BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Military/Paramilitary 101

  
 
Happy Dave Has Left
20:27 / 10.06.06
Hello,

I thought it was about time I started a post that wasn't a link or comment on a news story, and after a bit of searching around, and, inspired by the various gender-based '101' threads over in the Convo, I thought I'd start a military thread.

My reason and rationale: I used to be a member of the Territorial Army here in the UK (three years in a University unit) and nearly joined the regular army. For a long time it was very central to my life. These days, I work in IT, but I have a LOT of friends who have joined up. They're all in scary places like Basrah and Kosovo at the moment.

My politics have always been left-of-centre, but I have also always had a soft spot for the military, in that I feel obliged to defend the Army and other forces in conversation. Although I've never been party to 'babykiller' spitting incidents as were common in the Vietnam era, I've called people out in conversations many times when they begin to conflate soldiers on the ground with the people who send them to fight.

I'm also a poster on a board called ARRSE which is the self-styled 'ARmy Rumour Service'. It's a pretty active board, and has a hell of a lot of content in it that I would imagine turn many a 'Lither's hair white at the roots. Humour which seems absolutely sickening, mysogynistic and every other flavour of objectionable, not to mention just some seriously dodgy opinions. I feel that this 'brutish' image sometimes gets in the way of any sort of understanding developing between militaries and the people they protect.

What I'm interested in doing, and I hope if there are any other 'Lithers with military experience they'd wish to chime in too, is to provide a sounding board for any questions people might have about the military, especially their motivations, experiences, sense of humour or anything else. In an increasingly demilitarised Western society, I think that many people simply have no conception of what the military is like, beyond the pomp of the occasional parade or shaky footage of exhausted, dust-covered men and women in hot places.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:07 / 10.06.06
Nice thread idea. I have absolutely no knowledge of such stuff, but will read with interest!
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
21:30 / 10.06.06
Cheers, and exactly my point, I really want this thread to be the place where someone, for example, on reading/hearing about something happening in Iraq/Northern Ireland/anywhere where bullets are currently flying can get a little context from people who have either served or know serving military. All in the name o' balance, y'see...
 
 
All Acting Regiment
16:57 / 14.06.06
First of all, thanks for starting this thread.

What I'm interested in is how fair a portrayal of actual millitary service the current recruitment adverts are? I'm specifically thinking of the British ones but also any others you may have seen.

As well, is there a wide range of opinion about the jobs you get given? Do people go with the flow or is there dissent?
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
17:26 / 14.06.06
I think the current crop of recruitment adverts has both a firm grounding in reality, while missing out a heck of a lot. I was only ever part time, but the overwhelming opinion I hear from regular soldiers is that Army advertising is not and never has been up front about the downsides of the job, like sustained boredom, the realities of living in Army SLA (single living accomodation) and of course the constant moving around (although this is reducing now that arms plotting is being wound down - the practice of constantly rotating regiments through deployments to keep them in a high state of readiness). What it gets right is the sense of cameraderie, and professionalism that is felt by the vast majority of British soldiers. I've encountered scepticisim when trying to get this across to friends of mine, but I think the current adverts really show the bond that develops between groups of young men and women who encounter challenges together that the majority of Western society will never come anywhere near. Although there's the standard stirring music in the background, the refrain of 'For your mates, for your unit, together, forward as one' is actually pretty spot on, though you'd be hard pressed to find a serving soldier who would put it in such terms. This is in contrast to American units I have served with, where I found that there was a far greater emphasis on flag and country as the 'reason' for doing things. A sergeant major I knew who served in Germany during the Cold War told me he was always a bit non-plussed by this, saying the only thing that got him out of a warm sleeping bag to do a radio check at four in the morning in January was the knowledge that his mates had been doing the same thing all night, and if he didn't, he would be letting them down, rather than abstract notions of duty to his country.

On the other point, my experience of the Army has always been largely 'orders are orders', especially in the ranks. I have questioned orders, but usually because I have spotted a better way of doing something. However, the British Army actively promotes the concept of 'switched-on' soldiers, who are able to think for themselves and question an order if it is illegal or nonsensical, and also act independently if their commanding officers or NCO's (non-commissioned officers) are killed or injured. Ultimately however, unless an order is illegal or immoral ('shoot those unarmed civilians Private'), it will be carried out. I have stopped mid-exercise and pointed out to an officer that the advance route he was giving me went through a minor river, and that given my guys had been out patrolling for 6 hours in sleet and rain, maybe we could go a route that avoided getting needlessly wet. I was told to button it and get my guys back to our defensive position as quickly as possible. In my debrief, I was told the other route was mined. So, to sum up, questions are allowed, soldiers aren't obligated to follow illegal orders, but largely, if you're told to do something, go somewhere or anything else, you do it.
 
 
■
17:44 / 14.06.06
Ah, I had wondered why there were so many passing-out photos on Flickr.
I have a cousin in the RAF who has a habit of, let's say, "extending the truth" in relation to his career (he still swears the Falklands penguin story is true) which has always made me wary of taking anything said by forces people at face value. There seems to be a culture of making what is probably a rather routine and dull job into something much bigger and interesting (I grew up near a very very big arms dump and I got very bored after a while about people who knew people in the SAS and who had fired miniguns and so on). Is this a bravado thing, you reckon, or just because they can't actually tell you what they really do (Official Secrets and all)?

Heh, just remembered the time when someone in the States faxed a huge list of ordnance movements to our house because they'd misdialled the number. We let them know, natch, and destroyed the fax pronto, but I sometimes wonder what happened to the poor sod who sent it.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
17:51 / 14.06.06
There's definitely an element of the 'tall tale teller' in most soldiers. And yes, I think a hell of a lot of the job is fairly dull and routine. But I was in for three years, part-time, and in that time did some amazing things, flying around in helicopters, tunnel-fighting in the Rock of Gibraltar, zooming about in fast attack boats etc. There is an Army term, though, for people who talk about 'ops they've been on' and 'working with the SAS'. They're called Walts (as in Walter Mitty) and they're generally derided at length by most soldiers. Because people who actually have seen and done some pretty unusual/awe-inspiring/exciting/horrifying (delete as applicable, and they all can be) things with the Forces generally don't talk about them, except when with close friends or when very, very drunk.
 
 
Ganesh
18:39 / 14.06.06
Gay people in the military - before and after the ban was lifted. What's the story from the inside?
 
 
assayudin
18:46 / 14.06.06
I was 8 years in the Air Force as a Combat Arms instructor and a member of the 820th Security Forces Group. The AF's E-lite fightng unit for anti-terrorism but no one's ever heard of it. Everybody had a real inferiroity complex because of that. I can help out some. If anyone has any questions.
 
 
grant
19:33 / 14.06.06
I'm quite interested in this observation: This is in contrast to American units I have served with, where I found that there was a far greater emphasis on flag and country as the 'reason' for doing things.

It sort of keys into something I've noticed but never thought much about with the veterans I grew up around -- the WWII veterans seemed a lot, um, better put together or nicer or something than the ones closer to me in age. Like, they didn't join the Junior ROTC in high school (we had one, many of my acquaintances were members) to wear the uniform, they just did this thing because it was the thing to do. That attitude seemed to carry over into a lot of things -- like social clubs, or whatever. We don't join this organization (Knights of Columbus, whatever) because of the organization, but because it's social.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this well.

By the way, I've caught myself in an assumption -- is the TA roughly the same thing as the Reserves here? What are/were your obligations?

And how many branches are in the British Armed Forces? In the U.S., there's the Army, the Air Force (which was part of the Army until after WWII), the Marines (which I think was part of the Army until sometime in the 1800s, although could be waaay off on that one -- yeah, I am -- it's still under the Dept of the Navy, and was formed in 1775 although modeled on a part of the British Army), the Navy, the National Guard (which is part of the Army, not a separate branch) and the Coast Guard (which is its own thing).

Various elite forces (Green Berets, Frogmen/SEALs) are part of whatever branch.

(Oh, and I never knew this -- there are seven "uniformed services" of the U.S. gov't, the five military branches and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, who wear uniforms, abide by military rules, and are granted pay grades equivalent to their ranks. It seems they were declared commissioned officers so they couldn't be captured and tried as spies under the Geneva Convention. Whatever. I'm tangenting.
 
 
assayudin
20:12 / 14.06.06
Gay people in the military - before and after the ban was lifted. What's the story from the inside?

I worked with only one or two people who were at all open about their homosexuality, all were women, and all were still fairly covert about it (it was an "open" secret if you will). It is a sort of hold over from the old days that women in the service are lesbians, therefore it seems to just be quietly accepted. Most of the people I served with were pretty vocal aboout the fact that they did not want gays serving with them.

I would say that all in all the military is still a hostile environment, particularly in line units and ground combat units, where women are still a rare sight, and sexism is almost the norm.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
20:19 / 14.06.06
Gay people in the military - before and after the ban was lifted. What's the story from the inside?

Have to say 'Nesh, I never had direct experience of out gays in the military. And to be honest, despite the 'don't ask, don't tell' policies in place in both the US and British Armies, I don't think openly gay soldiers/sailors/airpeople would go down too well. My overwhelming experience with my colleagues in the forces was one of quiet homophobia. I say 'quiet' because they generally stopped short of McCarthyite witchhunts, but would be very, very uncomfortable in the presence of anyone who they considered remotely camp. That said, I reckon there were and are quite a few individuals in any unit of above a certain size who were gay but straight-acting. I think the key of the problem was that most soldiers I knew conflated homosexuality and associated sexual flavours with campness. Presented with someone who didn't exhibit any of the indicators of 'gayness' that they had been conditioned to expect, they usually wouldn't make the connection. Especially if said individual was 'a good bloke', who 'pulled his weight'. Whether this represented any more of a quashing of individuality than any other person faced in the military is open to debate, but personally I felt everyone who joined up fitted themself into a mould to a degree, gay or straight or otherwise.

@ grant, your assumption is partly correct - my unit in the Territorial Army, the Officers Training Corps, is an almost direct analogue of the ROTC formations in the US, with the exception that service is not required after University. The TA as a whole is more anagolous to the National Guard, especially since both the TA and the National Guard are moving out of their traditional roles of homeland defence and into direct support/backfilling for regular formations.

As to the structure of the British armed forces, we have:
- the British Army
- The Royal Navy
- They Royal Air Force
- The Royal Marines

The Army is the only one without Royal in the title, because elements of it formed parts of Cromwell's New Model Army during the Civil War. I think the Coastguard and Fisheries guys are officially part of the Navy too, but I'm not sure.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
02:01 / 15.06.06
What it gets right is the sense of cameraderie, and professionalism that is felt by the vast majority of British soldiers. I've encountered scepticisim when trying to get this across to friends of mine, but I think the current adverts really show the bond that develops between groups of young men and women who encounter challenges together that the majority of Western society will never come anywhere near. Although there's the standard stirring music in the background, the refrain of 'For your mates, for your unit, together, forward as one' is actually pretty spot on, though you'd be hard pressed to find a serving soldier who would put it in such terms.

That's interesting to me, because it links with something that an old comrade of mine (who'd been in the Paras) once told me. We were both heavily active in a militant anti fascist group, and it was his view that was the nearest he'd ever come to the camerarderie of his unit in 'civvy' life.

Which leads into my question. I've only ever really been close to two ex military people in my life. Both of whom were not only on the left, but on the radical fringe left. And both of them felt that their experiences in the army had a large effect in their radicalisation. How common do you think that is? Because I am fully aware that's probably more likely to be the fact that I generally socialise with people on the left, as opposed to a reflection of the political leanings of most soldiers.
 
 
assayudin
03:22 / 15.06.06
In America I would say that it is a-typical. But Seeing firsthand the effects of war and militarism in general on cultures, especially in Afghanistan, definately helped to shift my politics to the "far-left" (Socialist Party USA). Though I was raised in a liberal household, I was very right wing when I joined, but serving changed that forever.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
08:11 / 15.06.06
I think a large number of soldiers, certainly career soldiers that I have encountered, are fairly apolitical on the surface. However, most of the soldiers I served with were Scots, and were mostly fairly left wing and socialist/nationalist, supporting the SNP and Old Labour. Younger soldiers tend not to evidence much in the way of political opinion, which I would surmise has a lot to do with the fact that they are largely removed from national institutions such as the health service, transport systems or law and order. In each case, the military handles their needs, meaning partisan politics have little or no effect on them.

Where nearly all soldiers are united is in the distaste for ongoing cuts in armed forces strength and budgets, which, when compared to the rapidly expanding scope of deployment expected of them by a government determined to be an active international actor, leads to demoralising back to back tours, shoddy equipment and the gamut of other problems facing the forces today.

As to ex-military involved with the radical left, I have no experience of this, but I would imagine that large numbers of former soldiers, sailors and airmen would find the organisation and focus on tasks in these organisations very reassuring. There's also the factor that British forces, while evidencing typical British world-weary cynicism about their role in the world, are also genuinely proud of the contributions they make in other parts of the world, and the relative peace they can bring to troubled places. A soldier who had faced down paramilitary ethnic cleansers in Kosovo, would, I imagine, find a similar feeling of accomplishment in disrupting fascist marches back home.
 
 
invisible_al
09:20 / 15.06.06
My dad's ex-navy but he was never in combat having got out a way before the Falklands and his stories usually revolve around the stuff they did to stop them going stark raving mad with boredom. He still hangs out with his navy mates even now so and loves doing things like diving expeditions, so I'm pretty sure he harks after the camaradarie thing still.

Other fella I know who was in the military was Bill, a photographer in Military Intelligence who once almost got thrown out of the army because he went on a CND march in full uniform. They kept him in because they thought he was working his ticket, he wasn't actually he just agreed with them. He got radicalised in the 60's, when he was in the army and has been part of the anti-fascist and labour movement ever since.

I think there's definately a difference between them and people who've actually been shot at for real, even though i think Bill was in Ireland for a bit when that all started. I think that definately helped shape his politics.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:03 / 15.06.06
This is an interesting thread, thanks to all. I have a q:

I went to a university reunion a couple of years ago, and ended up getting drunk with a chap from the year below me, who was an officer in the regular army (I think went to Sandhurst after leaving college? Not sure). He started telling me about how thick his soldiers were, 'salt of the earth' type stuff, and (on account of the quantity of ouzo I had consumed) my Barbelith training snapped in and I started taking him to task over this. Was I right to do so? Do many officers think of their troops like this? Or is it an accepted way of talking about them?

I have been feeling a bit bad about it, because the guy was trying to be sociable and I went off at half-cock, but I would like to know whether he was actually being an arse or not. What are social/class divisions like in the army?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:06 / 15.06.06
I mean, clearly he was being an arse, but is this common?
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
13:42 / 15.06.06
Heh, Bill's actually a mutual friend of Al and mine, so I certainly know what his view on this was.

From the other side of the divide, he was very hostile (particuarly when drunk) to officers who had gone in at officer level straight from university, rather than working their way up through the ranks. But that was more a case of them not being "one of the guys" expressed through class terms.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
14:24 / 15.06.06

Social/class divisions are nowhere near like what they used to be in the Forces, though some regiments in the Army, notably the Cavalry, still tend to recruit officers with predominantly moneyed backgrounds. I've met officers in all arms who were complete arses and clearly didn't think a lot of their men, and I've met an equal number who were almost in awe of the collective experience, wit and general savvyness of their soldiers. A friend of mine who came back from serving in Basrah said that the soldiers he worked with out there were a brilliant bunch. I also, in coming from a distinctly non-typical (as I saw it at the time) officer background, never felt in the least that it counted against me.

There's a certain amount of officer/soldier split, and most soldiers, if asked, would compare officers to desert lighthouses (i.e. bright as anything, but fuck all use). It's far less common in the British Army than the US Army for soldiers to get commissioned from the ranks, although it does happen to an extent, and this does mean that there are certain expectations for an officer's behaviour when around his soldiers and vice versa. Officers who break or disregard these rules and don't treat their men with respect will generally end up being shunted sideways into administrative roles - no soldier is going to stand up from behind a wall and run across bullet-sprayed open ground unless he respects and trusts the man screaming at him to do it.

So, short answer, yes, as in any organisation, there are idiots who like to belittle those who report to them. The difference with the Forces is that they don't often remain in command of combat forces, because not respecting the skills and knowledge of the men and women working with you will get you and them killed.
 
 
grant
16:46 / 15.06.06
How do you know about US military life?


And what do you think about the draft?
 
 
assayudin
17:27 / 15.06.06
I never saw any real class divisions in my time. Most of the Officers that I worked with came from the enlisted ranks. Many of the others were from ROTC (state schools mostly) and a very small minority were from one of the Service Academies. For the most part if we got an Officer who was ready to boss around the enlisted guys, some the older NonComs and senior Officers would set him or her straight pretty quick.

Plus I don't thaink very many wealthy people join the Military anymore they have as Dick Cheney put it so eloquently "better things to do".

I beleive the draft should exist and that people who invest in the companies concerned (Haliburton, GE, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, KBR, etc...) should have their children drafted. Oh and the Bush Twins and Chelsea Clinton et al.

Seriously though I would be all for it if a) The cause was just and the need was great and b)it applied to all regardless of education, class, gender or in the case of "illegals" immigrant status (course upon induction they should be given immediate citizenship). With exceptions for concientous objectors such as Jehovah's Witness, Quakers etc... Unfortunately in the US the history of the draft has primarliy meant that the poor, the working class, minorities and recent immigrants are disproportionatley affected.
 
 
Jackie Susann
05:37 / 16.06.06
I was pretty surprised to hear that in countries that have the draft, lots of anti-war activists are against getting rid of it. They figure without the draft, it will mostly only be pro-war, right-leaning types who join up, whereas with it you get a mix of opinion and better prospects for dissent.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
12:51 / 16.06.06
@ grant, my knowledge of US military life is based on American soldiers I very briefly worked with in Gibraltar, and conversations with regulars in the UK who had served in Germany and Iraq with Americans.

As for the draft, I think the US and British experiences of conscription are very different, in that National Service in the UK also took place in peacetime and was universal, whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) American drafts have been brought about by major conflicts and have a 'lottery' element to them, meaning that there is the potential for abuse and/or socially deprived elements of society to be over-represented in those picked for service.

Personally, I think National Service would do a lot of kids in the UK a lot of good, but I think that British society as it stands would not cope with it, and the Army is certainly not set up to administer it anymore. Of course, my own military experience was entirely voluntary, so people compelled to do it might not get as much out of it as I did.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:56 / 16.06.06
I think National Service would do a lot of kids in the UK a lot of good

In what way?
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
13:41 / 16.06.06
In what way?

Well, I know that my little brother, who's edging 15, is quite a shy kid, and doesn't do any exercise at all. He's his brother's brother, in that he plays a hell of a lot of computer games and is a bit of a geek. I went from being a bit overweight and generally fairly unhealthy, to pretty fit and very self-confident in my first year in. It taught me a hell of a lot about working under pressure, working with other people and realising that a lot of the limitations I had were either non-existent or self-imposed. That said, it's not for everyone. I suppose I'm hampered by the fact that I really enjoyed my time in, and I sometimes forget that it's not everyone's idea of a great job.

I guess what I'm keying off here is what I hear from the number of my friends who work in education, and are coming up daily against kids who throw chairs at them, swear in class and generally tear the place up. My friends come back from a day in the classroom often tired and frustrated. And I guess I match that with the experiences I had teaching cadets who were polite, bright and put a hell of lot of effort in to everything they did, and my brain makes the connection that some flavour of youth organisation with some flavour of discipline and challenge is a good thing.

That said, they were all volunteers. So I think what I meant to say was that I think a lot of young people in the UK who are currently ill-served by the education system and future employment might get a lot of experience and confidence out of some form of military service, if the came to it reasonably willingly.

Unfortunately, I don't think that will be the case, and I don't think the Forces are capable of sustaining it even if it were, having been a volunteer force for more than forty years.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:23 / 16.06.06
Personally I've always thought that being shy, geeky and unfit, or unruly (which I'm sure everyone on Barbelith will agree are all terrible things to be) was preferable to being dead, or maimed, or responsible for a bunch of other people's deaths. Do you not think?
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
16:59 / 16.06.06
Wouldn't him joining something like an amateur dramatics club be equally benefical for his confidence without the "kill or be killed" problem?
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
21:50 / 16.06.06
@ Flyboy,

Well, yes, there's nothing wrong with being geeky, shy and unfit, I am or have been all of those things. I really dig the fact that my little brother is taking after me in that respect to be honest, it's cool to have a brother I can talk computer games and the like with. But death, maiming and killing are distinctly not on the agenda in the cadets, which is all I would hope he would be doing at age 15. There are other options of course - I was not a cadet myself, instead I was a stage hand in an youth theatre group. The army thing came later in my life.

I think there's a danger of assuming that any military service or even military-flavoured activities like cadets is being conflated with death, maiming and killing. I remember distinctly coming back from a summer working in Romania to university, and signing up for my unit. A couple of months later, I met one of the girls I'd been in Romania with, and we had a long conversation, the jist of which was that she couldn't believe I'd become a trained killer, when a few months before I'd been sitting in bars in Transylvania singing 'Imagine' with drunk Romanian students. I had trouble answering that, because I didn't immediately equate soldiering with wholesale killing. Modern Western armies are far more complex than that, I argued. Industrialised, interstate warfare is no longer the dominant paradigm. Instead, the concept of three block war means that soldiers can face situations that in a previous age would have been unimaginable on the battlefield, requiring far greater levels of training, resources, tact and interpersonal communication.

Of course, National Service/the draft is a different kettle of fish to cadets, in that there is a very real chance that young men and women in service would deploy to conflict zones. And that's where I draw my personal line. While I think, for instance, that the structure and discipline of the cadets would do a lot for my little brother, I don't believe enough in my government and its motives that I would accept his conscription. Which is why I'm glad that a draft would be politically unsustainable in the UK, given we have no clear enemy. Because if I were to serve again, or any of my family were, I would want it to be a choice.

So to clarify - I think my brother and his contemporaries would get a lot out of a brush with the military. I don't think compulsory military service is desirable or sustainable for the UK, but I do think some people might get a lot out of it. And I believe, in the 21st century, soldiering does not automatically equate with mechanised, industrialised death dealing, as it did sixty years ago in around the world. It's far more complex than that.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:42 / 17.06.06
Well, when I went to grammar school I spent a term in the Combined Cadet Force and that was a fucking awful experience. Now admittedly the CCF structure is set up for the more sadistic teachers and sixth formers to bully and ridicule young boys but it put me off the concept of the armed forces for life.

What I do appreciate is that the adverts we get on TV for the various wings of the armed forces do pay some sort of lip service to the concept that you'll be undergoing extreme physical discomfort and may have to kill people. A couplf of years ago X-FM had a series of commercials in heavy rotation where a guy would get a call from his mate who had signed up with the Navy. All he talked about was how they were moored off the coast of Brazil, going scuba-diving during the day and partying by night. As this was roughly the same time US and UK forces were invading Iraq I felt this was of questionable taste.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
10:01 / 17.06.06
Our Lady, completely agreed about the CCF, I once taught at a cadet camp where the first week was CCF cadets and the second week was ACF. The difference was palpable, in that those in the CCF who were really into it were very into it, and the kids who were there because it was compulsory were clearly hating it. The ACF kids by contrast were all pretty keen, but not in the slightly worrying way that a few of the CCF kids were. On a micro scale, I think this shows what the larger problems of any compulsory service would be.

As to inappropriate advertising, well, that's been a staple of military life since recruiting sergeants wandered around provincial inns dropping the king's shilling in people's pint mugs. I don't think it will ever be truly gone, because some sections of society (notably young males) will always associate the military with a certain glamour and excitement. It remains to be seen whether the kind of 'embedded' tv coverage we see now will eventually transmute into the incredibly gory footage that is common on European and Islamic networks - at the moment, it still all looks fairly exciting and dramatic to prospective recruits, and when this sanitised version of combat operations is paired with the emphasis on teamwork, sports and R&R in distant places, it starts to look like a good option for a lot of young people. Running recruiting adverts which focus solely on this, as you heard on XFm Lady, is, I think, a recipe for disaster, as well as profoundly cynical and distasteful. All it leads to is Forces filled with disillusioned young men and women who joined up for the sports and end up doing 12 hour guard shifts on checkpoints in Basrah.
 
  
Add Your Reply