再The army's prowess, Jan 19th 2013 P54 あっぱれな英国陸軍 N6P127
It is hard to comprehendthe risks that well-trained soldiers embrace. At the end of decade of war inAfghanistan and Iraq, the British public would rather not try. According to apoll by You-Gov, 77% want the troops back from Afghanistan, where 439 Britishsoldiers have died so far. Yet the army is not unhappy. After a shaky start inHelmand, it feels it has acquitted itself well, and it is enjoying a lot ofpublic sympathy for its sacrifices. What is more, British soldiers likefighting. It is, to simplify only slightly, what they join the army to do. MrIllingworth ゛loved every minute゛of his tour in Iraq and two tours in Aeghanistan. Infact, as the army prepares to leave Afghanistan by the end of next year, it hasthe opposite problem：a sudden exodus of its best young officers inanticipation of leaner, less violent times ahead. Mr Illingworth is now runninga mining company in Liberia. ゛It's slightly depressinghow many guys are calling up t
o ask me how I managed to get this job,゛he says. ゛If there's going to be no operations, everyone's going toleave.゛
This talent drain is a worrying aspect of a much bigger change. Britain'sdefence budget is being slashed, and its small but robust armed forces - acrucial element of the country's claim to global influence - heavily cut back.By the time the army leaves Afghanistan, nearly 10,000 soldiers will have beenlaid off, including many now fighting there. By 2020 the army's strength is dueto fall by a fifth to 82,000, its lowest level for centuries. It will have beendramatically reshaped, too, greatly reducing Britain's ability to projectforce. And there may be further cuts yet. Late last year the Treasury demandedan additional 735m pound from the next two years' defence budgets plus a 1-2%annual reduction from 2015. The second cut, which will apply across Whitehall,would bite deep. Top brass say it could mean a further loss of capakbility,perhaps in amphibious warfare, or cutting Britain's revered special forces.David Cameron, the prime minister, who shows no loss of app
etite for deploying troops - including to Mali, where he sent a transport planethis week - is worried about the headlines this would generate.
Deeper cuts look likely, however. Britain is broke. And it still spends a loton defence - only America, China and Russia spend more. Yet the implications ofthis diminution go well beyond the loss of expensive kit, such as fighter jets,or historic regiments. The army, as Lieutenant Illingworth's derring-doillustrates, is not like other public services. It has a peculias culture ofexcellence：no British police officer must be prepared todie in the line of duty. The austerity-inspired reforms now in play threaten todilute that - in effect, by making the army more normal. That is why losingtalented young officers is such a troubling augury：because they are among the army's most distinctiveattributes.
British officer recruits tend to be better educated than those of other Westernarmies. Over 80% are university graduates；half the current chiefsof staff went to Oxford or Cambridge. By comparison, the American army attractsfew recruits from Ivy League universities. Other European forces, which untilrecently were largely based on conscription, attract even lower-flying officermaterial. There are several reasons for this, including the British army'searly move to professionalisn in 1960, the high status afforded to youngofficers by the regimental system and a history of relentless operations - thelast year the army was not engaged overseas was 1968. And its importance cannotbe understated. Another of the army's biggest strengths, its non-commissionedofficers, is partly a tribute to the judgement of the young officers who selectthem for promotion from the ranks.
The coming shrinkage is likely to make the army a less attractive career,leading to a less able and ambitious officer recruit. The new army shaped bythe cuts will be more home-based - with 20,000 troops due back from Germany by2020 - than at any time since 1792. It will also be less expeditionary, lessready, less fulltime, after a big expansion in the reserve, and will have feweropportunities for senior command. The terms of service of this stay-at-homearmy, it is logical to imagine, may fall more into line with those of othergovernment departments, with higher salaries but fewer perks, and more recourseto employment tribunals. The army might even end up unionised, speculates HewStrachan of Oxford University. It would be a very different force from the oneMr Illingworth joined, eager for action.
