Our self congratulatory focus on ‘good history’ is an easily made mistake – so often more lessons are learnt from the study of failure than they are from our obsession with success. The tendency to focus on the D-Day landings and their subsequent liberation of occupied Europe makes for great entertainment but it would serve us better to concentrate on the disastrous occupation of Singapore some two years earlier.

So-called Fortress Singapore was penetrated by the Japanese in a matter of days. This was more than a strategic loss for the British Empire; it called time on our imperial pretensions. The Mother country badly let her colonies down.

Historically we had always muddled through; after all we were the British Empire. Consequently the Japanese were not taken seriously as a fighting force. In the face of an Asian enemy we suffered from an extreme superiority complex. Our troops, a motley collection of young boys pulled primarily from India were untrained, scared and reluctant to fight for a Mother country who had not bothered to consult them over the war. And they were unforgivably underequipped. Our bombers were obsolete, there were no tanks and the fleet never materialised. The forces in the Malaypennisular and Singapore were hung out to dry by Great Britain in the face of a superior enemy.

There was never a public enquiry into why we lost Singapore – egg on Churchill’s face was the last thing a Britain on the wane wanted after the war. But lessons could still be learnt from this defeat. To win at war the troops (from whatever country) need to act as one, they need to be properly trained and equipped (that will always cost the British tax payer) and the enemy should never be underestimated.  If we can’t meet these criteria war should not be undertaken.

Tessa Dunlop

Operation Moshtarak (Arabic for together or joint) is the code name for the current NATO push into Helmand. No doubt it serves to remind us that Afghan troops are fighting alongside western forces although the suggestion a military force might be a unifying presence on the ground is at best naive.
It wouldn’t be the first unsuitable code name. In 1965 when the Americans sprayed the Vietnamese jungle with Agent Orange to kill the foliage and expose the Vietcong the mission was given the folksy name Operation Ranch Hand. It stripped leaves off trees, saw Vietnamese cancer rates soar and left scores of babies with birth defects. Bob McNamara, the then US Defence Secretary admitted this operation was issued under his watch but could not recall authorising the use of Agent Orange.
In March 1969 President Nixon ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia. Over the next fifteen months more than 100 000 tonnes of bombs were dropped. The operation was called, with singular inappropriateness, Menu and its components parts Breakfast, Lunch, Supper, Dinner, Desert and Snack. 150 000 Cambodians died. Only the Khmer Rouge dined out on those figures.
Tessa Dunlop

In the words of T E Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia) on the subject of assisting the armies or opposition forces in other countries: ‘Better they do it imperfectly than you do it perfectly, for it is their country, their war and your time is limited.’
It is over eight years since we invaded Afghanistan on the side of the Northern Alliance. This morning twelve civilians died in a misguided rocket attack we launched; in our ninth year of occupation we are still killing the locals and yet continue to blithely talk about winning over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Repeatedly we are told about the Afghan army and police force who are working alongside us against the insurgents. Of course they are working alongside us; in one of the poorest countries in the world we are paying their wages. But what happens when our forces and western money and interest is withdrawn? Will the ‘loyal’ Afghan army and police continue fighting for ‘freedom’ under a government which we know is corrupt and which will have much less money to play with. Or is this war just about winning temporary ‘peace with honour’ (President Nixon 1969) so our democratic leaders can pull out unscathed before the Taliban return?
Tessa Dunlop

I was doing some research on the Vietnam war as the Chilcot enquiry was unfolding – a tanned Tony Blair attempting to answer for his decisions in that fateful spring of 2003 – when it occurred to me just how many mistakes could be avoided if only our leaders had a better grasp of history. So I changed the direction of my blog. No more silly stuff – life is too short.
The Second World War with its obvious fascist enemies and allied efforts has cast a long shadow. This ‘good’ justifiable war has given many of our subsequent Western leaders the misguided impression that war works; it is portrayed as moral, courageous and often the only option. But in our complicated world clear-cut baddies like Hitler and his Nazis don’t exist in the same way. Our politicians need to draw parallels with less well-defined conflicts and murkier outcomes and maybe then they would be less gung-ho. It’s not black and white world out there; good versus an evil it’s capable of replacing rarely exists and until people realise that I will keep blogging. After all what harm can a little history do?

Tessa Dunlop

America has long held up its armed forces as a multi-racial success story, but when the body count grew in Vietnam so too did the anger of many African-American activists. One famously summed up the struggle in South East Asia as ‘white people sending black people to make war on yellow people in order to defend the land they stole from the red people.’
In these financially tight times bear in mind the military have always recruited most successfully from the poorest areas. It’s no coincidence that the Celtic fringes shore up British troop numbers, ditto for African Americans in the US Forces. And it’s telling that despite the increasing death toll, numbers applying to join the Armed Forces have recently risen. Young men and women keen to serve (and possibly die) in the name of their country? Or the recession?
Tessa Dunlop

In the nineteenth century a new breed of British officer arrived in India – now the raj wanted to reform as well as trade. There were to be no more widow burnings, human sacrifices or Thuggees (a cult who robbed and strangled), no matter that all had religious sanction. Needless to say India did not like being culturally meddled with, nor did she appreciate the sudden swarm of Christian missionaries; cue the bloody revolt of 1857. Imperial Britain’s reforming zeal was promptly snuffed out.
Today when US and GB leaders talk of giving (imposing) ‘our freedoms’ on other countries (Afghanistan, Iraq) how much thought do they give to the heritage and values of the sovereign states in question? For many, our western agenda is so repugnant the only option is continued war and terror.
Tessa Dunlop

In the nineteenth century Britain exported more to India than we imported; our industrial revolution came first, economically the subcontinent did what it was told by the colonial master. Trying hard to imagine what we might export to India today………. Answers on a post-it note please.
Tessa Dunlop

PS. Is Kraft moving the Bristol’s Cadbury plant to Calcutta?

By the early 1970s politically America wanted to get out of Vietnam and so the US armed and trained over one million Southern Vietnamese to take over the job of fighting the North Vietnamese. The ARVN was the largest, best equipped army in the world and yet only two years later it collapsed like a pack of cards in the face of advancing Viet Cong troops. The communists won their revolutionary war.

There is currently an allied surge in Afghanistan which (if Obama gets his way) is to be followed by a gradual troop withdrawal. It is hoped the Afghan army with then be ready to take over the job. If history is anything to go by, that is when the Taliban will move in and claim victory.

Tessa Dunlop

I’ve had it with the Chilcot Inquiry – another toothless talking shop designed to purge our national conscience in the face of an illegal war. Today we learn Jack and Tony were in it together, our Prime Minister consulted at least one person. Hurrah!

History will be less kind. There is no running away from what Blair did in our name. At least in ‘68 when the horrors of the human meat grinder that was the Vietnam War became apparent L B Johnson had the decency to withdraw from the presidential race but not our Tony in 2005. There were no weapons of mass destruction yet he had the gall to stand grinning in front of the electorate, anticipating a third term win. Worst of all is that middle Britain gave him just that.

Shame on us.

Tessa Dunlop

Poppy is visiting. Poppy is so posh she even thinks the queen is common – too many pastels and a dubious heritage.

Mwarrh Mwarrh. I meet her at the door. Poppy is unsettled by my middle class claim.

‘Darling’ she says ‘you can’t be middle class, you have a dirty house.’

‘I’m sorry?’

‘You know what they say! The uppers and the lowers are united by three things, irresponsible breeding, dogs and dirty houses. And you my dear most definitely have the latter.’

I move strategically to hide the sink.

‘So am I lower or upper?’

‘Well you round your vowels and you’re married to immigrant so I guess you can choose.’

I politely get rid of Poppy and call mum later for clarity.

‘Oh dear. A dirty house! What will people say? It’s always blamed on the mother.’

So that settles it I guess, after all no middle class girl is badly brought up.  I’m a member of the dirty lower upper class. Ok? Yah?

Tessa Dunlop