|
Few people would dispute that the British Armed Forces are among the very best in the world. It is arguably only on their back that Prime Minister Blair has been able to bestride the world stage with such confidence. Whenever called upon they have delivered - Korea, Kenya, Malaya, Borneo, Oman, Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Kuwait and more recently Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan. The list is a long one, to which Iraq can now be added; another remarkable military success.
Now that the first ships and planes are returning from the Gulf, other political issues are already beginning to nudge military affairs out of the headlines and life is getting ‘back to normal’. But, as Kipling put it so well:
“O it’s Tommy this an’ Tommy that, an’ Tommy go away
But it’s thank you, Mr Atkins, when the band begins to play”
So before the last bars played by the band fade away and the events of the past few weeks in Iraq become distant memories, we should take stock and reflect on the fact that our forces have unequivocally delivered their half of the deal; they have honoured the ‘covenant’ that must exist between the nation and those who may be called upon to sacrifice their lives on its behalf. But, has the Nation has been true to its half of the bargain? Has this Labour Government given the men and women of our armed forces the support they need, and deserve, in return for their unconditional commitment? In short, are our forces being treated fairly, or is this Government taking them for granted?
Mistakes have been made in the past, and it would not be fair to charge the current administration with all of the problems facing our armed forces. For example timelines in the equipment programme in particular can be lengthy.
During the years immediately following the fall of the Berlin Wall expectations of a “peace dividend” were so high throughout the Western world that they had a profound effect on the evolution of defence policy and the level of defence spending. The principal ‘enemy’ had disappeared and the world suddenly looked a safer place. In retrospect this reading of the situation was misguided, and expectations correspondingly unrealistic. By the mid 1990s it was clear that a substantial peace dividend was not there to be had. Rather, as the world adjusted from the rigidities and relative certainties of the Cold War era to the uncertainties and dangers of the ‘new world disorder’, it was increasingly evident that our forces were going to be more, rather than less, in demand. So it has proved.
Five years on from the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), and four years on from publication of the much heralded Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy (AFOPS), we must ask whether this Government has lived up to its own rhetoric. Increasingly the answer must be “no”. The reality is that our armed forces are:
- suffering from acute and endemic over-stretch;
- have been chronically under-funded in key areas of capability;
- are in danger of being taken for granted.
In short our servicemen and women are not getting a fair deal.
“An Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool – you bet that Tommy sees!”
THE PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS
Overstretch
Over-stretch and under-investment are not new phenomena. To some extent they are inevitable. Competition for resources is ferocious in the modern welfare state and every government faces hard choices between competing priorities. At the same time, it is impossible to predict, with accuracy, when and where trouble is going to erupt around the globe, and therefore what operational demands will be placed on our armed forces. Now, with the increasing threat from terrorism, fresh demands are emerging for home defence, adding to existing pressures.
Providing for the security of its people is a government’s first duty. And, because Britain is still a nation whose well-being depends on trade, we also have an unusually acute interest in maintaining global stability. As permanent member of the Security Council we have a duty to preserve security.
Britain’s armed forces are there to be used, and there are undoubted professional benefits to be gained from taking part in operations. The problem is the scale of their use in relation to their size. This has been excessive for far too long. In recent months we have seen some 60% of the Army committed to operations, and even if that level eventually drops to say, 30% that is too high and unsustainable level of commitment. The consequences will be come progressively more severe. For example, the constant interruption of individual and collective training will inevitably lead to a gradual decline in professional standards, with the result that the armed forces’ ability to conduct war-fighting (i.e. operations at the high intensity end of the scale) will be damaged. Unless addressed this could lead to catastrophic failure and to unnecessarily high casualty levels.
If sustained overstretch is to be corrected, the inescapable conclusion is that either the size of our armed forces must be increased, or the Government must take on fewer commitments (which the track record suggests is unlikely). Only then will a sustainable balance be achieved. For the Army this translates into seeking to achieve an average operational tour interval of 24 to 30 months, with some variation to reflect role. This will ensure that:
- units and individuals carry out the progressive individual and collective training that is essential if operational standards are to be sustained and will at the same time maintain operational edge;
- enables service personnel and their families to enjoy the quality of life that will encourage the retention of skilled personnel;
- there is time for personal development.
Under –funding
It would be neither right nor realistic to suggest that a blank cheque should be written for defence. Even so, the case for higher levels of defence funding is undeniable.
With regard to the equipment programme former Allied Commander Europe, General Wesley Clark put it succinctly in The Times recently:
“The British force is badly in need of increased resourcing. Already the forces are perhaps a generation behind the best available technology in some areas, and are hard-stretched in support. Much of the British force left in Germany was scavenged to field the division sized force in the Gulf. And even then, British forces lacked some modern communications, position locating systems, some of the latest specialist night-fighting gear and a full logistics structure. British ground forces have wrested with problems of over-commitment for years – they are simply smaller and leaner than the requirements would suggest.”
And here he was being diplomatic! He makes no mention of the many other, less dramatic but often more telling inadequacies in the equipment programmes that have afflicted our forces in recent years, compounding the problems they have faced during training and on operations:
- the inadequate IFF;
- the lack of helicopter spares;
- the poor quality of some personnel equipment.
We cannot, expect to match the Americans in this domain, nor should we ignore the fact that our armed forces do have a great deal of first class equipment in their inventories. But if this Government is to commit our armed forces to war-fighting operations, and Britain is to remain a serious player on the military stage, more must be done to ensure they are properly equipped for the tasks they are called upon to carry out.
PERSONNEL ISSUES
This Government has failed to live up to its obligations with respect to personnel issues. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women should feel valued rather than taken for granted. Second rate terms and conditions of service undermine the moral component of war-fighting. The list is long:
· the appalling state of much service accommodation;
· the lack of an adequate Manning and Training Margin;
· the growing fear of legal vulnerability, which jeopardises the risk-taking culture that is so essential to operational success;
· damaging reductions in staff to student ratios in training establishments;
· the poor condition of the Defence Medical Services;
· inadequate rewards.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
Improvements that need to be made to the equipment programme are the topic for another paper. So too is the issue of overstretch which can only be addressed at source by increasing the size of the armed forces or by reducing the level of their commitments. But there is much that could be done to relieve the pressure, and provide the men and women of our armed forces with the support they need and deserve.
The Territorial Army
A commitment should be made to rebuild the Territorial Army and make it more useable. Aligned with this, perhaps even as part of the reshaping process, careful consideration should be given to the creation of a national guard and/or a gendarmerie. If sensibly managed this would relieve pressure on the Regular Forces, provide for an enhanced home defence capability, and provide for a more rounded peacekeeping/nation-building capability. At the same time further legislation should be introduced, and then selectively but decisively used, to ban strikes in the emergency services, so that our armed forces are not distracted from their core business at times when they are heavily committed to operations. Additional funding should be made available for the expansion of the Military Provost Guard Service, the purpose of which is to reduce the numbers of service personnel involved on routine guard duties.
Personnel Issues
Tackling personnel issues is the area where the most immediate impact can be made, and through which our servicemen and women, and their families, can be made to feel valued. By addressing personnel issues the Nation would be on the way to keeping its half of the covenant between state and armed forces.
i)Accommodation
More should be done to improve the standard of service accommodation. The military estate has been neglected for decades. Additional resources have now been allocated, but substantially more is needed, particularly for the maintenance and improvement of single living accommodation. In today’s society people are far less willing to put up with the conditions that still obtain in far too many barracks. It is hard to feel valued when your windows are rotting and the paint peeling off your walls.
ii)Training Budgets
Training budgets have been cut to the bone in a never-ending search for efficiency. They need to be restored to more realistic levels. Efficiency is, of course, a proper goal but the process has gone too far and budgets are now so taut that many training establishments are chronically under-funded. One result of this is that they have to work constantly at full capacity, and so cannot cope with the sort of fluctuations in throughput that are an inevitable consequence of over-stretch. Another is that instructor establishments have in many cases been trimmed to the point where recruits are receiving insufficient attention and pastoral care, a problem that is exacerbated by the tendency to replace military staff with (less costly) civilians wherever possible. These are short term measures which have long term consequences. And, many training courses have themselves been reduced in length to the point where it is simply not possible to achieve the standards required, thus putting additional pressure on the regiments, ships and stations that receive the product.
iii)Legal Vulnerability
Something must also be done to address the growing fear of legal vulnerability. In a world that is increasingly litigious we really must provide our servicemen and women, and in particular junior and middle ranking commanders, with the confidence they need if they are to take those difficult decisions that are a central part of operations. We must, as a minimum, provide them with the assurance of publicly funded legal aid for courts martial. At the same time more must be done to halt and reverse the burgeoning red tape (notably in the health and safety domain) which not only absorbs undue time and energy, but is inherently inimical with an organisation whose success depends ultimately on personal responsibility and risk taking. Finally, we must resist the imposition on the armed forces of further inappropriate ‘human rights’ legislation. So far the line has just about been held, though many would argue it has been breached in several respects. But any further undermining of our military jurisdiction system – both courts martial and summary dealings – will do irreparable damage to fighting power. This is an area where the services need to be different if they are to remain effective.
iv)Health
The Defence Medical Services are in a parlous state. There is a pressing need to take decisive action to reduce the high proportion of servicemen and women who are medically downgraded and thus unavailable for operational deployment. Some steps have already been taken, but not on the scale required. Part of the solution might be to give those in deployable units priority for NHS treatment, so that when their units deploy on operations they do not have to be left behind and replaced by others, adding to disruption and undermining the coherence of operational teams.
v)Remuneration
On the financial side, there are a number of small but significant steps that could easily be taken. These would send a powerful message to the troops that they are valued, and do much to enhance the retention of skilled personnel. For example, much more generous allowances should be paid to those who are experiencing the highest levels of separation due to operational requirements, as a reward for their exceptional commitment. Quite rightly the armed forces have been excluded from the National Minimum Wage, and there is no provision for the payment of overtime. But other ways must be found to reward exceptional commitment, and paying more generous bonuses is one.
The restoration of more generous leave travel allowances would also help. Not least for those who come from the more remote parts of our island.
More use should also be made of financial incentives to retain those specialists who are in greatest demand in the civil economy. That said, it would be a mistake to think that more money is a panacea that will guarantee high morale and reduce outflow.
It is also telling that so many service personnel feel it necessary to take out additional insurance for death or injury.
The Armed Services do not have a union or federation, and the establishment of such a body would be deeply damaging. But pressure to introduce one will increase if service personnel begin to feel they are not getting a fair deal.
vi)Families
Families are just as important to service personnel as to anybody else, and there is no doubt that many feel disadvantaged in relation to their civilian peers. They have good reason to. The majority of problems are associated with mobility, and some of these have been addressed through the Families Forum. Little progress has been made on the most emotive and important issues arising for postings:
- the problems of losing a place on a NHS waiting list;
- the difficulties of getting children into the schools of their choice;
vii)Support for Veterans
Although there is a Minister for Veterans there must be better support for them. More needs to be done, such as giving some priority for NHS treatment to those whose injuries or illnesses are derived from their service.
viii)Partners
Finally, and more controversially, the time has come to make some clear provision for partners. Service personnel reflect society – many have strong relationships but don’t want to get married. This is clearly a matter of national significance not just something that affects the services, but service personnel constitute a special case for they have to go where they are told, when they are told. This makes it extremely difficult to build and sustain relationships, let alone partners’ careers. Some recognition of this is required.
CONCLUSION
We have superb armed forces in this country, but we also have a track record of taking them for granted. Somehow they always come good when it matters. But in the modern world there is less and less scope for error, less time to overcome deficiencies, and less and less tolerance of mistakes. If our armed forces are to continue to attract not just the numbers required, but crucially also the quality, we must make sure they are trained and equipped to the highest standards and equally importantly, treated fairly.
|
