Forum menu
Its really not true to suggest that the reason we need an armed force is so that we can do such amazing humanitarian work abroad with our foreign aid
The vast majority of what we did between maggies and tonys wars was exactly that.
I know what you mean to say but that is utter BS to suggest only an offensive army allows us to help out abroad.
It's actually completely true. Same capability and skillset. JRRF etc.
A toothless defence force would have been utterly useless in places like Sierra Leone. And they wouldn't have been able to get there.
The vast majority of what we did between maggies and tonys wars was exactly that.
Exactly - the humanitarian work is really just glorified training. My point still stands - paying the military to do humanitarian work is much more expensive than properly funding the humanitarian work directly.
properly funding the humanitarian work directly.
The military are the best (and in many cases the only) people for the job.
The military are the best (and in many cases the only) people for the job.
The military are better at providing food, medical and disaster relief than Oxfam, Save The Children, MSF or many other expert organisations?
Natrix - I was specifically referring to care within the NHS. However, I'm unsure how the MOD spending part of its budget on care and rehabilitation at Headley Court is seen as `special treatment', and perhaps more an indication of the need particularly following the recent conflicts.
bencooper - MemberThe military are the best (and in many cases the only) people for the job.
The military are better at providing food, medical and disaster relief than Oxfam, Save The Children, MSF or many other expert organisations?
Posted 18 seconds ago # Report-Post
Depends how dangerous it is!
Places MSF are currently working: http://www.msf.org.uk/where-we-work
Quite a few dangerous places there, where the British army has no presence.
This is completely stupid. MSF carry out risk assessments, they WILL NOT GO some places without military presence. Where the british military are and are not is irrelevant to a french charity.
The Help for Heroes Rehabilitation Complex at Headley Court was built with funds raised by the H4H, not from MOD spending http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/how-we-help/headley-court/
If a firefighter for example received a similar injury to a serviceman they would not be able to access such a specialist facility, but would have to rely on the NHS.
The French Army are in quite a few of them though. I'm not belittling the work of NGOs by the way, but a military force can provide its own security (or that of NGOs and various other agencies) better than a civilian organisation.
This is completely stupid. MSF carry out risk assessments, they WILL NOT GO some places without military presence. Where the british military are and are not is irrelevant to a french charity.
They're an international charity. Of course they do risk assessments, the point is they can operate in some very dangerous places by working closely with governments and local groups, not by waving guns around.
Is the MOD doing much humanitarian work in Syria at the moment?
The military are better at providing food, medical and disaster relief than Oxfam, Save The Children, MSF or many other expert organisations?
I don't see Oxfam, Save the Children or any others with a fleet of Hercules or the people trained to do air drops. Before any ships arrive at ports or commercial cargo planes land at airports lots of work has gone on usually by military forces to make them suitable. You only need look at Haiti and Kashmir earthquakes when you had the military of various countries getting aid to those that needed it.
I don't see Oxfam, Save the Children or any others with a fleet of Hercules or the people to trained to do air drops.
Give them even a fraction of the MOD's budget, and they'd quickly acquire that capability. Though they already have very, very good logistics capability anyway.
If we gave these organisations a reasonable chunk of the 50 odd billion we spend on the military they could probably afford a few Hercules and more staff
Regarding the humanitarian side of things, adding to Wrecker's examples, the military have put a huge presence out in West Africa recently - it seemed every free man and his dog with the requisite medical training was being shipped out on rotation. This rapid reaction ethos seems to be how our Forces are being set up for in the future.
I have some sympathy for the OP for 2 reasons.
1. Most are very unlucky but not hero's. Joining the military means that getting shot and blown up is part of the job description, although I imagine you have to look quite hard in the job spec to find that bit
2. The charity really should be called Help for Government as it is raising the money to do the work the MoD should be paying for out of its budget. It puts these people in harms way so should be looking after them. I suspect calling a charity "Help for Government" probably wouldn't raise much money.
The vast majority of what we did between maggies and tonys wars was exactly that.
You said we needed them to do this [ humanitarian work]we dont
natrix - MemberThe Help for Heroes Rehabilitation Complex at Headley Court was built with funds raised by the H4H, not from MOD spending http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/how-we-help/headley-court/ /p>
If a firefighter for example received a similar injury to a serviceman they would not be able to access such a specialist facility, but would have to rely on the NHS.
Headley Court was there before H4H, although they have splashed quite a bit of cash on the place. As we've withdrawn from Afghanistan now, I wonder if there's spare capacity for civil emergency services?
I don't see Oxfam, Save the Children or any others with a fleet of Hercules or the people trained to do air drops
Or provide security to stop people killing each other, or building huge infrastructure. The work these charities do is amazing, but look at their capacity; their camps in Syria are all in the north near the borders or (mainly) in neighboring countries. 5 of their staff were kidnapped last year. To suggest that they are better equipped than the military at providing humanitarian relief is ludicrous.
You said we needed them to do this [ humanitarian work]we dont
Please let me know how Oxfam would have got on against the west sid eboys.
Wrecker, you're completely missing the point. The comparison isn't between the military and the current NGOs, it's between the military and what the NGOs could achieve with even a fraction of the military's funding.
It's about value for money. How many people could be helped with, say, £10bn diverted from the MOD budget to NGOs? A huge number.
Natrix - Help for Heroes contributed to improving part of the physical facilities - Headley Court is not new.
To suggest that they are better equipped than the military at providing humanitarian relief is ludicrous.
Everyone is pointing out how the military have all the money and all the best toys
To suggest the army is better at humanitarian work than humanitarian organisations is as daft as suggesting humanitarian organisations are as good at war as troops [ assuming funding is equal]
Wrecker, you're completely missing the point. The comparison isn't between the military and the current NGOs, it's between the military and what the NGOs could achieve with even a fraction of the military's funding.
They're charities!!!!! Given the same resources, they'd cost.....the same!!!
To suggest the army is better at humanitarian work than humanitarian organisations is as daft
They are!
Now you are deliberately missing the point.
They're charities!!!!!
So what? Charities in many areas already get lots of funding from government departments and local authorities. Just extend this to the MOD.
I'm not junky. The military has a rapid reaction force, who can get anywhere in the world (they reckon) in 24hrs, deal with a threat then establish an air bridge, provide their own security, build massive infrastructure, provide medical relief (at least to the same standard as MSF; in reality probably better due to better security/freedom of movement). MSF etc are subject (quite rightly) to risk assessments that the military just don't need to worry about.
Given the same resources, they'd cost.....the same!!!
Er, no, because they wouldn't have the same overheads. Wouldn't have to buy lots of shiny guns for a start.
Gives up
The military has a rapid reaction force, who can get anywhere in the world (they reckon) in 24hrs, deal with a threat then establish an air bridge, provide their own security, build massive infrastructure, provide medical relief (at least to the same standard as MSF; in reality probably better due to better security/freedom of movement).
Wonderful. Why aren't they doing that in Syria, then?
Wonderful. Why aren't they doing that in Syria, then?
On the naughty step for afghanistan and iraq.
Give them even a fraction of the MOD's budget, and they'd quickly acquire that capability.
and then they wouldn't be a charity and not allowed the same freedoms as they do now due to their ties to the government.
Though they already have very, very good logistics capability anyway.
They do and lots if ex forces work for them especially overseas. Wait a minute were did these people get their training? Oh yes, that's right, in the forces.
On the naughty step for afghanistan and iraq.
Exactly. Turns out causing the deaths of hundreds of thousand of civilians isn't the best way to convince people that you're really only interested in providing humanitarian assistance.
MSF et al do so well quite often precisely because they're not military.
Has anyone considered that the reason that NGOs don't spend big wodges of cash on C130s, Chinooks, security etc is because they have assorted militaries to call on for that sort of thing, enabling them to spend more money on medical supplies, fishing nets, irrigation projects etc. It's almost like they're complimentary capabilities. And yes, military forces are generally configured primarily for a war role, but there's a lot of crossover in the equipment and capabilities for things like humanitarian operations.
On the naughty step for afghanistan and iraq.
So you're saying their military capacity can harm their humanitarian work? That sounds similar to what bencooper and junkyard are saying.
Erm.....I hate to break it to you but iraq and afg weren't humanitarian missions. Tony sent them to fight.
Wait a minute were did these people get their training? Oh yes, that's right, in the forces.
Are you now saying that the military is also a more cost-effective humanitarian training provider? Or is it just that lots of people got some very expensive training and can now put it to use with the NGOs?
and then they wouldn't be a charity and not allowed the same freedoms as they do now due to their ties to the government.
Loads of charities get funding from the government and local authorities and they stay charities.
I suspect those that haven't been in the forces have a reasonably narrow view of what the military is good at born as much from watching films and the most newsworthy reporting of flash bang style incidents as the reality. Military are good with guns and shooting shit - this is true. They are also world leaders in securing shit, moving shit and making shit in horrible conditions. In fact they do a hell of a lot more of the rather boring latter three than they ever do of the former. Even in war time this is the case. These are pretty good transferable skills. The military and NGOs do work remarkably well hand in glove - there are times when the NGO's less obvious government alliance is damn handy in getting trust and others where the concept that what you are looking at is the tip of an iceberg of whoop ass can bring just the touch of menace needed to keep some semblance of order to allow the vital work to come about.
What I suspect a lot of those most negative about the military exercising these sorts roles are articulating is a complete non trust for our governing politicians to give the right orders and choose the right missions/conflicts/disasters for the right reasons. Which is a separate issue to the military's competence.
You may recall that parliament refused military action in Syria, ground troops were never even proposed, certainly due to the way Afg and Iraq had gone. Same goes for the Americans. There's a distaste for interventionism, which will last until the next Rwanda.
I'm not arguing that the military are better than NGOs at disaster relief type work, rather that they can offer complimentary capabilities to them, and operate in higher threat environments, as a side-effect of the role they are primarily configured for (although things like humanitarian intervention are secondary roles in the UK Defence Mission anyway). I don't see any need to apologise for that.
I suspect those that haven't been in the forces have a reasonably narrow view of what the military is good at born as much from watching films and the most newsworthy reporting of flash bang style incidents as the reality.
Yes, my entire understanding of the military is from watching Rambo.
I'm not arguing the military aren't competent. I'm not arguing they're not pretty good at humanitarian work. What I'm arguing is that the military is a very expensive way of providing humanitarian work.
Give the same amount of money to the NGOs, and they'd be able to help a lot more people.
Are you now saying that the military is also a more cost-effective humanitarian training provider? Or is it just that lots of people got some very expensive training and can now put it to use with the NGOs?
They are trained to do a job. Getting supplies to the front line isn't a million miles away from getting relief to those that need it. The people are all ready trained and their skills kept up to date. The vehicles ready for deployment. Rations and other military medical aid is usually sent out first whilst the charities getting them selves organised.
If in your example it was Oxfam getting out there first. Would they have such large numbers of personal ready at such short notice or would they have over jobs to avoid the costs of employing them full time. Would these same personal be as fully trained and skills up to date if they weren't fully employed.
Does every charity have their own army of logicians ready to be deployed at short notice and how many would continue to receive any donations when the public realise they are sat around waiting for something to happen. Is it not more prudent to use the free to the charity armed forces.
If the charity is the first on the ground without an armed support how long will they stand their ground against a mob of hungry and angry people wanting the aid before it becomes a free for all. This doesn't even take into consideration when you have armed militia who take the food to feed their troops, suppress a population or sell on the blackmarket to buy more weapons. It's a bit harder to do when you have armed troops giving that aid out or protecting those that are.
Loads of charities get funding from the government and local authorities and they stay charities
To the scale of funding an army? If all that money went to a charities they would be under political control and that helps no one.
Yes, my entire understanding of the military is from watching Rambo.
Amongst others, yes, that's my point. 😉
I don't disagree that the military is expensive - but it's a big old lump of a thing and putting it all in together for this NGO vs Military cost analysis faceoff is a little unfair. I'm all up for a fairly serious review of what the UK military is for (you'll have to do it all over again when you pull up your anchors and float off into the North sea come the next independence referendum). I'd personally like to see a lot of the most expensive assets designed to defend the nation from the most far fetched of conflicts (Trident being a key one) knocked off the bill but make a priority to preserve the bits that are most capable of making a difference in a positive way. We are long past using our military in a 'shock and awe' way and it doesn't seem to have made us a lot safer either. A sort of Army Lite designed as much for 'hearts and minds' warfare (dreadful - I apologise!) would still seem worth the taxpayers pound imho.
Yup, I can agree with all that.
I'm not arguing the military aren't competent. I'm not arguing they're not pretty good at humanitarian work. What I'm arguing is that the military is a very expensive way of providing humanitarian work.
A mate of mine left the army and was recruited through an agency to work for Oxfam in Rwanda during the early 90's. The agency wanted ex forces because the aid was getting taking from the civilian aid drivers, mainly volunteers, by the militia's. These drivers when confronted by people waving machete's at them just simply backed down and handed over the aid supply and truck it was in. When he got out there it was chaos. They ex forces drivers treated like any other supply to the front and used convoy and patrol drills. They used different routes to avoid setting patterns and stopped the conveys from being split. They got more aid to those that needed it. Same organisation but better trained people using tactics that they'd used in Northern Ireland and Op Granby.
Expensive but available for more than just wars. Locally they provided the man power for floods in the UK in recent years, sand bagging and creating brides as well as helping those trapped.
Locally they provided the man power for floods in the UK in recent years, sand bagging and creating brides as well as helping those trapped.
Wow, would love to know how the brides were created- this could be a very useful skill in civy street as well.
Unfortunately for some of you, the MOD and government will give you reason to rant even more soon enough. We are committed to NATO, deployments are only a matter of time. Things will not change in our lifetimes, as much as you may wish otherwise.