BBC: Half of UK forces 'ready to quit'

BBC: Half of UK forces 'ready to quit'

news.bbc.co.uk

Almost half of UK military personnel are ready to leave the forces, a Ministry of Defence survey suggests.

Some 47% of Army and Royal Navy respondents and 44% of those in the RAF said they regularly felt like quitting.

Among the concerns raised by the 9,000 servicemen and women surveyed were the frequency of tours, levels of pay and the quality of equipment and housing.

The Ministry of Defence said the survey revealed "areas of concern" but that conditions were being improved.

(visit the link for the full news article)

That is a shocking percentage of discontent in the UK military.

Here are exact numbers:

Questioned about morale within their service as a whole, 59% of the Army rated levels as "low" or "very low".

In the Royal Navy that was 64%, and the Royal Marines 38%.

Within the RAF, 72% said morale across the service was low.

The causes: long tours, low pay, bad quality of housing and equipment. Very similar to the anecdotal complaints of the US military in Iraq.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yes shocking, but ask the whole coutry if the regularly feel like quitting their job and I expect the results would be similar. Everybody feels like quitting their job all the time, if they truly felt like quitting they would do so...

you cant just quit in the Army though, you have to be discharged - don't you??

It's not surprising as it seems they are fighting a war on three fronts, Afghanistan, Iraq and their own Government.

I saw a thread about this earlier last night and i had one question about it. It does say they sent out about 25k questionnaires but didnt say if they were sent to military personnel in country or currently deployed. I believe that would make a big difference in the data.

I saw a thread about this earlier last night and i had one question about it. It does say they sent out about 25k questionnaires but didnt say if they were sent to military personnel in country or currently deployed. I believe that would make a big difference in the data.

It's sad that they don't feel like quitting because of being used as hired thugs by the ruling class to repress the world and ruin the lives of millions of innocent people. Oh no. They're just fretting that they're not getting pampered enough for putting their lives at risk.

Still it wouldn't be surprising about falling levels of comfort in the armed forces. US is bankrupt beyond help and cannot afford these wars anyway. They probably are trying to reduce expenditure, especially if they need more cash for the fiesta party of death and destruction in Iran they're drooling over and can't wait to start.

reply to post by umbr45


Yeah I agree. I regularly feel like quitting my job, and if you conducted a survey in my workplace the morality levels would be rated pretty low. In fact, they usually are in the yearly staff surveys. I think 40-50% is a pretty high number though, but they do have a much more stressful job than majority of the population.

There is a big difference between feeling like quitting and actually following through with it. I wonder what the actual discharge rates are and if this has increased in recent years? I can only find info on medical discharges.

Agreed, 50% is a startlingly low number of people who want to quit their jobs.

Originally posted by basil_brush
It's sad that they don't feel like quitting because of being used as hired thugs by the ruling class to repress the world and ruin the lives of millions of innocent people.

So saving the Kosovns from being slaughtered by Milosevic or beating back the RUF in Sierra Leone (a group who cut off the arms of those who opposed them) is not a good thing? Perhaps you disagree with Iraq and/or Afghanistan, but do not generalise about the UK's armed forces. If it wasn't for the sacrifices they've given over the years, you wouldn't be able to say what you just said without being locked away in some hell hole.

It is very disheartening to see so many ready to quit. The government, as I've said before, needs to increase defence spending if it wants the UK to be able to project power around the world (which is important any necessary to British interests).

Almost half?

Well, there we have it ladies and gentlemen!

It's only almost so obviously that means that there's nothing to worry about!

I love it how the MoD likes to lead us into the illusion that war is a simple black and white story.

Originally posted by Ste2652So saving the Kosovns from being slaughtered by Milosevic or beating back the RUF in Sierra Leone (a group who cut off the arms of those who opposed them) is not a good thing?

Depends on the exact context. The industrialised western countries have a long history of covertly stirring up trouble and publicly going in as saviours to tackle the problem they created. It seems to me that in most conflicts involving UK/US troops those troops should not be there, because it's just ruling class interference to get a foothold in that area.

I have contempt for military personnel because they do what they're told, not what's right. They usually go into battle not knowing the full facts about why this battle is occurring. Things like The Opium Wars, Vietnam, Occupation of Korea, Panama, Iraq/Afghanistan etc. would not have happened if the personnel had refused to go along with it.

I side strongly with the old view that a country should protect it's future and stability by not getting involved in foreign entanglements. With all due respect if someone else is having problems then really it's their problem not ours. Using aid as a cover for nefarious desires is one of the oldest tricks on the book. In my opinion a country's army should be used purely for defensive purposes and be under the command of the people, i.e. no conflict is entered into without the vote of the people. I cannot condone a society where the military takes orders from lords, bluebloods and corporations. Such a society will only lead to conquest, misery and suffering. I have no sympathy for anyone who wishes to become a hired thug for such death and corruption.

Partially excluding the two world wars, what defensive battles have we fought since the industrial revolution? Virtually every battle I can think of by the UK/US has been political threats, regime change (i.e. a coup), conquest, stealing resources, 'peacekeeping' or some other globalist interference. If you strip it down to the bare basics modern soldiers are mercenaries, they're paid to kill and do so willingly without needing to ask many questions, if any. I have contempt for military personnel in the same way I have contempt for mafioso gang members who go around beating up and killing people to get favours or protection money. At the end of the day that's all international politics is, just a big, extremely expensive, mafia-style gang war. Playground bullies. My dick's bigger than yours and my mates can kill yours. Give us what we want or yer dead! Na na na na na.

Originally posted by Ste2652So saving the Kosovns from being slaughtered by Milosevic or beating back the RUF in Sierra Leone (a group who cut off the arms of those who opposed them) is not a good thing?

Depends on the exact context. The industrialised western countries have a long history of covertly stirring up trouble and publicly going in as saviours to tackle the problem they created. It seems to me that in most conflicts involving UK/US troops those troops should not be there, because it's just ruling class interference to get a foothold in that area.

I have contempt for military personnel because they do what they're told, not what's right. They usually go into battle not knowing the full facts about why this battle is occurring. Things like The Opium Wars, Vietnam, Occupation of Korea, Panama, Iraq/Afghanistan etc. would not have happened if the personnel had refused to go along with it.

I side strongly with the old view that a country should protect it's future and stability by not getting involved in foreign entanglements. With all due respect if someone else is having problems then really it's their problem not ours. Using aid as a cover for nefarious desires is one of the oldest tricks on the book. In my opinion a country's army should be used purely for defensive purposes and be under the command of the people, i.e. no conflict is entered into without the vote of the people. I cannot condone a society where the military takes orders from lords, bluebloods and corporations. Such a society will only lead to conquest, misery and suffering. I have no sympathy for anyone who wishes to become a hired thug for such death and corruption.

Partially excluding the two world wars, what defensive battles have we fought since the industrial revolution? Virtually every battle I can think of by the UK/US has been political threats, regime change (i.e. a coup), conquest, stealing resources, 'peacekeeping' or some other globalist interference. If you strip it down to the bare basics modern soldiers are mercenaries, they're paid to kill and do so willingly without needing to ask many questions, if any. I have contempt for military personnel in the same way I have contempt for mafioso gang members who go around beating up and killing people to get favours or protection money. At the end of the day that's all international politics is, just a big, extremely expensive, mafia-style gang war. Playground bullies. My dick's bigger than yours and my mates can kill yours. Give us what we want or yer dead! Na na na na na.