UK Defence Force General discussion
- Thread starter t68
- Start date
A number of people seem to have misread that:Yep, I can think of one or three:
The Falklands War was legitimate defence against foreign invasion of sovereign territory.
- The ill fated Suez War of 1956 after Nasser of Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal. Britain and France did a sneaky deal with Israel about attacking Egypt in the Sinai so that Britain and France could mask their intentions of invading the canal zone as protection of the waterway during hostilities, when in fact it was a hostile takeover of assets.
- The Malayan conflict.
- The Borneo Confrontation, or as the Indonesians call it, Konfrontasi.
Ah but wasn't the UK joining the EU the continuation of a 500 year plan? Must be a change in the plan.
Well apparently the Defence Secretary is having sleepless nights: What keeps Britain’s defense secretary up at night? due to his concerns that the US may be withdrawing from leadership of western defence. As the article rightly supposes, funding will be a substantial issue, especially after the cuts from the various SDRS. As me mum in law says - all mouth and trousers.
"I'm struggling to think of a recent war of choice in which the UK has fought alongside the US, which wasn't in itself precipitated by a US call to arms. "
In short, I can't think of an occasion where we've been in a scrap alongside US forces where that action wasn't started by the US. That was my point, not that we'd not fought any independent actions - that would literally make no sense at all.
Cool. I do love the Spitting Image take on him and a few others.
DouglasLees
Member
Unfortunately the ‘Global Britain’ aspect of Brexit is almost entirely a rhetorical flourish: only a few libertarian ‘think tank’ types take it seriously. The overwhelming emphasis of Brexit is inward-looking and that of ‘little Britain’ (specifically ‘little England’) pulling up the drawbridge. The hard Brexiteers don’t even seem bothered by the idea that no deal or a bare bones deal will bring economic hardship and chaos. Their main interest is not in trade deals but in xenophobic nationalism. Some actually believe in chaos or permanent revolution - a kind of Trotskyism of the right (Dominic Cummings is an excellent example), others in social authoritarianism and opposing immigration at all costs (classic cutting of your nose to spite your face; we have a massive shortage of workers in health and social care which means that more immigrants are needed, not less, in these areas).
Overall the Brexit mentality is a contradictory mixture of militant change and political reaction. It is certainly not conservative and has little in common with traditional British values, including tolerance, gradual reform and incremental change.
There is the possibility that a soft Brexit could have offered the best of both worlds and a relationship with the EU akin to Switzerland. But that would have meant compromise and give-and-take.
Hard Brexiteers profess their support for the Armed Forces but have little practical interest in defence, except against immigration, ‘multi-culturalism’ and various imagined ‘enemies within’. When there are post-Brexit crises, they will have numerous ‘stab in the back’ theories to explain why a ‘great national rebirth’ etc. hasn’t happened!
Last edited:
DouglasLees
Member
He has a very politically correct view of the Armed Forces and was instrumental in scrapping the all-male recruitment policy of the Infantry Regiments, Royal Marines, Tanks and RAF Regiment. The reasons for this seem to be ideological (support for feminism and radical egalitarianism) rather than anything to do with operational effectiveness. There is also an element of slavishly following the Americans. I shall admit here to a politically unfashionable (but nonetheless widely held) view that this ‘gender integration’ policy is extremely unwise on a large number of levels and will lead, among other acute problems, to future situations like Abu Ghraib.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
It's not simply "unfashionable", it's based on prejudice rather than science.
The first excuse seems to boil down to men will do stupid things to protect women. I can't say if that would have been the case 50 years ago, but I don't see why that is the case now. Women can be police officers and firefighters, but I can't say as I've seen evidence that their male counterparts effectively commit suicide in large numbers because "woman in danger".
If you're coming at it from the "women aren't as good as men at war" front, we know from actual experience that women can fly planes, command ships and drive armoured vehicles. They can also fire guns. Yes, if a 6 foot 4 inch man jumps a 5 foot 5 inch woman in a trench, she's going to find it difficult to fight him off. But I'm a man and I would find it difficult to fight a bloke that size off.
Then there's the fact that recruitment across much of the military is below targets, and not utilising half the population because of outdated thinking is pretty dumb in the circumstances.
Providing a woman can pass the minimum physical and mental requirements for the job, in my book she's welcome to do it.
I see. And you're going to tell me that people have never been tortured in an all-male environment? I might be misinformed, but I thought the Iraqi hotelier Baha mousa died after being "cared for" by exclusively male personnel. Perhaps they were women posing as men?
DouglasLees
Member
To be honest I think we’re just going to have to agree to differ on this because although I respect your position I disagree with it on every single level and we’re just going to go round in circles with neither of us changing our minds. However I am not ‘prejudiced’; I merely disagree with you! And, in a (relatively) free society, that is my right.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Many military roles are and should be gender neutral. A few aren’t but even these on occasion may be enhanced by a female operative on the team.
DouglasLees
Member
I really find the idea of ‘gender neutrality’ quite problematic in some ways because there are strong psychological and emotional differences - which are a good thing in very many ways. I’ve never in fact understood why a unisex society should be a desirable goal. I rather like the Chinese (Taoist) idea of Yin and Yang: complementary strengths that are of equal importance. But that’s a different discussion.
Earlier on, I was accused of being prejudiced, which does show how extreme the radical egalitarian ideology has become in the UK! It was also implied that I was opposing all military roles being ‘gender neutral’. In fact, I was supporting the status quo ante: the pre-2018 situation where a number of front line military roles were all-male and the rest were not.
Last edited:
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
That's largely down to what society tells children and what expectations they have growing up.
For example, in Europe there has been very little martial tradition amongst women from the medieval era onwards, especially well-to-do ones. In Japan, respectable women were expected to fight if things got tough. They didn't just flail away with any old piece of crap they found lying around at home, they learnt how to use 2 metre long polearms from when they were teenagers. 2 metre long polearms which they personally owned. (Joan of Arc was a wimpy little girl in comparison.) When westerners travelled to Japan in the 19th century they were appalled that respectable women knew how to fight and even carried weapons for self-protection.
It wasn't so long ago in the West that the idea of women having muscle or being physically strong was considered repulsive. Whilst the average woman will not be as strong as the average man, these days women are much more likely to see being physically strong as a positive than a negative. It's logical that women who see strength as a good thing are going to be more suitable for a career in the miltiary (and potentially a front-line role).
Because the world has moved on, whether we like it or not. The economy can no longer function with one person in a relationship earning money whilst the other stays at home, not least because hardly anyone wants to play homemaker anymore.
Similarly, militaries around the world are finding it increasingly hard to hit recruitment targets by just relying on men. It isn't because men have been turned into wimps, they've just got more career opportunities. It's no longer the case than under-educated men can only choose between a life of crime or the military. In those circumstances it makes sense to try to open up vacancies to women that meet the standard required.
Please do not erect a strawman. I did not say that you were prejudiced, I said that your view was based on prejudice. You did not come up with the idea that women are unsuitable from working in the military/front-line roles, other people did a long time ago. I leave it to you to decide whether you actively sat down and decided you agreed 100% with that view, or whether you simply thought it made sense and agreed with it without question.
Which roles in particular do you think are unsuitable for women even if they pass the physical (and any psychological) tests and why? It's not policy that a woman can simply breeze into any role she wants to. Women have to pass the same tasks the men do.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
There can some disagreement about what roles are off limits but the bottom line is our high technology NATO militaries are struggling to fulfill positions and turning off 50% of the recruitment pool is not helping.
I served at sea with women and had absolutely no problems with them. They did exactly everything us guys did and in some cases more. There are some women officers who I would follow through hell and back and others I wouldn't trust in charge of a rowing boat in a kids paddling pool. Exactly the same with male officers. When I was in the RNZAF it was the same too. I don't care if the person beside me when the bullets are flying and the blood is flowing, is male, female, black, brown, white, blue, green, gray, straight, christian, muslim, hindu, whatever. As long as they have my back as I have theirs.
The argument that women aren't psychologically or physically capable of conducting themselves well in combat and being a liability is absolute bullshit. It's been shown throughout history that they are more than capable. I am of the opinion that it's a male conceit. I am Māori and in precolonisation days our women were very capable warriors. I definitely wouldn't have been keen on facing them in combat, which in those days was hand to hand. Even today most Māori and Polynesian women are still quite stroppy. The Chinese PLA had many women in it's fighting forces during the 20th century Chinese Civil War; the Soviet Red Army had women in combat roles during WW2; the Soviet female partisans of WW2 fought the Nazis brutally; women endured many severe hardships in Japanese POW and internment camps during WW2. So I believe that they are more than capable in a combat situation.
The argument that women aren't psychologically or physically capable of conducting themselves well in combat and being a liability is absolute bullshit. It's been shown throughout history that they are more than capable. I am of the opinion that it's a male conceit. I am Māori and in precolonisation days our women were very capable warriors. I definitely wouldn't have been keen on facing them in combat, which in those days was hand to hand. Even today most Māori and Polynesian women are still quite stroppy. The Chinese PLA had many women in it's fighting forces during the 20th century Chinese Civil War; the Soviet Red Army had women in combat roles during WW2; the Soviet female partisans of WW2 fought the Nazis brutally; women endured many severe hardships in Japanese POW and internment camps during WW2. So I believe that they are more than capable in a combat situation.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
There's always be disagreement on what the role women will find in the Armed Forces. From dispute on the Physical condition, psychological perspective, or even Manning issue that now being faced by many Western Nation.
The last one will be more determine in the end, for countries that facing that. For countries that are relatively not facing that issue yet, then social value of each of them will be more determine.
Some of them like Indonesia for example, still not want to put Woman in direct combat position, but more on support roles. Like become Pilots on transport plane, position on support vessels in the Navy (some of them already become command possition on support vessels), or on crowd control and communication in the Indonesian UN forces.
Perhaps due to Indonesian Armed Forces still not facing Manning issue on combat possition, that need to force the brass on that.
However I do see the Manning problems will be more an issue for the next two decades. Thus some of the countries which now doesn't face it, will be force to put more women on combat possition despite what their society values is on the matters.
The last one will be more determine in the end, for countries that facing that. For countries that are relatively not facing that issue yet, then social value of each of them will be more determine.
Some of them like Indonesia for example, still not want to put Woman in direct combat position, but more on support roles. Like become Pilots on transport plane, position on support vessels in the Navy (some of them already become command possition on support vessels), or on crowd control and communication in the Indonesian UN forces.
Perhaps due to Indonesian Armed Forces still not facing Manning issue on combat possition, that need to force the brass on that.
However I do see the Manning problems will be more an issue for the next two decades. Thus some of the countries which now doesn't face it, will be force to put more women on combat possition despite what their society values is on the matters.
Although some of the objections are no doubt culturally based, and in some quarters contain an element of prejudice, a lot are scientifically based. The UK government's own review concluded that of the 21 factors studied that comprise combat effectiveness, one would be improved by the inclusion of women and 11 would be negative. In particular, deployability, survivability and morbidity.
Women in ground close combat (GCC) review paper
The findings of the tri-service 2014 review of the exclusion of women from ground close combat (GCC) roles.
[/QUOTE="Musashi_kenshin, post: 370201, member: 3843"] Provided a woman can pass the minimum physical and mental requirements for the job, in my book she's welcome to do it.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but that's the rub though isn't it? While the desire for equality of opportunity and the obvious need to expand the recruiting 'talent pool' are, in my mind at least, compelling arguments, the introduction of WGCC has coincided with changes to the standards and the delivery of training in the UK.
The main problem is less likely to be the dozens of women that will 'pass the [now reduced] minimum requirements' to serve in the infantry, it's the thousands of men passing through that may have been unable to meet what was, prior to WGCC, considered the minimum standard.
With the cuts the British Army has had in recent years it no longer has the mass or structural resilience of previous decades. It cant bring quantity to the fight, it can't afford to lose quality as well.
DouglasLees
Member
I'm going to apologise here if I in any way offended anybody by expressing scepticism about lifting the ban on combat roles for women. I have the highest respect for those who have a lot of experience and have disagreed with me and argued convincingly - and I don't want to be facing ngatimozart in combat either! I 100% agree with his point about Māori and other Polynesian societies - and all societies with a tradition of women as warriors. I am going to think about this again in the light of the comments I have received.
My essential position was (still is perhaps) in agreement with the report cited by Hone C. I can't help wondering whether the change in policy, despite the conclusions of the report, was for ideological rather than operational or even recruitment reasons (young men can be recruited from overseas, for example, as has happened successfully with Fijians and others). There is a tendency to make gender equality into a quasi-religious belief system and as with any literalist ideology there are dangers of excess.
There is also the issue of 'positive discrimination's grounds of gender which has IMHO had a negative impact on both policing and the fire service, although I speak here only of my knowledge and experience of London.
I suppose my perspective is small-c conservative (and this denotes a mentality rather than a political affiliation. I worry that introducing radical changes to structures which have evolved in a benign way over time can have serious unintended consequences. I stress the words 'in a benign way' because clearly traditions that are racist or based on economic repression, or colonialism, need to be swept away.
All that said, I have to defer to other people's experience and re-examine my thinking. My military experience is limited to 'playing soldiers' in the Corps at school and as a student and so does not count in the overall scheme of things. However that was an all-male environment and there was a strong element of male bonding involved. (I don't mean male bonding in the sexual sense, but I note that there is a very strong tradition of gay men as warriors and I strongly support their recognition and full acceptance in the military as much as civilian life).
In the end, my position on this is discursive rather than argumentative in that I am still undecided and can see different sides. I hope that isn't too boringly noncommittal for this site!
My essential position was (still is perhaps) in agreement with the report cited by Hone C. I can't help wondering whether the change in policy, despite the conclusions of the report, was for ideological rather than operational or even recruitment reasons (young men can be recruited from overseas, for example, as has happened successfully with Fijians and others). There is a tendency to make gender equality into a quasi-religious belief system and as with any literalist ideology there are dangers of excess.
There is also the issue of 'positive discrimination's grounds of gender which has IMHO had a negative impact on both policing and the fire service, although I speak here only of my knowledge and experience of London.
I suppose my perspective is small-c conservative (and this denotes a mentality rather than a political affiliation. I worry that introducing radical changes to structures which have evolved in a benign way over time can have serious unintended consequences. I stress the words 'in a benign way' because clearly traditions that are racist or based on economic repression, or colonialism, need to be swept away.
All that said, I have to defer to other people's experience and re-examine my thinking. My military experience is limited to 'playing soldiers' in the Corps at school and as a student and so does not count in the overall scheme of things. However that was an all-male environment and there was a strong element of male bonding involved. (I don't mean male bonding in the sexual sense, but I note that there is a very strong tradition of gay men as warriors and I strongly support their recognition and full acceptance in the military as much as civilian life).
In the end, my position on this is discursive rather than argumentative in that I am still undecided and can see different sides. I hope that isn't too boringly noncommittal for this site!
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
That was published over six years ago, and even then it contained a lot of "don't know" or "women may...." The report also said that increased training and awareness could mitigate perception issues.
Generally speaking a lot of the arguments against having women in front-line roles that could be taken from that report were no doubt used in the past about permitting openly gay, ethnic minority, etc people in. Basically, anyone different from straight, Caucasian, atheist/Christian male will be bullied. That's not an acceptable reason to exclude "different" men these days, so it's not a reason to exclude women either.
In my mind the main issue is morbidity. However, that could be down to more relaxed selection criteria for non-combat roles. I would also ask how thorough the assessment was, because it's also known that women tend to suffer from fewer ailments than men in other areas - e.g. man-flu being discovered as being real and women being more resistant to certain bugs and viruses. Did the assessment just look at injuries or also how often male and female service personnel were available for duty for medical reasons overall? Flu isn't an injury, but it is likely to make you unfit for service.
Without accusing you of saying this, it is important to remember that any fall in minimum standards for recruitment is down to male recruits not being as fit as they used to be. It's not because they've been lowered to let women get in.
As I've mentioned, if women can hit those requirements it doesn't make sense to exclude them.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I've posted about that report above. I would only add that it appeared to reflect prevailing views of the time, largely "we don't want to take the risk of things going wrong". The subsequent policy of removing restrictions was bolder.
First, even with overseas recruitment there is a shortfall.
Second, it can be ideological and practical at the same time. Not everything in life is purely transactional. If you have a female partner/wife, your contentment for her to work is (hopefully) not begrudgingly accepting it is necessary. It can also be a positive thing in that she will be happier and more satisfied with her life.
Similarly, it is possible to make women feel more valued by letting them apply for whatever they like (subject to passing on merit) and at the same time potentially help fill vacancies.
I know nothing about the fire service, but having women in policing has been hugely important for helping deal with female victims (and criminals).
Last edited:
DouglasLees
Member
@Mushashi_kenshin: agree of course with your last paragraph. Policing in London is not in a good way IMHO and this (again IMHO) is more to do with local politicians than police on the beat.
The problem is that's it's now case law that setting the same basic standard for all applicants is in fact discriminatory as women may find it harder to pass that test.
www.stephensons.co.uk
With that precedent it seems to be very possible for a someone to claim discrimination for being set the same standard everyone else.
Now, I'm all for eliminating tests that are there without good reason (right, stage five, now write your name in the snow...) but that case does seem to muddy the waters if you're setting objectives like "must be able to run x distance, carrying y weight for z minutes"
Police Dog Handler Awarded £15,000 After Fitness Test Deemed Discriminatory - Stephensons Solicitors LLP
It has been reported that in January 2018, a Gloucestershire police dog handler was awarded almost 15,000 by an employment tribunal after failing a fitness...
www.stephensons.co.uk
With that precedent it seems to be very possible for a someone to claim discrimination for being set the same standard everyone else.
Now, I'm all for eliminating tests that are there without good reason (right, stage five, now write your name in the snow...) but that case does seem to muddy the waters if you're setting objectives like "must be able to run x distance, carrying y weight for z minutes"
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
It's much more likely that the police force couldn't justify the test - i.e. there was no realistic scenario in which a dog handler would need to carry a big dog for 10 miles - and was seen to be an unfair barrier to women passing the test, as opposed to a requirement necessary to fulfill the role.
Also given it was legal for the military to ban women from certain frontline roles, it's almost certain they could insist on rigorous standards for those positions. Otherwise the MOD would be incentivised to reintroduce the ban.