11/10/2015
On 18 June 2006,
this blog, in conjunction with the
Booker column ran articles on how dangerously vulnerable Snatch Land Rovers were putting the lives of our soldiers needlessly at risk, when adequate protected vehicles were available.
The week after, this was followed up by three pieces in the
Sunday Times, as a result of collaboration between myself and journalist Jon Ungoed-Thomas,
here here here (all paywall, unfortunately), which precipitated a lively Parliamentary campaign, with very special input from Lady Ann Winterton.
In the teeth of opposition from the Army Brass, who did not want to divert money to protected vehicles, Des Browne responded by ordering what became known as Mastiff Protected Patrol Vehicles, which we know saved many lives, and became extremely popular with troops in both the Iraqi and Afghan theatres.
Any number of "experts" had told me that it was impossible to produce a vehicle proof against improvised explosive devices (IEDs), some of which were based on anti-tank mines capable of taking out a 65-ton main battle tank, despite my protestations that protection was achieved by design, not additional weight.
However, the then Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, listened, and as a result orders were placed for a lighter, more manoeuvrable protected patrol vehicle, which became known as the Foxhound.
While the campaign was in its early stages, ramping up to force the military's hand, we saw good evidence of the danger when on 5 September 2006, we saw a report in the
Telegraph of a suicide attack on a Snatch Land Rover (pictured below), killing one soldier and badly wounding another.
The assailant had used a car bomb in a Toyota Hilux, swerving his vehicle into a military convoy, whence he exploded the bomb with its devastating effects.
Nine years on, the Snatches have long gone, and for the small military mission in Kabul, their equipment is the Foxhound. And so it came to pass that
today we saw an attack very similar to that in 2006, when a suicide bomber drove his car into the armoured vehicle during rush-hour.
Three civilians suffered minor injuries, but the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that there were no casualties among the troops â despite what looks to be extensive damage to the vehicle.
Undoubtedly, the crew owe their lives to their protected vehicle, and while it may have been the case that the MoD would have spontaneously provided such vehicles, this certainly did not look like happening in 2006 when they fought us tooth and nail to avoid spending the money.
In our view â the view of the small group that fought the campaign â without our activism the Army would not have seen these vehicles.
In one small highlight of my life, I was later invited to the MoD in London to a "meet the press" session with Des Browne. Surrounded by defence correspondents from all the major newspapers, Des pointed me out and proclaimed, "This is Richard North, and he has had more influence on defence procurement than the rest of you put together".
Needless to say, when my book,
Ministry of Defeat came out, not one of them reviewed it, with the honourable exception of the
Telegraph correspondent, Thomas Harding â with whom I had forged a friendly and productive relationship.
The point, though, of all this, is that individuals can make the difference. And although the media played a role, it was this blog and the research done for it that kicked off the campaign and made things happen.
It remains the case today that individuals can take on the establishment and win. In the EU referendum campaign, there are plenty of empty vessels making a lot of noise â and a large number of self-important people who could do with making less noise.
But away from that, there are individuals. We have power, if we choose to use it, and we can make things happen. Never forget that. No matter how much noise the mighty make, there are more of us then there are of them. We really do have the power, and in this referendum we must use it wisely. This time, more than just lives are at stake.
