So pissed off at tories putting military youth groups into deprived area schools

[trashcanjunkie]

We live in Newcastle. Yes it's a deprived area. I feel aghast at the fact the only half decent comprehensive school in our area has a cadet group based at school, with fucking army wankers there recruiting kids. The whole army campaign to get them young and 'make them better people' boils my fucking piss. They're cannon fodder who will likely get shipped out to oil wars, and left up shit creek without a paddle, wanting for basic kit etc. Then they either get blown to pieces, die, or come home horrifically injured or psychologically shattered. Now the government are rolling out another military type program and are putting money into sending them into schools in deprived areas.

Fwiw I've nothing against youngsters learning discipline or survival skills etc. I just have an issue with recruiting cannon fodder from 'us plebs'....

"I think you've misinterpreted my message elephant I was trying to demonstrate how there isn't an alternative to the military as there is no other organisation that is equipped to do these things. In any way. Permissive environment or not."

IME aid agencies and the UN agencies have done, can do and are doing all the things you listed (not necessarily all the time) provided it's a permissive environment. And that is why I made the point in the way I did. If they have withdrawn from most or all of them, then yes I got hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely and my apologies.

Wow, sounds like op has a real chip on her shoulder. The private schools here have cadet groups, sometimes I travel on the train with them in their uniforms looking very smart.

I think the events at Deepcut Barracks and the Army's ineptitude at dealing with them are a cause for concern when recommending the military as a career for potentially vulnerable young people.

Also, Iraq has not been improved by Western invention for most, many of Saddam's Baathist forces are now in IS in Iraq.

While cherry-picking minority ethnic groups to save from IS in Syria, while the rest of the population is left to be bombed, flee or starve, isn't likely to have good long term outcomes either.

My DH runs the local army cadet detachment. The day he has to start encouraging or recruiting cadets into the actual army is the day he resigns his (voluntary) position. He sees it as community engagement and opportunity, no more and no less.

I'm a pacifist and have my own reservations in general terms, but military recruitment it is not.

Yabvvvu, just because a young person joins cadets, does not mean they will join the military, it provides many skills that are useful in other jobs, and gets them off the streets. My independent school was affiliated with the RAF cadets, which I joined, it was fab, I flew light aircraft and wanted to pursue a career as a commercia pilot. This would have been a good stepping stone, however I did nit as mum was not happy about it, so I pursued a career in Psychology.

"while the rest of the population is left to be bombed, flee or starve, isn't likely to have good long term outcomes either"

Is that a call for greater application of force?

Or for total withdrawal?

There was no pressure to join the RAF or other areas of the military, your going off on a tangent op.

To all those posters in the armed forces, or with family members who are, thank you so much for your efforts. I'd hate to do it myself, so I'm all the more glad that you do it.

Sorry for the incredible stupidity of the OP and a few others on this thread.

I didn't say you had. I was just referring to things that the armed forces get called on this thread and MN all the time

I know you didn't say I had. I just feel it could have looked like that to someone who hasn't read the whole thread and saw the conjunction of something I had actually said in a recent post, with some stuff that I hadn't said. I wanted to make sure no one got the wrong impression

Upthread someone said that those who fought in ww2 didn't have a choice. My grandparents signed up before call up.

Trojan - It's neither, because complex civil wars require solutions other than "Moar Power!" or "Let's go home".

I think it's possible to consider our military to be decent people, while still thinking that much of our foreign military activity in the 21st century has been extremely ill-conceived.

Yes, I do realise that. But I read your post as criticising the level of military involvement at present ('cherry picking') and so was wondering in which direction you would change it in order to be more productive of a stable outcome (possibilities for that are various too).

In our area only the private schools have cadet corps. My son was in it at school and loved it and he's generally a pacifist.
I think our armed services are essential but have been poorly employed by our government in recent years.

Trojan - do you honestly think a few attacks on IS will bring peace to Syria?

You are aware that they aren't the main belligerents in the conflict, nor the main force killing civilians? Are you also aware of exactly how IS was established and by whom?

This issue is beyond the scope of this thread. However, I would say that there was a time when some form of direct Western military intervention in Syria would have been beneficial, but that time has passed and the reason it has passed is because the US in particular was so reluctant to intervene after the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan.

So there might be people on this thread who think that Iraq and Afghanistan were a good job well done, but it's not a widely held view.

No, I was just interested in roughly which direction you think the most stable solution would lie. And what that means for need to be able to project military force. If you don't want to say, that's fine (bit tangential to the thread too).

And what that means for need to be able to project military force.

I'm not sure what this sentence means.

I'm also not sure that you are arguing in good faith, but I'm becoming increasingly sure that you do not have the level of knowledge about the situation in Syria that would make this a worthwhile discussion for me.

YANBU, OP.

The private schoolboys (and girls, to a lesser extent) will end up much higher ranking. I think you're absolutely right that "cannon fodder" is recruited from poorer areas. Twas ever thus. And you're absolutely right to have boiling piss about it.

And pity unless you're cleared to a certain security level, then I'd suggest you don't have the level of knowledge for a worthwhile discussion.
Well said trojan

Can't stand the attitude that it's all the nasty tories fault here - never mind the separate argument about the cadets. OP, why do I feel that you might be one of those who slates private education because of all the advantages it offers those lucky enough to access it - like, let me see - cadets in a majority of private schools. Yes, I know that's not all they do, but I'm sure some people would use it as an argument.

Recruitment is different to cadets and I think it's great that the students in your deprived area are given that opportunity.

Just out of interest - if it had been a labour incentive how would you have felt then?

another My 1* at work went to his local comp, and he's not alone. If you can be bothered google the rank of air commodore to air Marshall in the RAF, MOST of them went to state schools.

Oh, sorry.

I'm not trying to do anything other than find out a bit more about what you thought would be preferable to the current 'cherry picked' level of intervention (because that didn't sound like approbation to me).

And as I said, it's fine not to say (and my apologies to everyone else on the thread about this diversion, promise this is my last post on this theme).

(The ability to project military force is basic terminology for being able to send the military to any place that politicians want to use force. Apologies again that that wasn't clear).

"if it had been a labour incentive how would you have felt then?"

RTFT

It is a labour initiative.

DS1 goes to Private School. There is a Cadet Force there.

DS2 goes to the local State Comprehensive. No cadet force there.

The cannon fodder comment is appalling.

I think what that means is that if the OP wasn't so ignorant had known it was a labour incentive, how would her thread have started?

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel No one in the Armed Forces is "cannon fodder". Besides, you are again making the incorrect assumption that the CCF is there to recruit for the forces - it isn't. I will also point out that there is nothing to stop someone from a "poor" area join as an officer and nothing to stop a rich kid joining as ranker. What matters is the individual's ability, education level and preference.