UK military problems & policies

[Stan]

Almost half of UK military personnel are ready to leave the forces, a Ministry of Defence survey suggests.

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.

[davidbfpo]

The publication of this internal survey led to a junior MoD minister being questioned on BBC Radio Today programme this morning. The interviewer asked how long the UK could keep its military forces intact, with two large commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq? The minister squiirmed on that one.

The "quick fix" is to withdraw the brigade in Iraq. The rationale for remaining is lost on most British people and this week the BBC TV News have reported on how better Basra is under Iraqi control.

The reason we have remained is our "special relationship" with the USA and an abrupt departure a year ago, when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, would have exposed the LoC.

I have no objection to a far smaller UK presence in Basra, training etc. A brigade is not required.

The latest announcement of the next UK brigade bound for Afghanistan, illustrates the stretch - a Royal Marine core, but with two Army infantry battallions added.

davidbfpo

[William F. Owen]

The latest announcement of the next UK brigade bound for Afghanistan, illustrates the stretch - a Royal Marine core, but with two Army infantry battallions added.

40 Commando is not deploying. 1 Rifles is actually part of 3 Commando Brigade and 2 RGR is replacing 40 Commando and have been notified of the task for over a year.

The real concern is the lack of helicopters and the need for another brigade.

[Norfolk]

"UK forces oppose Niger Delta plan", by James Blitz and William Wallis, Financial Times.com, 11 July, 2008.

I will not dispute the strategic necessity of ridding the Niger Delta of MEND; with its rapidly expanding capabilities (courtesy at least in part of the provider of its armaments), the group has to be stamped out, literally. However, if a mobile training team proves inadequate to help Nigerian security forces eradicate MEND, then nothing short of British troops may be necessary to do the job. Given that this may be
developing into a sort of proxy war (still ambiguous, but ambiguity is a calling card of one of the possible belligerants) over resources between great powers, and that MEND may be able to rely upon substantial assistance, this could turn into yet another constant drain on the Army's dwindling strength and resources.

No wonder the Army is reacting with some hostility to this new mission.

[Fuchs]

"UK forces oppose Niger Delta plan", by James Blitz and William Wallis, Financial Times.com, 11 July, 2008.

I will not dispute the strategic necessity of ridding the Niger Delta of MEND; with its rapidly expanding capabilities (courtesy at least in part of the provider of its armaments), the group has to be stamped out, literally.

Why?
It's an internal struggle of Nigeria, a civil war. I see absolutely no reason why other countries should get involved.
For what? For oil? Oil supply would not be driven up to maximum capacity or anywhere close by an intervention. Last I heard is that this doesn't even work under much more favourable conditions in Iraq.

Those people have their disputes about sovereignty. It's their affair. We don't need to intervene until they attempt a genocide or invade adjacent countries.

Back2topic; I think it's justifiable to be 'hostile' to certain missions even if they would not strain the forces and would be easily done.
Germany has introduced the "citizen in uniform", a soldier who's supposed to think independently about right or wrong in the context of the legal system. We didn't want another generation of officers who'd serve a tyrant just because they once swore an oath to him.
The "citizen in uniform" deserves to be applied in more minor troubles as well (it actually seemed to have failed a bit in 1999, but ironically it seems to have worked better in the KSK).

I can't see how an involvement in that conflict would be a good idea, and to involve a military in it would certainly do some harm, albeit probably only below the surface.

[davidbfpo]

According to a British Army contact one of the infantry battalions scheduled to go to Afghanistan next Spring is currently only able to deploy two, not three rifle companies, plus a support company and HQ (minus one rifle company).

I suspect a third rifle company will be grafted on, from other units; I recall - without details - a Para unit deployed with a Ghurkha company added for example

There is no sign of recruiting picking up, although there are too many junior officers to go around (odd I thought and confirmed by Wilf as affecting the Royal Marines too).

What caused this recruiting problem, no - a crisis? Multiple factors and IMHO includes the recent regimental reforms which reduced local links in favour of bigger is better (one reason ostensibly was to improve recruiting across a wider area).

Now the Army faces increasing demands, notably in Afghanistan, with a second brigade to be deployed. Part of the Army's response has been to post recruits to where they are needed most, i.e. for impending operational tours and not the regiment they choose to hoin or have an affinity to - for all manner of reasons, e.g. brother serving in. Understandable? Yes, appears to have short-term gains outbalanced by long-term losses IMHO.

Apparently news of this response has spread outside the army and recruiting has gone down.

There appears to be no political will to allow the British Army to recruit, even reform, to fill the gap.

davidbfpo

[Tankguy]

At the risk of sticking out my neck for a piss take.....

One thing that is predictable in America is grass roots patriotism. Not to say that it isn't alive and well else where. I do not want to cast Americans as war mongering or violent at all, it is just when something like 9/11 happens, you see a huge upswing in recruiting. It is hard to explain. The same thing happened in 90-91 with Desert Storm. It is not that Americans love a good fight, it is just the inbuilt desire to serve.

I know this spirit is alive and well in the British Army. I worked with as fine a group of lads at the Gunnery School as any I have encountered. I would serve on operations with any of them, without question. I think it is, as previously stated, an issue of political will.

[JMA]

There is no sign of recruiting picking up, although there are too many junior officers to go around (odd I thought and confirmed by Wilf as affecting the Royal Marines too).

What caused this recruiting problem, no - a crisis? Multiple factors and IMHO includes the recent regimental reforms which reduced local links in favour of bigger is better (one reason ostensibly was to improve recruiting across a wider area).

Increased and more dangerous 'tours' should not be ruled out as a cause of the drop off in recruiting.

[JMA]

Almost half of UK military personnel are ready to leave the forces, a Ministry of Defence survey suggests.

Quote from BBC article: "Among the concerns raised by the 9,000 servicemen and women surveyed were the frequency of tours, levels of pay and the quality of equipment and housing."

I suggest that one needs to separate these factors into two groups. One is for those who appear to resist doing what they were employed to do in the first place and that is to act as a soldier on a op 'tour'. Sooner these go the better.

One would then be left with addressing the other major concerns which unless addressed could denude the military of those with the necessary military skills and who are willing and able to use those skills.