At the weekend it was reported that the head of the British Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, has suggested that the military is at risk of becoming a “static land force”. In a leaked letter Gen. Sir Patrick, the Chief of the General Staff, admitted that the Army’s “strategic resilience” is under threat, and that its capacity for overseas campaigns is now severely diminished. The reasons for this decline are largely self-inflicted.

It is bleak but not at all surprising that, in today’s climate, the Armed Forces appear unable to make even potentially sensible decisions except for trivial reasons — and in a way that fails to address the military’s real problems. 

Consider the recent furore over proposals, contained in another leaked document entitled “The British Army’s Race Action Plan”, to lower security vetting for overseas recruits in order to “attract talent from ethnic-minority backgrounds”.

This has rightly provoked huge concern among senior officers and intelligence chiefs, especially because the plan explicitly aims to reduce clearance requirements for roles with “uncontrolled access to secret assets” (i.e. intelligence).

Even more remarkable is that the generals are happy to lower standards in the name of diversifying the military — but not in the more pressing cause of making sure it can actually recruit enough soldiers.

This month, shortly after that story broke, we learned that the Armed Forces have rejected 24,000 applications from Commonwealth nationals in just five years, despite the Army being 7,500 troops short even of its current, inadequate manpower requirements.

While there is a huge range of potential reasons for an application to be rejected, one of the biggest barriers to recruiting Commonwealth nationals is security vetting. Because it is difficult to investigate potential recruits overseas, many roles require up to five-years’ residence in the United Kingdom before application.

In services such as the Royal Navy, this means in practice that very few roles (such as medical or catering) are actually open to Commonwealth nationals. Meanwhile the Army, which appears to receive the overwhelming share of applications, is hobbled by the imposition of a cap, across the Armed Forces, of 1,350 Commonwealth recruits per year.

One might expect Gen. Sir Patrick to see this as a golden opportunity — especially in light of his recent comments about the need for a mass “citizen army” to combat the threat posed by Russia. There would surely be sensible ways to adjust security vetting procedures to take advantage of this huge pool of willing recruits.

We might, for example, negotiate with our Five Eyes partners Australia, Canada and New Zealand to facilitate vetting in those countries. There are presumably such arrangements with the Republic of Ireland, whose citizens can serve in the Armed Forces and are not subject to the Commonwealth cap.

Given the sheer number of potential recruits, the Army could also look into setting up a specific formation, such as a Commonwealth regiment, which could be exempt from the cap and have extra safeguards in place to restrict access to sensitive intelligence and materials until soldiers have been properly assessed.

If the French can make a success of the Foreign Legion — whose equivalent requirement is “to be NOT wanted by Interpol (murders, drug trafficking, or other really serious crimes are NOT tolerated)” — then a mere regiment for Commonwealth soldiers ought to be perfectly manageable. 

Instead, Britain seems to be getting the worst of both worlds: lower standards for access to highly sensitive positions within the Armed Forces, but none of the potential advantages in terms of overall recruitment. 

Gen. Sir Patrick won’t bend the rules to enhance the fighting effectiveness of the Armed Forces and meet the challenge to British security he sees in Russia — but will sign off on such a move purely to diversify the ranks we already have. By now, it should be clear where his priorities lie.

---

Henry Hill is Deputy Editor of ConservativeHome.

HCH_Hill

---