Thread: Keep calm and carry on

Originally Posted by fozzy

Originally Posted by Dr_Evil

Those in the regular Army who are currently taking the pish should stand by for a nice big plate of humble pie. Both they, and those in the TA who have been shocked or affronted, simply have not grasped the extent of radical surgery required by making Afghanistan the main effort.

I heard a very credible rumour about the size and shape of the humble pie being baked now in Main Building.
Its going to leave a very nasty taste and indigestion for certain capbadges.
COIN is right where its at for now.

Sounds like gloating to me, plus i have followed the TA posts with interest, and i have expressed my veiws that i don't think its right, and tried to put a reasonable or logical slant on it, 9TA attendance over the winter months is pretty low)but this post and quite a few others does, i am afraid, come across as gloating. Might be my perspective, but i imagine a fair few regs would veiw it the same way.

It is not like the TA baiting posts that others put up, which are obviously baiting.

So far there has been this post, plus several others recommending the regs get rid of Hvy A units, Arty, AD,Armd Engr etc and make them TA roles, so basically sacrifice full time units to retain TA units.

So sorry, i am not being precious, but to me there does seem to be a theme of, 'can't wait till the regs take a hit' attitude.

But that is just my opinion.

No hint of glee in fozzy's post, nor in mine, nor in the (sensible) suggestion that certain roles be mothballed or given to the TA to babysit while all the stops are pulled out for Afghanistan. The point I was making at the relevant part of my original post was that many in both the regular Army and the TA have completely failed to appreciate the extent of the changes that are likely to come.

I am not saying that they will come, by the way. There is no guarantee that there will be stomach for the necessary radical changes. For proof, stop an admiral in the street and ask him how worried he is.

Originally Posted by Crunchie

So far there has been this post, plus several others recommending the regs get rid of Hvy A units, Arty, AD,Armd Engr etc and make them TA roles, so basically sacrifice full time units to retain TA units.

I think you need a slightly thicker skin here: these are capabilities that other armies are starting to put in their reserves (notable Australia) for the very reason that they are not being used extensively in 'the war'.

The skills which are going (hopefully) to be required in Afghanistan are local governance, education, banking etc, all the good nation-building capabilities and all conspicuous by their absence in the regular army.

MSR

Originally Posted by Crunchie

So far there has been this post, plus several others recommending the regs get rid of Hvy A units, Arty, AD,Armd Engr etc and make them TA roles, so basically sacrifice full time units to retain TA units.

So sorry, i am not being precious, but to me there does seem to be a theme of, 'can't wait till the regs take a hit' attitude.

I don't think it will be too long. A few months back there was uncertainty whether all pay cheques could be met for the month.

That and the requirement to cut itself by 20%, it doesn't suggest a rosy future for anyone.

Originally Posted by msr

The skills which are going (hopefully) to be required in Afghanistan are local governance, education, banking etc, all the good nation-building capabilities and all conspicuous by their absence in the regular army.

MSR

So you a PCSO (governance) a classroom assistant (education) and the girl from the counter at your local Halifax (banking) in your unit how does this make you more skilled than a regular unit?

Originally Posted by western

Originally Posted by msr

The skills which are going (hopefully) to be required in Afghanistan are local governance, education, banking etc, all the good nation-building capabilities and all conspicuous by their absence in the regular army.

MSR

So you a PCSO (governance) a classroom assistant (education) and the girl from the counter at your local Halifax (banking) in your unit how does this make you more skilled than a regular unit?

If you have to ask that question, I would respectfully suggest you won't understand the answer.

MSR

An attempt was made to sell it to us at our TA centre last night with the old chestnut of: "We are having to tighten our belts, in order to help out the lads on the frontline".....

Surely the budget for the operational Army fighting the war and the budget for the Reserve that should be trained in order to support the operational Army fighting the war are two seperate things entirely? What a crock of shite and spin that some civilian moron at the MoD has dreamt up to try and make us feel good about all our training getting binned.

Originally Posted by msr

Originally Posted by western

Originally Posted by msr

The skills which are going (hopefully) to be required in Afghanistan are local governance, education, banking etc, all the good nation-building capabilities and all conspicuous by their absence in the regular army.

MSR

So you a PCSO (governance) a classroom assistant (education) and the girl from the counter at your local Halifax (banking) in your unit how does this make you more skilled than a regular unit?

If you have to ask that question, I would respectfully suggest you won't understand the answer.

MSR

Very glib, but that would make me think that you are avoiding the question.

Originally Posted by western

Originally Posted by msr

The skills which are going (hopefully) to be required in Afghanistan are local governance, education, banking etc, all the good nation-building capabilities and all conspicuous by their absence in the regular army.

MSR

So you a PCSO (governance) a classroom assistant (education) and the girl from the counter at your local Halifax (banking) in your unit how does this make you more skilled than a regular unit?

Classic "straw man" question.

1. You have pitched it unrealistically so that each of the soldiers you list is in a low-ranking or semi-trained or substitute role in civilian life.

2. You have limited the extent of expertise in your sample unit to just those three people. The remainder of your example regiment are unemployed and have never studied or worked, presumably.

3. You also seem to have missed the point that each of those three you mention probably does have relevant expertise and/or is more likely to have the right state of mind and approach for CIMIC, etc., coming from a joint civilian/military background.

You are right that there is no guarantee that each and every individual TA soldier has more relevant expertise for CIMIC, Psyops or Stabilisation Ops than his regular counterpart. But that is the most that can be said for your point.

The reality is that the TA does constitute a reserve of people with the skills and background to enhance the Army's COIN effort, if used appropriately.

If you were putting together a plan to improve our chances in Afghanistan, would you seek to identify and use those people (many of whom are far more highly-qualified than those you mention) to whom you have already given military training and who can bring relevant necessary civilian experience to bear very cheaply?

Or would you rather divert regular soldiers from career-enhancing (ie, combat-related) tasks? Reduce our combat strength by taking trained and experienced regular soldiers away from the fight? Expend money and time training regular soldiers in law, banking, education, media ops? Divert resources to engaging external contractors?

Bottom line, though, is that this is not a TA vs regular argument. What I am saying is that we (TA and regular) need to focus on the main effort and play to our respective strengths. The point was fairly made to you that if you have not grasped that, then you need to think a bit harder about the tasks in front of us and the resources we have.

Good grief, do you get points for aimless verbosity? Somewheere in there you may have made half a point.

Let's put mine in black and white?

1. There is no unit TA or regular which is geared up for, trained or established to deliver the levels of 'Nation Building' that are being suggested.

2. No individual, Regular or TA is qualified or experienced to do so more than any other.

What is clear is that the TA, for certain and the Regular Army, probably, are just about finished in their current form.

Originally Posted by Crunchie

[So far there has been this post, plus several others recommending the regs get rid of Hvy A units, Arty, AD,Armd Engr etc and make them TA roles, so basically sacrifice full time units to retain TA units.

So sorry, i am not being precious, but to me there does seem to be a theme of, 'can't wait till the regs take a hit' attitude.

But that is just my opinion.

Well I'm one of those who posted about what logic should underly cuts. Not gloating, just pointing out that the way we've done cuts in the past - matching cuts in both Reg and Reserve - is daft. The logical way is to move capability to the Reserve - taking a suitable chunk of full-time man-power with it but essentially mothballing most of the kit.

That said I can fully understand a degree of glee if some of the less sympatico ARABs did get stuffed by SDR2 - sauce for goose etc.... Too many posting along the lines of "You are not as important as us" - whereas perhaps 15 Psyops Gp (V) is probably of more utility than a CR2 Regt just now ?

Originally Posted by western

Good grief, do you get points for aimless verbosity? Somewheere in there you may have made half a point.

Let's put mine in black and white?

1. There is no unit TA or regular which is geared up for, trained or established to deliver the levels of 'Nation Building' that are being suggested.

2. No individual, Regular or TA is qualified or experienced to do so more than any other.

What is clear is that the TA, for certain and the Regular Army, probably, are just about finished in their current form.

Now you are just demonstrating your dimness.

The TA being finished in its current form is not a necessarily a disaster. Times change and we have to move with them. If nation building is what is required, then that is what the TA is going to have to deliver.

Who would you turn to first: someone who has spent 20 in the regular army, or someone who has spent 20 years in the civilian workforce and has a foot in both camps?

MSR

Originally Posted by msr

Now you are just demonstrating your dimness.

The TA being finished in its current form is not a necessarily a disaster. Times change and we have to move with them. If nation building is what is required, then that is what the TA is going to have to deliver.

Who would you turn to first: someone who has spent 20 in the regular army, or someone who has spent 20 years in the civilian workforce and has a foot in both camps?

MSR

OK oh wise one, where did I say that either is or will be a bad thing?

Yes the Army (both parts) needs redesigned and reskilled, those skills are just not within and I would suggest that real experts will need to be consulted.

Some serving soldiers may have potential to succeed going forward. Many will not.

Originally Posted by western

Good grief, do you get points for aimless verbosity? Somewheere in there you may have made half a point.

Pompous.

Originally Posted by western

Let's put mine in black and white?

1. There is no unit TA or regular which is geared up for, trained or established to deliver the levels of 'Nation Building' that are being suggested.

Extra words are needed here because you condense several points into one. They need to be picked apart in case what you say might be valid.

If you mean that no military entity is capable of nation building, then that's a punchy doctrinal call. You might even be right.

If you mean that no unit is currently established to perform nation building functions then you are wrong. What is the MSSG, if not that?

If you mean that there is no way of identifying people in the TA who could bring relevant skills to bear in the context of CIMIC, Stablisation Ops, etc., then you are also wrong. They have been doing this for a while and the TA has barely been trawled for relevant skills. There is as yet no centralised coherent list of who in the TA is qualified to do what.

Originally Posted by western

2. No individual, Regular or TA is qualified or experienced to do so more than any other.

Do you really mean that? Are you saying that Andrew Alderson (see Bankrolling Basra) was no more qualified to do what he did than any regular Tom?

Originally Posted by western

What is clear is that the TA, for certain and the Regular Army, probably, are just about finished in their current form.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by western

Good grief, do you get points for aimless verbosity? Somewheere in there you may have made half a point.

Let's put mine in black and white?

1. There is no unit TA or regular which is geared up for, trained or established to deliver the levels of 'Nation Building' that are being suggested.

2. No individual, Regular or TA is qualified or experienced to do so more than any other.

What is clear is that the TA, for certain and the Regular Army, probably, are just about finished in their current form.

Loads are very qualified in both the Regs and TA but i would say that to the greater extent in the TA.

2 examples- 2 Lts mobilised to Iraq in 2005 to basra, 1 to fill a FP Pl comd role the other some watchkeepery role.

1 turns out to be a Sgt in the PSNI and ends up organising and running the retraining of several police units. RE. training them to be civilian policemen not military policemen. Got a GOC commendation.

1 turns out to be a head of department in a grammer school and gets given the job of restarting the education system in an area outside basra and spent the whole tour with the FCO reps spending a budget of close to $1 million buying books/interviewing teachers/sourcing equipment etc. Got a QCVS

By this im not saying that regular soldiers could not have also done a good job but if i was hiring/appointing people to do these jobs and i had the choice of these 2 over guys who have been in from their late teens to early twenties i know who i would pick.

Use people for the roles which they are best suited