Formation of Fijian units?

#1
With rising numbers of Fijians being recruited - there seems to be an ongoing discussion about cultural clashes and integration.

On the one hand there are multi-cultural backgrounds in every unit - in some more, in others less. So why do the Fijians seem to stick out as a talking point?

Do you think it may be a good idea to form seperate Fijian units - similar to Gurkha units?

And what about you Fijians out here on the forum? What is your experience and opinion?
 
#2
Pliers,

We dont recruit Fijian units, we do recruit Gurkha units. Gurkha's are recruited into Gurkha Batalions and that has always been the way - the Gurkhas then retain their standards and traditions which have been built up over many many years. They have their own Officers and SNCO's, so the Gurkha comparison isnt really relevant.

The Commonwealth recruits are being integrated into units along with their British counterparts. Most of the opponions i've heard is about the Commonwealth soldiers bringing their own caste/clan systems into the units they join, and as a result undermining the discipline and cohesion of the unit. How true this is, i dont know. Someone with first hand experience would have to comment. One thing i do know is that it cannot work, we cant have the Unit chain of command and a seperate one applicable to only a few due to their nationality.
 
#3
Having served with a gurkha/british unit with a 50/50 mix, the gurkhas have their own caste system, but I found it not to interfere with day to day business. The gurkhas are hardworking individuals who are fiercely loyal and it has to be said that they do recruit the best of the large number of potential recruits it is somewhere in the region of 1 out of every 200 applicants makes it through.
 
#4
Pliersbabe said:
Do you think it may be a good idea to form seperate Fijian units - similar to Gurkha units?
No.


I think that just about covers it :roll:
 
#6
Please let's stop talking about this, before we know it and the PC brigade get their own way, there will be a gay battalion/units being formed 8O !
 
#8
One must not forget that the mere exsistance of the Gurka units is by mutual agreement with Indian. This also explains why the Gurka pay is mch lower than the Army as a whole as it is linked to the Indian Gurka pay, same goes with the pensions.

Don't forget that the Gurkas are also classed a Mercenaries, as in they are hired to fight for a foriegn country, whereas the soldiers recruited from Commonwealth countries are not classed so.
 
#9
Don't forget that the Gurkas are also classed a Mercenaries, as in they are hired to fight for a foriegn country, whereas the soldiers recruited from Commonwealth countries are not classed so.
No they're not!

As the Gurkhas swear allegiance to the Sovereign, have British Officers and wear British uniform they are part of the British Army and most definately not mercenaries. An analogy is the French Foreign Legion, where in addition to allegiance swearing et al the Legionnaires may claim French citizenship after five years service.

I suggest a refresher on ITD 6!
 
#11
Sorry, you've completely lost me there!

The Gurkhas are no more mercenaries than soldiers from the Republic of Ireland who serve in the British Army.
 
#12
Ever heard of a Dictionary? Look it up, anyone who fights for a forgein state is one.

Commonwealth soldier fight for the head of state, the Queen, so there for are not.

Who is the head of state for Napal or the Republic of Ireland?
 
#13
OK, I will concede that by a dictionary definition there might be an argument that Gurkhas could be classed as mercenaries.

However in international law (inasmuch as it exists) and the Law of Armed Conflict they most certainly are not. If you are a serving member of the Forces you should either (a) know this or (b) pay more attention in LoAC sessions!

BTW before making digs about dictionaries I suggest you spell check your posts... :)
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#15
CaptainPlume said:
However in international law (inasmuch as it exists) and the Law of Armed Conflict they most certainly are not. If you are a serving member of the Forces you should either (a) know this or (b) pay more attention in LoAC sessions!
I seem to remember either the Argentinians or Saddam the first time claimed that the British were using mercenaries (a.k.a. The Ghurkas) when we sent them along to kick Dago/rag head arrse and there was some concern that the ghurkas should they become PW's be classed as mercenaries and not be covered by the Geneva Convention.
 
#16
I seem to remember either the Argentinians or Saddam the first time claimed that the British were using mercenaries (a.k.a. The Ghurkas) when we sent them along to kick Dago/rag head arrse and there was some concern that the ghurkas should they become PW's be classed as mercenaries and not be covered by the Geneva Convention.
Bang on- the claims were certainly made at the time of the Falklands, although I didn't realise that they'd come up during GRANBY.

Being a spotter (and having just rewritten a LoAC package) I've just had a quick look at the "Soldiers' Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict" to check that I'm not talking nonsense.

The crucial point is over combatant status.

Prot 1 43 of the Geneva conventions states that members of organised armed forces who are under a commander who has responsibility for conduct of subordinates and who are subject to an internal disciplinary system which enforces compliance with LoAC have combatant (and thus PW) status.

Prot 1 47 defines mercenaries as those specifically recruited for a conflict and take part for private gain: they are not members of an organised armed force and do not have a connection with the states involved in the conflict. Thus they do not have combatant status and are not entitled to PW protection.

Mind you looking at the dodgy characters mentioned in your post I wouldn't have held out much hope for proper PW treatment whatever the status of an individual...
 
#17
Thank you for bring the text of the LoAC into the thread. I have be out of the mainstream for nearly three years and we do no ITDs here, so it is always good to be refreashed.
 
#18
Just hope it's not too boring!

Always find some good bloodthirsty bits from Platoon/Full Metal Jacket/Saving Private Ryan always wake people up.
 
#19
Kind of getting away from the topic guys, I have come accross many commonwealth soldiers in the past few years, and on the whole are much the same as Brits. They have some lazy twats, some moaners, and some extremely proffesional guys who genuinely want to serve (and not just food and roof) prety much the same as brits, wouldn't you aggree. I do think some of them should have more language training though.
 
#20
Mighty_Blighty said:
I do think some of them should have more language training though.

So should the Kingos; why don't you put your suggestion through GEMS, unless you're a journo fishing for a 'soldiers in racist shock' story.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top