• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Army weakened by recruitment failure

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,957
Points
1,160
Army weakened by recruitment failure
Shortfall worsens despite record spending

Mark Townsend The Observer, Sunday April 27 2008

The British army's frontline fighting capability has been severely weakened by an acute manpower shortage that has left military commanders short of two infantry battalions. An internal Whitehall memo reveals that the British infantry is 1,280 men short of full fighting strength ahead of the fresh spring offensive in Afghanistan.

The Ministry of Defence memorandum revealed that even though it had spent more than £95m on recruitment in the last 12 months - a record amount, and up by almost £30m five years ago - the army has failed to attract the recruits it most desperately needs.

Already every battalion of 600 in Afghanistan is experiencing a shortfall of 100 men because of problems of recruitment and numbers leaving the army, the memo said. During the fierce fighting last year, the British army had three infantry battalions in Afghanistan at any one time.

In addition, the document, submitted by the MoD to a parliamentary inquiry into manning and retention rates, identifies almost 100 critical 'pinch points' that are having a 'detrimental impact' on the ability of the armed forces to conduct two major conflicts.

Defence officials have identified 30 'pinch points' caused by personnel shortages in the army, with another 31 in the Royal Air Force - including aircraft gunners and intelligence analysts - and a further nine in the Royal Navy.

Among the factors cited by officials for low recruitment rates is obesity. It states: 'Increasing levels of obesity and resultant health problems among young people reduce the number eligible to join.'

Other shortages identified include junior vehicle mechanics, which are also desperately needed for conducting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the army alone unable to fill 535 spaces. Elsewhere, the MoD admits a shortfall of 29 per cent among medical personnel and a 75 per cent shortfall in army radiologists at or above the rank of Major.

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: 'These figures are extremely worrying. This is the inevitable result of a failure by the government to uphold the Military Covenant and the last decade of overstretch and neglect. The increasing retention and manning crisis will continue to add strain to our already overstretched armed forces.'

Last week the defence secretary, Des Browne, confirmed that Britain's 4,000-strong force will remain in Basra as tensions remain. Meanwhile, the deployment of an almost 8,000-strong UK presence from 16 Air Assault Brigade has arrived in Helmand province, Afghanistan, where Taliban forces are expected to resume fighting soon.

A £15,000 loyalty bonus is to be offered to members of the armed forces in a desperate effort to boost retention rates and halt an exodus driven by the strains of fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

· British troops who have sustained serious injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be awarded higher compensation, the army's second most senior officer has announced. Speaking in an interview in The Sunday Telegraph newspaper, General Sir David Richards said the current compensation rates were inadequate. It is believed that the new payments could be three times higher than those paid at present.
 
I'm guessing that, as always, retaining the soldiers they have is a bigger issue than recruiting new troops. That, and eliminating many of the county regiments that drew their recruits from local communities and kept the army in the public eye. No doubt they've effectively disconnected themselves from their recruiting base with these recent downsizing focused cost cutting measures.
 
The author, Max Hastings, is very well plugged-in:

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/28/defence.military

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...

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?"..

Mark
Ottawa
 
The Liberal Party has starved the Army of resources at a time that they are engaged on two fronts. Army life isnt as appealing due to low pay and substandard living conditions.I dont see that changing unless there is a Tory government.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The Liberal Party has starved the Army of resources at a time that they are engaged on two fronts. Army life isnt as appealing due to low pay and substandard living conditions.I dont see that changing unless there is a Tory government.

You're right there, I'm afraid. And unfortunately the Conservative threat is very low at this time!
 
tomahawk6 said:
The Liberal Party has starved the Army of resources . . .

I think you may mean Labour.  The last time there was a Liberal Party Prime Minister leading HMG it was David Lloyd George (1916-1922) and even then his government was a coalition.
 
it hurts me to see how the British ppl don't support their troops like we do, not to mention the anti-war sentiment. They should seriously get some advice from the people that made those "fight with the Canadian forces" TV commercials, pulled me right in, best recruitment ads ever!
 
Back
Top