Thread: Keep calm and carry on

Originally Posted by Dr_Evil

Originally Posted by Idrach

Originally Posted by really?_fascinating

I cannot imagine a barrister in the TA offering his professional services (with all that entails for his practice) for less than the going rate and billing accordingly!

You might be correct as far as the barrister goes - but I'm sure somebody from AGC(ALS)(V) can correct us both - but my chargeable day rate for professional work in Basra would have been far, far more than I was getting on the current scheme. Largely because my allowable civvy pay is for a nice comfy office environment in Edinburgh, London or Aldershot, not for a ISO at the COB.

I'm not asking for the scheme to be uprated - it is just to point out that there are quite a few TA personnel willing to deploy in their civilian specialisation for significantly less than they would get as a CONDO.

I will speak up for barristers here. I know a couple of them who have, totally voluntarily and for free (and outside the TA context), done several stints (only two weeks at a time, mind you) doing the nation building thing in Sudan and Afghanistan. They maintain that it is quite possible to keep doing this stuff as an adjunct to an entirely commercial practice.

Plus, lawyers are crawling all over the COIN stuff, and people are making careers out of it: the newish (2007) COIN doctrine was written with the help of lawyers from the Carr Centre for Human Rights at Harvard.

Carrying on with the barrister theme; wouldn't be more expeditious for the Army to simply tap the AGC (ALS) if they needed a lawyer, who presumably are already on hand and paid for, than trawling the line for this Rifleman-cum-lawyer Territorial?

Or not?

Originally Posted by RP578

Carrying on with the barrister theme; wouldn't be more expeditious for the Army to simply tap the AGC (ALS) if they needed a lawyer, who presumably are already on hand and paid for, than trawling the line for this Rifleman-cum-lawyer Territorial?

Or not?

Depends what you want your lawyer for. If it's for putting in place a criminal justice system, then ALS would be an option. But if you were after, say, commercial law expertise to help get businesses up and running and working with each other, then the ALS wouldn't have the necessary experience (and it's not a practice area they would be able to keep current in even if they were trained up/recruited for it).

Lawyers generally dont tend to join the TA to be lawyers though. It's bad enough as the day job without getting plucked out to do it on tour too.

Originally Posted by DeltaBravo

Originally Posted by RP578

Carrying on with the barrister theme; wouldn't be more expeditious for the Army to simply tap the AGC (ALS) if they needed a lawyer, who presumably are already on hand and paid for, than trawling the line for this Rifleman-cum-lawyer Territorial?

Or not?

Depends what you want your lawyer for. If it's for putting in place a criminal justice system, then ALS would be an option. But if you were after, say, commercial law expertise to help get businesses up and running and working with each other, then the ALS wouldn't have the necessary experience (and it's not a practice area they would be able to keep current in even if they were trained up/recruited for it).
...

And this would be an area that the Army would be getting intimately involved in? Isn't DFID (theoretically at least) designed to cater to such requirements? Aren't there other civilian agencies, British or international better suited to handle such contingencies?

I'd contend that the British Army may be better utilized by providing security for, an assisting such agencies, rather than attempting to replicate their civilian expertise.

Originally Posted by RP578

Originally Posted by DeltaBravo

Originally Posted by RP578

Carrying on with the barrister theme; wouldn't be more expeditious for the Army to simply tap the AGC (ALS) if they needed a lawyer, who presumably are already on hand and paid for, than trawling the line for this Rifleman-cum-lawyer Territorial?

Or not?

Depends what you want your lawyer for. If it's for putting in place a criminal justice system, then ALS would be an option. But if you were after, say, commercial law expertise to help get businesses up and running and working with each other, then the ALS wouldn't have the necessary experience (and it's not a practice area they would be able to keep current in even if they were trained up/recruited for it).
...

And this would be an area that the Army would be getting intimately involved in? Isn't DFID (theoretically at least) designed to cater to such requirements? Aren't there other civilian agencies, British or international better suited to handle such contingencies?

I'd contend that the British Army may be better utilized by providing security for, an assisting such agencies, rather than attempting to replicate their civilian expertise.

.... One could argue that as the Army appears to neither want nor can afford the TA... that what is actually required is a Volunteer DfID force....

Originally Posted by RP578

Originally Posted by DeltaBravo

Originally Posted by RP578

Carrying on with the barrister theme; wouldn't be more expeditious for the Army to simply tap the AGC (ALS) if they needed a lawyer, who presumably are already on hand and paid for, than trawling the line for this Rifleman-cum-lawyer Territorial?

Or not?

Depends what you want your lawyer for. If it's for putting in place a criminal justice system, then ALS would be an option. But if you were after, say, commercial law expertise to help get businesses up and running and working with each other, then the ALS wouldn't have the necessary experience (and it's not a practice area they would be able to keep current in even if they were trained up/recruited for it).
...

And this would be an area that the Army would be getting intimately involved in? Isn't DFID (theoretically at least) designed to cater to such requirements? Aren't there other civilian agencies, British or international better suited to handle such contingencies?

I'd contend that the British Army may be better utilized by providing security for, an assisting such agencies, rather than attempting to replicate their civilian expertise.

I regret ever mentioning the damn barrister! He was intended to be just one example of useful civilian expertise which members of the TA possess but which has, until now, only been tapped by the Army in a haphazard way.

My point was that if the TA's capabilities and aptitude for the current fight (COIN in Afghanistan) are being assessed, in order to work out whether it is worthwhile maintaining the TA at all, then the full suite of skills need to be captured.

But to answer the specific points raised about our hypothetical Rumpole:

1. Couldn't we use the ALS?

As Delta Bravo has pointed out, the expertise of those in the ALS is not necessarily suitable for the full range of legal tasks involved in nation building. They might know how a criminal justice system should work, and be familiar with human rights and LOAC. But there is a lot more to law in the Stablisation Ops context, and people with civilian expertise are more suited for it.

In any case, if the COIN effort is to be ramped up significantly (which it is) and greater emphasis is to be put on the nation building stuff (which it is), does the ALS have the spare capacity to be able to cope? It does not. So, where to turn?

The reserve, perhaps?

2. Shouldn't DFID be handling this? Shouldn't the Army concentrate on providing security?

Great idea, and that's exactly what should be happening. Sadly DFID and the FCO are simply not getting outside the wire enough to allow for that neat division of tasks. Right now, the job falls to the Army.

Ideally, the surge of CIMICists in DPM would in time subside and hand over to DFID eventually. But we have to do the surge first. Surge => use of reserve.

3. Why would a barrister join the TA to do this?

The point is, he wouldn't.

I have explained this already but here it is again. Barrister joins TA to get fit, stag on, be cold, make friends with people who are not totally up themselves. As a Tpr, LCpl, 2Lt, etc he is deployable in-role.

As he goes up the TA ranks and also increases in civilian expertise, he becomes more and more deployable in his CIMIC role. He could deploy as a Coy OC or BG HQ wallah or whatever, but he would also have that CIMIC capability and - under the Evil plan - the Army (and MOD) would be aware of it.

That capability, and its occasional use, would justify to the MOD his retention (and, bigger picture, keeping the TA) and the miserable amount of money spent to keep him in his UK role as Bn Int Offr or whatever, running around on Salisbury Plain at weekends.

Put in regular Army terms: the fact that a regular soldier is not right now in a bayonet-Terry-Taliban-in-the-eye job does not mean he is defunct and should be sacked. The other kind of job still needs to be done in order to keep the Army ticking along, and he still retains useful capabilities for future Ops. The thing is, the Army is aware that although he is currently doing some G4 role in a training centre, he is also a skill-at-arms ninja, Cat C qualled and Mastiff-fammed, has done two tours of Iraq and one of Afghanistan, and can use a computer. The Army is aware of his full suite of skills and can use him accordingly.

The same should apply to the TA. Not just as of right (equal treatment, One Army, yadda yadda). If we want to "win" in Afghanistan then - unless we are total idiots or genuinely plan to lose this one so that we never have to fight an expeditionary war again - we must make the best use of the whole gamut of skills we can tap into.

Originally Posted by Dr_Evil

Put in regular Army terms: the fact that a regular soldier is not right now in a bayonet-Terry-Taliban-in-the-eye job does not mean he is defunct and should be sacked. The other kind of job still needs to be done in order to keep the Army ticking along, and he still retains useful capabilities for future Ops. The thing is, the Army is aware that although he is currently doing some G4 role in a training centre, he is also a skill-at-arms ninja, Cat C qualled and Mastiff-fammed, has done two tours of Iraq and one of Afghanistan, and can use a computer. The Army is aware of his full suite of skills and can use him accordingly.

The same should apply to the TA. Not just as of right (equal treatment, One Army, yadda yadda). If we want to "win" in Afghanistan then - unless we are total idiots or genuinely plan to lose this one so that we never have to fight an expeditionary war again - we must make the best use of the whole gamut of skills we can tap into.

However! Once a competency (anything from MATTS to HT IEDD) is attained the Army has a system of testing/confirming these competencies be it through annual re-tests, time limited qualification etc etc. How is the Army to know that the TA bod who has the qualifications to be a barrister (for example) is any good at his job? He might, afterall, be an ambulance chasing nob-head with little experience of International Law etc etc.

The problem therefore is one of validation. Any realistic system of validation to support TA civ quals would require civilian firms/employers to report on their staff (a la OJAR) which would be beaureaucratic in the extreme and highly costly (who would pay firms for this extra work? How would employees like the Army to know exactly how they are performing in their civilian career? Again etc etc!)

Therefore, if you want to be a lawyer in green - join the ALS. If you join the infantry with a degree in International Developoment don't be put off if COMISAF isn't knocking on your door for assistance, unless of course he wants someone to do an infantry task!

Talking of employers -

Apart from it being stated MOD policy that, except with their consent, no-one will be mobilised for their civilian skills/quals (A policy driven by the concerns of the employers themselves, manifested through the National Employers Advisory Board), there is another aspect to this current situation.

The TA is sold to employers, to a large extent, as training their employees in areas that otherwise they would not cover - leadership, planning, working under pressure, that sort of thing. This is why some employers let people attend camp with extra leave, and turn a blind-ish eye when you turn up knackered instead of rested on Monday morning.

How can this pretence now be continued, when it is stated LAND policy that training will only happen if directly related to Ops? The cat is well and truly out of the bag - membership of the TA is of very little benifit to employers, and indeed almost certain to be to their detriment.

Any reason to allow employees to be in the TA has evaporated - apart from patriotism, and that may be tempered by the knowlege that the TA is being used enturely because the Regular Army is not large enough.

The TA is no longer a reserve, but a weapon of choice, and cost saving is the only reason.

Originally Posted by Dr_Evil

2. Shouldn't DFID be handling this? Shouldn't the Army concentrate on providing security?

Great idea, and that's exactly what should be happening. Sadly DFID and the FCO are simply not getting outside the wire enough to allow for that neat division of tasks. Right now, the job falls to the Army.
.

It could be argued that DfID and the FCO are barely getting out of the wire at all, indeed towards the end of the TELICs they were going nowhere. (interested to know from others how they worked earlier on in the piece). Any construction for example that then had our fingerprints on was then targeted and destroyed by insurgents.Net result was either no benefit to the locals or claimed by the insurgents as their own work.

Friction between all the organisations in terms of Tempo, Vision and capability, led (I would suggest) to a very low output of that which UK PLC should be capable of.

Originally Posted by Dr_Evil

Ideally, the surge of CIMICists in DPM would in time subside and hand over to DFID eventually. But we have to do the surge first. Surge => use of reserve.
.

I would suggest that that Surge period for CIMICists (DPM or otherwise) would last for an awfully long time, and it could very well be argued that it would be best placed (sadly) under a civvy govt organisation, or contracted out (equally sadly).

I don't see a two tier TA as either sustainable, desirable or cost effective.

I would suggest that that Surge period for CIMICists (DPM or otherwise) would last for an awfully long time, and it could very well be argued that it would be best placed (sadly) under a civvy govt organisation, or contracted out (equally sadly).

Which is exactly what is happening. Chemonics, World Vision, DAI, Care, CADG, Mercy Corps, IOM and many other organisations are all out on the ground delivering huge development programs. They live in the local communities and very rarely visit any ISAF locations. A CIMIC surge is not necessary - the military just does not understand the wider picture. CIMIC is fine for mitigating the military presence but the work done by DFID, FCO and USAID is generally a complete mystery to military planners as it doesn't fit in the task org box.

Most people's vision of DFID et al is coloured heavily by Tootal's book - and all the time him and his lads were getting tied down in firefights and destroying goodwill the NGOs and other organisations were continuing their work.

Originally Posted by asr1

Most people's vision of DFID et al is coloured heavily by Tootal's book - and all the time him and his lads were getting tied down in firefights and destroying goodwill the NGOs and other organisations were continuing their work.

Mine isn't it is coloured by experiences on TELIC6 where the DfID people were quite happy to have WR deliver their drinks from the APOD to Basra Palace, and were quite happy to sit around their pool and drink them, whilst trousering £severalhundred per day for writing 'reports' and delivering 'consultancy'. Until one fat scouse bird got sent home for refusing to wear her body armour.

MSR

Originally Posted by asr1

I would suggest that that Surge period for CIMICists (DPM or otherwise) would last for an awfully long time, and it could very well be argued that it would be best placed (sadly) under a civvy govt organisation, or contracted out (equally sadly).

Which is exactly what is happening. Chemonics, World Vision, DAI, Care, CADG, Mercy Corps, IOM and many other organisations are all out on the ground delivering huge development programs. They live in the local communities and very rarely visit any ISAF locations. A CIMIC surge is not necessary - the military just does not understand the wider picture. CIMIC is fine for mitigating the military presence but the work done by DFID, FCO and USAID is generally a complete mystery to military planners as it doesn't fit in the task org box.

Most people's vision of DFID et al is coloured heavily by Tootal's book - and all the time him and his lads were getting tied down in firefights and destroying goodwill the NGOs and other organisations were continuing their work.

I've not had the pleasure of reading Tootal's book. Would it be fair to say therefore, that the military would be better of focusing it's efforts on providing as secure an environment as possible for this work to carry on. (On the assumption that we do not become part of the problem).

Given that the MoD is not planning on LSDI in the short and medium terms, it therefore has no requirement for any sizeable CIMIC capability (regular or reserve!)?

Originally Posted by Mr_Bridger

Given that the MoD is not planning on LSDI in the short and medium terms, it therefore has no requirement for any sizeable CIMIC capability (regular or reserve!)?

... or indeed any military capability for anything other than COIN.

If this argument is correct, and if the MOD really means what it says about making Afghanistan the main effort of Defence then the TA should be put out to pasture and the vast bulk of the Armed Forces made redundant and its kit sold or mothballed.

Originally Posted by Dr_Evil

Originally Posted by Mr_Bridger

Given that the MoD is not planning on LSDI in the short and medium terms, it therefore has no requirement for any sizeable CIMIC capability (regular or reserve!)?

... or indeed any military capability for anything other than COIN.

If the MOD really means what it says about making Afghanistan the main effort of Defence then the TA should be put out to pasture and the vast bulk of the Armed Forces made redundant and its kit sold or mothballed.

And the £35bn clawed back from 'procurement'. I think you might be having evil, megalomaniac thoughts again ;)

Originally Posted by Sangreal

However! Once a competency (anything from MATTS to HT IEDD) is attained the Army has a system of testing/confirming these competencies be it through annual re-tests, time limited qualification etc etc. How is the Army to know that the TA bod who has the qualifications to be a barrister (for example) is any good at his job? He might, afterall, be an ambulance chasing nob-head with little experience of International Law etc etc.

The problem therefore is one of validation. Any realistic system of validation to support TA civ quals would require civilian firms/employers to report on their staff (a la OJAR) which would be beaureaucratic in the extreme and highly costly (who would pay firms for this extra work? How would employees like the Army to know exactly how they are performing in their civilian career? Again etc etc!)

Therefore, if you want to be a lawyer in green - join the ALS. If you join the infantry with a degree in International Developoment don't be put off if COMISAF isn't knocking on your door for assistance, unless of course he wants someone to do an infantry task!

Love the way you're thinking outside the box there, Sangreal. That's a well-argued case for rigidity (oo-er, matron, etc.).

The Cabinet Office/FCO/DFID Stabilisation Unit maintain a collated database of civilian experts' qualifications. They use it on a case-by-case basis to trawl for people to with relevant expertise for nation-building tasks. They approach them with a description of the task to see if they are available/willing to do it. From the cohort of people identified in this way, they then pick out those with the skills that most closely match the task. They do not require the experts' employers do disclose their last five years' annual reports or to retest them on quals.

So it ain't rocket science (although if it were, I know a rocket scientist who is in the TA and who would be able to help), and the Army has managed to get it right occasionally: see here.

Originally Posted by Mr_Bridger

I don't see a two tier TA as either sustainable, desirable or cost effective.

It would not be "two-tier". The use of the civilian capabilties of SNCOs and of officers would justify keeping them on, in their current roles within a TA chain of command.

That's an integrated, one-tier model which would enable the flick back to a TA geared for contingency ops/LSDI should that day ever come.

The alternatives are:

(a) a one-tier TA consisting of Ptes, LCpls and 2Lts administered by RTCs; or
(b) no TA.

I get the strong feeling that plenty of people posting on this forum seem to think it is somehow more noble to go down on the burning ship of an outmoded TA than to adapt what they offer to the COIN fight.

Originally Posted by Dr_Evil

I get the strong feeling that plenty of people posting on this forum seem to think it is somehow more noble to go down on the burning ship of an outmoded TA than to adapt what they offer to the COIN fight.

I think most would welcome some strategic direction on what the army would like to see the TA become and see how that fits into their life.

MSR