The myth of the Broken Covenant

Discussion in 'Officers' started by asr1, Jan 8, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. All this "broken covenant" stuff has got me thinking. I get paid well, get enough leave, plenty of adventure training and sport and generally enjoy my life. I don't live in the mess (not enough space, SSSA instead which is closer to work and a lot more pleasant) but the standard of accommodation is very agreeable.

    I've done two tours in the last 2 years and found the welfare packages to be well thought out and implemented where the situations allowed.

    No civilians I have met hate me - although some disagree with government foreign policy and wish to talk to me about that.

    JPA is an abortion and should get replaced and I think that more should be done to support injured soldiers.

    I'm getting out in under 2 years, purely because the choice of jobs from here on in offers no excitement or fulfillment. I don't feel valued by the Army, but I don't know anybody who does feel valued by their civilian employer.

    The Army is not close to breaking point and I believe that the constant public howls of outrage whenever accommodation, pay and welfare are mentioned are counterproductive to the ethos of the Army and our standing within society.

    Comment please. No abuse or ranting - this is the Officers' Mess after all.

    P.S. To any arrse grammar and spelling bores - rearrange the following phrase. balls suck my.
  2. Glass half full or half empty? Discuss.
  3. I'm a young guy about to join the army and I have a question about the deplyment issue. There are just under 100,000 in the army at the moment and there are 4500 in Iraq (and I get the impression that Broon wants to withdraw) and 7700 in Afghanistan. That adds up to 12,200. I am wondering therefore about the overstretch issue, this seems to be a 1:10 ratio of deployed to undeployed(but granted some of the undeployed are probably away from kids etc). It seems therefore that the army is not numerically overstretched and yet I keep hearing that the army is overstretched so: Are certain branches of the army overstretched and if
    so who are they(numerically not all the army can be overstretched and so who are the overstretched branches)?
  4. D Telegraph 9 Jan - 'Service personnel live in substandard homes'
  5. Doing some (very) basic maths the 12200 you quoted normally do a 6 month tour therefore 24400 are in sandy places a year so thats 1:4 ratio now take into account all the exercises/courses/leave/pre tour training/resettlement/other deployments (Sierra leone/Belize/UN Cyprus) Then everynow and again get called in to help cover the firemens strike or deal with the floods.
    So quite a bit of the army is seen to be overstretched.
  6. Surely we should be debating whether a "glass" is a receptical we drink from, or a social Commentary?
  7. OK to put it in crude figures 12,200 deployed in the desert, im not sure how many in the balkans so we'll say approximatley 13,000 for a round figure. each tour is six months, so there will be another 13000 troops training to deploy imminantly which means lots of time out of barracks and away from families, not good for pads. And another 13000 who will be expecting a tour in the next 8-12 get the picture. Plus you seem to be assuming that all 100,000 people are fully trained and medically fit to deploy at all times. Yes some jobs get hammered for tours more than others, the infantry immediatley spring to mind the Grenadiers had 4 months between Iraq and Afhgan last year.

    I think the ideal tour ratio is one every two years, 6 months on tour, 4-6 months training, 12 months in barracks/courses/leave, but of course its never like that 100% of the time. Plus at the moment we have only one Battle Group available for an emergency? I remember reading that somewhere. In short its not as simple as you think, the senior officers that voice these concerns know what they're talking about, far more than commie journos and lying politicians.

    Edited to add

    I was still writing this as stacker posted, and he's put it better than me!
  8. Covenant is not broken, it is shattered.

    Medical discharge in October after an injury received whilst on duty - still waiting for war pension/afcs....

    Many things promised, too many to mention here, have not been kept and I do not trust the system as far as I could(n't) throw it.

    Don't make me laugh.
  9. That probably includes recruits in training, as well as people in their final 12 months of service and downgraded people, on top of the 25,000 on ops/training for ops that others have mentioned.
  10. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    So, 'I'm alright Jack' would pretty much sum up your attitude then. Fine.
  11. Quite.

    Do you represent the average? I'd contend you very much dont.
    I surmise things have gone reasonably smoothly for you (I'm not suggesting you've had it easy however). Do you think you would feel the same if you had run into difficulties. Would the support still be there?
  12. My thoughts entirely cpunk. As a crab in a screened post (not allowed to be deployed) I have a rather comfortable life at present, no staff shortages, comfortable accommodation and a less than stressful job. This does not, however, blinker me from what life is like for a large number of our personnel: JRs accommodation at many units is lamentable, many trades are sending personnel away once every 24 months, MQs are poor quality, veteran care is lamentable and we have been reduced in number by 7,000 in the last 4 years. Oh and my personal bugbear - the entire organisation is run by aircrew officers with less experience of leading ORs than I have.

    I may be comfortable, but for that very reason I count myself lucky.
    Afghanistan: 7,800
    Bosnia and Kosovo: 300
    Iraq: 4,500
    UN missions: 300
    Germany: 22,000*
    Cyprus: 3,000
    South Atlantic Islands: 1,250
    Gibraltar: 340
    Diego Garcia: 40
    Northern Ireland: 5,000

    * - Figure includes troops deployed in Iraq
    According to the MoD, operational deployments are those announced by the defence secretary in parliament involving commitment to a specific theatre. Non-operational deployments do not involve a fighting role.

  14. While housing may not be up to scratch and the number of operational deployments for the Army and RAF may have increased (haven't really noticed a significant change in the RN), my key concern (admittedly form the cosy confines of an office and a decent cabin in the mess) relating to the covenant and its current status is "medical/welfare" for want of a better term. Admittedly the RN is doing its best to address what we call the "medical margin" but that still doesn't alter the fact that there are no longer any dedicated military hospitals (I can not simply believe that during the current op tempo that they allowed Haslar, a truly splendid hospital, to go) and the fear of being wounded/damaged on duty and then being sent to my local hospital and then consequently discharged due to injury (physical or mental) and having to join the queue at the local NHS hospital (admittedly veterans are meant to get priority) is of some concern.

    I don't wish to rehearse old arguments about the provision of dedicated military medical facilities but I do think that the treatment of the wounded (and the compensation they receive and assistance (from the State) that they get after discharge) is probably the bit of the covenant that majority of joe public are aware is slightly threadbare and therefore, tactically, it should be the bit that BAFF focus on perhaps?

    As for the glass full/empty argument - the Treasury response is likely to be that the glass is too big!