What Carns and Healy Reveal and the State Obligations Not Being Met
Former Parachute Regiment officer reflects on the resignations of John Healey and Al Carns, Britain’s defence readiness, and why veterans have lost faith in politicians.
The resignations of Defence Secretary John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Al Carns have prompted significant debate across the veteran community.
Some raise questions about defence spending and military readiness. Others, the focus is on deeper concerns about leadership, trust, and the relationship between the state and those it asks to serve.
In the latest episode of One More Mission, former Parachute Regiment officer Lieutenant Colonel Simon Barry discusses both resignations and their implications.
He argues that Carns’ resignation was notable not simply because a minister stepped down, but because he publicly linked his decision to concerns about the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland legacy issues and the treatment of veterans.
The conversation also examines Britain’s military preparedness, lessons from Ukraine, defence procurement, NATO commitments and national resilience.
But perhaps the most significant part of the discussion concerns the Armed Forces Covenant.
Barry argues that veterans are not seeking special treatment. They are asking whether the promises made to those who served are still being honoured in practice.
As he notes during the interview, service creates obligations on both sides. Soldiers are expected to fulfil their duty. The state is expected to fulfil its obligations in return.
Whether people agree with his conclusions or not, the interview provides a candid insight into how many veterans view current events.
The discussion also explores:
• What does military culture mean by “falling on your sword”
• Whether senior military leaders face difficult choices of their own
• Britain’s current level of defence readiness
• The impact of legacy investigations on trust in public institutions
• Why younger veterans increasingly see the issue as relevant to them
• What “One More Mission” means in practice
Find the full episode here:
WATCH
LISTEN
🇬🇧🇬🇧
Once again Col Barry eloquently lays out the facts and exposes the terminological inexactitudes emanating from too many Westminster 'voices', along with very shady dealings with a foreign state. When in due course that foreign state is proved to have supported terrorism would that make those 'voices' an act of treason?