On Tue, 11 May 2004 00:18:02 +0100, Dave Eadsforth wrote:

You have touched on a philosophic point here. At present, the British
government believes that you can recruit soldiers as required, use them,
and after a number of years shove them back into a society that has
little understanding of either soldiering

Soldiering is like any other job, you don't have much understanding
of it until you've done it. I don't really see how that could not be
the case.

or the diplomatic realities
that justify its existence. It has always been true that an army
reflects the society from which it springs - and Britain should ponder
the implications of that.

Which are?

All professions benefit from recruiting from a pool of people who
understand the role of that profession and are motivated to join it.
So, when Britain recruits its military forces mainly from the dole
queue, which has been the case for a long time now, what will be the
result?

Well, better than you might expect. While many priceless NCOs have
taken early departure, the training system remains intact, so the
recruits do get a solid foundation - unless they are headed for a a non-
combatant role in which case the soldiering capability will be 'thin'.
While we still develop a clutch of outstanding soldiers we have to cope
with the fact that the average recruit still lacks the depth of skill,
understanding and commitment of his counterpart of a few decades ago.

So, at present, the Home Office wants the population to act like sheep,
the Politically Correct want the population to act like amoebas, and the
Foreign Office would like a credible military posture.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)