Britain's Armed Forces remain hamstrung by sluggish recruitment
SIR – There is obviously a need to strengthen our Armed Forces, and an increase in the defence budget will be welcome. However, without a new mindset, nothing will improve.
Take the current recruitment process. My 18-year-old granddaughter applied to join the Royal Fleet Auxiliary at the end of December, and completed her online testing in the first week of January. This was followed by the submission of a formal application a week later. She has heard very little since, other than that the process can take seven to eight months.
It is not surprising that the Armed Forces are struggling to recruit manpower with this approach. Most applicants worthy of a position will have found other employment by the time they hear back, and quite possibly begun to climb the promotion ladder. They will be reluctant to give this up in order to start as new recruits.
In 1974, when I joined the Army as a telecommunications apprentice, the whole process was completed within weeks rather than many months. Why, in these days of instantaneous communication, is it taking so long?
Antony Mann
Millbrook, Cornwall
SIR – In 1944, at the peak of the Second World War, Britain was producing more than 2,000 aircraft a month, as well as large numbers of ships, tanks and other military vehicles. Today, however, the complexity of the technology means that even if 20 new Typhoon aircraft were ordered tomorrow, we would not see them for two or three years.
Manpower is also critical to defence. You cannot make instant sergeants or captains, the ranks (along with their equivalents) that form the backbone of our fighting elements. You need to 'grow' this experience. The current Armed Forces are in no state to support adequate growth in these key areas if the military were required to expand rapidly.
Delaying the ramp-up of military funding until 2027 leaves us negligently vulnerable. The defence budget needs to increase to 2.5 per cent of GDP now – then by half a percentage point each year until we achieve 4 per cent. This would give us some chance of training manpower and gaining additional equipment. It would also signal to our allies in Europe that we are serious.
Laurence Barnes
Tattenhall, Cheshire
SIR – As one of the last people to undertake National Service in Britain (1959-1961), I believe that it should be reintroduced.
It served several purposes besides defence, the main one being to convert boys into men. I completed mine during the 'Teddy Boy' era, and as a country boy was alarmed by the 'DA' hairstyles and velvet collar jackets. But within 12 weeks these men would be prepared to die for you.
Tom Beverley Jones
Falmouth, Cornwall
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Nationwide protests loom over Trump's upcoming military parade
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump is getting the parade he wanted showcasing America's military power — but he'll also be getting mass protests exposing the nation's partisan divisions. The tanks and artillery launchers rolling through Washington on Saturday will honor the Army's 250 th anniversary, which falls on the day Trump turns 79. About 7,000 soldiers will march. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to line up along Constitution Avenue on the co-birthdays and cheer. Trump is set to watch the spectacle from a viewing stand south of the White House. But in Washington and in all 50 states, organizers will be staging protests that could dwarf the parade in size. A coalition of pro-democracy, labor and liberal activists is arranging a full day of counterprogramming to make the case that Trump is hijacking the Army celebration to venerate himself. 'The goal here is to deprive Trump of what he wants in this moment, which is a story about him being the all-powerful political figure of our time, and instead create a contrast with normal, everyday people demonstrating that power in this country still resides with the people,' said Ezra Levin, a co-founder of the progressive group Indivisible, who is helping organize what participants have dubbed a nationwide 'No Kings' demonstration. If past protests are a guide, the participants could number in the millions, he said. A total of 1,800 rallies are expected, with events in each congressional district, he added. Another group called Women's March is also arranging protests to coincide with the parade, with a theme of 'Kick Out the Clowns.' Organizers expect up to 5,000 people to participate in Madison, Wisconsin, alone, said Tamika Middleton, chief political and strategy officer of Women's March. 'Nothing feels more absurd than the idea of this president having a massive military parade on his birthday,' she said. "It feels surreal for many of us.' NBC News reached out to the White House for comment. On Tuesday, Rand Paul of Kentucky became the first Senate Republican to criticize the parade, citing the imagery. Showing off lethal hardware is something other countries do, not the United States, he said. 'I wouldn't have done it," Paul told reporters. He added that "we were always different than the images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that." Trump isn't deterred. Speaking in the Oval Office on Tuesday, he warned that protesters this weekend will face " very big force." He didn't distinguish between those who demonstrate peacefully or violently. "And I haven't even heard about a protest," Trump added, "but you know, this is people that hate our country. But they will be met with very heavy force." (At a news briefing this week, a Secret Service official said thousands of agents and officers will be on hand to provide security.) The parade is happening at a fraught moment when Trump has drawn the military — among the nation's most trusted institutions — into a tense standoff in Los Angeles over his aggressive efforts to deport people living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration this week activated about 700 Marines to help quell demonstrations over his immigration enforcement methods, despite warnings from California officials that he is inflaming the situation. The military's main purpose is to fight and win foreign wars, and it has largely retained its reputation as an apolitical body carrying out a national mission. Only in rare instances has the nation held military parades: The last one took place 34 years ago after the United States defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War. Saturday will open with a festival on the National Mall. Soldiers will be on hand to meet people and take part in special military demonstrations. The parade will start at 6:30 p.m. ET and follow Constitution Avenue from near the Lincoln Memorial to the Ellipse south of the White House. Workers have been laying down steel plates to protect the roads from the heavy tanks. Bradley Fighting Vehicles will also be on display, while dozens of helicopters will take part in a flyover. At the Senate Armed Services hearing last Thursday, Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll put the cost at $25 million to $40 million. Driscoll justified the expense as a 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fill up our recruiting pipeline with young Americans.' 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest Army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it,' he said in an interview with "Meet the Press." Some military experts echoed that sentiment, seeing merit in an event that gives Americans a chance to thank their soldiers and see them up close. 'Only 9% of young Americans have an inclination toward military service,' said Kori Schake, who has worked at both the Defense Department and the White House National Security Council. 'And so, exposing more Americans to our Army, where kids can talk to soldiers about their experience, is good for the country.' Others said the money is being wasted. A better idea would be to restore programs serving veterans or rehiring some of those who lost their jobs in the Trump administration's effort to shrink the government workforce, some lawmakers and veterans groups said. Department of Government Efficiency cuts have fallen heavily on veterans, who make up a disproportionate share of the federal workforce. Meanwhile, the Veterans Affairs Department cut a program that provides mortgage assistance to veterans so they don't face foreclosure on their homes. The mortgage program 'helped tens of thousands of veterans stay in their homes. And they want to spend $50 million on a parade?' said Chris Purdy, who heads the Chamberlain Network, a pro-veterans group. 'It really shows this is about an individual's pride and not the nation's pride.' Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, criticized the parade's price tag in an interview. "The military is being required to spend resources and time on this, instead of training and preparing to meet the national security needs of the country," he said, adding, 'It's a horrible idea." Trump has long championed a military parade. In 2017, he attended the Bastille Day ceremony in Paris with French President Emmanuel Macron and got a firsthand look as tanks rumbled past the reviewing stand. The trip left an impression. After he returned to the White House, Trump spoke often about holding a similar parade at home, a former White House official said. Aides delayed and diverted him, mentioning the potential cost and telling him the United States didn't make a point of flaunting its hardware, the person said. 'Certainly, the French do it a lot and the North Koreans do it a lot and the Russians, but we don't really tend to do those things,' the former official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'He brought it up quite a bit,' the person continued, adding that in Trump's view, the Bastille Day celebration was 'in honor of Macron.' 'And he wanted that.' In his Oval Office remarks, Trump didn't mention the parade in the context of his birthday. He noted instead that the day is Flag Day. "We're going to have a fantastic June 14th parade, Flag Day," he said. "It's going to be an amazing day. We have tanks, we have planes, we have all sorts of things. And I think it's going to be great. We're going to celebrate our country for a change." Whether the day comes off as a tribute to the Army or to Trump hinges on how Trump behaves in the moment, analysts said. 'The degree to which this is a violation of norms depends in part on what the president says and does on the margins of this event,' said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political science professor who has written about the military's relationship with political leaders. In the run-up to the parade, Trump is capitalizing on the Army's milestone birthday in partisan terms. Speaking Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he took aim at various Democratic foes, including the last commander in chief, Joe Biden. He invoked Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, another Democrat, eliciting boos from the audience. Mentioning Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee last year, Trump said: "I think he's running for president, but he's a radical lunatic." Linking the military to the sitting president's birthday and sending it into the streets to confront fellow Americans risk tarnishing its credibility while pushing the country away from its democratic roots, Trump's critics warn. 'Displays of hardware, whether its tanks or Stryker vehicles, is more characteristic of totalitarian militaristic states like North Korea or Russia,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who questioned the event's cost at a recent hearing with Army leaders. 'And they are used in part to glorify the dictator in those countries. This parade falls on President Trump's birthday and is as much a celebration of his birthday and him — at least it's designed to be — as it is our Army.'
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump using military in provocative ways with protests, parade
Trump's approach to the military is coming into focus again during a week that began with the Commander-in-Chief deploying Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and will end with the planned military parade celebrating the Army's birthday. "I think Trump looks at the military as political props used to demonstrate his authority," said former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, now a frequent critic of the president. Trump's recent military actions and parade plans are drawing comparisons to authoritarian regimes. Newsom said Trump is acting like a "dictator." Administration officials have said the military is needed in L.A. to maintain order. Questioned by members of Congress about the troop deployment during a June 10 hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the situation in L.A. as "lawless" and said, "President Trump believes in law and order." "If we didn't get involved, right now Los Angeles would be burning," Trump said June 10 during an event in the Oval Office. In the past, Trump's views on the military and concerns about how he might wield troops domestically have generated bipartisan pushback. After Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to accept the results, all 10 living secretaries of Defense - Republicans and Democrats - signed a letter urging military leaders not to get involved in the election aftermath, signaling apprehension that Trump would use the military in ways they described as "dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional." Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn suggested in a television interview after the 2020 election that the president could invoke martial law and seize voting machines to rerun the election, which former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper later described in his book as "scary." Trump asked Flynn about the martial law idea during a White House meeting in December 2020, according to media reports. With that backdrop, Democrats and other Trump critics are raising concerns about the potential consequences of Trump's decision to send troops to Los Angeles, his planned parade and future military escalations he might consider. During his first term, military leaders sometimes pushed back on his suggestions, people who "we may euphemistically call, 'the adults in the room,'" said William Banks, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Syracuse University and founding director of the Institute on National Security and Counter Terrorism. "I think his senior people today are of a far different caliber," Banks said. "Put pejoratively, they're sycophants." Mulling the Insurrection Act Some Legal experts question whether Trump has the authority to circumvent Newsom and deploy the California National Guard under the law he's using. California has sued to stop Trump's deployment. "It's sort of wading into uncharted legal territory, and it raises a lot of legal questions and concerns, frankly, the way that he is using this law," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Looming over the discussion is the Insurrection Act, which Trump sought to invoke during his first term. It gives the president wide leeway to use troops domestically. Trump is using federal troops to protect federal property and law enforcement in L.A. The Insurrection Act would give him expanded authority to use troops for policing, experts say. "The Insurrection Act is dangerously broad... something close to a blank check if he chooses to take the political hit for invoking it," said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Congress adopted the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, barring the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless authorized, such as through the Insurrection Act. It reflects "a centuries-old principle in Anglo-American law against military interference in civilian affairs," Goitein, of the Brennan Center, said. "If the leader of a country can turn the military inward against the people, that has great implications for individual liberties," Goitein added. "It is a step on the path to tyranny, if not an indication of tyranny itself." Trump mulled invoking the Act during a White House event on June 10. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it," Trump said. "We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." The Insurrection Act has been invoked 30 times, most recently in May 1992 by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson to police rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King. Presidents from both parties have considered invoking the act against the wishes of state governors, such as during civil rights conflicts during the 1950s and 1960s. More recently, some Democrats urged former President Joe Biden to deploy the National Guard to remove razor-wire barriers that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott installed along the border with Mexico, but he didn't. Banks said Trump appeared to be edging back from invoking the Act, which could have long-term consequences. "It could be corrosive," Banks said. Bolton, Trump's former aide, predicted any effort by Trump to use the Insurrection Act would end up in court, but said, "I also don't think we should get paranoid and just engage in speculation about what he might do." Trump has been careful to steer clear of the Insurrection Act so far, Bolton noted. 'Can't you just shoot them' Esper, the former Defense secretary, resisted Trump's efforts to invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Esper's book describes an Oval Office meeting with Trump, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other administration officials on June 1, 2020, as "probably one of the most significant meetings a secretary of defense ever had with a commander in chief." During the meeting, which occurred amid protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country following the death of George Floyd - an unarmed Black man killed by Minneapolis police - Trump repeatedly brought up the Insurrection Act and pushed to use active-duty troops to quell protests, Esper wrote. "Can't you just shoot them Just shoot them in the legs or something," Trump said, according to Esper. "I didn't have to look at General Milley to know his reaction," Esper wrote. "I was sure it was the same as mine: Utter disgust at the suggestion, and a feeling we were only minutes away from a disastrous outcome." Esper wrote that Trump eventually "backed down." His book details other concerns about Trump's approach to the military, including a proposal for a July 4 celebration in 2020 featuring a fleet of military vehicles that he worried would politicize the military. Milley told Trump's chief of staff that such displays were "not what the United States does - it was what authoritarian states like North Korea do," according to Esper. The same concerns have been raised about Trump's military parade planned for June 14, which will celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary with tanks and other vehicles rolling through the streets of the nation's capital. Trump's 79th birthday is the same day. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, called it a "dictator-style military parade." "There's nothing wrong with military parades when there's reason for them, but the fact it's Trump's birthday on Saturday is not a good reason for it," Bolton said. Trump said on June 10 that the parade would be "fantastic" and warned people protesting would be met with "very heavy force." "It's going to be an amazing day," he said. "We have tanks, we have planes, we have all sorts of things. And I think it's going to be great. We're going to celebrate our country for a change."
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
Watch: Trump says people who burn the American flag ‘should go to jail for a year'
Donald Trump says that anyone who burns the American flag should be thrown in prison. The president made the remarks at Fort Bragg on Tuesday (10 June) during a celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Army. During his speech, Trump boasted about the thousands of troops he's deployed in Los Angeles amid protests over his administration's immigration raids. The president condemned the demonstrators as a 'vicious, violent mob,' falsely claiming that many of them burned the American flag during standoffs with law enforcement. 'People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year,' Trump declared. He took it a step further by adding that he's working with a few senators to 'get that done.' In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
