Spinning the Infantry - A Culture of Deceit

The astonishing way in which the MoD attempted to mislead Parliament by claiming that the infantry was 100 per cent manned is typical of the spin it deploys routinely to hide problems. The same addiction to spin led Des Browne, Defence Secretary, to claim last week that he was sending 900 troops to reinforce the British garrison in Helmand, when in fact he was sending only 200 infantry now - with engineers to build up the British bases, and medics to treat the inevitable casualties, not following them until the autumn. The government and the MoD are so steeped in this culture of deceit that they don’t even seem to realise that they are doing anything wrong.

It is only because of documents leaked to the Sunday Times that we know the truth. The written answer detailing the position as at December 1st last year neatly avoided giving figures for individual infantry battalions because this would have had to reveal the scale of the under-manning, then 2,200 men, an average of 58 men per battalion. Instead it gave an overall figure for the infantry that included the 2,500 infantrymen no longer serving with their regiments - staff officers, instructors in training units, members of the SAS, none of whom are part of the operational battalions. It wiped out the deficit at the stroke of a pen. It was at best misleading, at worst downright fraudulent.

As the leaked documents show, the infantry battalions are now in fact even worse off - with a deficit of close to 3,000 troops, an average of 74 men for each infantry battalion - as a direct result of a whole series of factors relating to the Iraq War. Ministers’ lies about kit shortages, the unpopularity of the war at home, and the need to look over their shoulders at the lawyers before they fire a shot, have all played their part in the dramatic drop in infantry numbers which began in January 2005, and the situation is expected to get worse over the coming months with the most high-profile of the courts martial resulting from operations in Iraq due to be heard in September.

The figures are a major setback for the Chief of General Staff, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, who is due to retire next month. Jackson has pushed through a deeply unpopular restructuring of the infantry that effectively cut the number of battalions by three. The Future Infantry Structure will see a host of famous name regiments disappear, some have already gone, while the rest will follow by March next year.

The Future Infantry Structure has a lot of advantages – not least that soldiers will no longer be constantly switching between the three different infantry roles, armoured, mechanised and light infantry, with the accompanying increased training demands and changes to locations. Families will be able to put down roots instead of constantly moving home and schools every three years.

But interestingly a report prepared for Jackson by a briefing team which made a tour of infantry units in Autumn 2004 found that both senior officers and junior soldiers regarded much of this as “spin” designed to disguise defence cuts. They expressed “significant disquiet about the validity of the assumptions behind the reduction in the number of infantry battalions given the ongoing commitment in Iraq”. For the ordinary soldier, southern Afghanistan was of course not on the radar screen at this time.

One key feature of the Future Infantry Structure was that it would leave the army with around 500 surplus infantrymen, who could be used to bolster battalions with fewer men. But the documents revealed in today’s Sunday Times show that even if recruiting recovers and the number leaving drops to previous levels, the infantry will have 1,200 fewer men than it needs - the equivalent of two battalions - when the restructuring takes place next March. If they continue as they are now, the deficit will be more than 2,200, the equivalent of nearly four battalions worth of infantry, and further cuts in the number of infantry regiments will have to be contemplated.

Liam Fox, the Conservative defence spokesman, who asked the original question that led to the false claim of 100 per cent manning, said that in response to a follow-up question in February asking for manning figures for each individual infantry battalion, ministers had promised to provide full details in a letter, a copy of which would be placed in the Commons library.

But strangely, five months later, the letter has still not arrived and he has just received an apology from Tom Watson, the new junior defence minister, which claimed difficulties in finding a suitable format for the figures. They actually appear in a very simple format on pages five and six of the first leaked document, which this blog is happy to recommend to Mr Watson as a suitable format to give to MPs.

Liam Fox of course now has the figures as does anyone else who cares to consult the documents on TimesOnline. A free press is an important part of any democracy and we’re happy to play our part by giving the honest answer the MoD finds it so difficult to compile. But I can’t help feeling that democracy would have been better served if written questions from MPs, our representatives in parliament, were answered honestly and promptly.

Mr Fox is disappointed but not surprised by the MoD’s response. “This is typical of the government’s spin on levels of infantry establishment that don’t bear much relation to the reality on the ground,” he said. “The government is clearly afraid that the public will recognise the scale of their mismanagement of the armed forces. These figures are horrifying because if something is not done PDQ, we will not have enough troops to cover our commitments.”

The truth is of course that, thanks to Blair’s ill-considered decision to go to war in Iraq, we are already in that position - as the misleading announcement on troops sent to Afghanistan shows.

Comments

[DM]

Yet more evidence of a watering down of the real figures. Back in 2002 the MOD claimed the Manning Control abuse was not down to Money saving but keeping a balance in the rank structure. Back in the June 1999 1 Para needed two full company's to supplement the short fall in mostly JNCOs, that were taken from 3 Para. Back then Manning Control was at its most abused ever, where experienced JNCOs were being forced out, just so the JNCO wage bill could be kept as low as possible and more importantly to Mr Browns purse stings, so as to save on the final Pension commitment to those soldiers who would have reached full 22 years colour service. The MOD claimed in Parliamentary questions that only a small number were subject to Manning Control. It was later admitted by Mr Hoon Defence Sec at the time, that the figures were misleading as most soldiers subject to Manning Control would "Jump ship rather then be pushed due to the stigma of being forced out and the fact that it being on their record of service" also a large number of soldiers would have changed contracts to the S-type so again the figures were massaged to deliberately conceal the extent of the abuse. It was later found out that soldiers who had received injures due to their service, some were even disabled, also found themselves being subject to the Manning Control abuse, again so to save on the immediate pension they would have received had they been properly Discharged due to Medical reasons. I remember

Personally I feel one of the major factors that stopped the latest round of redundancies would have been the amount of money spent on the redundancy packages, not undermanning. This was the reason that Manning Control was reinstalled after the big redundancies of the early 90s during Options for change, over 5 Million was lost by the MOD on redundancy packages and they had managed to make redundant 2000 soldiers more then they should have had.

Its not a case of the MOD never learning but just keep trying to find a way to trim more off the bone whatever the cost to the men and women on the ground.

[Chuck Unsworth]

The numbers of volunteers for British Forces (and those of many other nations) have usually escalated in times of war. One only has to look at the many old photographs of young men queuing at the Recruitment offices at the onset of various hostilities to realise that. A cursory appraisal of recruitment figures will reinforce the point. More than anything else, the concept of 'Just Cause' influences civilians to stand in line to volunteer.

The real reason for the fall in numbers of recruits is the failure of this benighted government to persuade the nation of the justice of the cause (or many causes) in its blind support of American policies. It has also managed to so disenchant service personnel that very few are prepared to extend their engagements, and quite rightly.

Hitherto, in more peaceable times, 'Joining Up' was regarded by many as a decent alternative to civilian offerings. Now the public perception is that this is no longer a sensible 'career choice'. The security of a reasonable contract has gone, pay levels have not increased to balance that loss, and there is no compensation for the additional hardships endured by our people - and their families.

I very much agree with the comments posted by JD above, but would just add that all of these injustices are a manifestation of the growing and disturbing disconnect between Whitehall and real soldiers. (My apologies, please also include sailors, airmen etc in these remarks)

Where are our inspirational military leaders? What sorts of animal are the current senior staff? Why is it so incredibly difficult to get straight answers to perfectly simple questions from them?

When one reads service documents now - including those posted by the Sunday Times - it's clear that the vast majority of the people are simply Accountants and petty Clerks. They see their job as one of placing things in the best light or - as most of us would recognise - of lying, obscuring, dissimulating.

It hardly matters that Browne gets it so wrong, deliberately or otherwise, or that we'll have yet another change of Minister in the blinking of an eye. The machinery in MoD won't even miss a beat when that happens. Browne is simply not in control.

Whitehall is a Civil Service shambles and needs a huge overhaul. 'Manning Control' should be immediately and ruthlessly exercised in central London. The sacking of a few Generals and Permanent Secretaries would provide an excellent start.

[Chuck Unsworth]

And grovelling apologies to DM above (not JD as mistyped) - a touch too much Chateauneuf on Sunday evening, I think...

[K M Wells]

It was evident before any deployment to Afghanistan that the numbers being sent were totally inadequate for any pacification of the area. It seems all our troops are now doing is responding to attacks on them.
There is absolutely no point in this. Unless the numbers can be increased at least fivefold (clearly impossible) there is no point in being there. Remove our troops at once.