ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by jrwlynch

There's a long-term strategy?

Yes, and it's being written by the well known strategist, General Election.

The interesting thing about the last couple of pages of this thread is that it remains predicated on the assumption that what everyone wants is for the regular army and the TA to carry on doing what they're currently doing, but somehow do it a bit better. My suspicion is that David Cameron and George Osbourne would rather publicly castrate themselves with broken glass and no anaesthetic than commit significant numbers of boots on the ground in an open ended engagement, and that we therefore need to focus our thoughts on the post Afghan situation, when we will not need to augment the much smaller regular army with significant numbers of reservists for ongoing operations. The opportunity will be there for a fundamental rethink: I don't doubt we'll manage to bottle it somehow, but we can at least try to think beyond the current chaos.

Originally Posted by cpunk

The interesting thing about the last couple of pages of this thread is that it remains predicated on the assumption that what everyone wants is for the regular army and the TA to carry on doing what they're currently doing, but somehow do it a bit better. My suspicion is that David Cameron and George Osbourne would rather publicly castrate themselves with broken glass and no anaesthetic than commit significant numbers of boots on the ground in an open ended engagement, and that we therefore need to focus our thoughts on the post Afghan situation, when we will not need to augment the much smaller regular army with significant numbers of reservists for ongoing operations. The opportunity will be there for a fundamental rethink: I don't doubt we'll manage to bottle it somehow, but we can at least try to think beyond the current chaos.

My thoughts exactly, sadly such things cannot and will not happen with the current tri-service and rivalry, and even if it could happen at the tri-service level it will run into the wall of inter-army rivalry and traditionlist thinking that still appears to think the Regimental system is the only way forward for both Regulars and Reserves.

Originally Posted by bokkatankie

My thoughts exactly, sadly such things cannot and will not happen with the current tri-service and rivalry, and even if it could happen at the tri-service level it will run into the wall of inter-army rivalry and traditionlist thinking that still appears to think the Regimental system is the only way forward for both Regulars and Reserves.

The Regular Infantry Regimental system got hammered in 2006,but before that the TA Infantry had been hit many time, I Joined in 1990 in that time my unit has had 4 Re-names and three cap badges.... Dont think there much loyalty left on that front..its all for the unit as it is badged and named at that time.

Originally Posted by cpunk

The interesting thing about the last couple of pages of this thread is that it remains predicated on the assumption that what everyone wants is for the regular army and the TA to carry on doing what they're currently doing, but somehow do it a bit better. My suspicion is that David Cameron and George Osbourne would rather publicly castrate themselves with broken glass and no anaesthetic than commit significant numbers of boots on the ground in an open ended engagement, and that we therefore need to focus our thoughts on the post Afghan situation, when we will not need to augment the much smaller regular army with significant numbers of reservists for ongoing operations. The opportunity will be there for a fundamental rethink: I don't doubt we'll manage to bottle it somehow, but we can at least try to think beyond the current chaos.

You're right: time has been called on muddling-through thinking. I refer my learned friend to my post on page 50 of this thread and some of the later replies that grasped my point (which is similar to yours). Click: Telegraph at it again - "Territorial Army not fit for new role, warn Generals"

What's interesting (to me, in a kind of defeatist narcissism) is that despite the glittering clarity of that post, the general trend of the chat remained unchanged.

Yours,

Jeremiah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

[snip]I agree with your asessment as to the half arsed way Blair and co drifted into things, but I'm afraid that - rightly or wrongly - the public expected more from the Army's gutless, deceitful and self-seeking senior officers than just going along blindly.

I believe I misheard you first time. I think that's what you actually meant. You could not expect the Toms to do more than they have done, or give more than they have given.
BBC News - UK military deaths in Afghanistan: Full list

The 'giving' includes 404 giving up their lives, and (by my last guesstimate) some 5 times more than that total very seriously injured, and perhaps 9 times as many wounded to a lesser degree.

And still no-one cant explain what they are actually expected to achieve.

The Generals wanted in to AFG, to expunge the emabrrasment of Basra, and (somehow) to 'save the Army from the axe'.

Well, they have pretty much failed on both counts, I'd say, but no sign of any chickens coming home to roost - the endless stream of knighthoods goes on unabated.

The top end of General Staff for the last decade or so, should be up there with a reputation no better than over-rewarded Bankers, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Dr_Evil

You're right: time has been called on muddling-through thinking. I refer my learned friend to my post on page 50 of this thread and some of the later replies that grasped my point (which is similar to yours). Click: Telegraph at it again - "Territorial Army not fit for new role, warn Generals"

What's interesting (to me, in a kind of defeatist narcissism) is that despite the glittering clarity of that post, the general trend of the chat remained unchanged.

Yours,

Jeremiah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr E,
Pole Sana, linky no worky (i'm only on page 20 at 40 posts per page) please send DTG of post!

On opportunities for post SDSR/HERRICK/TELIC re-thinks being forced on the Army and what seems to be the Army's response of trying to reframe the question to the answer it has come up with already, have a look at this assessment from Kings College of their visit to a recent capability day (posted on this thread 16:42hrs 23 Feb 12)

No interventions please, we

Originally Posted by cpunk

The interesting thing about the last couple of pages of this thread is that it remains predicated on the assumption that what everyone wants is for the regular army and the TA to carry on doing what they're currently doing, but somehow do it a bit better. My suspicion is that David Cameron and George Osbourne would rather publicly castrate themselves with broken glass and no anaesthetic than commit significant numbers of boots on the ground in an open ended engagement, and that we therefore need to focus our thoughts on the post Afghan situation, when we will not need to augment the much smaller regular army with significant numbers of reservists for ongoing operations. The opportunity will be there for a fundamental rethink: I don't doubt we'll manage to bottle it somehow, but we can at least try to think beyond the current chaos.

I couldn't agree more. Business as usual is not an option and yet I see not a single shred of evidence that the Army has grasped this. As I've said before, we are deep, deep in the denial stage.

Current realities as I see them:

No open ended "wars of choice" post HERRICK
Therefore ops will be short notice "go as you are" for real threats to the UK
Therefore forget MST, UORs and the force generation cycle as it exists now - how we train in peacetime is how we go to war
Therefore some new cycle that lets the Army generate some force immediately and more to a timetable is needed

And for the TA:

No legislation on the horizon means planning to make it work with "casual labour"
The current offer based on HFT only is shit and will not attract soldiers when the HERRICK carrot disappears
Therefore we need to go back to "cold war drinking club" levels of days, training and opportunities - for example, for the Infantry DIE must become the new steady state

And as the Army retreats to a few super garrisons, bins MQs and starts to live in one place for a career; and resilience starts to be thought about:

TA laydown needs completely revamping
It will have to cover the whole UK
It will cost
It will need an utterly new approach that crosses cap badge boundaries

We also need

Revamping the rolling goat fuck that is training; if you've ever tried to book a range at short notice, get ammo, give unexpended ammo back, get someone trained to drive and so on you'll know what I mean. if you dump such matters on others as beneath your notice and exhort them to "crack on" when they report problems you won't.