So, tell me, what was the point?
I think he's missed it and neglected to read beyond your first five words ("For the blokes - cock all.")!
Please correct me if I'm wrong as my experience of littoral ops is somewhat limited (but nowhere near as limited as my experience of mech ops), but in my view the idea that "we should perhaps consider if any of our light role infantry battalions can also receive some training for littoral operations" or that with a little training a light role inf bn could adequately do "a 'lite version' of what the RM do" is as dangerously flawed as the idea that a similar light role inf bn / bde could easily re-role to mech just by teaching the dismounts how to get out of a Warrior instead of getting off a truck or walking.
Getting in and out of the "delivery system", whether it be ships, boats, APCs, trucks, helicopters or planes, is the easy part - how, where and when those delivery systems are used and what tactics are dictated as a result of the limitations of those systems on the troops they carried and their supplies and weapons systems is the hard part and what takes the training and experience that RM/RN have in littoral ops and the Army simply doesn't (and doesn't seem to want to acknowledge not having).
I think the Army (and certainly some posting here) seem to think that just because RM can re-role quickly and relatively easily to do a lt inf job that automatically means that the reverse is also true: that a lt inf bn could re-role quickly and easily to do a RM job - or at least a watered-down version of it (sorry, pun intended). I don't believe for a minute that that's true and I think it would be just as dangerous as a lt inf bn doing some limited familiarisation training with Warrior then being deployed on conventional armoured ops complete with their commanders who are totally unfamilar with armoured warfare. It would be a disaster waiting to happen.
The one option this does throw up is for whatever incremental manpower is likely to be required for littoral ops (one bn ... two bns ...even a bde) to take that role as their main priority under the auspices of RM while still remaining roled for the far easier to train for role of air assault / para / lt inf if those roles were required.
Its simply maximising resources and minimising waste - hardly rocket science.
I didn't say "nobody realised that law and order was the priority" (my bold).
What I said was that it wasn't "Realised and actioned" and then suggested that maybe " ... it was the priority but some rather senior people ignored that and decided that entire bns would be better employed doing something else".
A number of people both on the ground and who were consulted realised that law and order was the only priority and I know full well they voiced that opinion very strongly indeed; unfortunately their opinion wasn't heeded and it wasn't actioned.
What I have said is very clearly what "I think ... the Army seem to think"; its simply an opinion - a "guess", if you will.The problem is that you are guessing with no little arrogance. The Army doesn't think that it can easily do the job of the RM with a little training. There is no suggestion of that. You are building a straw man to beat the army with, based on your own arrogance which simply isn't true.
I can't help but feel we need to find the funds, because we're going to need rather more capability than at present & in the not too distant future.
An extra couple of billion isn't going to remedy the current parlous state of our armed forces.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-unions-label-utterly-outrageous-9804283.htmlThe Ministry of Defence is looking to appoint what could be the country's best-paid civil servant on a salary of up to £500,000, a move that unions have blasted as "utterly outrageous".
Mr Clegg is quite correct to say we have one civilian for every two uniformed staff at the MoD. The latest numbers show that on 1 March 2010 the trained strength of the armed forces was 176,920, around 3,000 stronger than 1 April 2009. There was also another 19,620 untrained staff.
At the start of April 2009 (the latest statistics that are available), there were 86,600 civilian staff employed by the MOD, roughly half the number of personnel in the armed forces
How dare you question the veracity of Paedo G, SO1 (P!!!The problem is that you are guessing with no little arrogance. The Army doesn't think that it can easily do the job of the RM with a little training. There is no suggestion of that. You are building a straw man to beat the army with, based on your own arrogance which simply isn't true.
The funny thing with the "new" head of procurement at the MoD was that after briefly shifting the "old" one sideways because he hadn't improved what the FT described as "a mess" he was taken on again to do the same job but at the higher salary and is still doing it four years later (and according to the FT its an even bigger "mess"!).Extra funds would mean pay rises - the MOD is like a 3rd world African country that asks for aid - just how many people do they employ again?
The MOD and the military do not offer value for money to the UK taxpayer. It is one giant trough that exists to extract the maximum it can against a non existant (up till now) threat.
Leaves me wondering to what extent that espoused goal was reflected in the actions that followed on from those orders.
That is not a veiled accusation that the Army talked about law'n'order while acting like crooks, it's simply that I'm a long way from being convinced that (irrespective of issues of under-resourcing) the Army was sufficiently tuned-in to the local cultural / tribal/ social/ political complexities of its last two dusty deployments to have even the slightest hope of facilitating the establishing of widespread Order and respect for The Law.
I'm left with a strong sense that a succession of One-Stars were happy to talk Law'n'Order while doing War - because the latter looks better on the OJAR . . . . . many of our recent VSOs have shown themselves to be more than ready willing and able to say one thing, yet do another - the vexed issue of personal integrity springs immediately to mind.
Not sure I'd agree with "unwittingly".
I think he and his fellow corrupt "generals for hire" knew exactly what they were doing!
Well, they were offered "financial gain" in return for services to be rendered which they shouldn't have agreed to morally and, arguably, legally. I don't think "misguided" would be appropriate given their ethical and moral responsibilities and their supposed level of intelligence - if they didn't realise the significance of what they were doing none should have held the positions of authority amd responsibility they had.slightly unfair - certainly corrupt needs quantifying, presumably you mean morally corrupt rather than corrupt for financial gain?
Have they decided what we're going to be yet ?
World policeman, local EU bobby, or plain home guard ?
Any one of those requires more investment as has been pointed out. "Money" and "mouth" spring to mind.