A bigger army must not come at the expense of a British Peace Corps

The Huntsman

"I think it is important the government creates PeaceCorps-style organizations so that many of the tasks now undertaken by the army can be done by civilian experts. This in itself will cost a lot and is much harder to set up than growing the army, so I worry that army expansion would preclude this vital reform."

Another Pinko-Liberal quango to be set up to waste yet more millions of Taxpayer's money.....

Vulture

On the day of Henry Allingham's funeral it is worth recalling that the professional British Army on the outbreak of WW1 was roughly the size of the army today: 100,000. They and the TA did rather well in holding back the massed hordes of the Kaiser until Kitchener's volunteer New Armies were up and running by mid-1916 (just in time to be slaughtered on the Somme). Conscription followed the following year.

I suspect the reason we cannot do more today is partly to do with burgeoning bueaucracy; partly to do with complex technology; and most of all to do with a woeful Govt that does not give a stuff for the military or their values.

Personally, I favour tbe return of National Service which could cover a Peace Corps as Daniel suggests, as well as a myriad other socially useful things.

The soldiers of today are as good as Henry's generation - they simply are not given the necessary backing by their pathetic political masters.

Bruce FInch

This article is complete rubbish as the example of Malaya shows. As a combat experienced former Naval Officer having engaged also in peacekeeping in Sierra Leone most peace corps people who are effective are uaually ex-military deploying skills they learned in the Army/Navy or Air Force. The lack of understanding by Mr Korski, who I am sure has never taken part in peacekeeping, is woeful.

Jask

Daniel speaks of counter-insurgency as though it were a minor policy disagreement, it is good of him to acknowledge that there is likely to still be a "military component". The "footprint" required is one that can take and securely hold the ground, one that ensures that people can get on with their lives and work in peace, that will not happen as a result of a bunch of civil servants arriving at the airport and setting up camp in Kabul. It does not take "5 years" to train and equip more infantry, and infantry is the bit of the Army that must be greatly expanded. If it took "5 years" to train and equip more infantry we'd have been overrun by the Nazis in 1940 wouldn't we?! Reconstruction efforts would be more efficient if they were undertaken by a greatly expanded RE corps rather than civilian contractors in areas where enemy forces may still operate as they require a smaller cordon to protect them because they have an inherent defensive capability. The Army should be expanded to 200K or so, the majority of the new people in teeth arms (but not heavy armour).

The Bellman

Is Daniel Korski real? And, if not, who thought it necessary to invent him?

DfID and the FCO have a pretty woeful record of accepting responsibility for tasks once the Army has assumed them. Hence we end up with leisure parks ahead of resilient road infrastructure, because some gap-year development grief-tourist thinks the locals need their chill-out space more than they need freedom of movement.

Security is the first thing. Development, like morals, follows on. Unless we have an army capable of delivering hard security, and a government with the strategic wisdom to resource it to apply lethal force to that end, any 'Peace Corps' is entirely pointless - unless you are going to give them rifles and body armour, medium, IED-protected armoured vehicles and teach them fire and movement.

By the time this motley band of Lennonist dreamers, one-world zealots and over-ambitious chuggers is up and running - thanks to the McSnotty bust, there ought not to be a shortage of youthful idealists happy to teach mutual masturbation to Pashtun elders - the strategic priorities of the UK will, God willing, have been cut according to our cloth. Growing the Army might not help the current fight in Helmand, but it could help the next fights - wherever they happen to be. The poorly-resourced elective campaigning of the debt-bloated Blair-Brown years needs to be replaced by a far more serious consideration of our national interest, and the matching of means to those ends. If this Peace Corps is a victim of that, that's no loss to us.

bill

Peace Corps. LOL. Hilarious. Let's sort the MOD first, then the forces, and then forget about a Peace Corps.

The Laughing Cavalier

Terriffic, more ferris wheels, just what is needed. Maybe this a solution on planet Korski but not on this real world.

Bruce, UK

Ah, now I know who Dave was referring to.

Steve.W

The conflict in Afghanistan seems to have caught out the Canadian public. They are horrified at the death toll of their troops and portray Canada's role as 'peace keepers'. This suggests the Canadian public thinks a peace corp would have it easier.

The idea that a peace corp is taking the role of a civilian police force is crazy. In other words first we send in our military, then our peace corp, then what? Next we send over our Local Government Officers?

This is mad, apologise for the mess we have already made and leave now.

cynnic

Has everyone forgotten VSOs? Voluntary Service Overseas started years before the Peace Corp.

Sadly the British VSOs, if they still exist (anyone know?) were as useless in the field as the Peace Corp are said to be. They consisted of gap year types who wanted 'to make a difference'. They, the VSOs, benefitted enormously from the experience, but for the host country, they might as well have not bothered.

The Bellman

@Jask: Great post. You can train an infantryman in about three months, and you can get him to the basic standard in six weeks. Mr Korski's time estimate is like those in the CIA who say they can't build up a decent capability against AQ for another five/ten/fifteen years. Just as well the OSS didn't reason like that.

If we're serious about this sort of thing - if it is really a vital national interest, as these twonks like Miliband keep assering - then we should resource the commitment appropriately.

ps The US Corps of Engineers is a much better model than the VSO granola muchers Mr Korski seems to have in mind.

Swiss Bob

"new forces would be available far too late – perhaps only in five years"

Don't be ridiculous, soldiers are being deployed straight from basic training and the last time I checked it wasn't five years. You can add to that, battalions and regiments are all under strength, approximately 500 men when it should be nearer 800, those are MoD figures.

More troops, a more aggressive stance and only then negotiate with what's left from the end of a barrel. Not forgetting to improve border security with Pakistan.

Lee Hannaford

A larger Army is always welcome but it has to be controlled enlargement and not just a knee jerk reaction to a shortage of troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Everyone talks about boots on the ground but those boots have to be supported, logistically and with support arms. Armour, artillery and aircraft. It is all about getting the balance right. Those that say we should reduce the amount of armour and artillery we hold are missing the point. We have to plan for all eventualities. At the moment it is infantry soldiers on the ground. But if you look at the lead formation out in Afghanistan at the moment you will find that it is an armoured unit, The Lancers supported by infantry who themselves are supported by armoured infantry companies. Who are supported by light artillery who is supported by MLRS.
However, the military at the moment is still stuck in the cold war after nearly 20 years!! Our equipment and doctine still reflects lessons that are over 25 years old and we have yet to adapt to the scenario that we find ourselves in. The US have changed the way they do things and are increasing the size of their army by 22000. They have adapted. We have too, before it is too late.
And Peace Corps. I want some of the drugs these people are on because their sureal world is something to behold!!

Nicholas

The British Army did a pretty good job running things in Germany at the end of the Second World War, even with the huge burden of accomodating and feeding displaced persons thrust upon them by their "allies". The success was mainly because it had been properly planned and resourced with the officer cadre representing a cross section of seasoned professional soldiers and combat experienced veterans from former civil professions (HoC take note). They were not over-burdened with political interference (from a Labour government) and managed to bring order to considerable chaos without alienating the civil populations depending on them. It wasn't perfect but the challenges were enormous. It was discipline, integrity, a strong sense of duty and purpose, compassion, pragmatism and independence of planning that largely enabled them to achieve this. The communication systems of the time permitted local commanders much more freedom and discretion, freeing them from "big picture" politics to enact local solutions. All things which have taken a 12 year beating from New Labour, who prefer to do a line in maximum interference and minimum resourcing to give succour to our enemies.

Underfunded, London

5 years to train soldiers? Are you nuts?

I think the total length of the Regular infantry course is around 25ish weeks. There are hordes of people on the waiting list who cannot get onto the Infantry Training cycle at the moment due to capped limits and the fact that the army is nearing its regulated maximum capped strength. The facilities are already in place, all you need is a nod form old one eye to reactivate some old battalions and you are away.

For the TA Infantry, it is even quicker. Phase 1 is 9 weekends (plus a selection weekend) and Phase 2 (Infantry training) is two weeks. You can do a fast track program and go from civilian to steely eyed dealer of death in a total of four weeks and then be mobilised and do your pre-deployment training package. Again, TA Infantry recruitment is on the up, and people are waiting ages to get onto courses due to no places being available. Again this is purely a budgetary rather than practical constraint.

Adam

Such a body already exists - The Stabilisation Unit, jointly run by the MoD, FCO and DFID. It recruits semi-independently and a lot of its people are ex-forces.

Barry

"I think it is important the government creates PeaceCorps-style organizations so that many of the tasks now undertaken by the army can be done by civilian experts."

No thank you. Not with my money. There are a good number of professional people in the army who serve their country with honour and compassion, helping to build communities in very dangerous regions. More of this is what is needed.

Who decides what a civillian 'expert' is? A peace corp will be a talking shop for quangocrats and a foot in the door for a long civil service career and an obscene pension.

Why would it have to cost a lot? Why can't it be a volunteer organisation?

The MOD does need enlarging. It also needs a good kick up the arse on procurement - less high tech solutions, more straightforward stuff that works. Why on earth is the Lynx Wildcat going to cost nearly £30million each when there are much more cost effective ways of getting the Navy an ASW chopper and the Army a flying battlefield taxi. Have Westland lost so much of their engineering talent that they cannot come up with a cheap, durable and suitable helicopter so have resorted to reheating a 30 year old airframe?

TrevorsDen

Another useless effort Mr Korski. Our troops are overstreched and we need a bigger army to provide proper rest recuperation and training.
We need to equip are armed forces for the war they are fighting NOW not a possible war that might happen in 20 years.
We also need to forget the way we thought we had to fight and learn the lessons of NOW!

And the British Army in 1914 ?? get your facts straight -
The army had 247,432 regular troops - four guards regiments, 68 infantry regiments and 33 cavalry.
The Army Reserve was 145,350 strong, the Special Reserve had another 64,000 men and the National Reserve had some 215,000. This totalled on paper a mobilized force of almost 700,000 men, however only 150,000 men were able to be formed into the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) that was sent to the continent.

A German staff officer called the Somme the bloody grave of the German Army - so terrible was the experience for the Germans that they embarked almost immediately on a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare - which ultimately brought America into the war.
The Somme saved the French Army from annihilation and sowed the seeds for German defeat.

AJ

I would like to see a choice being given to petty criminals, x years in jail or x years in the forces. On second thoughts with how comfy are prisons are at the moment they will all go for prison let's make it compulsory for petty criminals to serve in the forces for a minimum of 3 years.

Kennybhoy

Where is the Speccie finding them these days.....?

PS To David ”Who Is He?” Blackburn, aka Speccie Techie in the Basement, aka Peter Oborne's Number One Fan! Please don't censor this one....

Minnie Ovens

I go along with Vulture on the cause of National Service but I am against Mr Korski's ideas which smell of additional big government bureaucrats and, of course, oodles of money.
Very New Labour, Mr Korski, but I should imagine you think you come from the the Kennedy's Camelot.
The best thing we could do is to concentrate upon the Defence of the Realm. This means not participating in big ego dramas like Blair on Iraq (although I say that in hindsight because I agreed with the invasion of Iraq for humanitarian reasons. I suddenly realised everything was going sideways when the US Army Major in charge of the Badhdad museum watched indifferently as it was ransacked) or Brown in Afghanistan.
Why is it that those who hate Britain and its traditions most (New Labour) use its benefits when it suits their own purposes?
Don't answer that wuestion.
Anyway, with the country in an ever deepening state of disarray as General Sherman Brown, having burnt England, continues his march to the sea, we have far greater problems to solve in the immediate future.
The first problem is finding anyone in Westminster who gives a damn about what we, the people, see as the problem(s).

Nicholas Heneghan

You don't "grow" something (...want to grow the British army.); you might enlarge it, but you certainly don't grow it!

Verity

Well, that's a 'no' vote, then.

Just what Britain, and our armed services need, as Bruce mentioned above - another tax-sucking quango to interfere with elected government.

Vulture is right. Dump this idea and reinstate National Service. Every society in the world, from the most primitive to the most advanced, recognises that young men have to be reined in and forced to be productive, which course will serve society and young men well for the rest of their lives.

No more student one worlders, thanks.

Mailman

The interesting thing is this. Prior to WWI, the Royal Navy managed to keep peace on the high seas simply because it was the biggest Navy in the world and wasnt afraid of using force to ensure peace continued (which in turn ensured British trade continued).

On the other hand, the British Army was so small as to almost be completely ineffective, it wasnt big enough to deter would be enemy from doing things that they otherwise wouldnt do if they feared retribution from the British Army.

Fast forward to today and we have a British Army that is woefully underfunded and isnt big enough for the operations it has taken on.

Consider this, Helmand is only as big as the Isle of White, yet because of our small size there we cant control the area!

A bigger Army means we can control a bigger area, which in turns brings peace to more people who can then take advantage of all things offered by civilian style peace corps.

Until those organisations can operate freely then there is no point in having them anywhere until the Army has done its job.

And that job cant be done on the smell of an oily rag or with our current numbers.

Mailman

David Blackburn

Kennybhoy,

dblackburn@spectator.co.uk
02079610125

Best wishes,
David Blackburn

The Huntsman

Vulture @ 1106

"On the day of Henry Allingham's funeral it is worth recalling that the professional British Army on the outbreak of WW1 was roughly the size of the army today: 100,000."

The figure you give was approx. that of the BEF in 1914.

The Regular Army, Reserves, Territorial Force and Yeomanry amounted to something like 400,000.

The Regular Infantry alone in 1914 comprised just over 230 battalions with a war establishment (regulars and reservists) of 1000 or so.

Now we have fewer infantry battalions than we have had at any time since the time of William and Mary.

TomTom

They and the TA did rather well in holding back the massed hordes of the Kaiser

Actually the Russians bore the German onslaught as the Belgian resistance at Namur and Liege had slowed the weakened 'hammer' of the Schlieffen Plan.

The tiny British Army was backed by a larger French Army bleeding itself stupid at Verdun and an Austro-Hungarian-German Army slogging it out on the Eastern Front.

The British Army was always small - a maritime power did not need a big army when the John Company had its own in India...the idea that Britain is a modern-day Prussia with a powerful Army is fanciful. Israel has a big Army by conscripting.

Conscript all 18 year males and females for 24 months military service if you are convinced Britain is a major land power

mac

A Peace Corps? Surely you don't seriously believe such a 1970s answer is right for contemporary (or likely future) Afghanistan? I thought you'd been there? As others have said, infantry is needed, and providing them doesn't take years. And it's worth noting that our less than perspicacious government has disbanded 4 infantry battalions in the last year alone, driven by crass Treasury (G Brown, ultimate prop) parsimony.

James/Pete: It'd be helpful to have an informed piece on this subject - and this effort ain't it. Please persuade Rory Stewart to contribute a guest blog.

egh

'Growing an army' sounds disgustingly foreign.
No doubt it's got something to do with harnessing us into helping the euSSR beat us into shape.

Ed

Slight correction Mailman (July 30th, 2009 2:36pm). Helmand covers an area of just under 60,000km2. The Isle of Wight is less than 400km2.

I think your referring to the area under consideration in the recent Operation Panther's Claw which has indeed been compared to the Isle of Wight