Calling In The Troops

(Photo: Ingy The Wingy)

A headline on the UK news talked about complaints that the government is using an additional 3500 soldiers to help with security at the Olympics.  Why complain?  The security seems crucial; and given that the soldiers are being paid anyway, and were not going to be deployed elsewhere, the opportunity cost of their time does not seem very high.  (I’m assuming that the British Army is not maintained permanently larger for use in security in such events.)  This seems much more efficient than hiring some temporaries for security, who might not be as well-trained and who would require pay.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Andrew says:

    Are these soldiers trained in peace-keeping tactics?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
    • Enter your name... says:

      It seems to me that in any randomly selected group of military professionals, at least some of them will be. But the world needs (a lot) more military police anyway, so if this reminds people to increase the training, then that would be a positive side effect.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
    • greg says:

      Almost certainly to some extent. At least in basic security and crowd control to the extent that private security will be.

      Also remember even now after the end of the troubles a lot of British Army soldiers spend time in Northern Ireland peacekeeping.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  2. K. P. Hart says:

    The gripe is more with G4S; the company that proved woefully inadequate in delivering the security.
    Also, the person instrumental in getting G4S the contract now works for that company …

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
  3. Owinok says:

    Calling the Troops matters in two ways. The first is that it projects the image that the state takes seriously safety at the Olympics and is bringing out its most accomplished professionals to ensure that. On the other hand, one may read this as showing that the threat of “terror” is so serious that it is not to be placed in the hands of regular police.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  4. Sally says:

    I believe the problem is that the government has ALREADY paid a private firm a huge sum of money to provide security. Granted, what’s done is done, and the gov’t HAS to provide adequate security one way or another. Complaining serves no purpose. Just do what you gotta do to make sure everyone is safe.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  5. Griff says:

    The problem is the extra troops are needed because the firm which contracted to supply the security people found it couldn’t deliver – at the last minute.

    It is also a firm which has a substantial number of government contracts.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
    • dp says:

      The media expect perfection from everyone but themselves. Newscasters are often paid thousands of pounds for extra jobs working for big business. They get these jobs because they are seen in places like the BBC and then they pay tax like a business (about half of income tax). Yet we never anything of this only that big firms aren’t perfect. No human is, including the media!

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
      • greg says:

        Perfect nobody expects, not a complete cock up with staffing numbers thousands below what was required and promised (and which they had lied and repeated said they had under control until about a month ago), that’s fucking up in a manner that is not excusable when they’ve been paid so much money for it.

        G4S are mainly a private security company but also now a general outsourcing company particularly to the public sector and they also have a lot of history of fucking up, currently coming to light are other smaller contracts they are not performing on (they made a shambles of running some doctor’s practices in a trial area was one that came to light recently) and have won contract bids that are really important like running certain police and health services where if they fuck up it’ll go badly and the tax payers will be left with a far bigger bill and they are bidding on other stuff still.

        Their repeated failures have to be taken into account properly when bidding on contracts and the government seem to just ignore them too easily and start putting far harsher terms into contracts for failures like this.

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  6. Allen says:

    The problem of course is that combat troops are not policemen and are trained for an entirely different set of demands. Good combat troops make bad cops and good cops make bad combat solders.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
  7. KevinH says:

    Like other here, I think people see the calling in ‘Plan B’ (the troops) as a symptom of a poorly managed Olympics. Though, you could ask yourself if the soldiers really are cheaper, why they weren’t plan A and come to the same poor management conclusions.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
  8. Mark says:

    Keeping the peace is a very different job from deliberate violent conflict.

    Ongoing or expected combat gives a greater societal expectation for casualties. This allows us to give soldiers fairly simple Rules of Engagement. The simplicity of RoE results in either greater troop losses, greater enemy losses, and/or greater civilian losses.

    As any former infantry soldier who later became a police officer can attest, there is an enormous gap between training to enforce laws and maintain peace and order, and training to kill an enemy.

    Law enforcement spend a year or more (plus continued development throughout their careers) learning to walk a thin line, ever careful to respect the rights of citizens, while exercising as little force as possible to maintain order.

    In the military, this training time is better spent learning to more effectively engage the enemy and stay alive in sustained extremely dangerous circumstances.

    Nobody reasonably expects idle teachers on their summer break, or unemployed construction workers to go out and fill these security roles. It’s nearly as absurd to suggest that military troops should act as security in a peaceful city far from any combat zone.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
    • greg says:

      British troops have for a long time had a different focus compared to American troops because of their operational deployments and generally peacekeeping training is a much more high priority due to things like The Troubles as well as a generally different military culture. Until 2007 when active duty was removed from Northern Ireland (only garrisoned troops there now) a lot of British troops got stationed there which was pure peacekeeping roles. There is a lot of peacekeeping experience and so on in the British Army. Also the operational focus in Iraq etc tended more towards peacekeeping (at least initially I’m less sure about it at the heights of the insurgency) than their US counterparts.

      Also private security organisation is a high skill but private security themselves for basic things like bag checking, basic crowd control etc is a relatively low skill level and the basics can be taught with relative ease.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • James says:

      “Keeping the peace is a very different job from deliberate violent conflict.”

      This is true, but any attack on the Olympics would be a deliberate violent conflict, would it not? The primary purpose of the security force would not be enforcing laws and maintaining order, but deterring (one hopes) or responding to an attack by people who have designated themselves as “the enemy”, and are willing to die to carry out their attack. Seems more like a job for the military than either police or private security.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0