The government has a plan for dealing with the wave of walkouts affecting nurses, paramedics, Border Force staff and a swathe of public sector workers: send in the soldiers. Unfortunately though the idea has hit a snag: the army is not impressed. The head of the armed forces himself, Admiral Sir Tony Radakan, chief of the defence staff, has said that the military should not be the ‘go to support service’ during strike action.
‘We are busy doing lots of (other) things on behalf of the nation’ Admiral Radakan added. ‘We’re not spare capacity’.
While it may be unusual for troops to be called out to man vital services in Britain, it is not unprecedented. What is new, however, is for Britain’s most senior military man to go public – however obliquely and discreetly – with his doubts, and criticise the government’s decision to put soldiers on the streets in place of strikers.
It risks the army being drawn into a political dispute
Jacob Rees-Mogg immediately picked up on Admiral Radakan’s remarks and delivered a smart rebuke to the sailor. Mogg said that it was the job of the military to obey the orders of the civil power, and it was not their place to question such orders.
Mogg was referring to the doctrine that has long governed relations between elected governments and the armed forces – currently known as Military Aid to Civilian Authorities. Under this concept, any government is entitled to deploy soldiers, sailors and air personnel to assist in emergencies in the U.K. apart from actual wars and conflicts abroad. In recent years, soldiers have been sent to deal with natural disasters such as floods – rescuing victims, setting up aid centres and building temporary bridges.
Most recently, in 2020, the Army was called in and their specialist skills were used to help build the seven Nightingale Hospitals constructed in record quick time (but barely used) to cope with the expected overflow from ordinary NHS hospitals during the Covid pandemic.
Today, 750 members of the armed forces are preparing to drive ambulances as emergency cover during the strike, while a further 600 soldiers are already training to replace striking border staff at ports and airports. In the New Year, more soldiers are likely to be deployed when fire and rescue workers are expected to strike.
Sending soldiers to drive ambulances and man borders during strikes, however, goes considerably further than merely dealing with floods and pandemics. It risks the army being drawn into a political dispute and – as Admiral Radakan’s comments show – is obviously worrying the military’s top brass.
Unlike many of Britain’s European neighbours, the UK’s armed forces have traditionally steered well clear of politics. They take their oath of allegiance to the monarch and obey the orders of their officers without question. In turn, those officers take their orders from the elected government. While they may privately offer advice on the wisdom or otherwise of any contemplated action, at the end of the day – as Mogg points out – theirs is not to reason why, but to do what they are told. Radakan should take note.
The government argue that putting troops into jobs normally done by civilians may be regrettable but is necessary to save human life. The unions who have called the strikes say that the soldiers are being used as strike breakers by a government that has shirked the responsibility of settling the disputes. It is clear that the military dislike their role of being piggies in the middle but, with the discipline and efficiency that has always characterised them, they will perform a distasteful task as ordered and perform it well.
Comments