The Thin red Line Has Always been Thin

[Sukerkin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14218909

This small article shows just how important it is, in terms of maintaining a suitably sized armed force, that a country be definite in it's aims and not over-commit to things that are not in it's interests.

 

[Sukerkin]

Does no-one have an opinion or an observation on this? Nothing to add, elaborate on or question?

I know that it's only been a few hours but if I'd posted something about Ann Coulter or whashtisface {the other rabble-rousing Republican poster-child} then the reply count would have been quite (un)healthy.

I only ask because if we want to get the site out of the mire of American Slanted Socio-Political/Religious Objectionable B{self-censored} Emissions {henceforth called ... well, the acronym is clear } that constitutes what feels like 90% of it's traffic then we have to start talking about other things.

If it's not martial arts, something other than TKD or Ninjerz, then maybe military history is close to the supposed core of the sites purview?

I am aware that this sounds exasperated (and to an extent I am) but it's a serious point.

 

[Tez3]

I did intend to post but had to cook dinner!

The British army has never been popular with our governments, it's not that popular usually with the public. At the moment with so many being injured in Afghan public sympathy is running high, when that war is over, the soldiers will go back to being pests and the demands that the army is reduced will come again.

Our forces are stretched too thin, we have peace keeping forces in Cyprus, we keep a garrison in the Falklands as well as sending troops to places like Sierra Leone etc. All governments think our forces will stretch to cover whatever action they want it to perform yet they don't actually want to pay for the troops. Many married quarters are in a dire state, the catering for the single guys has been privatised and they soldiers have to pay as they dine now for very poor food. Food and accomodation was never free but rents are going up and up, which is ironic when the soldiers (not such a problem in the RAF and Navy) don't spend much time in their blocks being either on deployment or exercise. Oh and the allowance that is paid to troops 'at war' has been cut.

The government can reduce the army by far more than they want as many soldiers are putting into leave, we are going to have a very small force left.

 

[jks9199]

It seems to me that the success of the British Empire was never really in its military, either land or sea. It was in spreading a model and economy, with the local reins just tight enough to keep a commonality but still leaving enough room for the local people to maintain something of their culture. I need to hash this out more... but it's my first thought.

 

[granfire]

I did intend to post but had to cook dinner!

The British army has never been popular with our governments, it's not that popular usually with the public. At the moment with so many being injured in Afghan public sympathy is running high, when that war is over, the soldiers will go back to being pests and the demands that the army is reduced will come again.

Our forces are stretched too thin, we have peace keeping forces in Cyprus, we keep a garrison in the Falklands as well as sending troops to places like Sierra Leone etc. All governments think our forces will stretch to cover whatever action they want it to perform yet they don't actually want to pay for the troops. Many married quarters are in a dire state, the catering for the single guys has been privatised and they soldiers have to pay as they dine now for very poor food. Food and accomodation was never free but rents are going up and up, which is ironic when the soldiers (not such a problem in the RAF and Navy) don't spend much time in their blocks being either on deployment or exercise. Oh and the allowance that is paid to troops 'at war' has been cut.

The government can reduce the army by far more than they want as many soldiers are putting into leave, we are going to have a very small force left.

The honor of wearing the pretty coat has always come with a stiff price.
(only farmers have been worse off...)

But yes, indeed, nobody likes the soldier, but cries when one is needed...

 

[Sukerkin]

Exactly so, JKS. How we managed the Empire was to actually get the local people of influence 'on side'. Arrange things so it was in their interests to run things our way and pave that way with infrastructure and social organisation that actually benefited those under our flag.

It wasn't altruistic in and of itself but it got the job done ... and when the carrot didn't work then the stick came out. People are largely unaware of the Indian Mutiny but the odds our historical equivalents of 'squaddies' took on are staggering.

Why the Empire collapsed is a complex question and I admit that I am 'patriotic' enough to wish that it hadn't - I think the world would be a better place if it hadn't. But part of why it did is that that 'deal' between the representatives of Empire and their 'native' counterparts started to fall apart once the native countries prosperity began to rise to a certain level.

 

[Sukerkin]

Here's a thumbnail from the BBC's historical section on that Mutiny. Because of the limits of on-line erudition it's not complete but it's a starting point.