LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
Interestingly, and rather paradoxically given the apparent, above mentioned success of US Forces' recruitment, the British Forces are struggling to recruit and retain over the last year. Since the only difference between the period when recruitment was not a problem and now, when it is a problem, is the commitment we have in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be fair to hypothesize that those two engagements have had a significant effect on recruitment.
The engagement in Iraq is here seen for what it is; a quagmire, and a war in which we should never have become involved. Not many young Brits I would venture, are willing to risk their lives in such a hopeless cause which was never any of our business in the first place, and which even the dumbest likely recruit can comprehend as being a major geo-political blunder.
The engagement in Afghanistan however, is seen as worthwhile; still though, aspiring recruits having heard the tales from the front there, are put off by the fact that our forces are in an impossible and unwinnable and very deadly situation. Add on top of that, that our forces lack the equipment for the job - suitable vehicles, sufficient ammunition, body armour and helmets and even weapons, and this does not help. British units are not known as "the borrowers" for nothing.
The situation is serious. Our forces are nowhere near as large as those of the US, and nowhere near as well equipped. When senior generals say these things publicly, then we know the circumstances must be dire, for to risk the negative impact on morale of such statements, a general must have passed from the eternal griping of the soldier into a state of serious concern.
British forces right now are committed all around the world. The thin red line is more of a join the dots puzzle these days. Not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in several places worldwide that either require a UK garrison or have invited our forces in to assist local forces.
The time is now well passed, since others apart from the US, UK and the usual NATO providers such as Canada, must step up to the plate. Whilst a British soldier is worth ten of any other nation, there is a limit to what we can do. The UN also must insist that member nations contribute, not on a voluntary basis as now, which enables for example the French to send little more than a football team to the Lebanon, but as a condition of membership and the benefits that so many of them derive without any intention of putting in.
The consequences of the world relying on a handful of nations to provide security are being seen now in the recruitment process; the question for British taxpayers is, why should we pay such a disproportionate share for all this, and the question for aspiring recruits is why should we risk our lives when others do nothing?
But then, those who rarely if ever contribute know that we cannot pull out of any of these theatres, and are happy to allow us to bear the brunt and expense in the knowledge that they can sit on the sidelines and not have the toll of deaths and injuries in the daily news, nor the impact of the expense of war on their governmental budgets, influencing voter opinion in their countries.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
RE: Army Recruiting Goals .... again ... - 
Profile
Its hard enough to Dom U.S woman. 
Least I know why i,m fighting. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread