But this is not an argument that can or should be left to the military chiefs or the boffins. In the end it is also about the kind of British military effort that fits with the kind of nation we want to be. It is a debate that should be at the heart of the general election campaign too.

From a Guardian Editorial, 19 January 2010

And from Thomas Harding in The Daily Telegraph: Whitehall's civil war will decide our place in the world.

In its final issue after 168 years, the News of the World reports that HMS Liverpool has made the Royal Navy's first use of main armament gunnery since the Falklands Campaign:

The Sunday Mirror has a controversial interview with a serving warrant officer who received devastating injuries on IED disposal duty in Afghanistan:

The Chairman of the Baha Mousa Inquiry has announced that he intends to publish his report on 8 September 2011. The Sunday Telegraph says that the three-year inquiry into how Mr Baha Mousa died while in British custody in Iraq "will clear the Army of operating a systematic regime of torture". There is no room for complacency, because according to the newspaper, the inquiry will instead criticise individual soldiers and failings in the chain of command which led to his mistreatment:

Sir John Chilcot, Chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, has issued an open invitation to UK military personnel who served in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 to attend an event at Tidworth Garrison on 14 September. Alternatively, views in writing are also welcome.

The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS), which was introduced and subsequently reviewed under the previous Labour Government, treats the most seriously wounded personnel more generously than the War Pensions scheme which preceded it. BAFF members who had suffered serious but not catastrophic injuries told us that their claims have been settled promptly and satisfactorily under AFCS. Yet the scheme remains controversial. The Sunday Mirror reports that:

From the libertarian blog Jess The Dog, Aug 2009:

Most would agree that those who risk their lives to defend democracy should be the first in line to participate in it. However, the Labour government takes the opposite view. There was wide-scale electoral disenfranchisement of the Armed Forces in the 2005 general election and only a high-profile campaign forced the government into limited action.

Once more, there is a real danger that soldiers on operations will be denied the vote once more….and it is difficult not to conclude that this is a deliberate omission on the part of Labour ministers who realise their appalling treatment of the Armed Forces over the past five years – despite their sacrifices – will win them few votes.

The widow of a REME soldier killed in Afghanistan in 2008 has accused the Government of breaking its promise to British troops.

The Sunday Telegraph's Defence and Security Correspondent writes that allowances paid to thousands of members of the armed forces are to be slashed by hundreds of millions of pounds.

Portsmouth News reports that the ban on women serving in Royal Navy submarines is "set to be lifted" after medical experts told the Ministry of Defence that female sailors face no greater hazard on boats than their male colleagues. This news is in line with earlier predictions. The News' story continues: