Originally Posted by Trooper1854

The standards for the British Army, the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, and Royal Marines are very high. They always have been.
The armed forces have always had the pick of the litter, so to speak.
When I joined, unemployment was over 2.5 million and it took me nearly a year to get through all the required stages of assessments, and I had to go for specialist assesments for the trade I was going for.
I walked into the recruiting office with four friends, only two of us got in, and the other three guys were not slackers, one went off and joined the French Foreign Legion, did his five years and came out as a senior NCO.

When I joined the RAF the standard was quite high, then a couple years later the standard did drop because not enough men were being recruited. One chap in my flight at Wattisham said that during his aptitude testing there was a picture of two circles and one triangle, the question was "Which is the odd one out?" He said, "The two circles." I kid you not, he wasn't very bright at all. If I ever got lumbered with him on night duty, I'd send him to the stores hut to count paper clips. But overall the standard was and still is very high.

As far as I remember from my first application at Victory House, Kingsway in London to actually arriving at the school of recruit training at RAF Swinderby was no more then two months.

Originally Posted by Jay

In my opinion anyone should be allowed to enlist, it is a right to serve one's country......

There is no right granted to anyone to serve. The respective military departments do have the absolute right to reject you for any reason it deems appropriate.

Originally Posted by Jay

......but why do you think that governments are so strict on who can serve their country?

Regardless of how recruiting commercials may "sell" the military, it is not a "jobs program." It's serious business, involving the security and national interests of our country.

Originally Posted by Duty Honor Country

......what are the standards like across the big pond? I am not savvy to military standards for England.

IMHO a top quality well disciplined lot. Superbly professional officers and NCO's and the average British private are highly competent and well trained. Quite many have relevant experience under their belts - professionalism in the field overall. Leader/Killer/Gentleman in one neat package. Sharp discipline and top quality leadership is understandable when a country has a history of fighting abroad.

Something for the Brits to be really proud of.

Just plain bias.

Originally Posted by 42RM

IMHO a top quality well disciplined lot. Superbly professional officers and NCO's and the average British private are highly competent and well trained. Quite many have relevant experience under their belts - professionalism in the field overall. Leader/Killer/Gentleman in one neat package. Sharp discipline and top quality leadership is understandable when a country has a history of fighting abroad.

Something for the Brits to be really proud of.

Just plain bias.

Interesting indeed.
I have heard quite the opposite being said about the higher echelon brass sitting at home not allowing the doers to do their deeds.
That there have been an unusual amount of friction between Theater commanders and them stay at home and fill a seat chaps.
We all have our gripes, but I have heard it often enough to not ignore it.
What is your take on the current set up?

As for the quality of troops I am on the same page as you.

KJ sends..

Originally Posted by Duty Honor Country

You are right there. For the US, it is a great time to be a recruiter. The economy is bad, people are staying in the military and there are troop cuts on the way. Right now the higher ups are looking to cut the lower quality Soldiers right now from everything that has been said. Since I has served since 1997, the Army is just going back to the "pre 9-11" standards where if you cannot pass an APFT in 3 months you are out or if you cannot pass body fat within 6 months you are out.

Here is an interesting note about the captains in my career course. 6 captains are either more than 6% over body fat or are 25 pounds or more over weight and cannot make standard. That is 10% of my class.

Trooper 1854, what are the standards like across the big pond? I am not savvy to military standards for England.

As an ex-recruiter (involuntary) I personally don’t believe any time is a “good” time to be a recruiter.

Originally Posted by KJ

Interesting indeed.
I have heard quite the opposite being said about the higher echelon brass sitting at home not allowing the doers to do their deeds.
That there have been an unusual amount of friction between Theater commanders and them stay at home and fill a seat chaps.
We all have our gripes, but I have heard it often enough to not ignore it.
What is your take on the current set up?

As for the quality of troops I am on the same page as you.

KJ sends..

The "problems" are at No. 10 Downing Street and in the schools that produce our generals. Too many dinosaurs among the higher brass who still live in a NATO / WARPAC age. British PM's have been listening to the Exchequer for decades now, always trimming costs, and programs, and units. The results are very small forces, that aren't as well-equipped as they might be.

And then our generals get involved and thinking that they don't have a lot of:
1) Men
2) Money
3) Public Support
decide that the solution is a "political" one, rather than a military one. Sure, war is politics, BUT a special kind of politics. And the result is Basra or truces with the Taliban, all in hopes of "finessing" a win, that Britain can't achieve on the battlefield. It hasn't worked all that well. Sorry, and I like Britain...think Britain contributes a tremendous amount to the world and NATO. But our senior commanders just don't want to fight, when fighting is necessary to shape the battlefield and the facts on the ground that will yield a stable peace.....seem to be trying to get a political victory on the cheap.

Plus, I find the British Press and Intelligentsia a bit trying....spent years hearing about how we didn't understand LIC/COIN....too focused on fighting..yada...yada...yada.

Its not so much a case of politics becoming involved in the military, but military becoming involved in politics.
The higher up the ladder officers progress, the more political they appear to become, loosing sight of the fact that they are officers in the armed forces and not politicians.
Its frustrating to see people who were once very good officers suddenly behave like they never served in the military, once they reach the levels of Major and above.

Sadly there are politicians who poked their noses in like Duncan Sandys who wrote a white paper that stated that the "piloted aircraft is out of date." What the hell did he know about aircraft?

Originally Posted by 42RM

The "problems" are at No. 10 Downing Street and in the schools that produce our generals. Too many dinosaurs among the higher brass who still live in a NATO / WARPAC age. British PM's have been listening to the Exchequer for decades now, always trimming costs, and programs, and units. The results are very small forces, that aren't as well-equipped as they might be.

And then our generals get involved and thinking that they don't have a lot of:
1) Men
2) Money
3) Public Support
decide that the solution is a "political" one, rather than a military one. Sure, war is politics, BUT a special kind of politics. And the result is Basra or truces with the Taliban, all in hopes of "finessing" a win, that Britain can't achieve on the battlefield. It hasn't worked all that well. Sorry, and I like Britain...think Britain contributes a tremendous amount to the world and NATO. But our senior commanders just don't want to fight, when fighting is necessary to shape the battlefield and the facts on the ground that will yield a stable peace.....seem to be trying to get a political victory on the cheap.

Plus, I find the British Press and Intelligentsia a bit trying....spent years hearing about how we didn't understand LIC/COIN....too focused on fighting..yada...yada...yada.

During Fallujha the Black watch (i think it was, if memory serves) were sent north to relieve the Marines going up to Fallujha for Phantom fury.
Not only did the then DSF throw in a caviat for "D" 22 NOT to get into the mix..
There were even talk about disengaging the watch after they took several cassualties during the first two weeks in place.
Had that happened it would have opened up another FFZ for the insurgents.

Could you enlighten me on one aspect though?
Are the DSF a political apointee?
A military guy with small units background trying to play politics?
Or just a military guy caught between a rock and a hard place?

Not knowing LIC/COIN?
Your chaps damned near invented the thing.
AND you are currently holding the record for sucessful campaigns in this kind of warfare by far.
You didn´t win by turning the other cheek ALL the time though..

I have said it before and I will say it again.
We need a Sgt with some experience from twentytwo taking point in Afgh, preferably one of them veterans of Op. Storm.

KJ sends..