I wonder if anyone else feels that Britain’s Special Air Service may have been a victim of its own success. In the old days, it was made up of enthusiasts, both the officers and men. Officers who did a tour of duty with the unit were often jeopardizing their career prospects by taking a two year break from service with their parent regiments. But these days it seems like service with the SAS is almost compulsory if an officer wants to reach the front rank of Britain’s generals. Maybe too many careerists with little understanding of the work are there to get the T-shirt before moving on to bigger and better things.

Perhaps, in the old days, the men were more likely to stand up to the officers, within the confines of good military discipline. And perhaps the older breed of officer was more inclined to listen to good advice from men with far more experience under their belts than they had. I’m told that the regiment is becoming known as the bitchiest in the British Army. The financial rewards associated with toe-ing the line and receiving promotion are far greater than they have ever been. A job application from Troop Sergeant Major for a lucrative contract with the XYG private security corporation is more likely to be successful than one from a humble trooper. Hardly an atmosphere conducive to forging a band of brothers. And for those who opt to remain in Her Majesty’s service, promotion from the ranks with an officer’s pension on retirement is not to be sneezed at. Crossing the Ruperts and Rodericks of the present-day officer corps carries a potentially heavy financial penalty.

Or maybe I’m just a poorly informed old romantic. As we used to say, "There's no fool like an old fool".

How many times are the US Cavalry riding to the rescue in some movie black? Not often enough if you ask me. I knew there were black cavalry regiments, the Buffalo Soldiers, but I hadn’t realised until recently that they made up 20% of cavalrymen. And yet the US cavalrymen in the movies are always white – and when they speak they usually have American accents (unless it’s Englishman Victor McLagen playing a crusty Irish sergeant).

And yet the real US Cavalry in the late 1800s was more like the French Foreign Legion than anything else. Its ranks were filled with immigrants, many of them Irish or German, lots of Germans. It would be interesting to find out which had more Germans, the Legion or the Cavalry. I guess it used to be a necessary part of nation-building myth that the West should had been won by white good old American boys rather than a ragtag bunch of mercenaries and the sons of slaves. But the United States has been around for a while now and maybe it’s time Hollywood grew up.

The recent deaths of two journalists killed by roadside bombs while travelling with Coalition troops in Afghanistan should surely make media bosses wonder about the value of embedding their employees with the military.

Media outlets love embedding because appears to be a cheap way to cover a war. The host military picks up the cost of bed and board, and even transportation around the war zone. But quite possibly, the most dangerous thing a journalist in Afghanistan can do these days is travel in a military vehicle. The bad guys hadn’t perfected what we have all come to know as Improvised Explosive Devices when I was in Afghanistan and traveling on roads regularly used by military convoys was nowhere near as dangerous as it is now. Though I have to say, I was always a little concerned about the line-up of heavy trucks along the side of the only road into the Canadian base in Kabul near the derelict King’s Palace. I was never sure how the military could be so certain that one of lorries hadn’t been switched for one packed with explosives.

But though a comparatively cheap way to cover events in Afghanistan, embedding is not necessarily a good way to get a feel for what’s really going on there. Only a very naive reporter would believe Afghan villagers will be honest with them if he or she turns up with a bunch of heavily armed Coalition soldiers. One approach is to embed but go off on unescorted side-trips. That’s what several of us did during the first Presidential Elections in Afghanistan a couple of years back. But hiring a vehicle, a translator, and perhaps a couple of body guards gets can be a little too expensive for some media outlets. And without good information about where is safe to go and where it might not safe to go on a given day, it’s not always a great idea. I got away with it. But you could run across the Trans-Canada Highway blindfold several times and not get killed – that doesn’t make it a good idea. I hate the macho posturing of some reporters who sneer at colleagues who never “go outside the wire” during their stay at the Kandahar base. I remember being quizzed about how many times I’d been off base during my trips to Afghanistan. The answer was “every chance I got” but I kept my mouth shut because I wasn’t in the mood for a dick-swinging competition.

Embedding worked for me because I worked for a paper in a city which had a large army base. I was there to cover what the local lads and lassies were up to. I only went to Afghanistan when troops from the Edmonton Garrison were there. But anyone who thinks being embedded means you're covering what’s happening in Afghanistan is sadly mistaken.

I just hope that media bosses on both sides of the Atlantic think hard about sending reporters to Afghanistan. Embedding is not a series of risk-free dog and pony shows laid on by the military. And what can reporters with little experience of war zones really expect to write that hasn’t been written before in the years since Coalition troops first went into Afghanistan. The arrangements for cutting hair on the base? The Bunker Barber of Kandahar: done already.

When I was trying to find a publisher for Scottish Military Disasters, one publisher suggested I balance each disaster with a triumph. “A litany of disasters is too much of a downer,” I was told. I didn’t agree. War, either victory or defeat, brings out the best and worst in people. And sometimes, the balance which decides between victory and defeat can tip either way.

Years ago, when I was teenager, a remote Highland glen lost its water supply. Four or five of us volunteered to go up into the mountains to clear the pipe blockage that was cutting off the water supply. The weather was terrible. Everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. Despite working our guts out, the pipe remained blocked. And we returned from the rain-lashed mountain to a community still without water. Failure. Next day we went back. The weather was gorgeous. The job was easy, everything went our way. The blockage was easily cleared. We returned from the mountain as heroes. Triumph. But I’m far prouder of the guys for the work they did the day before. It was on that day that the real effort was made, when folk really pushed themselves and gave their all. Success was easy; it was failure that brought out the best in all of us.

We have the first entry in what we hope will become a lively and active discussion forum. Thanks to Pete from Bishop Auckland for this: -

Sadly, I’m not sure what would have happened if the Jacobites had reached London. The English had two armies roaming the countryside looking for them and one of them, or both, may have turned back and defeated the Jacobites. The wheels really came off the whole rising when the English Jacobites failed to turn-out. But even if the Stuarts had been restored to the throne, I’m not sure how much Scotland would have benefited. The Stuarts were shits and I don’t think Charles Edward Stuart, or his father, would have done much to repay the Scots for putting the family back on the throne. Appeasing the English would have been their priority – much as it was for German Geordie and the Hanovers. I’m thinking the course of British history would have been altered very little if the Stuarts had been restored to the throne. James VI didn’t really do much for Scotland when he became James I of England.

Anyone else out there have any thoughts?