"We are far too sentimental about our boys"
Thread Starter
"We are far too sentimental about our boys"
We are far too sentimental about ‘our boys’ | Matthew Parris - Times Online
Article by Matthew Parris in yesterday's Times along the lines suggested by his title above. Obviously "our boys" suggests boots on the ground, but I would point out that some of the boots have been worn by "our girls" and some have been worn by aviators and other members of the RAF and RN (is that sufficient to stay the hovering hand, Mods?). Personally I think he has a point but bottom line he mistakes respect for sentimentality. As to comparing the military with Railtrack in terms of mortality rates I can only suggest he tries out both on the ECML and an AFG FOB in turn to see if his experience measures up to his theory!
Some good points made on a thread on ARRSE.
Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > We are far too sentimental about ?our boys?
Upshot seems to be that many feel uncomfortable about being seen as Heroes but see the need of having a positive rather than negative image with the public. Does Parris have a point or does he just not get it?
Article by Matthew Parris in yesterday's Times along the lines suggested by his title above. Obviously "our boys" suggests boots on the ground, but I would point out that some of the boots have been worn by "our girls" and some have been worn by aviators and other members of the RAF and RN (is that sufficient to stay the hovering hand, Mods?). Personally I think he has a point but bottom line he mistakes respect for sentimentality. As to comparing the military with Railtrack in terms of mortality rates I can only suggest he tries out both on the ECML and an AFG FOB in turn to see if his experience measures up to his theory!
Some good points made on a thread on ARRSE.
Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > We are far too sentimental about ?our boys?
Upshot seems to be that many feel uncomfortable about being seen as Heroes but see the need of having a positive rather than negative image with the public. Does Parris have a point or does he just not get it?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read this and felt sufficiently strongly to write a very occasional post. I am a regular Times reader and Parris is on average very good - thoughtful, objective, intelligent and funny. I think he lost the plot here though. Firstly neither the fact that risk (and maybe even death) goes with the territory, nor that the overall casualty rate is low in the context of historical military campaigns, in any way leads to a rational conclusion that people should put up or shut up with regards to this particular campaign. Mr Parris might see this a little differently if it was his son coming home in a coffin, merely in order to maintain a diplomatic relationship. And his supposed objective statistical benchmark is simply a load of b.....ks. The railways are not an appropriate comparable, and even if they were, there is no attempt to normalise the statistics. How many people work on the railways compared to average military numbers deployed? And what about non-combat fatalities both in theatre and elsewhere?
Everyone screws up and I suspect Parris is a decent bloke, but with the power of his pen to influence a wide audience, he really needs to engage brain before presenting a supposedly structured argument which doesn't stand up to even the most gentle probing.
Everyone screws up and I suspect Parris is a decent bloke, but with the power of his pen to influence a wide audience, he really needs to engage brain before presenting a supposedly structured argument which doesn't stand up to even the most gentle probing.
Last edited by caligula; 13th Dec 2009 at 15:14. Reason: typo
Thread Starter
Well in parts, Tourist, in parts. Curate's egg and all that. His analysis of how we got where we are in Afghanistan and why, and how it's probably going to go, is both persuasive and depressing. It's when he then turns to our (ie UK civvies) perception and recognition of our Armed Forces, a complete non-sequitur I would suggest, that he gets it all wrong. Caligula and I have both pointed to his dubious use of statistics so I'll let that go. The reason that the citizens of Wootton Bassett turn out is not in recognition of Armed Forces deaths "over the past 50 years", but of those from Iraq and Afghanistan repatriated through their town, and just to clarify the point Mr Parris they are not brought "to one place" for any other reason than that town lies on the route from the Airbase where they are landed to the Mortuary from where they go to their respective funerals. I suspect the town would prefer to keep the same spontaneous low key dignified and respectful watch that they started out with. If it has become too "sentimental" for Mr Parris he should look to the excesses of those he writes for (ie the media). As to comparing our attitude to our Armed Forces to the "cynical" admiration of the French for the Foreign Legion, I find that just outrageous. Those in the Foreign Legion might well be just "in a job", they are by definition paid mercenaries after all. Despite being called a mercenary by teacher friends of friends shortly after I left the RAF, I dispute the notion that being in the UK Armed Forces is merely "a job". With due respect to Matthew Parris (for like Caligula I am a Times reader and greatly admire his style) this time he has it wrong and like many civilians just doesn't understand the idea of service. To answer my own question in the OP, he just doesn't get it.
