Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#1
THE SAS faces a recruitment crisis because the Army is too stretched to supply enough applicants, a leaked document has revealed.
Unrelenting operations in Afghanistan and a huge number of deployments have combined to deter troops from the tough Special Forces selection course, Brigadier Richard Dennis warned in a letter to General Sir Peter Wall, head of the Army.
The lack of new recruits and high battlefield injuries are thought to have left the elite regiment operating at two-thirds capacity. Insiders warned the situation could become "irretrievable" if the Army goes ahead with plans to reduce its headcount by 5,000, shrinking the pool of troops available even further.
Brig Dennis, head of the infantry, warned immediate action is needed to increase "depth and quality" of potential recruits to meet the "challenge of fully manning the SAS"
Being a simple layman I find it difficult to comprehend how the govt can cut defence spending,make redundant experienced soldiers,cancel the building of new ships,mothball or scrap whole squandrons still fully operational and then continue to led the country into conflicts around the globe.
I must be missing something....
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#2
AS Barry W has said on many occasions, defence-spending should be ring-fenced or increased, not cut.
If we are cutting defence by the levels we seem to be, then we must also cut back on our overseas engagements.
How can we ring-fence overseas aid, yet cut defence ?
Roger
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#3
As I have said on many occasions, defence spending should be limited to the defence of the realm. Foreign policy adventures pursued by military means should be paid for out of the foreign affairs budget. That would mean that all conflicts of the last 50 years (bar the Falklands) would have had to be paid for by the Foreign Office.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
the problem seems to be that the afghan issue will not go away and there wil be calls to get further involved with libya and all the other countries in the arab world where the leaders are mistreating their own people.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#5
well thats the world coverd howard,but wot about home defence.
#6
bring back dads army
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
'Home defence' is not about just protecting our shores from the UK.
To beat the terrorist threat we need to take the fight to the enemy. We also need to play the part of a responsible member of the international community and in doing so ensure that we exert a positive influence for good on the world scene. That does mean having strong defence forces that can and are deployed abroad.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#8
BarryW
I fully agree and understand where your coming from but which agency would you feel comfortable in dealing with the very real and current threat from Irish and Islamic extremists to ''disrupt'' the forthcoming royal marriage.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
That is surely the job of MI5 supported by other elements of the security services including Police Special Branch and GCHQ.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#10
Barry the threat of terrorism is largely from within. Are you suggesting the Army should patrol Southall, Luton and Oldham? If they did, we would start seeing IEDs on our streets in large numbers. My point is not that we should totally avoid getting involved militarily abroad but that if we do, it should not be funded out of the defence budget. Because if we do fund it out of the defence budget, then cuts will have to be made elsewhere. For example, if there had been no Iraq and no Afghanistan, it would not have been thought necessary to axe Nimrod or the Ark Royal.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
Errrm - no Peter, see what I said.
I disagree with you fundamentally about Britain's role ion the world.
I actually disagree about the funding impact of not involving ouselves in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. I suspect the impact would have been even lower Defence spending over the years and an even greater defence crisis.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#12
Barry
I am not sure that taking the fight to the 'terrorist' is a suitable approach. Could it be that we will look back and see this method in the same light as we now see sending thousands of troops at walking pace straight towards the machine guns? Taking the fight to an invisible force has a very poor success rate. Better that we adopt a more humanitarian approach and look at providing basic needs such as clean water, schools, hospitals etc than throw several thousand pounds of explosives into communities. Humanitarian aid will help reduce the supposed cause for many groups whilst bombs act as recruitment aids.
Playing the part of a responsible member of the international community may also mean that we have to look at supporting people in countries that are not blessed by bountiful oil supplies or other natural resources but that would mean a shift in a foreign policy that hasn't really changed since its inception.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
Mark - what you are saying is correct and 'hearts and minds' must be at the centre of our strategy in Afghanistan. For that to work though you must be able to deliver such aid and the only way to do that, given the instability of Afghanistan, is to be there supporting the Afghan government as they do not have the military strength to maintain control over these parts of their country. indeed a stable Afghanistan is essential to stop the Taliban regaining control and allowing the terrorist training camps again in the mountains.
In respect of your latter points the overseas aid budget, rightly or wrongly, is protected and a large part, if not the larger part, is spent helping nations without oil supplies or 'bountiful natural resources' and is purely for humanitarian purposes. Seperately to the aid budget one thing the UK has not been found wanting on is in respect of humanitarian aid, no-one has been more generous responding to disaster appeals than the British people. The Royal Navy has also been there for people at such times.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#14
I think the qestion remains about how far overseas we go in the interests of protecting ourselves?
we could take on the mights of china, japan, saudi arabia, n korea, the list goes on and on.
it's where you draw the line
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#15
We have already seen from the 7/7 and Charles de Menezes operations that the various elements of the security services do not communicate effectively with each other. And there are serious inter-service rivalries and turf issues which do not help. Our involvements overseas only serve to fan the flames of extremism, not to extinguish them. We are wasting our money and men on battles we cannot possibly win. Furthermore groups like al-Qaeda probably know more about our planning, command structures and operational capabilities than we do of theirs. And they have unlimited supplies of Shuhada who will blow themselves up in order to kill and maim as many of us as possible.
Our politicians and military strategists just do not understand a). How to fight an asymmetric conflict or b). history.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#16
Barry
what we see in Afghanistan, have seen, and will see, in other countries is the consequence of foreign policies that set out to dominate and exploit. You only have to look at some of the boundary lines drawn with a ruler across countries and continents to see this.
This wasn't only Britain but successive powers that sought the resources to fuel their insatiable empires.
Let's not forget that the Taliban were supported financially and militarily by the west when the Russians were in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and others were benficiaries of excellent training and arms supply by the US amongst others.
There has to be a better way than using military might and let's hope we can discover it before the Chinese really start to flex their muscle!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#17
the problem we also have in other countries we make a stand on not wanting dictators(and rightly so) but choose countries we speak up about.
but is it any better supporting rebels who may well be as bad as the dictator who may or may not leave office
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#18
Of course we do have to be selective and in doing so have not always got it right, added to which sometimes 'unnatural' alliances need to be formed to fight the greater evil we are facing at a particular time. World War 2 and our help to the USSR being one example and our helping the Afghan resistance against Russia being another. On that point of course, not all the rebels that we supplied and helped were the Taliban, who largely come from the South of the country, we did help other groups as well that are represented in the Afghan government that we are there supporting now.
Peter - we have fought and won 'asymmetrical' campaigns before using a hearts and minds strategy combined with military force. The Mayasia troubles for instance showed the Americans how it should have been done in Vietnam.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
going a bit off subject we know hear that the "real ira" are planning a major offensive.
the focus is on them attacking the mainland but as before in the troubles the people of the six counties suffered the most.
how about using the s.a.s. to sort them out, would do wonders for the morale of our own citizens in northern ireland who really thought those days were over.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#20
it was a shame(maybe)the geezer giving the speech in the cemetary was difficult to hear/understand under his muffled disguise.
apart from his hate for the royal family
and clear view that violence was way forward.
we should look back to the days of the IRA before all the splits happened where the IRA were happy to blow up anyone innocent passers by, in the interest of making a point?
some of these geezers now servng in the irish govt, just shows how times change.
we are again in difficult times in northern ireland, although the so called real IRA is a very small outfit, i hope they are no able to drag northern ireland back to those dreary days, but it appears as though the majority in northern ireland want peace which is a good sign
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS