GUEST,Rahere - 17 Nov 14 - 12:00 PM:

You are not really very good at "supposing" things or deducing them.

There was nothing at all in the British Army that faced the dying days of Malaya; Kenya; Cyprus; The Tanganyika Mutiny, Aden; Dhofar or Borneo that "was still very stiff-upper-lip WWII heritage." And those serving then defeated three communist backed insurgencies basically on a shoe-string.

I liked this - "He was probably a Staff (Sergeant)" - Oh No I wasn't, you couldn't be further off target if you tried. Your OR number, that would explain the chip on your shoulder and rather idiotic references to "Ruperts" and your Honourary Rank, that merely decides your parking space, my cousin an economist in the Civil Service had one, which he found hilarious, but he never, ever took it seriously, particularly not in the presence or company of anyone holding substantive rank - and I bet they did catch you pouring the milk in first didn't they?

As for this piece of "Look-how-important-I-am" grandstanding:

"As I type, Julian Brazier, MOD Under-Secretary, has just stated in the House in reply to John Baron (2RRF) "it's about doing defence differently and harnessing the talents of the wider UK Society...to make Defence more flexible in coping with the changing demands made on it". That last phrase came straight out of what I told them they'd have to do, back in 1990."

I can only assume that you are a complete and utter idiot if the current set up is something that you have advocated since the 1990s.

1: The British Army has never been capable of defending the British Isles - Not once has any British Army been able to defeat any aggressor that has landed on our shores in strength. The only one of our services that has ever been capable of defending these islands has been the Royal Navy and that has been the case since the days of Alfred The Great of Wessex.

2: The Strategic Defence Review carried out in 1998 by Tony Blair's Labour Government was sensible - Great pity that it was never acted upon mainly due to his Chancellor Gordon of Cartoon failing to fund it.

3: "it's about doing defence differently"
Ehmm No - Its about attempting to do defence on the cheap. The Royal Navy is now at its weakest since the 1690s and the Army will shortly be smaller than it was in 1793 - it will all fit comfortably into Wembly stadium with sufficient space to stretch out and sunbathe.

4: "It's about ....... harnessing the talents of the wider UK Society...to make Defence more flexible in coping with the changing demands made on it"

Really?? How is the Army Reserve Recruitment Drive that we are paying the private firm "Capita" £15 million a year going? Instead of recruiting the required 250 per month to fill the gaps in the Army Reserve that will harness the talents of the wider UK Society it is only managing to recruit 7 - yes SEVEN - why indeed should Putin tremble!!! What was it that absolute disgrace of a Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010 turn up? An Army of 82,000 plus a Reserve Army (Formerly the TA) of 30,000 - The Reserve Army cannot even maintain itself at its present day levels.

5: This the mob who have just had to increase the upper age limit for those joining the Reserve from 43 to 52?? Now there you have WWII thinking Rahere - ready for the musical bit ... ONE, TWO, THREE:

"Who do you think you are kiddin' Mr Hitler"

But don't worry GUEST,Rahere, you can opt for your European Defence Force - Absolutely useless for defending anything of course - the constituent and contributing nations cannot even agree as to which way is up let alone form any any cohesive military structure, common foreign policy, defence policy or strategy.

The European Defence Force:

France would demand by imperious right to lead it.
Germany would pay for it but contribute no troops, or if they did caveat to death any prospect of their being used for anything other than guarding the HQ Car Park but only during daylight hours.
The UK, the Dutch and the Danes would be expected to do the fighting, and the rest would promise much but deliver absolutely nothing.

"WEU has shown the way on the wider Peacemaking agenda, shifting what the Army is asked to do."

Pssst: Right down at the dirty end of the game - what armed forces are about ain't Peacemaking. They are for defending nations first and foremost - If they are incapable of doing that in a credible manner then there is no point in having them.

"And so, why wear a poppy? To remember the Dead." Why remember them?

I would have thought as a mark of respect for the sacrifice they made would have been reason enough - they did give their today's for all the tomorrows that we have enjoyed.

To honour their deaths, by ensuring that what they did was not done in vain." How do we ensure that? By making certain the Command doesn't repeat its inevitable cock-ups which are the biggest single factor in getting troops killed, and WWI was a wonderful worked example of why all that was necessary."

Ah but you see lessons were learned, lessons were learned from the Boer War, from the battles of 1914, those of 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. Not only were those lessons learned but they were carried forward and improved upon (Compare British military losses in the First World War to those of the Second World War - reduction of over 50% wasn't it? They have fallen significantly ever since haven't they?). Some arguing here that lessons were not learned at all - they were and it is extremely easy to demonstrate that they were.

By the way who were these "incompetents who repeated their mistakes at the price of other peoples' lives"? Answer carefully.

As for your "thinking soldier" being something new - what you go on to describe has always been the case in the training of Royal Marines - most definitely the case in the training of Mountain Leaders, SBS or RN Clearance Divers. It is one of the reasons their training is the longest and hardest for any infantry soldier in the world - but if you think that strategy is decided by soldiers "all the way down the line" then all I can say is that you are indeed an idiot - tactics pertinent to a local situation certainly but strategy in any form no.