Military and Civil Society

Former Member · October 2007

(this thing basically started with me reading some posters' replies in other threads, notably Flashman, and deciding that this was something I really didn't know alot about but might like to, so I thought I'd start a thread with the overarching theme of points of contact between Civillian and Military life).

So question 1) What do people think about the support for soldiers and service personnel in the services at present? Are we providing enough support logistically and in terms of mental/physical healthcare? If not, why not and where can we improve?

Former Member · October 2007

I went into a public- 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,

The publican 'e up an sez, "We serve no red-coats here."

The girls behind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,

I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

I'm biased, but I'd say not.

I'm also cynical and say it's not new...

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy go away";

But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play-

The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,

O it's "Thank you Mr Atkins," when the band begins to play.

There was a relatively short historical period (probably dating from around 1919 to the 90s) when there was political support and understanding of the forces.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,

They gave a drunk civilian roo, but 'adn't none for me;

They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,

But when it comes to fighting', Lord! They'll shove me in the stalls!

But then parliament and the media were filled with men who'd warn khaki, who had an understanding of soldiers and soldiering.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy wait outside";

But it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide-

The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,

O it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide.

And the public was made up largely of people who had been soldiers, were married to them, were their parents and their sons and daughters and brothers and sisters. And knew directly of people who were buried in the fields of France or Burma or Tunisia.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep

Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;

An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit

Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Now, there's relatively few people who have an understanding and public conception range from the army as thuggish brutes to indestructable supermen

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy 'ow's yer soul?"

But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll-

The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,

O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes," when the drums begin to roll.

But soldiers are neither - some are good, some are bad. Most are pretty normal, they love their families, sometimes cause a bit of trouble when drunk, go to the football and the cinema, cheat on their wives and stay faithful whatever the temptation. belief in God or be out and out atheists...

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,

But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;

An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,

Why single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

What can we do? As a Government decent equipment, accomodation, and recognition that if you're going to fight a war on two fronts you're going to need the men.

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy fall be'ind,"

But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind-

There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,

O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

as individuals - Next time you see one of those bleary eyed old men with their capbadges bages of forgotten regiments and campaign medals which are worth more than money pop some money in the tin and wear the poppy...

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:

We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.

Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face

The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

and perhaps, as you pass that memorial in the station or the cenotaph down the road, remember...

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!"

But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

Teh_Gerbil · October 2007

We should support our military ALOT more, these guys are important, regardlesso f if the actions our government makes them do are right or wrong, it isn't THIER fault. It's thier job to shut up and do as they are told, they lose thier pay and job if they don't.

I have alot of admiration for the forces.

Former Member · October 2007

If a government employs the armed services to do a job they believe is necessary, then they should be given the level of support needed to do that. If you don't agree with the job they've been doing though, it's hard to get to arsed about it tbh. I would say a lack of funds would've been an argument for concentrating on Afghanistan until the job has been finished, rather than spending more money galavanting around the rest of the middle east, but that's just me. I feel sorry for the people involved, but then every other area of public servants claim the same issues.

I certainly wouldn't want to get to US percentages of income being spent on defence, and people are still complaining about soldiers not being given enough support. Ours is (officially) around 5%, which is slightly less than the budget for law enforcement, and I know which one I consider more important. In fact I even consider it more important in dealing with our current national security problems tbh.

I think post-combat support for soldiers is one area that could really improve however.

But yeah, in princple, you send soldiers to a warzone, then you should make sure they've got the equipment to do their job properly, or you don't send them.

Former Member · October 2007

I think post-combat support for soldiers is one area that could really improve however.

First hand experience of that; can't say too much about individual case but that guy was late twenties; ex-squaddie, horrendous drink problem, had no idea how to stop because all of his free time now was like an alien concept. No support, the network of friends and colleagues had disolved, completely alienated from of supportive life.

I was listening to a Doctor of quite a few years experience talking about this, and the fact that plenty of ex-service personnel suffer problems of trauma and mental health problems outside the service, which leads to exclusion and in particular can lead to things like alcoholism.

There's something I'd love to post that twigged my interest in this question but (unfortunately) I can't because of confidentiality (I'm a volunteer St. John Medic), but it made me aware of the complete lack of support for those who leave the services.

Former Member · October 2007

while we are on it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7039292.stm

Former Member · October 2007

My cousin was one of the first into Basra - so I have a great respect for what they do and the risks they take for what is really quite small pay.

I do think its a shame that the Iraq situation seems to have brought the army into disrepute, like has been said they are not in charge of who we fight with, they just do the job as best they can.

And as for mental health problems afterwards, its a given that this needs a big increase in funding.

In general though - more funding and less wars for stupid reasons.

Former Member · October 2007

Of course it is a taboo to say that you don't support the armed forces, or that you think that they do a bad job; so it is unsuprising that there has been no direct criticism of servicemen arising from this question so far.

Clearly, the answer to the question "do we give the armed forces enough logistical/financial support" is no. We are either losing or "not winning" the armed conflicts we are currently engaged in, soldiers are not supplied with the best protection and support that is technically available, and post-combat support is woeful/disturbingly inadequate.

In terms of "supporting armed forces"; my position is probably slightly more controversial. Armed forces should be held up to greater scrutiny. Both general staff and officers (who ultimately hold responsibility), and soldiers right down to the ranks. Clearly, many bad people join the armed forces, just as they join any other vocation. In the armed forces, however, the potential for abuse and incompetence is very large, and it is unacceptable for our society to impose armed lunatics, psychotics, and idiots on foreign populations. The armed forces should have more stringent entry requirements and better ongoing assessment.

Secondly, the moral compass and/or critical faculties of many members of the armed forces is extremely questionable. In particular, in general I consider individuals who have joined up since 2004 (after the fallacy of the Iraq War became obvious) as suspect both in intellect and motivation.

Thirdly, I think the "bravery" of our armed forces is overexaggerated. Granted, there are many brave men and women who serve, but considering the balance of military might and technology, I'd say our current adversaries are braver (or more desperate). Here its probably better to distinguich between the army, and the navy and airforce. I don't really see how dropping ordanance from 16,000 feet or firing cruise missiles from 100 miles away qualifies as exceptional national service.

In conclusion: I sympathize with servicemen who have been ordered into imperial/oil wars, and if they are to continue there should be greater care taken of them; however, I think that people who are joining the armed forces now are generally fools, are seriously lacking in critical faculties, or simply do not care about the moral/ethical implications of their actions.

Former Member · October 2007

carlito wrote: »

Of course it is a taboo to say that you don't support the armed forces, or that you think that they do a bad job; so it is unsuprising that there has been no direct criticism of servicemen arising from this question so far.

To be fair you're only seventh person to comment so I think its statistically irrelevant to point to this thread to suggest there's a taboo towards criticising servicemen. I suspect we come from different sides, but if you can hold your nose long enough read the some of the comments on U75 about the latest casaulty in Afghanistan. I'm not convinced there is a 'taboo' (though I'd be willing to accept this may depend on your defenition of taboo)

In terms of "supporting armed forces"; my position is probably slightly more controversial. Armed forces should be held up to greater scrutiny. Both general staff and officers (who ultimately hold responsibility), and soldiers right down to the ranks. Clearly, many bad people join the armed forces, just as they join any other vocation. In the armed forces, however, the potential for abuse and incompetence is very large, and it is unacceptable for our society to impose armed lunatics, psychotics, and idiots on foreign populations. The armed forces should have more stringent entry requirements and better ongoing assessment.

I'd agree to an extent. Though I suspect you're probably not aware to the level to which soldiers are held to account. Virtually every round fired has to be accounted for. Now that's not to say that sometimes soldiers don't literlally get awya with murder, but the other side of the coin of soldiers have a greater scope for abuse and incompetence is that they're often under greater pressure. Decisions have to be made almost instantly, often in cases where those amking them lack sleep, food, full information and in the knowledge that the wrong mistake can lead to either themselves or soldiers under their command being killed or horrendously injured. Soldiers should be held to account for incompetence, but those who demand this accountability need to recognise the circumstances under which they;re operating.

As an aside I think you need to make a stronger differential between jus ad bellum and jus in bello, ie what politicians are responsible for and what soldiers are responsible for.

Secondly, the moral compass and/or critical faculties of many members of the armed forces is extremely questionable. In particular, in general I consider individuals who have joined up since 2004 (after the fallacy of the Iraq War became obvious) as suspect both in intellect and motivation.

I'd disagree. You may or may not agree with the war. I don't think its black and white. I certainly have some sympathy with the view the war was wrong, but I also wish that those who say removing Saddam was immoral recognised that he was a genocidal butcher and that the moral high ground isn't a clear as they claim.

That said regardless of whether the war was right or wrong - it happened. I accept its perfectly acceptable to shrug and say 'let's bugger off and may the best man win', but the best man could be those want an ethnically pure state, islamic fundamentalists or baathist loyalists. I'm not convinced that these are morally pure outcomes.

(Or to synthesis those paragraphs - Ithe argument isn't black and white over what is the morally correct course of action)

Thirdly, I think the "bravery" of our armed forces is overexaggerated. Granted, there are many brave men and women who serve, but considering the balance of military might and technology, I'd say our current adversaries are braver (or more desperate). Here its probably better to distinguich between the army, and the navy and airforce. I don't really see how dropping ordanance from 16,000 feet or firing cruise missiles from 100 miles away qualifies as exceptional national service.

Three points. I'd agree the RAF are nothing but glorified taxi drivers, but there's lots of servicemen who are in the down and dirty of walking the ground

Secondly, bravery is relative. Though it sticks in my craw to say this even the RAF are showing more courgaethan people sitting on the internet voicing their opinions

Thirdly, bravery is not the equal of morality. I'd admire courage and I think there's something admirable in the SS defending Berlin to the death or the Soviets Guards regiment taking it despite appalling casualties. But it doesn't mean that I think either the SS or Soviet Guards supported a moral cause. even if the Taliban are more courageous, it doesn't equate to them having a morally superior cause.

In conclusion: I sympathize with servicemen who have been ordered into imperial/oil wars, and if they are to continue there should be greater care taken of them; however, I think that people who are joining the armed forces now are generally fools, are seriously lacking in critical faculties, or simply do not care about the moral/ethical implications of their actions

I disagree. I think servicemen aren't fools or lacking in critical faculties, or not caring about the moral/ethical implications. I just think they disagree with you...

Former Member · October 2007

carlito wrote: »

Thirdly, I think the "bravery" of our armed forces is overexaggerated. Granted, there are many brave men and women who serve, but considering the balance of military might and technology, I'd say our current adversaries are braver (or more desperate). Here its probably better to distinguich between the army, and the navy and airforce. I don't really see how dropping ordanance from 16,000 feet or firing cruise missiles from 100 miles away qualifies as exceptional national service.

They're fanatics, they're not brave. Bravery would be to fear death and to carry on even though one is afraid; like I suspect members of our armed forces do since they're normal people. The enemy don't fear death, apparently they love it as much as we love life - virgins/raisins in heaven and all that.

Former Member · October 2007

Runnymede wrote: »

They're fanatics, they're not brave. Bravery would be to fear death and to carry on even though one is afraid; like I suspect members of our armed forces do since they're normal people. The enemy don't fear death, apparently they love it as much as we love life - virgins/raisins in heaven and all that.

Not sure its that black and white. Whilst suicide bombers may be fanatics and wishing to die for their cause, most of the enemy aren't suicide bombers. The number of prisoners taken suggests that many of them aren't fanatics, but will fight on until a tipping point is reached and then surrender. Most people have this tipping point and whilst there is some variance there's no evidence that the Taliban's is so far ahead of the British to be considered fanatics.

Former Member · October 2007

Martin_Bashir wrote: »

(So question 1) What do people think about the support for soldiers and service personnel in the services at present? Are we providing enough support logistically and in terms of mental/physical healthcare? If not, why not and where can we improve?

The old adage of prevention being better than cure could be an improvement.

If the personnel weren't broken mentally in the first place they wouldn't need fixing.

Military and Civil Society

Comments