UK Army Problems
Gentelman,
See the links. A very sad situation indeed. I was prompted to post this by a Sgt Major friend of mine who reads these boards. He says the situation is worse than the papers make out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../01/do0106.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...1/narmy331.xml
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Yup.
We're falling apart in slow motion, and you can see it in everything we do. The last thing to fail will be the blokes in the sections, but that will happen eventually when the C2 and decisionmaking supports crap plans that put people in the wrong place at the wrong time, have treated them like serfs for too long. No one is biting the bullet:
Double the size of the infantry
Double their wages
Enforce the training standards; sack anyone who doesn't pass muster
Thus creating a large enough force to do all that is required of it, attractive to join for the calibre we need.
This could be funded by sacking pointless procurement projects (FRES - it'll never be what we want it to be, because its an ill conceived idea).
If they can find the entire annual defence budget to bail out a crap bank, then they can certainly manage this...
Won't happen until its too late, though. The human/British condition.
Although the articles portray the situation to be nearly ghastly, I have a few points regarding both the human rights abuses and current state of the British Army. No one has specifically prepared common Infantrymen to work as prison guards, nor was anyone prepared for the immense civilian element.
To now conclude that reducing the Army’s standards with accelerated (reduced) training, appears the government hasn’t a clue. If anything, the training cycle should have been increased permitting COIN and ‘Prison Keeper’ specific training.
Estonia’s December 2007 rotations and visit by the Chief of Staff to the Helmand Province indicated that their 3,000 plus British counterparts were very professional and excellent warriors and instructors. Our COS is a former Russian tank commander, and rarely finds time for compliments !
It appears that BG Aitken spelled it out plainly for his government and has taken the necessary steps and the issue was under wraps quickly.
But he warned the military "must not be complacent".
Brig Aitken said it was not enough for troops to learn rules "parrot fashion" but the service needed to "embed in people a better understanding between right and wrong". Those involved in abuse were a "tiny number".
"We can never say never again, but I am about as certain as anyone can be that the Army has minimized the risk of similar instances occurring again."
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Larger Problem
This should not be seen in the abstract, divorced from the larger, more systemic problem with leadership. This yank is sad to watch this happen. Britain is suffering from a leadership problem at the highest levels, and she should demand better of her leaders.
More complete response:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/...army-problems/
This has been a deacade and a half in the making, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have provided the tipping point. The British Armed Forces in general, and the Army in particular, have almost completely burned out: too many committments, too few resources, and weak military leadership. Not to mention Government policies. There is a real danger of an institutional breakdown in the not-so distant future.
14 weeks of initial training? That's only enough to cover Recruit training; there's no time for real Infantry training, and that takes at least 3 more months on top of that 14 weeks to get right. This is very disturbing, sending partially-trained troops to war.
Last edited by Norfolk; 02-03-2008 at 10:46 PM.
Lions, Donkeys, and Dinosaurs
Anyone here (particularly British servicemen) read this? Are his horror stories about procurement and the basics of his argument right on? Sure seems that way just from reading the Telegraph every couple of days.
Oh for a leader not a politician
What can I say, this has been going on since Options for Change, an amazing programme where we reduced the armed forces, so that the MOD could take on more civil servants - to er manage the change?
As always the soldiers are the political football, all parties mouth their support then turn around and shaft them. Unfortunately I beleive that GB has an over inflated opinion of its ability to influence world affairs - too many FCO Civil Servants who haven't got round to updating their maps, since the Raj. As a consequence we (GB) believe that we can "punch above our weight". The Armed Forces are used as a projection of this "punch" and inevitably suffer the consequences from muddled foreign poilcy thinking and a genuine desire to show that Britain is still no 1.
What we need is a genuine leader who can accept the reality, state the desired goal, plot the steps to reach that goal and then actually do something about it, this includes what the Armed Forces are going to do for GB, and what they will be used for.
Sorry for the rant - feeling a bit hot under the collar
Geoff
More...
SAS Chief Resigns Over Lack of Kit - Michael Smith, Times of London
We Owe Our Soldiers - Jenny McCartney, Daily Telegraph of London opinionA former head of the SAS has quit the army after criticising the government for risking soldiers’ lives by failing to fund troops and equipment.
Brigadier Ed Butler, one of Britain’s most experienced and decorated special forces soldiers, is the most senior of three key commanders to have resigned in the past year amid widespread anger over lack of funding.
News of his resignation comes in the same week that General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the army, called for better treatment for the forces and more money to be spent on defence. In a statement issued through the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Butler said he was leaving for “a number of factors and reasons” and singled out difficulties faced by service personnel...
There was, I thought, a detectable whiff of desperation in the plea from General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army, last week for better treatment of our armed forces. It is highly unusual for an Army leader to speak out publicly on such matters, which suggests that Gen Dannatt's concerns have become so fierce that protocol is increasingly irrelevant.
He requested that a "slightly increased share" of the national wealth should be spent on the armed forces, to include a pay rise above inflation, and an improvement of the frequently appalling Ministry of Defence accommodation in which military personnel are housed. To illustrate his point, he highlighted the fact that the lowest-paid soldiers in the British Army are on an annual salary of £12,572, while a traffic warden's basic pay is £17,000.
The MoD has protested that if a private is serving on the front line in Afghanistan or Iraq, associated bonuses can push his or her salary up to £22,000 a year. I take the point. It must be quite heart-warming to know that in exchange for risking your life in the heat of battle at the behest of our Government, you can claw your way up to a salary that hovers just below the national average...
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.
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.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Quick fix
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
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.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
The real concern is the lack of helicopters and the need for another brigade.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
"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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks