Pay soldiers more and equip them properly!

[abbotyobs]

Here here!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/27/dl2701.xml

A soldier is on the ground in Helmand. He calls for air support: no Harriers are available, because there are no instructors left to train their pilots. He is injured in battle: the surgeon has been on call for too long and makes a fatal error.

This is what shortages in the military can do: without sufficient personnel in key positions, the machinery seizes up; troops are left without sufficient support, and more of them are killed or injured.

As we report today, the shortfalls in these "pinch-point" positions are even more alarming than was previously thought: we need six times as many Harrier instructors as are currently serving, and more than 2,000 medical positions are unfilled. Indeed, shortages of equipment and personnel are becoming endemic across the Services.

advertisement


In July, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons warned that we do not have enough troops to meet the demands of peacetime, let alone of conducting indefinite operations in two major theatres. General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army, has said our reserves are "almost non-existent".

We can make do and mend to a certain extent, but the reservoirs of expertise are slowly being drained. It is a vicious circle: as gaps develop in key positions, the remaining staff are worked ever harder and exposed to ever more danger.

This lowers morale and increases the temptation for personnel to move into the private sector - especially since their skills, whether medical or mechanical, will be highly sought after.

One solution is to raise salaries - our Servicemen are disgracefully ill-rewarded as it is, a state of affairs hardly conducive to attracting and retaining quality personnel. The "golden hellos" of which ministers boast are a start; but bonuses to retain experienced troops should also be a priority.

Our troops also need better equipment and support: half of our Apache helicopters in Afghanistan have been grounded this summer, for want of parts.

This support should not be limited to the front line, either. British soldiers should have the best possible post-combat care, both medical and psychological, and living conditions that do not punish them for serving their country.

Thanks to Sir Richard, soldiers' families no longer have to pay to send them care packages, but there are many other nettles to grasp: the state of the MoD's housing stock scarcely fits the phrase "homes fit for heroes".

This will involve an increase in military spending - and about time, too, given the extraordinary demands we have placed on the Services.

Yet there is something just as important as money that the troops also need, and that is respect. The public - and, worse, the Government - all too often fails to understand or appreciate the sacrifices our soldiers are making.

Take the case of Des Browne, Secretary of State for Defence and Scotland. If Mr Browne cannot devote his entire attention to working on his troops' behalf, how can he expect them to give him their loyalty?

[ORAC]

Not only the Torygraph, but the Times as well. Someone must be pishing this quite hard...

The Times: Blood on a budget: our soldiers betrayed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article2332329.ece) Where is the surge in funding?

From August 10 the Ministry of Defence imposed a gagging order on the Armed Services. Members of the Forces are no longer allowed to discuss any matters relating to defence through any public means of communication. They cannot speak at public meetings, write letters to the press, write blogs or even take part in surveys. This gagging order applies to men and women of all ranks.

Can I ask two questions: Why now? For whose benefit? The new censorship is a reaction to low morale in the Services, which extends from top to bottom, from general to private. The people protected are the politicians, who are responsible for the crisis in morale.

Soldiers do not object to being sent to war as such. They do object to having to fight without the best equipment and support, and without being given clear objectives. They recognise the failure of the Government to back its strategy with expenditure. General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, has spoken of the overstretch of the British Army, having to fight a difficult war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. The soldiers experience this overstretch in almost every detail of their lives, and on the risks they are expected to take.

One example can show the relationship between expenditure and soldiers’ lives. With modern body armour, soldiers have an excellent chance of surviving serious injuries. We, the public, are told about the deaths, but injuries, however bad, are not usually reported. Survival depends on getting to hospital quickly and that depends on helicopters. British forces are short of helicopters, but the Americans are not. After five years, the Treasury has not agreed to pay for all the helicopters that are needed. Treasury parsimony can cost lives.

The funding for the Armed Forces has been run down progressively over the past ten years. As a percentage of national income, defence expenditure is lower than at any time since the early 1930s. It is not surprising that the Forces were being “downscaled” in the early 90s, immediately after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, when a global threat had been removed. Yet the rundown continued, even after Britain had been committed to a war on two fronts in the Middle East.

The Afghanistan war is now in its sixth year; it has lasted longer than the First World War and almost as long as the Second World War. Yet there has been no surge in funding to match the surge in commitments.

Throughout the Iraq war, our Forces have been short of suitable armoured vehicles. For years, the Basra palace run had to be performed in vulnerable Snatch vehicles; these have only recently been replaced by the Warrior, which is itself vulnerable to roadside bombs. Unlike American vehicles, the Warrior is not air-conditioned and can get unbearably hot in the sun.

The Royal Air Force has also been kept short of funds for essential equipment. There have been too few helicopters, too few fighters and too few transport aircraft; some of the aircraft have not been updated to the US level of defence technology.

British dependence on US air power has had a price, not only for the injured. Naturally, British troops have better coordination with British airstrikes. The risks of casualties from friendly fire are greater when liaising with the US Air Force. That is not the fault of the Americans. British forces ought to have their own air support.

Soldiers and their families feel that they have been neglected at home. Much of the housing in England for the Armed Forces is a disgrace, as the adjutant-general, Lieutenant-General Sir Freddie Viggers, has admitted. Soldiers have complained of living conditions at the famous Catterick Camp. They report leaking toilets, no heating, damp rooms. Half of the accommodation for single men and women is “of the lowest quality”; married quarters are often no better. Apparently, £5 billion ought to be spent on defence housing over the next ten years, but it has not been spent so far.

One measure of the state of morale is the ease of retaining trained soldiers and recruiting new ones. It has been difficult to persuade senior NCOs to sign on for further service, despite the offer of bonuses. Too much reliance has been put on the Territorial Army, some of whose members have gone into combat only half-trained.

The Middle East war has had to be fought inside political constraints. At a time when the Basra palace was being hit by 40 to 50 rockets a day, the soldiers would have liked to sort out the people firing the rockets. In practice, there were political inhibitions against such action. Junior officers felt that there was a total lack of clarity about objectives.

Both in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were lurking convictions that our troops were not fighting to win, but for some sort of draw, with withdrawal or the realignment of local crimes as the real objectives. In this respect, American tactics were probably more effective.

Tony Blair was responsible for the original decision to support the US invasion of Iraq, but Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, was an assenting party. He accepted the arguments for the war,as many of us did, but would not agree to pay for it. Now his attitude as Prime Minister has been shown by his extraordinary decision to retain Des Browne as Secretary of State for Defence, while simultaneously appointing him as Secretary of State for Scotland, a highly sensitive political post.

British objectives need to be clarified and realigned with those of the Americans, who suspect that Britain is going to let them down. The strategy also needs some guarantee of future funding. We shall not get any of this from Mr Browne. In such circumstances, the post of Secretary for Defence cannot remain a part-time job for a modest minister of the middle rank.

[LFFC]

Here's a link to the lead article in the Torygraph:

British Armed Forces staff shortage crisis (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/27/nforces127.xml)

Across the Navy, Army and RAF, experienced personnel are leaving, fed up with the demands of continuous operations and often taking up highly-paid jobs in private security.

[BEagle]

The MoD said it was "taking action on recruitment and retention challenges" but there was no question of front-line units not having enough specialist support.

'Challenges' - a true weasel word and so much fluffier than 'crises'.

As for 'no question of front-line units not having enough specialist support', that's probably true. No need for any questions - it's a fact.

[PMA's Toy]

Was "an MOD spokesman" quoted at any point in these articles? I'd love to meet whoever these spokespeople are. Every story seems to go the same way right now:

Newspaper: "British troops don't have enough kit or personnel, nor enough of a welfare package when returning from theatre injured, nor enough pay, nor enough anything, frankly."

Bloke on Front Line: "It's true. We've run out of ammo, all the Aussies here are paid about 3 times as much as us, and the US have loads more kit. We've got nothing and we all want to leave when we get home, else we'll be back out here in 3 weeks."

MOD Spokesman: "Everything is fine. They haven't run out of ammo, they're the best paid armed forces in the world, and no more people than we expect are leaving."

How can they just constantly deny everything, including the exact words coming from the mouths of the guys out there in the middle east?

[Melchett01]

We had a very interesting visit by the AFPRB a few months back. The forum I happened to be in at the time had the head of the Board in with us.

I nearly fell of my chair laughing at the discomfort of the Board members when it was asked that "why did the govt always go on that the Armed Forces are the best in the world but when it comes to renumeration and compensation only got one of the best packages in the world" . You could have heard a pin drop - if it hadn't been for the noise of the board's uncomfortable shuffling in seats and rustling of papers.

To be fair to the person asking the question, they did caveat it, saying that whilst it seemed to be a cynical question to ask, the disparity had been noticed across the rank range and didn't the Board think it was about time that something was done about the increasingly wide divergence between the govt's spin and its actions. And that is one of the things that I still like about many military people - their honesty and forthwright nature in direct contrast to the ducking and diving of the politicians and civil servants.

[Meldrew]

I am not a member of the armed forces, but I have a close relative that is a serving officer.
I, as a mere civilian am disgusted by the government's spin and lies about the amount of support that our armed forces are receiving. The gagging order, if true, is an absolute disgrace and I demand that the press follow this up and expose the exponents. Our armed forces are required by government to expedite the actions necessary to defend this country and its interests. The government in return is obligated to provide the resources necessary for them to carry out that task. It is as simple as that, no ifs, buts or further discussion. If this country is required to continue to fight on various fronts, for whatever reason, even if those reasons may be questionable, then we must, must, must avail our forces the required equipment and facilities that the military leaders demand. Assuming of course, that the military leaders have the guts to stand up for the men and women that they command. Any other lilly livered excuse for failure to act is totally unacceptable.

[owe ver chute]

About this gagging order :oh:

[Guzlin Adnams]

Here here Meldrew.......

[Compressorstall]

People may be having meetings about taking action to solve the problems, but aside from free mail, what else has actually happened? It seems that our political masters have liked playing with their armed forces but the moment that they realised that war is a) unpopular and b) spends money quicker than Posh Spice in an Armani Shop they have firmly put the ear defenders in place and banged on about the NHS (not much done there either) and education again whilst ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan except when they have to say something from the "best Armed Forces in the world" and "doing a great job in difficult conditions" list of soundbites.
The bottom line is that the experience must be retained by improving conditions/pay/incentives, equipment must be maintained/upgraded/replaced and people must have clear guidelines on the task in hand and be allowed to get on with them. It all costs money and takes resolve (not the hangover cure).:ugh:

[fantom]

Tomorrow, we leave for hols. We shall pay a charge to protect the environment.

My arr2e.

I will be pleased to pay for the troops' benefit but do not lie, Mr Brown.

[Mad_Mark]

Meldrew,

As a civilian you should send a letter along the same lines as your post to the press. As a serving member I am not allowed to do so :oh:

MadMark!!! :mad:


p.s. This post was a personal observation about an individuals comment and was in no way, shape or form a discussion of anything military or defence related ;)

[blogger]

And the reason to remain in the forces is..................
>
>
>
>
>
>

sorry can't think of one.

[Not_a_boffin]

What is utterly astonishing is that we have been operating significantly above the scale, op tempo and concurrent operations levels assumed in the DPA for years now (essentially since 2001) and yet maintaining these assumptions has to the best of my knowledge never been questioned. It is always brushed aside with comments along the lines of "oh it's a temporary effect, back to normal soon".

MoD has explicitly admitted this before the HCDC and the NAO and yet the opposition and the press just haven't twigged. They should be crucifying the Resource & Policy types in MB (along with their Treasury bosses) for refusing to fund the forces properly (contingency funding doesn't sort the increased wear and tear on kit and people, just pays the operating bills).

Arguing about who gets what out of the existing cake is missing the point entirely - the assumptions underlying the current level of funding (and hence the level itself) are what needs to be addressed!

[ORAC]

The Guardian: Necessary forces (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_bell/2007/08/necessary_forces.html) Martin Bell

It should now be obvious, even to the government, that the British armed forces and especially the army are in a state of crisis. Never in my lifetime has it been so overstretched and over-committed, undervalued and unde-equipped, ill-directed and ill-used. Based on personal experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have written a book (The Truth That Sticks: New Labour's Breach of Trust), to tell the soldiers' story - what it has been like to be sent to fight unwinnable wars in distant countries by politicians who have, themselves, not a day's experience of soldiering between them.

When the chief of the general staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, publicly warns that the army is close to breaking and cannot field a single further battle group, it is a fair guess that he is doing so only because his private warnings have not been heeded.

The troops in Afghanistan need the support of American airpower - with such fatal consequences last week - because, however bravely they fight, they do not have enough boots on the ground to dominate the terrain in Helmand province against a resourceful and well equipped enemy. They are in danger of becoming like the American Marines in Beirut in 1983 - too few to fight and too many to die.

In turn the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Marines and now the Royal Anglians have been involved in fighting of an intensity not known by the British army since the Korean war. The casualties have risen proportionately. In Afghanistan last month, I had the distinct impression that the Kabul government and the forces supporting it are not gaining but losing ground.

The problem is political as well as military. Part of it is the disconnect between the soldiers and the society they serve. We take them too much for granted. When I was a corporal in the Suffolk Regiment a long time ago - a reluctant and not very good one - every county had its own regiment and the people understood who they were and what they did. It was a common bond that hardly exists any more.

This was brought home vividly after the death of the three Royal Anglians last week: the flag flew at half mast at their regimental headquarters, all that remains of Gibraltar Barracks in Bury St Edmunds, where I was trained. B Company, to which the men belonged, continues the old traditions of the Suffolks. And when their deaths were referred to on the BBC news, the newsreader spoke of them as "Royal Anglicans".

What was this, I wondered, the Church Militant? As a people we have lost more than we know, because we never knew that we had it.

[Could be the last?]

Just read - Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, it kind of sums everything up with military procurement. Just ignore the crab bashing....:=

[Compressorstall]

Is the root cause that the Armed Forces are undervalued or just looked down upon? I have seen MPs look so uncomfortable around servicemen like they are visiting their most loathesome relative.

[Chimp Boy]

Chaps, excuse my ignorance but this gagging order is news to me.
What's the gen?
Am I to assume that as an Officer of HM Forces I no longer have the right to send a highly opined letter to the editor of the Times!!!

Never mind the crap pay and conditions and the complete lack of respect and consideration from our political masters, who refuse to look us in the eye whilst packing us off to another crap hole with one hand behind our backs, if I can't mank on a national level then I'm off.

This is intended as military comment in a public forum.

Press to test.

[L1A2 discharged]

Chimp Boy,
with all due respect, etc, etc Check PMs (later after I have had a chance to check), and / or search this forum for the phrase 'DIN' to see the recent discussion.
The immediate answer to your question:
Am I to assume that as an Officer of HM Forces I no longer have the right to send a highly opined letter to the editor of the Times!!!
Is: yes. :ugh:

[Doctor Cruces]

Both of my nephews are in the Army and when each was serving in Iraq we regularly sent food parcels and other necessities so they could survive.

They are treated apallingly by the political masters and the insincere crocodile tears as more and more are killed get harder and harder to take with a straight face.

I urge all to sign the British Legion "Broken Covenant" petition to our so called masters.

Doc C

[Chimp Boy]

L1A2,

Cheers,

Ironically there was a message from Comd JHC in everyone's inbox this morning. What are the chances of that.............