On one point at least, this American can testify that the problems of MOD are not unique: Weapons systems are often authorized or continued because they mean jobs here or there, rather than any particular war-fighting utility. Pentagon planners go out of their way to create a de facto national constituency for ships, planes, tanks, etc. by spreading the work through as many states as possible. ( What's that , Congressman? You're doing your own folk out of their jobs?) But 'twas ever thus.

How much more powerful this article would have been if the author had put his name to it. As a serving MOD civil servant since 1975 and a member of the TA for a number of those years, I can say that he is guilty of some generalisations. He also does not address quite where the extra Service manpower would come from to provide the manning ratio he believes is necessary. The Service officers who avoid the front line in such places as Abbey Wood for tour after consecutive tour are also let off the hook. In trying to make a case, and there is a case to be made, he simply goes over the top and looses credibility accordingly.

As an American with Scots/Irish/English roots, the situation at MOD distresses me. Britain and America share both a warrior class -- 40% of US service personnel come from the South with its Scots Irish "highlanders" -- and a belief in the civilian control of the military. In too many countries, the military is primarily a blunt instrument to control the populace not protect the nation. That the militaries of the African Union are ineffective outside their borders is no surprise. That isn't true of the US, UK, Canada, Australia/NZ. (And, a govt with a 2nd Amendment thinks twice about abuse of military power.) That said, there is culture creep in Britain and America. A quick view of Canada's or NZ's MOD websites show a dreary focus on things irrelevant to a robust defense. If you cannot fight and win wars you cannot keep the peace. Civilian control often means unavoidable politics of the most toxic kind -- office and ideological infighting. Its consequences can be comic but dire. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, US servicemen refered to British soldiers as "the borrowers" because of their lack of basics, such as goggles to protect from sandstorms (and recall how brutal those storms were in 2003). But our troops had great respect for the Brits (and the gurhkas -- who deserve status as British subjects, by the way; you fight and die for a country, you've earned its rights and privileges). I suppose Churchill's romantic notions about the English-speaking peoples are considered quaint now. I only note here that below the high Afghan combatant casualties, are the dead and wounded of the U.S., UK, and Canada. I admit to my own romanticism. My father was a poor son of Appalachia serving on a Navy Tin Can destroyer escorting materiel to Britain. He came to love England and passed that affection along to his son. (A Southern Baptist, after the war he even converted to the Episcopal Church! I still have his fading purple Book of Common Prayer.) I only hope and pray that Britons regain their perspective; and reacquaint themselves with the civic values and personal freedoms earned at great cost over the centuries. Office politics matter less when something of proven worth is at stake. The dividends of a true civic culture are all around us. As are the liabilities of the paleocivics from which we arose and in which so much of the world is still enmeshed. Anonymous has my gratitude. STANDPOINT remains a source of disinfecting light. Graham Royal Oak, Michigan, USA

Interesting all very interesting. A few observations. Dialectic materialism, which is pretty much par for the course outside of the MOD and Whitehall tells us your average civvy doesn't really give a hoot about politics, foreign policy or the MOD (inc the military), so long as his WII and DVD Player Recorder keep working. Ergo defence budgets, a non-vote loosing target, are cut year on year, as are military staff and now very deeply civilian servant numbers (both in and outside of Whitehall). Military vs Civil Service (CS) Mil major £50kpa, CS HEO £30k pa ROM figures. Why have mil staff in staff jobs, they should be out there soldiering. As an answer I give two points of view. One when the are applying good military judgement to military-diplomatic relations eg D Joint Commitments. Military staff there do a stirling job, very impressive. However when it comes to technical matters, they like the rest of us are amateurs. In fact they are not on the whole suitable for these jobs. Look at mil staff in the Equipment Capability Customr directorates. Their underspecified requirements have time and again, time an again initiated the confusion over exactly what requirements (and there are 100s in a system's specification) meant down in MOD procurement land in Bristol. Then the military user, blames the CS project manager, because the military Requirements Manager and his military seniors in London couldn't specify sufficiently well what they wanted. So who's to blame. Added to this Lord Levene's (Cons, ex MinDP) chopping of engineering grades from the the acquisition function of the CS effected the end of mitigating against poor military specification of requirements. Time, cost, performance - one of them nearly always suffers. Its time for all parties to grow up and work together. Blame is easy to generate, but where does it get us? Mil staff need to understand than CS do not know the CONOPS, TTPs, minimum performance criteria of kit and work with them to specify the necessary minimum performance criteria so that industrial firms will know what the devil the MOD wants. Yours Sr CC

There is more discussion of this article and the issues it raises on 'The Guardroom': Standpoint's defence and security blog. http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/guardroom

Being new to the MoD, I am mutual. Every millitary requires a business backbone. Otherwise it would not be sustainable. Considering us Civi's arent as technical-minded as millitary personell, we are less able or incompetant at doing our jobs? - What absolute rubbish! I feel the writer of this article has some resentment against the non-millitary personell, in all fairness, we are an economical threat (being cheaper) I can sense his anger may have stemmed from years of millitary discipline and training - which I respect, but respect is a two-way thing. "Why pay more, when you can pay less?" (no one got rich by giving money away, and their reasoning for this "increase" is unknown) And unless you are in-the-know (with the true facts), you arent in a position to comment on the decisions of others. - The media are known to be biased by the general population. Humans by nature dont adapt well to change, after settling in, but we all march on in life!

Sunningdale, sounds like a little bitterness is creeping in here. Perhaps a failed Fast-Stream applicant? No-one ever suggested that Fast-Streamers are 'experienced' (although many of them come from highly successful private-sector backgrounds) but do you honestly think they aren't educated? 13,000 men and women a year apply to the scheme, from which 300 are selected - tells you something doesn't it? As for your comment that all the Fast-Stream provides is 'trained and certified' people, how many current MOD Fast-Streamers do you know? I'm guessing the answer to that would be sweet FA, so you speak from no experience or knowledge - way to go Sunningdale...

One must be grateful to Bob and Mike – sounds like a new comedy duo – for simultaneously (?) continuing the debate started by the MOD Unfit for Purpose article. Like any debate, as it goes on, one needs to familiarise oneself with the facts and not just the debate. We should be grateful for Bob’s figures which, if correct, suggest that for every Service-person there are 2/5th of a civil servant. If this is the case, one can only wonder if this is the highest ratio it has ever been? For example, there are almost as many civil servants as in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force combined. Since, as Bob and Mike also observe, many of these same civil servants are in the MOD-DECs and at Abbey Wood and most of the spending goes on RN and RAF acquisitions, one must presume the majority are supporting these two Services and not the Army? Perhaps that helps explain why the Army so often gets the worst of all spending (think of the SA80 rifle saga) – and also why it can get out of the mire faster? Fast track or fast stream, who really cares – the results speak for themselves. No doubt a civil servant somewhere, along with his or her consultant buddies, came up with the appalling oxymoron ‘Value for Money’ (VfM). Perhaps Bob and Mike can explain to us where they put their value – certainly not where Mike puts his mouth. Or perhaps neither has been reading the Qinetiq debacle broken by Standpoint (and lauded in the Spectator)? As ‘Pepys’ observes in earlier comment, the MOD article actually attacks ‘the clique and the culture of the senior civil servants who “manage” Whitehall - and the other departments. It is not an attack on the brave souls who go out and support the military from the wider MOD and other government departments’. As Pepys’ also says, this is where ‘power and policy connect’. Neither does the article suggest, in Bob’s words, ‘handing management processes to uniformed officers with no background for it.’ In fairness to ‘Bob’, he does go on to suggest a new model is required. Just that – but fast streaming or fast tracking, whatever you call it, delivers trained and certified people; not educated and experienced ones. By and large, the military have emerged as the better qualified and educated in the recent past – for which the ‘Whitehall Civil Service’ gives them little or no credit. Except to place 34 year old ‘fast-dreamers (; early-ejaculators?)’ above Colonels and even Brigadiers. To cap it all, there was indication earlier this year that these same ‘Whitehall Civil Servants’, having got rid of the scientists and doers amongst their ranks, are now targeting the military along just the lines suggested by Bob. If that is the model Bob is suggesting, it will break the military even faster – perhaps that is what Bob and Mike actually want? Finally Mike, I would strongly advise that you check your ‘England’ before writing your prose – ‘...to give _you_ name. You idiot’ – it does not reflect well on the Civil Service if this is indicative of their current etiquette training and writing skills. I also strongly advise that you examine the current MOD gagging order before putting ‘your name to your mouth’ – no doubt it was also drafted by some obscure Whitehall Civil Servant.

When visiting the website Armed Forces m23, (http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0023.html) it is immediately obvious that the 'management of defence' is to take the place of the British MoD. It is the UK arm of the European Defence Agency and makes very interesting reading. To reduce the British Nation's defence so that it cannot protect itself from attack is an act of Treason.

Any comment made about 80,000 people is bound to be unreasonable and stereotypical for most of those it applies to and this article is no exception. Especially amazing is the attack on 'fast track' (no such thing Anonymous, can only imagine you mean Fast Stream?) for the problems at the top of the shop? That's essentially blaming the apprentice for the state of the management team. There are numerous problems with MOD at the moment, do you really believe they'd be solved by handing management processes to uniformed officers with no background for it? Surely the answer is for the best of the uniformed services and the civil service to work together to minimise bureaucracy and deliver the armed forces we need for a world that is much changed since the glory days you talk of. Reinstating a 1980s MOD for 2008 world isn't the answer, symmetrical inter-nation conflicts are not our future. As for the uniform issue, I'd recommend a trip to Bristol, where virtually all uniform personnel wear uniform and the healthy mix of civvy to services is clear to the eye.