Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion

Risk is, probably, fundamentally, unfit for use on operations...
Risk Management/Assessment and Treatment are appropriate for operations and equipment procurement just not the out of the box ISO or otherwise meaning of those terms.

Simply having armoured vehicles is a form of risk treatment as otherwise the whole army would be equipped with stripped down landrovers.

An infantry commander does not send a foot patrol into an ambush as he is aware of the risk and takes the Avoid Risk route.

What I think people are struggling with here is we initially went into Iraq with a 'win the ground war, smile at grateful locals, sneer at the Americans, soft hats, help the Iraqis set up form of Government and home again by Christmas' sort of attitude.

Very similar to the current mess masquerading as an Army we have today, all decisions on the emerging insurgency and management of risks were made on the 'how many bods have we got what kit do we already have?'mindset.
 
Risk Management/Assessment and Treatment are appropriate for operations and equipment procurement just not the out of the box ISO or otherwise meaning of those terms.

Simply having armoured vehicles is a form of risk treatment as otherwise the whole army would be equipped with stripped down landrovers.

An infantry commander does not send a foot patrol into an ambush as he is aware of the risk and takes the Avoid Risk route.

What I think people are struggling with here is we initially went into Iraq with a 'win the ground war, smile at grateful locals, sneer at the Americans, soft hats, help the Iraqis set up form of Government and home again by Christmas' sort of attitude.

Very similar to the current mess masquerading as an Army we have today, all decisions on the emerging insurgency and management of risks were made on the 'how many bods have we got what kit do we already have?'mindset.
If Risk Management were the appropriate way to deal with operations, much of the UK's defence budget would be spent on high risk, high probability security events: global pandemics, coastal flooding and attacks on crowded places. They are the "highest risk", and thus effort should be concentrated on them until they are at an acceptable level of risk (primarily by reducing impact), and then moving onto the next three (inland flooding, attacks on transport and CBRN attacks), etc etc. None of which require any form of armoured vehicle.

The other option is to take the precautionary principle (of which HERRICK and TELIC were) of lower probability but highest impact, and commit everything to that. At the moment, that would seem to be put it all into decapitating the top 50 of the Russian leadership...
 
If Risk Management were the appropriate way to deal with operations, much of the UK's defence budget would be spent on high risk, high probability security events: global pandemics, coastal flooding and attacks on crowded places. They are the "highest risk", and thus effort should be concentrated on them until they are at an acceptable level of risk (primarily by reducing impact), and then moving onto the next three (inland flooding, attacks on transport and CBRN attacks), etc etc. None of which require any form of armoured vehicle.

The other option is to take the precautionary principle (of which HERRICK and TELIC were) of lower probability but highest impact, and commit everything to that. At the moment, that would seem to be put it all into decapitating the top 50 of the Russian leadership...
I think you misunderstand me but the examples you quote pandemics and coastal flooding are pretty low likelihood whereas terrorist attacks are getting a huge amount of money and resources thrown at them because they are high likelihood but in fairness pretty low impact. As for inland flooding, attacks on transport and CBRN attacksthey too receive an appropriate level of support.

Now for military operations, are you suggesting that HMS QE2 should be sent to war without AD or ASW because it is just not worth considering those risks,

Your 'precautionary principle' is simply risk assessment
 
I think you misunderstand me but the examples you quote pandemics and coastal flooding are pretty low likelihood whereas terrorist attacks are getting a huge amount of money and resources thrown at them because they are high likelihood but in fairness pretty low impact. As for inland flooding, attacks on transport and CBRN attacksthey too receive an appropriate level of support.

Now for military operations, are you suggesting that HMS QE2 should be sent to war without AD or ASW because it is just not worth considering those risks,

Your 'precautionary principle' is simply risk assessment
My examples were all taken from the national risk register...

And yes, a risk assessment is a way of formalising the precautionary principle, that's really rather the point of them. But the wider point is that 'risk' is generally a negative outlook - you do something to stop something bad happening to me. War used to be a positive outlook - I am doing something because we are going to get something out of it (freedom, money, land, trade, etc). Now we've conflated war and risk, and not thought through the implications of all this. As an example, we throw around the phrase 'wicked problem' in conflict - drawn from public housing theory - and fail to notice a wicked problem doesn't have, and can never have, a solution. And then we wonder why we're in Afghanistan and Iraq for so long.
 
the wider point is that 'risk' is generally a negative outlook - you do something to stop something bad happening
I am agreeing with you but those introverted onanists who make up the Risk Management community will tell you
2.1
risk

effect of uncertainty on objectives

"effect is a deviation from the expected — positive and/or negative."

You couldn't make it up really 'billy bullcrapping' put into words
 
I think you misunderstand me but the examples you quote pandemics and coastal flooding are pretty low likelihood whereas terrorist attacks are getting a huge amount of money and resources thrown at them because they are high likelihood but in fairness pretty low impact. As for inland flooding, attacks on transport and CBRN attacksthey too receive an appropriate level of support.

Now for military operations, are you suggesting that HMS QE2 should be sent to war without AD or ASW because it is just not worth considering those risks,

Your 'precautionary principle' is simply risk assessment
I think you misunderstand me but the examples you quote pandemics and coastal flooding are pretty low likelihood whereas terrorist attacks are getting a huge amount of money and resources thrown at them because they are high likelihood but in fairness pretty low impact. As for inland flooding, attacks on transport and CBRN attacksthey too receive an appropriate level of support.

Now for military operations, are you suggesting that HMS QE2 should be sent to war without AD or ASW because it is just not worth considering those risks,

Your 'precautionary principle' is simply risk assessment
Hmm, the centre doesn't quite agree
https://assets.publishing.service.g...015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
look at Page 85 for current Tier One threats intro
NRA 2015 tiers 1 to 3.jpg

The disruptive thing about life is how it doesn't generally follow expectations. look at the third Tier 2 risk, currently due to cost the region/city involved 10s of millions and to last much longer in impact.
 
Hmm, the centre doesn't quite agree
https://assets.publishing.service.g...015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
look at Page 85 for current Tier One threats intro
View attachment 342532
The disruptive thing about life is how it doesn't generally follow expectations. look at the third Tier 2 risk, currently due to cost the region/city involved 10s of millions and to last much longer in impact.
I think you misinterpret the Tiers. For example Tier One are established by 'a judgement of the combination of both likelihood and impact' that does not mean High Likelihood and High Impact.
 
Funnily enough, the Capita debacle may in fact be burying a rise in applications that subsequently go west due to the process.
If the stats Teresa May quotes from time to time are to be believed, it is more likely that the Crapita issue is compounding the perennial recruitment challenge faced by the military when unemployment is low.
 
Last edited:
Risk Management/Assessment and Treatment are appropriate for operations and equipment procurement just not the out of the box ISO or otherwise meaning of those terms.

Simply having armoured vehicles is a form of risk treatment as otherwise the whole army would be equipped with stripped down landrovers.

An infantry commander does not send a foot patrol into an ambush as he is aware of the risk and takes the Avoid Risk route.

What I think people are struggling with here is we initially went into Iraq with a 'win the ground war, smile at grateful locals, sneer at the Americans, soft hats, help the Iraqis set up form of Government and home again by Christmas' sort of attitude.

Very similar to the current mess masquerading as an Army we have today, all decisions on the emerging insurgency and management of risks were made on the 'how many bods have we got what kit do we already have?'mindset.
Wasn't it to clear Saddam out of Kuwait? We were stopped before winning any ground war.
 
The Estimate process is fundamentally unfit for use with Risk.

Risk is, probably, fundamentally, unfit for use on operations...
I fundamentally disagree. Almost any command decision made on operations involves accepting a risk to gain a reward. The risk analysis process simply provides a framework to quantify, prioritise and apportion ownership of that risk.
 
If the stats Teresa May quotes from time to time are to be believed, it is more likely that the Crapita issue is compounding the perennial recruitment challenge faced by the military when unemployment is low.
Or (from the perspective of a military bod who is still serving, closer to the heart of current recruitment than 99.9% of posters):

Everything Capita (Crapita, or all the other non funny japes) does in the army recruiting arena is only implemented once sanctioned at 2* ARITC, if low impact, or 3* Home Command, if likely to have a major impact, or more likely ministerial, if likely to hit the national press.

Convienently, in the spirit of partnering, if it goes well (not very likely) it’s a MOD decision, when it goes wrong, in the short term, CRAPITA have f*cked it once again (MOD and Army stand back).

Unfortunately, one of the biggest issues (in my opinion) with current recruiting is that Middle class parents (both military an Capita) who are in charge of it all, are trying to offer a respectable job to their middle class kids.

Their ‘Middle class’ research reinforces their stereotypes of “Generation Whatever”, so they decide with their ‘belonging’ adverts, they are in touch with da youff. Positive reinforcement at a spectacular level!

Therefore we end up offering a career to career minded people.
Individuals who would excel in our technical trades but have absolutely no interest in committing to 4 years of their life.

What we are not offering (which we always did, for centuries) is a way out to the dregs (bare with me). Those who can’t read or write, have no prospects in their slum (read sink council estate), those that don’t have a dozen internet connectable products in their house (as our researchers insist is the norm) those that we can offer real social mobility too.

Those that our multi million pound surveys completely miss. Those that we need if we want to be a credible fighting force. Those that have served us well forever as a great army.

But then, again, I am not from the ‘right’ background, what would I know :)
 
Last edited:
What other jobs say, ok your hired, come back in 6 months. People join because they want a career, they actually give up higher paid jobs to enlist. But I see so much red tape and beurocracy, delay after delay, soldiers quickly become bored, which, in many aspects , been part of army life, hurry up and wait
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top