight, but it couldn't be supported in the style to which it's grown accustomed were it to become a part of the Republic?

Paddy Canuck said...

"Hang on though, if Dev 'smelt a rat', that meant Churchill had no intention of delivering a United Ireland at all."

Bingo. How many times were the keys of Home Rule jingled in front of Irish eyes to get them smiling over the years, only to be stuffed back into the British pocket whenever the Irish had delivered whatever it was the British needed from them? De Valera suspected, and almost certainly rightly, that what Winnie whispered in Irish behind closed doors while bombs were landing in garden of Buckingham Palace, and what he'd be belting out in public once there were blue skies over the white cliffs of Dover again, were two different things. More Irish blood in exchange for panicky English promises made in the heat of the moment only to be reneged on once the moment had passed? Been there, done that; it was called World War I. No sale.

And Dev clearly made the right call. Winnie spent 6 years blowing balloon juice about the right of nations to self-determination, only to turn right around and say "oh, except India... and Singapore... and Kenya... and... and... and... and..." etc., etc., etc.

"In any case The UK's back was to the wall in a fight for national survival. Better lose an arm than a life."

Yeah, to hell or Connacht... tough choice. What a bitch to be forced into a position like that by a belligerent monster. Sucks, don't it?

Anonymous said...

Now now Paddy, they were fighting for democracy in Eastern Europe. And, with the help of their allies in the U.S.S.R., that's exactly what they got. Freedom reigned there for the next fifty years, from Poland to Prague.

Paddy Canuck said...

"As the US and its poodle, Britain..."

...who, I notice, are being hung out to dry yet again by the Yanks vis-a-vis Argentina's new diplomatic offensive on the Falklands, this time hauling in support from virtually the whole of the membership of Organization of American States. "Special relationship", my ass. They were useless in 1914, 1939, Suez, and the Falklands War. Ever notice the only time THEY'RE interested in allies charging to each other's aid is when Pearl Harbor gets bombed or maniacs fly into buildings in NYC -- when it's THEIR homes that are threatened, THEIR blood being spilled, THEIR stuff in flames? They got on their high horse about "Freedom Fries" when France didn't help them invade Iraq, going on and on about how they helped liberate France in 1944... conveniently forgetting how they stood by with their complacent thumbs up their asses while the place fell to the Germans in 1940 in the first place. I don't know why the British won't take the lesson... YOU CAN'T COUNT ON THESE GUYS. Give up on it. Realize you're in Europe, of Europe, about Europe. Dry your eyes, wipe your noses, stiffen your bloody spines and more forward already.

Anonymous said...

Some people are in deep confusion about what the 'special relationship' is about. It's about a perceived alignment of interests - nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes The UK and US interests don't coincide - but often they do. Of course, there'll be real disagreement about when this actually happens. The citizens of both The UK and The US were divided over both Iraq and Afghanistan.

One thing's for sure - only a foolish nation or national leader would deliberately or casually place themselves in direct opposition to The US...

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the greatest advantage independence bestowed upon the republic was that it was given an opportunity to "Switzerlandize" its foreign policy. No Irish have had to die because of the policies of the British government.

Paddy Canuck said...

"only a foolish nation or national leader would deliberately or casually place themselves in direct opposition to The US..."

Well, a couple of things... I don't think countries in general "casually" oppose each other's interests. They tend to come into conflict on matters that seem central to them.

Secondly, it's possible, nor desirable, to the US to control everything. If freedom means anything at all, then it ought to be possible for other countries to have policies that differ from, and even inconvenience, the US. And vice-versa, of course.

It's clearer all the time that the US doesn't have the pull it once had, particularly diplomatically, and it's resorting to military solutions more and more brazenly, at least when and where it's able. To me, this and other things are signs the US has begun fusing its helium. Latin America is lining up as a bloc, and there's Hilary Clinton swanning around, selling out her country's closest ally to the resource-rich countries of the south, offering to help "negotiate" on the matter of a place that's been under British jurisdiction, and populated by British people, longer than her own country has held and peopled Texas, or California, or Alaska, or Hawaii... would she welcome offers by Britain to help "negotiate" the matter of their status with, say, Mexico?

Curious that we've reached the point where one and all have agreed that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland alone to decide, but the wishes of the Falkland Islanders seems to matter not at all.