UK's Plan To Axe Army Battalions Revealed

[Catbird]

Wow. This really puts it into perspective.

Sky News:

The Government is due to announce plans that will see five infantry battalions axed altogether and other units merged or turned into reservists in the biggest structural changes to the Army in more than a century.

The defence secretary, Philip Hammond will set out how the regular Army will be cut*from 102,000 troops to 82,000 by the end of the decade - its lowest level since*the Napoleonic Wars.

[Brihard]

Wow. Those are some DEEP cuts. Seeing some of those regiments cuts is heartbreaking. The Argylls- in Basra in May 2004 it was 20 of them pinned down by 100 insurgents who, low on ammunition, said 'sod this', fixed bayonets, and charged across a couple hundred yards of open ground, routing the enemy and killing about 20. First time *that's* happened since the Falklands.

Cuts to a military always hurt, but seeing a *regiment* ending is always heartbreaking for many. One's regiment is part of one's family.

[Antropologo]

I recently finished the book "Ghost Force" by Patrick Robinson. The overall premise was that the Brits cut their armed forces so much that they left themselves vulnerable to attack. In the book, the Argentinians were able to kick their butt right out of the Falklands.

I'm thinking that fiction could become a reality because of the Brits' lack of foresight and due to their economy-draining state welfare system.

[dyrt]

The Brits will get what they deserve just like everyone else. It seems to me that they should put more young people into military training instead of paying them to do nothing.

[Brihard]

The military is not and must never be allowed to become a jobs program or alternative to welfare. I'll take a blank spot in my section before someone who doesn't want to be there. At least a blank file is a known quantity.

[ukmum]

Originally Posted by dyrt

The Brits will get what they deserve just like everyone else. It seems to me that they should put more young people into military training instead of paying them to do nothing.

No and Yes

I agree with Brihard, if you put people who dont really want to be there in the army all you are doing is training young people for no real return.

Yes, absolutely you should not pay them to do nothing, our current Gov has been hampered by the previous labour Gov under which the lazy prospered under the generous welfare system. This Governorment is trying to change that but is being hampered by the fact they are inn a coalition.
Their idea is broadly NOT to pay welfare to the Under 25s or force them to do work if they do get benefits...hopefully it will get through.

Cutting welfare for those that Wont is popular. Obviously with the proviso that the benefits of those that Cant are protected.

[Ross]

The military is not and must never be allowed to become a jobs program
or alternative to welfare. I'll take a blank spot in my section before someone who doesn't want to be there. At least a blank file is a known quantity.

I see nothing wrong with asking people riding on the back of
community support to contribute via military service .

Military forces have been using conscripts since the Big Bang .
An army that does not know how to turn conscripts in to an
effective fighting force need to take a good hard look at its self .


.

[Brihard]

Originally Posted by Ross

Military forces have been using conscripts since the Big Bang .
An army that does not know how to turn conscripts in to an
effective fighting force need to take a good hard look at its self ..

Oh, that's just rich. A civilian telling an infantry NCO with operational experience about effective fighting forces?

The success of my combat element is contingent on every soldier under my command being willing, and one hundred percent invested in what he or she is doing. I will not have someone nursing conscript syndrome. We already have no trouble recruiting some of the best of society- I won't accept some supposed necessity of hiring the dregs. The military does not deserve to be treated as society's dumping ground for the useless. Ours is an honourable profession, must be selective, and must be exclusionary of those who can't do it. If an individual cannot motivate themselves to be successful elsewhere, why suppose they would be successful in the forces?

Moreover, to compel individuals to take up arms and serve is wrong; ethically and morally. No state deserves to survive by conscript soldiers- a state that cannot convince enough of its own population that it is worth defending deserves to fail. Individually, conscription is akin to slavery or indentured servitude, except that it extends to compelling another human being against their will to risk their life. And finally, from a purely utilitarian, practical perspective, it will take me much more effort to turn out a much more questionable product if I'm training conscripts than if I'm training volunteers.

Whatever Britain's many issues are, conscription simply is not in the balance a defensible or a practical solution to any of them. We're far too busy doing our jobs to be babysitters.

[Ross]

Ok I will phrase it differently .

We would not be asking them to undergo military training we would
be telling them .

If they do not become an effective fighting force as literally
millions of conscripts in prior wars have then it is not their fault
so much as the military and law makers.

It is no more immoral to force people in to military training
than have a large section of society sitting on their bums while
another section supports and feeds them . If you accept the benefits
then you should also accept an obligation to contribute back
what you can .


As for this ....

a state that cannot convince enough of its own population
that it is worth defending deserves to fail.

I would respond with ....... any state so foolish as to indulge
in gross and unnecessary waste of community resources deserves to fail .

[Brihard]

The military does not exist to serve social goals. We exist to develop, maintain, and if necessary employ the ability to kill people and break things, and we accept unlimited individual liability in doing so- something you seem unable to wrap your head around. Anything that distracts from our role as above is detrimental and must be avoided, and that includes babysitting welfare bums. My professional, volunteer troops deserve better than to have to serve alongside those of dubious motivation and moral quality. I will not accept any argument that would compel me to take anyone less than the most motivated into my team, because in a fight I need to command my section, not worry about whether the conscript's turned tail. Conscripts have been effective as cannon fodder then five or six figure death counts were the norm an human life had cease to have particular value. As a soldier and not merely a butcher I reject that.

Further to that, it is WRONG to force people into positions of mortal hazard. You do not have the right to make others die for you simply because you have issue with social an fiscal policy. Find another solution- you have no business attempting to impose such problems on us. We have enough to worry about.

[Ross]

Small regional bush fires like Afghanistan could continue to be
voluntary deployments although I expect many of the conscripted
would volunteer anyway as happened with Vietnam .

[ukmum]

To be clear, our regular force is losing but the TA is increasing.

[Ross]

Yes and when I think about it conscripting during a depression
probably makes little sense because there would be so many people
looking for work an army should have no problem recruiting .

[Brihard]

No. Why would we take those who are insufficiently motivated to do anything else? We don't need the lazy, weak, and incapable in our ranks. They are liabilities where lives matter. We only need those who want to be there. Add to that the costs to train and pay a soldier, and you're looking at substantially more than welfare pays out. Why would we pay *more* money to make people already not particularly useful into liabilities, and degrade the effectiveness of the rest of a military force?

Your idea is bloody stupid and runs completely counter to the role and demands of a modern military.

[Sysiphus]

Bri - I think the question here is whether the UK (and Europe) has enough motivated folks to have a trained military of a size and depth that is sufficient to defend themselves and their interests if the need arises. They have been shifting the defense burden to the US and Canada for many years now, and this is just more of the same. It is not right (or prudent) to rely primarily on others for your defense. So, the question is how do they motivate sufficient folks. I know you are a soldier, but you have a somewhat romanticized view of the modern military, at least the U.S. military. My BIL is deployed in Afghanistan right now (Marines). Yes, the officers generally "want to be there", but it is a much more mixed bag among the enlisted men and women. Many, many of them are doing it because of the bonus check they got (short-term thinking) or similar reasons. Or, perhaps, I am misconstruing your words.

[Brihard]

Sysiphus- I'm Canadian, not American, and I certainly don't need second or third hand info on the motivations of soldiers in Afghanistan.

Absolutely Britain has enough motivated people to staff their military. The issue is slashed defense budgets, not a population unwilling to provide sufficiently motivated and numerous recruits. And British soldiers (like most first world militaries) are better treated and compensated than Americans, so that's a flawed comparison.

In any case, that's not the core issue- just a tangent that emerged from Ross' truly inane 'send the bums to the military' suggestion.

[Sysiphus]

Yes - I am aware of that Bri. Given the size of its population, I think Canada has done more than its fair share. I suspect that we agree that American troops (particularly enlisted) should be paid much more than they are right now. Not sure re: Canada. I think the U.S. is not necessarily getting the right type of soldier in many cases at this point. Afghanistan and Iraq have strained the voluntary intake to the limit. Hopefully things will improve once we disengage in Afghanistan.

[ukmum]

OK in essence we (The UK) can not sustain financially the military service we have. The country has to make a desison on where to make cuts. The first cuts came from the ministry of defence itself which were deep but not deep enough in my opinion. A friend who is a Major in the army has admitted that the MOD is bloated and top heavy. Mistakes hav also been made in tenders which have doubled the cost of certain purchases.

I'm not saying the cuts are wrong but the incompetence of those in power should have been rectified first prior to cuts on the ground.

Regards the cuts themselves, 7 of the regiments are Germany based so you could argue that the cut is not huge in terms of impact only in numbers. Also our TA (Reserves?) are also well regarded, cheaper to keep and are increasing in number.

[Sysiphus]

Sounds a skosh like our schools here in the US.

Originally Posted by ukmum

OK in essence we (The UK) can not sustain financially the military service we have. The country has to make a desison on where to make cuts. The first cuts came from the ministry of defence itself which were deep but not deep enough in my opinion. A friend who is a Major in the army has admitted that the MOD is bloated and top heavy. Mistakes hav also been made in tenders which have doubled the cost of certain purchases.

I'm not saying the cuts are wrong but the incompetence of those in power should have been rectified first prior to cuts on the ground.

Regards the cuts themselves, 7 of the regiments are Germany based so you could argue that the cut is not huge in terms of impact only in numbers. Also our TA (Reserves?) are also well regarded, cheaper to keep and are increasing in number.

[Kassy]

The issue is slashed defense budgets

Very much so. We're cutting deep into our military too (no more tanks for the dutch army ...we'd sell them to Indonesia for € 200 million or so but parliament delayed that until Indonesia had enough & bought the same tanks from Germany) , we might get out of the JSF program etc.

The money is spent elsewhere.

See what changes over time in UK spending:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ye...c1n_30#ukgs302

[Catbird]

Aside from the financial issues involved, part of what is going on here is the same thing that has happened time and again over the past century. Every time a "war" ends, the UK, the US, and Canada make drastic cuts to their military forces and funding. It happened between WWI and II, after WWII and Korea, after Vietnam and after Gulf I.

The fact that the reductions will invariably create a crisis when it's time to react to the next conflict is always overlooked by the politicians and voters who are eager to make popular budget cuts. It's much easier to cut spending on troops and equipment than it is to slash entitlement benefits because after all, tanks and ships don't vote.

[Ross]

Just to clarify .

My position is not that the unemployed should normally be conscripted
but rather if the need arose for more military personal in circumstances
were recruiting is difficult then it would be reasonable to require
service .

It's much easier to cut spending on troops and equipment than
it is to slash entitlement benefits because after all, tanks and
ships don't vote.

I think military spending is rarely popular and never more so
than in times of financial hardship .