Political Crossfire Forums

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2272265,00.html

According to leaked documents referred to in the Sunday Times, the infantry arm of the British Army was short of 2,200 soldiers at the end of 2005 (that's almost four whole battalions) and this may now be as high as 3,000. On average, this will mean that each British infantry battalion is short of 74 soldiers - that's about 1/8 of its total strength. The reasons for this are various but, IMO, are principally around over-stretch in the Army and asking it to do too much with too little. The vast majority of soldiers have no problem with serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan - the problem they have is pulling down frequent multiple tours with little time back in UK. So, what's the answer?

Either:
1) Ask the Army to do less
2) Give the Army more

antonio62 · Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject:

We cant get recruits which isn't that surprising considering the relatively high casualty's the Army is suffering in both Iraq and Afghanistan and they are far more reported than us being in Sierra Leone or Bosnia. We cant really just pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan now and we cant neglect out duty in other parts of the world. The only answer that I can see is increasing pay and/or benefits.

thundertaker · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:59 am Post subject:

Time to get the recruiting sergeants round the local pubs putting coins in young men's drinks like they did in the old days methinks. Shouldn't be too hard to do with Britain's current binge drinking culture.....

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

Anyone on this board fancy signing up to do a spot of sentry duty at B'ham Palace? There'll be no-one else to do it at this rate.

thundertaker · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:06 am Post subject:

DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

Anyone on this board fancy signing up to do a spot of sentry duty at B'ham Palace? There'll be no-one else to do it at this rate.

They could get some New Zealand troops to guard 'ER in the palace. They must have plenty of spare time.....

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

thundertaker wrote: DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

Anyone on this board fancy signing up to do a spot of sentry duty at B'ham Palace? There'll be no-one else to do it at this rate.

They could get some New Zealand troops to guard 'ER in the palace. They must have plenty of spare time.....

Must be about time for CW troops to rotate into the Palace - I'm sure the CDS is already on the blower to Ottawa, Canberra and Wellington!

Pebble · Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 1143

DSwain wrote: thundertaker wrote: DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

Anyone on this board fancy signing up to do a spot of sentry duty at B'ham Palace? There'll be no-one else to do it at this rate.

They could get some New Zealand troops to guard 'ER in the palace. They must have plenty of spare time.....

Must be about time for CW troops to rotate into the Palace - I'm sure the CDS is already on the blower to Ottawa, Canberra and Wellington!

At this rate they'll be on the phone to Tuvalu...

That said. Getting involved with UN peacekeeping missions is part of our duty. I would far rather our troops were fighting for something worthwhile in that manner, than for US interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 5677

DSwain wrote: So, what's the answer?

Either:
1) Ask the Army to do less
2) Give the Army more

Ask them to do less. Why oh why do we keep getting involved in wars with america, when there are actually more worthy causes that the UN should be taking on, where we share the burden?

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

Ssushi wrote: DSwain wrote: So, what's the answer?

Either:
1) Ask the Army to do less
2) Give the Army more

Ask them to do less. Why oh why do we keep getting involved in wars with america, when there are actually more worthy causes that the UN should be taking on, where we share the burden?

We don't get involved with wars just because it's with the US - we do it because it's the right thing to do. The defence budget should be increased to allow the Forces to just stand still ie, to do no more than we ask them to currently. Then, if we want them to do more, even greater funding.

antonio62 · Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:28 am Post subject:

DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

I think we should do send a peacekeeping force. We have the capability and we troops stationed just of the coast.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

antonio62 wrote: DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

I think we should do send a peacekeeping force. We have the capability and we troops stationed just of the coast.

The problem is antonio that we really don't have the capability. The reason that we were only able to send out an extra 200 infantry to Afghanistan (stories of 900 extra soldiers for Afghanistan were v misleading) is that the Army is at full stretch. But the Army - as an example of a public service that actually works, no matter what - will say 'yes, can do'.

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 5677

DSwain wrote: Ssushi wrote: DSwain wrote: So, what's the answer?

Either:
1) Ask the Army to do less
2) Give the Army more

Ask them to do less. Why oh why do we keep getting involved in wars with america, when there are actually more worthy causes that the UN should be taking on, where we share the burden?

We don't get involved with wars just because it's with the US - we do it because it's the right thing to do. The defence budget should be increased to allow the Forces to just stand still ie, to do no more than we ask them to currently. Then, if we want them to do more, even greater funding.

We helped them invade Iraq because it was the right thing to do? Oh come on!

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

Ssushi wrote: DSwain wrote: Ssushi wrote: DSwain wrote: So, what's the answer?

Either:
1) Ask the Army to do less
2) Give the Army more

Ask them to do less. Why oh why do we keep getting involved in wars with america, when there are actually more worthy causes that the UN should be taking on, where we share the burden?

We don't get involved with wars just because it's with the US - we do it because it's the right thing to do. The defence budget should be increased to allow the Forces to just stand still ie, to do no more than we ask them to currently. Then, if we want them to do more, even greater funding.

We helped them invade Iraq because it was the right thing to do? Oh come on!

Yes - the right thing to do. Saddam breached the 1991 ceasefire by obstructing UNSCOM inspectors. He repeatedly ignored the UNSC and only acquiesced somehwat when there were a quarter of a million troops on his borders. Even then he continued to obstruct UNSCOM. That's it. Nothing about sticking in with the Americans or any of that tired and hackneyed nonsense - just the facts of what actually happened.

I really don't want to turn this into another rerun of 2003 arguments about Iraq and I accept that you will disagree with me - but I'm not just saying that I think it was 'the right thing to do' to be contrary - I sincerely believe it to have been the case.

(NB I'm certainly not afraid of having the argument again, however! I just don't want to bore people with it.)

mendosan · Joined: 02 May 2006 Posts: 2332

antonio62 wrote: DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

I think we should do send a peacekeeping force. We have the capability and we troops stationed just of the coast.

I can think of nothing worse than having more of our troops stationed in some god forsaken sandy s**t hole, there already being asked to do far to much in Iraq and Afganistan, id like to see some non western Peacekeepers.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

mendosan wrote: antonio62 wrote: DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

I think we should do send a peacekeeping force. We have the capability and we troops stationed just of the coast.

I can think of nothing worse than having more of our troops stationed in some god forsaken sandy s**t hole, there already being asked to do far to much in Iraq and Afganistan, id like to see some non western Peacekeepers.

I anticipate that India will be in the frame for this. They already have a battalion on monitoring duties in Lebanon. Their armed forces are good and robust and have lots of experience in these sorts of ops.

Pebble · Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 1143

mendosan wrote: antonio62 wrote: DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

I think we should do send a peacekeeping force. We have the capability and we troops stationed just of the coast.

I can think of nothing worse than having more of our troops stationed in some god forsaken sandy s**t hole, there already being asked to do far to much in Iraq and Afganistan, id like to see some non western Peacekeepers.

A large portion of peacekeeping is already done by non western nations. For example, the United States only has just over 300 peacekeepers currently deployed, though they did pay 26% of the peacekeeping budget.

antonio62 · Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:50 am Post subject:

DSwain wrote: antonio62 wrote: DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

I think we should do send a peacekeeping force. We have the capability and we troops stationed just of the coast.

The problem is antonio that we really don't have the capability. The reason that we were only able to send out an extra 200 infantry to Afghanistan (stories of 900 extra soldiers for Afghanistan were v misleading) is that the Army is at full stretch. But the Army - as an example of a public service that actually works, no matter what - will say 'yes, can do'.

I think we do. Its not like we'll have to send 1000s of men. There are plenty stationed in Britian which don't really serve a purpose. People will say they are there for defence but that is what our navy is for not our army.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

antonio62 wrote: DSwain wrote: antonio62 wrote: DSwain wrote: And now TB is talking about blue helmets for Israel/Lebanon. What's the betting he'll be offering up a battalion or two?

I think we should do send a peacekeeping force. We have the capability and we troops stationed just of the coast.

The problem is antonio that we really don't have the capability. The reason that we were only able to send out an extra 200 infantry to Afghanistan (stories of 900 extra soldiers for Afghanistan were v misleading) is that the Army is at full stretch. But the Army - as an example of a public service that actually works, no matter what - will say 'yes, can do'.

I think we do. Its not like we'll have to send 1000s of men. There are plenty stationed in Britian which don't really serve a purpose. People will say they are there for defence but that is what our navy is for not our army.

That isn't the way to look at it. Yes there are infantry battalions here with 'nothing to do' - but they actually have plenty to do. Each infantry battalion is supposed to spend time in UK in order to train. Battalions need 'stand-down' time. Other battalions are preparing for ops. At least a battalion has to be kept on standby as 'spearhead battalion' in order to reinforce existing deployments. Out of our 38 battalions, 5 are in Iraq, 2 are in Aghanistan, 6 are in NI, 1 is in Cyprus and elements are in Gib, the Falklands, Sierra Leone and in the former Yugoslav republics. The battalions we have are understrength. Soldiers are being shipped between units to make up the numbers - one of the results from recent changes to the infantry arm. Send even one battalion to the Middle East and you would be putting real additional pressure on the Army that it can well do without. And don't forget - this wouldn't be a simple and quick deployment. Once British troops are in place they'd need to be rotated in and out of theatre - which means that you need ANOTHER battalion in UK to be readying itself to replace the battalion you've got in place.

Meanwhile, the BOWMAN radio system is being rolled out among the infantry, the most advanced and complicated radio net yet issued to the Army. The Army has had no real time to train with this system because of the current pace of ops. BOWMAN is already proving problematic to the Army on ops in Iraq and Afghanistan because of poor training.

Why do you think the MoD only provided an additional 200 infantrymen to Afghanistan? Why did they have to grab two platoons from Cyprus and a company from the 'spearhead' battalion in UK? Because that was all that could be found. It's a terrible, piecemeal deployment and the Army would have preferred to have sent at least a full battalion, probably two.

Why do you think we've got infantry battalions and support units already pulling down third tours in Iraq? It will be fourth tours soon.

The most that the UK could and should provide to any stabilisation force in the Middle East would be logistics or signals support - but certainly no infantry.

antonio62 · Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:13 am Post subject:

DSwain wrote: That isn't the way to look at it. Yes there are infantry battalions here with 'nothing to do' - but they actually have plenty to do. Each infantry battalion is supposed to spend time in UK in order to train. Battalions need 'stand-down' time. Other battalions are preparing for ops. At least a battalion has to be kept on standby as 'spearhead battalion' in order to reinforce existing deployments. Out of our 38 battalions, 5 are in Iraq, 2 are in Aghanistan, 6 are in NI, 1 is in Cyprus and elements are in Gib, the Falklands, Sierra Leone and in the former Yugoslav republics. The battalions we have are understrength. Soldiers are being shipped between units to make up the numbers - one of the results from recent changes to the infantry arm. Send even one battalion to the Middle East and you would be putting real additional pressure on the Army that it can well do without. And don't forget - this wouldn't be a simple and quick deployment. Once British troops are in place they'd need to be rotated in and out of theatre - which means that you need ANOTHER battalion in UK to be readying itself to replace the battalion you've got in place.

Meanwhile, the BOWMAN radio system is being rolled out among the infantry, the most advanced and complicated radio net yet issued to the Army. The Army has had no real time to train with this system because of the current pace of ops. BOWMAN is already proving problematic to the Army on ops in Iraq and Afghanistan because of poor training.

Why do you think the MoD only provided an additional 200 infantrymen to Afghanistan? Why did they have to grab two platoons from Cyprus and a company from the 'spearhead' battalion in UK? Because that was all that could be found. It's a terrible, piecemeal deployment and the Army would have preferred to have sent at least a full battalion, probably two.

Why do you think we've got infantry battalions and support units already pulling down third tours in Iraq? It will be fourth tours soon.

The most that the UK could and should provide to any stabilisation force in the Middle East would be logistics or signals support - but certainly no infantry.

I agree with a lot of what you said however do we need 6 battalians in Northern Ireland now. The answer clearly not.

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 5677

DSwain wrote: Yes - the right thing to do. Saddam breached the 1991 ceasefire by obstructing UNSCOM inspectors. He repeatedly ignored the UNSC and only acquiesced somehwat when there were a quarter of a million troops on his borders. Even then he continued to obstruct UNSCOM. That's it. Nothing about sticking in with the Americans or any of that tired and hackneyed nonsense - just the facts of what actually happened.

I really don't want to turn this into another rerun of 2003 arguments about Iraq and I accept that you will disagree with me - but I'm not just saying that I think it was 'the right thing to do' to be contrary - I sincerely believe it to have been the case.

(NB I'm certainly not afraid of having the argument again, however! I just don't want to bore people with it.)

I also don't want a return of that old dog of an argument, though suspect you're a little scared to take me on *jokes* :-D

My point is regarding the original question, I say do less following America and instead partner the UN. With the UN, there is a larger share of responsibility amoungst countries, hence we shouldn't be as needed. When we follow the US into one of its wars, we stand as the no.2 partner in it. We do not have the luxury that other US allies/partners in war have, in that we do not leave until the job's done (which is good). Unfortunately it s*cks us into situations which other countries are not involved and we get stuck...