Blame the "fluffy bunny" Training

The inquiry into Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines has found a catalogue of errors ranging from a breakdown of communications among key commanders to a complete lack of understanding of the threat posed by Iran. This was of course entirely predictable and while the tone of Lt-Gen Rob Fulton's report is analytical rather than judgmental its contents are said to be none the less damning and there seems little doubt that there will be a board of inquiry into the whole sorry affair.

There appears to have been a holiday atmosphere on board Cornwall which as a result of the presence of television cameras from both the BBC and Sky seems to have been turned into the naval equivalent of the Big Brother house. The media handling of the whole affair which included allowing Faye Turney and another sailor now known forever as Mr Bean to sell their stories is still under investigation and we will be told the full results of both inquiries later this month. 

The board of inquiry seems likely to focus on Cornwall and its crew. But what it should really focus on is the disastrous drop in standards of training in the Navy, which has outsourced the training the sailors among the boarding party to a civilian contractor.

Training generally in the services has gone downhill as modern attitudes have made much of the sort of training that used to ensure everyone in the services worked together and knew instinctively what to do in any given situation unfashionable. Any board of inquiry should not just look at Cornwall and the way it was operating on that day. It ought also to look at what one former naval officer described as "the fluffy bunny pc training" we now give too many of our servicemen. The people who thought that was a good idea are the people who should really be on the wrong end of any inquiry.

Comments

[Paul J. Adam]

Unfortunately, "real training" needs several things to come together. You need the crew you intend to train, to be a coherent whole: Pre-Deployment Training only works if you don't then play musical chairs with the team, pulling some out and parachuting others in at short notice.

Secondly, you need the assets to train with. Unfortunately, the pace of operations is such that there's very little kit available back home for training purposes: often, units arrive in-theatre and take over important equipment from the unit they're relieving, having to make good any faults or failures and learn how to use said equipment "on the job".

Thirdly, you need time to train: in short supply as personnel get worked harder and, especially in some key pinch points, end up deployed almost back-to-back with little chance for leave or time at home, let alone training.

You need the will and the permission and the skill to train. This does include occasionally pushing people hard, enough that some of them discover their limits: and it needs to be done with care and skill, or it becomes mere bullying. However, where anything goes wrong, or where it's not considered possible to train safely, the immediate reaction has been to cut back from demanding and difficult training rather than fix the problems... which means that sometimes, the first really hard situation faced involves real enemies with live rounds. I made some awful mistakes in training (luckily nobody hurt) and was rightly raked over the coals for them, and vowed to forever eschew them in favour of new and more interesting mistakes... are today's recruits getting the same opportunities to make their errors in a controlled environment with a proper debrief?

Finally, you need money. When the operating budget is as overstretched as it now is, cutting training to protect the front-line is an attractive decision, even if it's a version of eating your seedcorn.

The problem is that this is a result without a clear cause or graspable root. Admitting that the military is overtasked, or that strict and inflexible application of H&S legislation may not be _entirely_ appropriate, or that there is a chronic shortage of hardware, people and money, means that blame cannot wholly be concentrated on the military...

[Chuck Unsworth]

It's been suggested in some quarters that Fulton's views may well be affected by his former position as Commandant General of the Royal Marines. In particular, it's intimated that he may have felt that the Navy had handled things particularly badly, and that the Marines would have done things better - or at least rather differently.

Mick's report does not give that view any credence. It appears that Fulton's approach has been measured and he has stuck to a very tight brief - simply to establish the facts. That is exactly as it should be. It's for others to make judgements. Unfortunately we now have the problem of deciding whether those who make such judgements are really up to the job.

In other circumstances one would expect judgements to be made, Courts Martial to be held (or Boards of Inquiry convened), as necessary. Then any reprimands or other strictures would be issued, reviews of standing procedures take place and changes made to ensure such incidents never occur again. However, in this case that process is irrelevant - and that is because of the political element.

Despite there being two separate investigations, both areas are intrinsically linked. The politicisation of MoD and, hence, the Armed Forces, has been directly contributory to this incident, both during and post the main event. Thus it's almost certain that the final outcomes of both lines of inquiry will be determined in the political arena, as were the original decisions leading up to this shambles.

[The 3rd column]

Mick,

A friend of mine who happens to be senior level Navy (unfortunately, don't believe he'll succeed Bandy) would agree with everything you say here; he blames Navy leadership for the Iran 15 fiasco totally, says the 15 should have fought it out; those responsible for the fiasco should face court martial, end of story.

Surprisingly, on the post Iran 15 scenario, he is adamant Browne took the bullet for the Navy.

[Peter Davies]

This is excellent reporting - a pity that it hasn't had better coverage in mainstream media.

The only criticism I have is that one major point keeps being missed; the quality of the actual service personnel themselves can be at least partially blamed on the generally undisciplined population from which they are drawn.

Discipline is barely enforced at schools; and it is now no longer possible to properly train and discipline recruits in the armed services.

Many of the officers remaining in the services seem to have embraced the 'fluffy bunny' culture, including training, which is now required by left/liberal media, politicians (who are controlled by the media and not voters) and civil service generally, but especially the judiciary.

Britain’s armed services are steadily beginning to reflect the society they are there to protect. That's bad news for the services and bad news for Britain.

[Ron Slade]

"Fashionable" - "politicaly correct"! How many more hopeless excuses are going to disinform the populace. The entire infrastructure involved in the 15 abduction by Iran is "NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE"! The 15 failed to act as British military ARE PAID to. They failed to even notice the situation developing until they could only give in or die. Worse they then acted as if they were on some trendy media circus instead of giving ONLY name, rank, military serial number and date of birth. The destroyer and the incompetents supposedly earning their pay as a military force simply make the military a laughing stock. Heads must roll; dismisal and forfeiture of pension must be widespread. You cannot have some quasi referendum to decide what to do when at the hot end in war. Response must be immediate, correct, and effective. If you must send such incompetents to war then send them in beachwear; at least you will not lose expensive equipment and the fallback that "they were not prepared" will have some idiotic relevance.

[Para Stab]

Mick Smith is right on the ball and the commenters saying 'but training is too hard to organise' are wrong.

One of the major problems is the Phase 1 and Phase 2 training given to RN and RAF- and too many non-infantry Army- personnel. The hostage debacle was no surprise to me. A month before, I went on a short course at Keogh Barracks, which is the tri-service Defence Medical Training Centre. It's where RAMC, RAF and RN medics do the second phase of their basic training. Many of these boys and girls were not just fat: they were, literally, obese. I was ashamed - despite being a STAB- to wear the same uniform as them. And why were they so fat? Because there was no daily compulsory PT, although there was a certain amount of parade-ground drill (so useful in the mountains of Afghanistan) and a hell of a lot of post-5pm drinking and screwing in the slumlike junior ranks accommodations.When I went running or to the gym after classes I saw about five or six other people exercising, often mainly other Territorials.

As far as I can tell, RAMC personnel also receive no proper infantry or minor tactics training in their Phase 2- so if they are ambushed in Afghan or Iraq they must hope that the infantry save them or perish.

Thankfully the line infantry and Para NCOs doing short courses at Keogh were obviously very different. One told me that none of the non-infantry personnel attached to his battalion could keep up with the pace on the simplest fitness test. We are sending young men and women into warzones without the training they need to have a chance of survival- which is what the Argentines did 25 years ago. It's an utter disgrace.

[frog]

Pathetic is it not ?

Peter Davies -- I wouldn't blame the schools, and only slightly less, the society .

Forty odd years ago, civvy life was tougher all round, so less changing needed . Since then the Forces have had plenty of time to adapt, but in some areas just seem to have given up .

I don't know if the french army does this better, but I do know that the educational standards for entry are higher . The equivalent of O levels for squaddies.

Something is rotten . No bad soldiers, just bad officers ?

[William]

Perhaps a graduate in Media Studies ! Unfortunately there is no school certificate in common sense. My experience of the PBI (poor bloody infantry) taught me that the fitter physically a soldier became the better his mental agility. A good infantryman ? - Willy, shrewd, tenacious, the ability to suffer and bloody complain bitterly whilst performing the most amazing feats. This might be hard for some to understand - A good infantryman will respond unquestioning to a direct order whilst always thinking tactically. It is a bonding that works in a disciplined team where each man knows his life is in the hands of his mates.

[Peter Davies]

Frog - Apologies for the delay in my reply, I've been out of comms, visiting Russia - now there's a country that's cracked their "war against terror"!
I agree that the failure of our military can't all be blamed on Schooling, but I disagree with the need for higher education to qualify as a sailor, soldier, etc. Rather have youngsters who can be trained - through tough discipline - into fighting personnel. My point was that British society - controlled as we are by the liberal media, who consider themselves intellectuals - won't allow the military to train people to fight. (Intellectuals generally lack that most important - and rare quality called "common sense", but they rule our world and will bring our Western civilisation down.)
Our soldiers and sailors are expected to be nursemaids, cradling children in their arms, and/or policemen instead of fighting and killing our enemies. Only after the military have won, should we get nursemaids to look after children and policemen to police. Otherwise our fighting men/women lose focus on what they're there to do - win battles.

William: Bernard Montgomery said "one of my biggest problems was getting the British Soldier to kill instinctively" He overcame this by hard constant training, much to the displeasure of the old school who just assumed that "Tommy" would alway overcome his enemy" - he usually did but at a price, Montgomery changed the whole ethos train hard and train hard again. One senior officer said he would probably have a heart attack if he completed a fitness test - Monty's reply ? Better to die now than in command of men on the battlefield !

[Teyanna Brown]

I realy liked the saying at the bottom of the page can you seen me a copy of it

Thank you Teyanna Brown