US Army dumbing down?

Ahh, I think your last point may counter your first slightly. Of course the Germans were the first to use mission command, they were also heavily indoctrinated. As a result many fairly ordinary people did fairly extrodinary things. Maybe that is the worrying part, that otherwise normal, intelligent human beings can do horrible things.

I think the problem we have at the moment is that where as once the army offered opportunities to get an education and improve your life, when you are oing back to back tours there isn't really time for this. It's tough to get your A-levels for a sangar in Iraq. I remember a Piscator comic of two soldiers standing at a crossroads, sone is midifying the sign taking off the arrows pointing to 'family, hobbies, adventure training' and so on whilst adding 'Iraq, Afghan, Sierra Leone' and so on. Quite topical really.

 

Jaeger, all that you are writing about can easily be performed by any Sierra Leonese army of child-slaves. They're inexpensive and can perform as well as any of the King of Norway's Best !

(now where is that sarcasm emoticon anyway?)

 

Stefan, the first bit was devils advocate/tongue in cheek that I expected a brit to grasp.

Regarding education in the forces. Education first, deployment later.

Za.

Even better!!

 

Sorry, just wasn't particularly evident, looked like you had got confused somewhere

Agreed on the education front, but in a world where British politicians are so worried about the opinions of the US that they commit our forces to wars we are in no state to fight, what are the odds of getting the balance right?

 

I do maintain my high hopes that John the 2nd. Lootenant will be subject to less indoctrination and better education then Hans the former Hitler Junge.

 

Stefan

I think that the British Army is doing well in preparing their troops. The lads I have met in training (mostly the Green Howards) have a balanced view of things. The Army seems to have absored the lessons from N.Ireland and other deployments. It is worse with the politicians. Like you said they are too much lap dogs to the cousins across the sea.

A refresshing view from Prince Andrew.
From Prince Andrew, critical words for U.S. on Iraq - International Herald Tribune


Like the British we experience a game of catch-up with what we are going to use the Armed forces for.

It seems to change from one year to the next.
Defending the territory of the Nation and Supporting UN operations.
The next we are to train people for the european battlegroups.

Defendin Norwegian terretory place little premium on APC's and Armour. In the European BG's it does. Then it is policing in mountainious terrain in Afganistan (well suited) or operations in Sudan (challenge). So we go back and forth.

One thing remains constant and that is to continnue proper training of the personel. And in this instance I feel that we like your British Army does a good job.

The Politicians need to absorb an important lesson and that is to decide what to do and then do it. This means to understand what a military operation/campaign means. If the price is to high then don't commit in the first place. Far to often the politicans are romanced by promises of a few weeks long campaign with few casualties. They neglect the fact that it is followed by years of commitment until the region is stable.

Perhaps we should have a law with minimum requirements for politicians?

 

I agree totally, I honestly think that the British soldier is second to none and recieves better training than most. That said, I am not convinced that the support he recieves from his government in terms of equipment, care when he gets home and a sense of balance in his life is sufficient. If politicians were less willing to commit our troops so broadly they would recieve more and better training, be better able to manage their personal lives and so would be less likely to sign off. As a result we would have more and better soldiers than we do today. On the other hand if we constantly bat men from war zone to war zone what can you expect? All they want is an end to it and so many are getting out as soon as they can.

 

We had a veteran uprising earlier. Basically it was how our troops were handeled after the mission was over. One of my elder cousins was deployed in Lebanon and remeber how awful the business was handeled back in the 80ies compared to the 90ies. In the 80ies the lads were asked if they felt OK. If they did they got out of the closed camp and home. If they didn't they received psycological help. Many opted to go home rather than staying in an Army camp for a few weeks. Now we have nationwide help, and an active veteran organisation. The people who get post traumatic stress syndrome (is that the correct order of words?) are cared for in a much better way than before. They get help at home, and the Army help in getting them in touch with those who served with them. (no easy task when you look at how long Norway is. Something that I feel warrant the regimental system that you have in the UK)

Regarding 'preying' on serving troops I have to agree. It is history repeating again. In WW2 the 50th,51st Infantry divisions and the 7th Armoured division fought through Africa and Sicilly and then Europe. Martin Lindsay 2ic 1st Gordons couldn't help noticing 'how fresher' the virgin divisions (the ones having trained in Britain notably, 15th, 43rd, 49th, 59th) were in Europe.