Half of UK forces 'ready to quit'
Almost half of UK military personnel are ready to leave the forces, a Ministry of Defence survey suggests.
Quote:
More than half of those who responded to the survey were not satisfied with standards of military equipment and resources given to them to do their jobs, while some 40% were unhappy with service accommodation, and 55% were dissatisfied with the standards of maintenance of their service housing.
Yet the survey also showed that despite all the difficulties, especially the lengthy separations from friends and family, pride in serving within the Armed Forces remained high, with 93% of Army officers and 76% of soldiers saying they were proud to be in the Army.
Recent News from Across the Pond
Recent News from Across the Pond - SWJ Blog - recent news concerning the British Army and General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff.
Ours runs year round, David
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
I don't know if the USA has a similar "season", but when the UK parliament adjourns for it's summer holiday, a "silly season" starts with all manner of press reports occupying the space created.
Though it does speed up a bit when congress is not in session...
Quote:
General Dannat's views have been reported before in several newspapers, notably The Times and Daily Telegraph. It will be interesting if they are picked up by the tabloids and those papers which generally support the government.
As long as Page 3 is not displaced... :D
From my possibly ill informed perspective, Dannat seems to make more sense than did Mike Jackson in the job...
I agree with Wilf, not the Army's job...
With three caveats:
1. The Geographic Commands were not designed to be the point men in US foreign relations but fell into that mode by default. That needs to be rectified, probably by adequate funding of State, the establishment of Ambassadors Plenipotentiary, aligned with the GeoComs, who take back that responsibility. Revitalization of USIA and USAID are also required.
2. Someone has to do it -- and here in the US, the Army has gotten into the business as a result of WW II experience (Again... :mad:) AND the default of the US government and Congress in particular to prepare for contingency operations. I suspect the same problem exists in the UK and the legislators are unwilling to pay the bill for what's needed in order to avoid having to tell voters their votes will no longer be bought. What's required is an assessment of what may occur and adequate funding for the foreign policy establishment and those government agencies that should be doing this kind of work.
2. In the US, we have tabbed FID and allied efforts to USSOCOM -- who'd really rather not (in the case of some) be involved -- recall that initially, SOCOM had the whole ball of wax, SF, JSOC, PsyOps and ALL Civil Affairs. While there were and are problems with that organizational concept as illustrated by the current situation, what's now required is a multi-agency assessment and review to establish a new model.
But the bottom line is that it is not really an Army or Marine mission other than in the first 30 days or so after major combat. Not least because in an era of highly paid and exorbitantly equipped volunteer forces in a healthy global economy, the cost in spaces is too high for the services. You can have war fighters or nation builders but not both in adequate numbers for the long missions.
British Army has too many officers....
Under the full headline 'British Army has too many officers and not enough rank-and-file soldiers', see the Daily Telegraph story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-soldiers.html
In summary: There are almost 1,000 more trained officers on the Army payroll than the force needs to do its work. But among the ranks, there is a shortfall of 4,400 - the equivalent of around seven infantry battalions.
My emphasis added.
davidbfpo
US Accuses Britain Over Military Failings in Afghanistan
US Accuses Britain Over Military Failings in Afghanistan - Tom Baldwin and Michael Evans, The Times
Quote:
The performance of Britain’s overstretched military in Afghanistan is coming under sustained criticism from the Pentagon and US analysts even as Gordon Brown ponders whether to send in further reinforcements.
Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary who has been asked to remain in his job under Barack Obama, is understood to have expressed strong reservations about counterinsurgency operations in British-controlled Helmand province.
He has already announced plans for a surge of 20,000 US troops into Afghanistan but Mr Brown, who was given a bleak progress report when he visited Afghanistan at the weekend, is said to be reluctant about committing another 2,000 British troops on top of the 8,400 already there...
More at The Times.
Letter to Tom Baldwin, The Times
Letter to Tom Baldwin, The Times
Dear Mr. Baldwin
I was sent an email by Dr. Carter Malkasian stating that you wished to speak to me. I then quickly was informed that an article was published with a quote from this summer's CNA/Press Club book launch.
I wished you had waited to speak to me, since I would have put the quote in context. There are many positive developments within the British Army at the moment.
British officers and soldiers were embarrassed since they felt they could not complete their COIN mission in Iraq, due to issues outside their remit.
There is recognition that the Americans have reformed beyond all expectations. The British Army has recognised the need to reform as well.
The British Army and HMG had many issues in MND SE due to a variety of decisions, one being the US approach to the campaign from 2003-06, which was not appropriate. However, the British Army recognised that the war had changed dramatically in 2007 and many commanders, officers, NCOs and soldiers wished there had been a shift of strategy from Whitehall for MND SE.
The shift finally occurred with the Charge of the Knights and the British were able to support the Iraqi 14 DIV in its efforts to clear and now hold the city of BASRA, through proper embedding into MITTs. The British Army in their time honoured tradition of learning and adapting, was able to restore honour to their mission in MND SE. Many lessons are being learned from the campaign in Iraq that have had a positive impact on British operations in Helmand and RC South.
The British campaign in RC South and Helmand has been difficult but not due to the efforts of the officers, NCOs and soldiers of the British Army. Their preparation for Helmand has been stronger with each HERRICK due to lessons from the past as well as Iraq. There are issues for the Army that are outside their control but rest with Whitehall that need to be addressed.
All armies need to learn and adapt. The Americans have done so and now the British are doing it as well.
I feel that I should write a letter to the editor or an op-ed to put these 'quotes' in their proper context. Do you have any ideas how best to do this?
Best
Daniel Marston
US Opens Fire on Brown’s ‘War Fatigue’
US Opens Fire on Brown’s ‘War Fatigue’ - Sarah Baxter and Nicola Smith, The Sunday Times
Quote:
As the United States prepares for a troop “surge” in Afghanistan in the new year, Robert Gates, the defence secretary, and senior commanders are concerned that the British government lacks the “political will” for the fight.
General John Craddock, the Nato commander, said last week that Britain must put more troops into Helmand province to defeat the Taliban insurgency.
In an interview with The Sunday Times at Nato’s supreme headquarters in Mons, Belgium, he said Gordon Brown’s announcement last Monday that more troops would bolster Britain’s 8,100-strong force in Afghanistan by March was not enough. Although planning is under way to send up to 3,000 extra troops to Afghanistan next summer if required, Brown committed only 300 in his Commons statement.
“I don’t think 300 more, if you are talking about Helmand province, will do the trick. We’ve got to hold down there until we’ve got some Afghan street forces who can take over,” Craddock said.
Praise in public, criticize in private
One of the first lessons that I was taught, that I actually used was the policy of "praise in public, and cricize in private". If a smuck like me knows that then I am sure that Secretary Gates and the various generals and admirals do to.
It makes me wonder what undercurrents are going on?
I have always been glad to have Great Britain as our best friend and ally, and hope that these issues will pass, if only for personal reasons. For years I have been tormenting my friends of Irissh descent with the question - "When was the last time the Irish Army won a war, and when was the last time the British Army lost one." I love watching their faces turn even redder;)
Me too, early lesson. A later one was that you had to know the person concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Icebreaker
One of the first lessons that I was taught, that I actually used was the policy of "praise in public, and cricize in private"...
For some introspective types, public praise is embarrassing and makes them acutely uncomfortable, they'd much rather hear a quiet word of praise away from the crowd.
OTOH, for others, who can lie about anything, private criticism will get turned into "He tried to chew me out and did I ever back him down..." when it's told to others later and they'll rationalize it away. Worst thing you can do to those types is criticize them publicly, that hurts worse than a whopping fine. Of course, they'll hate you but who cares. Tough munchies.
Quote:
It makes me wonder what undercurrents are going on?
True.
Quote:
I have always been glad to have Great Britain as our best friend and ally, and hope that these issues will pass, if only for personal reasons. For years I have been tormenting my friends of Irissh descent with the question - "When was the last time the Irish Army won a war, and when was the last time the British Army lost one." I love watching their faces turn even redder;)
"Ah, sure and if the Irish didn't have the whisky, they'd rule the world..." :D
Being Scotch Irish, I defend nor attack either the British or the Irish. ;) -- but I do agree with you that the UK is our best friend and ally in Europe and hope that any bumps in the road are small and insignificant. They have, unfortunately, had to put up with far worse than that from us in the last 90 years or so.
Britain Has Lost the Stomach For a Fight
Britain Has Lost the Stomach For a Fight - Michael Portillo, The Sunday Times opinion
Quote:
Last week Gordon Brown announced a date for Britain’s withdrawal from Iraq. Most troops will be back in time for a spring general election. The prime minister posed with soldiers and expressed his sorrow over yet more fatal casualties in Afghanistan. He did not dwell on Britain’s humiliation in Basra, nor mention that this is the most inglorious withdrawal since Sir Anthony Eden ordered the boys back from Suez.
The fundamental cause of the British failure was political. Tony Blair wanted to join the United States in its toppling of Saddam Hussein because if Britain does not back America it is hard to know what our role in the world is: certainly not a seat at the top table. But, for all his persuasiveness, Blair could not hold public opinion over the medium term and so he cut troop numbers fast and sought to avoid casualties. As a result, British forces lost control of Basra and left the population at the mercy of fundamentalist thugs and warring militias, in particular Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
The secondary cause of failure was a misplaced British disdain for America, shared by our politicians and senior military. In the early days in Iraq we bragged that our forces could deploy in berets and soft-sided vehicles while US forces roared through Baghdad in heavily armoured convoys. British leaders sneered at the Americans’ failure to win hearts and minds because of their lack of experience in counterinsurgency.
Pride has certainly come before a fall. British commanders underestimated both the enemy’s effectiveness and the Americans’ ability to adapt. Some apparently failed even to observe how much had changed. At a meeting in August 2007 an American described Major-General Jonathan Shaw, then British commander, as “insufferable”, lecturing everyone in the room about lessons learnt in Northern Ireland, which apparently set eyeballs rolling: “It would be okay if he was best in class, but now he’s worst in class.” ...
SWJ Editor’s Note: From the small corner of the world of counterinsurgency I occupy my observation is that our (the US) adjustment to face COIN realities, produce a new doctrine for the same and execute that doctrine were well informed by the British Army, Royal Marines and Air Force participants in a program I was associated with (and am) from 2003 to the present. That program – Joint Urban Warrior – cosponsored by the USMC and USJFCOM – specifically looked at insurgent threats and counterinsurgency strategies as well as tactics, techniques and procedures - in five annual wargames and dozens of seminars, workshops and planning events. The UK delegation; along with the Australians, Canadians and others; contributed first-class lessons learned, theory and practice - we owe them quite a bit for that. - Dave Dilegge
More UK views on Iraq: success or failure
It must be the weekend and the furore continues: an article in The Sunday Telegraph, by General Mike Jackson - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...held-high.html
Which has a critique follow-up: http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/
Note there is a widely held public view that our servicemen and women have done us proud, so should have a heroes welcome back to the UK. The mainstream panel on the weekly BBC Radio 4 'Any Questions' programme all said this. I've not looked at a wider range of websites.
Some reason to be optimistic
The Stomach of the British Army
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kaur
If we accept, in more than just an abstract sense, that the deployment, strictures and funding of our armed forces stem from political decisions, I feel the questioning of the commitment of the British Army astonishing and remarkably small minded.
The perceived lack of British Military's commitment in Afghanistan, for example, has basis in the refusal of the British Government to commit additional funding and troops. Lest we forget we live not in a military dictatorship but a liberal democracy.
For those in the U.S. military it is worth remembering the damage that was done to your armed forces by the Clinton administration. Surely, these shortcomings were not blamed on the armed forces themselves?
This is more than just another 'rearguard' defence of the British Army by one of its own. In my own experience, I have had nothing but support from my U.S. counterparts, in turn I have nothing but admiration for them. Let's not get confused between the arguments of political expediency and a the need to maintain a meaningful relationship between the armed forces of two countries, a bond formed, at some of our worst moments in history, in bloodshed.
If there's any trend here, it's
one of sympathy. Your comments on the US Armed force during the Clinton years are on target; we've been there. So have the Canadians. You've been around longer than the rest of us so there's more to lose.
Sad.
Decent summary of the Snatch Landie disaster
New Statesman article
Love the nutty comment at the bottom.
Is it really a disaster or a is it a presumed disaster
due to the fact that we -- in all western societies -- have become unduly coddled and protected from risks of all sorts by the proverbial Nanny State?
I do not denigrate the loss of a single soldier from any nation but I do believe risk goes with the job. This furor in all western nations involved in current fights about troop protection or force protection is truly getting out of hand. All us old guys who wandered about Europe in WW II and Korea in unarmored gun Jeeps and Viet Nam in unarmored M151s with pedestal mounts and and M2 or M60 can only shake our heads in wonder... :wry:
Many say that the risk of HIC is remote. One would hope so. Given current trends and desires, no one will be able to afford the equipment costs...