News: We should stop fooling ourselves. Our armed forces are no longer world class.

Westcountryman · 14-05-2008, 09:53 PM

We should stop fooling ourselves. Our armed forces are no longer world class

Public distaste for Blair's unpopular wars, coupled with the unfitness of our teenagers, has left Britain woefully short of soldiers.

Max Hastings
The Guardian
Monday April 28 2008

The Ministry of Defence is plunged into a grim process described as a "mini defence review". Teams of service officers and civil servants are exploring every aspect of spending and procurement plans in a desperate effort to save money. Current year sums have been made to add up only by creative accountancy, pushing back some big bills to 2010. Whoever becomes defence secretary after an election that year will face a pile of yellowing, unpaid invoices.

Everybody knows that a major defence programme must be cancelled. The navy's cherished aircraft carriers? These would be the first choices of most soldiers, but because the ships mean jobs in Labour constituencies, they are almost certainly safe. Some frigates and destroyers? At least two planned escorts are likely to be axed. The army is fearful about its next-generation armoured vehicle. Several headquarters will have to go. General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, has failed in his attempt to persuade ministers to increase the army's numbers.

Dannatt's case is founded on the fact that his soldiers are attempting to fight one major war, in Afghanistan, with inadequate resources, while 4,000 troops are in another theatre, Iraq, to appease American sensitivities. The army also maintains a significant peacekeeping presence in the Balkans. It was announced last week that another infantry battalion is to be sent to Kosovo.

Yet the deep instinct of the government, and even more so of the parliamentary Labour party, is that Tony Blair's wars have brought Britain only embarrassment and grief. The last thing they want is to throw good money after bad by recruiting more soldiers, never mind deploying them in combat.

The scepticism is understandable, but the conclusion is mistaken. Many people, myself included, are dismayed by the huge mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet it remains essential for Britain to possess a credible army. A strength of 100,000 is insufficient. Whether we like it or not, the 21st century will produce new conflicts in which we are obliged to participate or at least provide peacekeepers.

Britain cannot alone fill the yawning gap in Afghanistan left by other Nato countries that refuse to do their share of fighting and supporting humanitarian reconstruction. But we can never hope to win this conflict, or any other, without more boots on the ground. Mass matters. It is not enough for western powers to announce in a given crisis: "We are committing troops," then to dispatch three men and a dog. No strategic purpose is attainable unless soldiers are deployed in sufficient strength, with convincing humanitarian backup.

I argued on these pages two years ago that the force that Tony Blair and the then defence secretary John Reid were sending to Afghanistan's Helmand province was entirely inadequate for its role, and represented gesture strategy. So it has proved. Western defence policy will remain rooted in tokenism until all the European nations, and indeed the US, can field sufficient foot soldiers - who are far more relevant to "wars among the people" than tanks and stealth bombers - to fulfil policy objectives.

The shortfall is not exclusively the fault of governments. Part of the problem stems from our changing culture. It is becoming progressively more difficult for western societies to recruit infantry. Most British infantry regiments are under establishment, and Scottish units especially so, not only because of Treasury parsimony, but also because recruiting languishes and retention is difficult.

For centuries, armies have largely consisted of young working-class men, often with poor qualifications. They opted for a life of adventure and comradeship, accepting both the duty to kill and the risk of their own deaths. The army was seldom their career of choice, but many prospered in uniform.

Today, however, a lot of parents and schools recoil from seeing young men embrace the warrior ethos. They find repugnant the notion of arming teenagers and dispatching them to fight, whatever the cause. Thanks to the internet, a radio exchange between a female interviewer and an Australian general named Peter Cosgrove has passed into contemporary legend. Cosgrove, as head of the Australian army, described on air a scheme to introduce Australian boy scouts to the exciting life on offer to a soldier by inviting them to bases where they could try climbing, canoeing, archery and rifle-shooting. "Shooting!" exclaimed the appalled interviewer. "That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it ?"

"I don't see why," said the general. "They'll be properly supervised on the range." The interviewer was unconvinced: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children? You're equipping them to become violent killers." Cosgrove remained unabashed: "Well, ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"

A lot of people share the interviewer's instinctive revulsion towards guns, as well as other aspects of soldiering. Some British schools are unwilling to welcome army recruiting teams. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust recently caricatured itself by publishing a report arguing that the army has a duty more frankly to warn recruits in its advertising about the prospect that they may have to kill or be killed.

Overlaid upon such fastidiousness is the problem of many teenagers' lack of fitness for service life. The British army is striving to reduce the high dropout rate in basic training among new entrants who either find discipline unacceptable or cannot contend with the physical demands. Teenagers who have never walked if they could ride, and define enthusiasm for sport by watching it on telly, find assault courses tough going.

The result is that all western nations are struggling to identify enough young men able and willing to carry rifles on battlefields. It is hard to foresee social trends that will make it less so. The armed forces as an institution still command public respect. But this is of limited worth unless it translates into a willingness by the young to sign up and do the business.

It is paradoxical that Tony Blair, who sought to use Britain's armed forces more ambitiously than any modern prime minister, inflicted deep damage by associating them with some unpopular and perhaps unwinnable causes.

Britain's three services are now so small that, if current policies and difficulties continue, it will be almost impossible to reverse the process of decline. Relations between senior officers at the MoD have become rancorous, amid fears and recriminations about budget cuts, real and threatened.

Unless one is an outright pacifist, rejecting military commitment anywhere, in any cause, it is necessary to recognise that the national interest must suffer if the services become tarnished and are penalised for a prime minister's political misjudgments. The old cliche is often trotted out that our armed forces are still world class. In truth, it is no longer valid. However high their quality, they are now too few to fulfil many of the tasks they are assigned. Even if ministers try to delude us otherwise, the public should not be fooled.

Source: Max Hastings: Our armed forces are no longer world class | Comment is free | The Guardian

tito · 14-05-2008, 10:04 PM

A few weeks ago, the large MOD headquarters in Pembroke Dock closed its doors for the last time.

BonnieDundee · 14-05-2008, 11:14 PM

Are we measured by our armed forces?

Westcountryman · 14-05-2008, 11:31 PM

They're highly important, to say the least.

GenghisChris · 15-05-2008, 02:10 PM

Well our armed forces definetly need modernising, surely in this day and age jet fighters can be radio controlled, infantry could be replaced by minature radio controlled vehicles with chain guns, tanks could be automised too!

It would be a perfect solution as out teenagers are already fully adapted to working such machinery just by the games they play on their computers

BonnieDundee · 17-05-2008, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist

They're highly important, to say the least.

That depends on your viewpoint. Jefferson and Jeffersonian democracy considers a standing army a menace to liberty, as did many Tories in the 18th and 17 centuries.

Westcountryman · 17-05-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

That depends on your viewpoint. Jefferson and Jeffersonian democracy considers a standing army a menace to liberty, as did many Tories in the 18th and 17 centuries.

I consider the armed forces to be vital to defending the realm and defending British interests abroad.

Unionist · 17-05-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist

I consider the armed forces to be vital to defending the realm and defending British interests abroad.

I agree, but also in defending the cause of liberty in general.

mkpdavies · 17-05-2008, 02:04 PM

I like the Swiss model.

kernow · 17-05-2008, 04:47 PM

I don't think anyone who cares about this Country now actually thinks we have a World class fighting force anymore. The reason we haven't can be firmly placed at the door of those British S**t H****s who are gagging for Britain to be locked into a EU Superstate!

14-05-2008, 09:53 PM	#1 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,827 Party: None	We should stop fooling ourselves. Our armed forces are no longer world class. We should stop fooling ourselves. Our armed forces are no longer world class Public distaste for Blair's unpopular wars, coupled with the unfitness of our teenagers, has left Britain woefully short of soldiers. Max Hastings The Guardian Monday April 28 2008 The Ministry of Defence is plunged into a grim process described as a "mini defence review". Teams of service officers and civil servants are exploring every aspect of spending and procurement plans in a desperate effort to save money. Current year sums have been made to add up only by creative accountancy, pushing back some big bills to 2010. Whoever becomes defence secretary after an election that year will face a pile of yellowing, unpaid invoices. Everybody knows that a major defence programme must be cancelled. The navy's cherished aircraft carriers? These would be the first choices of most soldiers, but because the ships mean jobs in Labour constituencies, they are almost certainly safe. Some frigates and destroyers? At least two planned escorts are likely to be axed. The army is fearful about its next-generation armoured vehicle. Several headquarters will have to go. General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, has failed in his attempt to persuade ministers to increase the army's numbers. Dannatt's case is founded on the fact that his soldiers are attempting to fight one major war, in Afghanistan, with inadequate resources, while 4,000 troops are in another theatre, Iraq, to appease American sensitivities. The army also maintains a significant peacekeeping presence in the Balkans. It was announced last week that another infantry battalion is to be sent to Kosovo. Yet the deep instinct of the government, and even more so of the parliamentary Labour party, is that Tony Blair's wars have brought Britain only embarrassment and grief. The last thing they want is to throw good money after bad by recruiting more soldiers, never mind deploying them in combat. The scepticism is understandable, but the conclusion is mistaken. Many people, myself included, are dismayed by the huge mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet it remains essential for Britain to possess a credible army. A strength of 100,000 is insufficient. Whether we like it or not, the 21st century will produce new conflicts in which we are obliged to participate or at least provide peacekeepers. Britain cannot alone fill the yawning gap in Afghanistan left by other Nato countries that refuse to do their share of fighting and supporting humanitarian reconstruction. But we can never hope to win this conflict, or any other, without more boots on the ground. Mass matters. It is not enough for western powers to announce in a given crisis: "We are committing troops," then to dispatch three men and a dog. No strategic purpose is attainable unless soldiers are deployed in sufficient strength, with convincing humanitarian backup. I argued on these pages two years ago that the force that Tony Blair and the then defence secretary John Reid were sending to Afghanistan's Helmand province was entirely inadequate for its role, and represented gesture strategy. So it has proved. Western defence policy will remain rooted in tokenism until all the European nations, and indeed the US, can field sufficient foot soldiers - who are far more relevant to "wars among the people" than tanks and stealth bombers - to fulfil policy objectives. The shortfall is not exclusively the fault of governments. Part of the problem stems from our changing culture. It is becoming progressively more difficult for western societies to recruit infantry. Most British infantry regiments are under establishment, and Scottish units especially so, not only because of Treasury parsimony, but also because recruiting languishes and retention is difficult. For centuries, armies have largely consisted of young working-class men, often with poor qualifications. They opted for a life of adventure and comradeship, accepting both the duty to kill and the risk of their own deaths. The army was seldom their career of choice, but many prospered in uniform. Today, however, a lot of parents and schools recoil from seeing young men embrace the warrior ethos. They find repugnant the notion of arming teenagers and dispatching them to fight, whatever the cause. Thanks to the internet, a radio exchange between a female interviewer and an Australian general named Peter Cosgrove has passed into contemporary legend. Cosgrove, as head of the Australian army, described on air a scheme to introduce Australian boy scouts to the exciting life on offer to a soldier by inviting them to bases where they could try climbing, canoeing, archery and rifle-shooting. "Shooting!" exclaimed the appalled interviewer. "That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it ?" "I don't see why," said the general. "They'll be properly supervised on the range." The interviewer was unconvinced: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children? You're equipping them to become violent killers." Cosgrove remained unabashed: "Well, ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?" A lot of people share the interviewer's instinctive revulsion towards guns, as well as other aspects of soldiering. Some British schools are unwilling to welcome army recruiting teams. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust recently caricatured itself by publishing a report arguing that the army has a duty more frankly to warn recruits in its advertising about the prospect that they may have to kill or be killed. Overlaid upon such fastidiousness is the problem of many teenagers' lack of fitness for service life. The British army is striving to reduce the high dropout rate in basic training among new entrants who either find discipline unacceptable or cannot contend with the physical demands. Teenagers who have never walked if they could ride, and define enthusiasm for sport by watching it on telly, find assault courses tough going. The result is that all western nations are struggling to identify enough young men able and willing to carry rifles on battlefields. It is hard to foresee social trends that will make it less so. The armed forces as an institution still command public respect. But this is of limited worth unless it translates into a willingness by the young to sign up and do the business. It is paradoxical that Tony Blair, who sought to use Britain's armed forces more ambitiously than any modern prime minister, inflicted deep damage by associating them with some unpopular and perhaps unwinnable causes. Britain's three services are now so small that, if current policies and difficulties continue, it will be almost impossible to reverse the process of decline. Relations between senior officers at the MoD have become rancorous, amid fears and recriminations about budget cuts, real and threatened. Unless one is an outright pacifist, rejecting military commitment anywhere, in any cause, it is necessary to recognise that the national interest must suffer if the services become tarnished and are penalised for a prime minister's political misjudgments. The old cliche is often trotted out that our armed forces are still world class. In truth, it is no longer valid. However high their quality, they are now too few to fulfil many of the tasks they are assigned. Even if ministers try to delude us otherwise, the public should not be fooled. Source: Max Hastings: Our armed forces are no longer world class \| Comment is free \| The Guardian __________________ the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie.

14-05-2008, 11:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
BonnieDundee Uber Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Between Mallaig and Cornwall. Posts: 2,201	Are we measured by our armed forces? __________________ "It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state." -Bruce Schneier How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and pss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.* Edward Abbey Leopold Kohr.

14-05-2008, 11:31 PM	#4 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,827 Party: None	They're highly important, to say the least. __________________ the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie.

17-05-2008, 02:04 PM	#9 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	I like the Swiss model. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

15-05-2008, 02:10 PM	#5 (permalink)
GenghisChris Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 48	Well our armed forces definetly need modernising, surely in this day and age jet fighters can be radio controlled, infantry could be replaced by minature radio controlled vehicles with chain guns, tanks could be automised too! It would be a perfect solution as out teenagers are already fully adapted to working such machinery just by the games they play on their computers

17-05-2008, 04:47 PM	#10 (permalink)
kernow Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4,674	I don't think anyone who cares about this Country now actually thinks we have a World class fighting force anymore. The reason we haven't can be firmly placed at the door of those British St H**s who are gagging for Britain to be locked into a EU Superstate!