Other news stories

Military home page

This is a pity and it is unnecessary. It is not hyperbole to say that the British armed forces have a justified reputation as among the finest in the world. But nor is it to dishonour that reputation to say it can only be maintained in the 21st century if the services undergo radical change. 

General Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has done an excellent job of managing relations with a new government and overseeing successful operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and, with any luck, Sierra Leone. But his successor, whom the Prime Minister will choose in the next few weeks, needs to be an out-and-out moderniser. Mr Blair must choose someone who can build on the professionalism of the services by widening the pool of potential recruits. That can only be done by offering a forces career as part of modern mainstream life rather than the equivalent of joining a monastery. 

Many of the reasons why too few people choose to join the services, or choose to leave once joined, are well known. Far worse than Oxbridge, the services have a reputation for class-ridden attitudes; far more than Oxbridge, the reputation is based on fact. Major Eric Joyce, the man who – HM Bateman style – dared to tell the Army while he was still serving in it that it was "steeped in snobbery", predicted three years ago that a flood of soldiers would quit if the culture did not change.

Another cause is the 19th-century attitude to discipline. Of course it is a good thing if the Army can mould character and harness the aggression of young males. But it is no longer necessary to shout at, bully and generally humiliate people in order to motivate them and build team spirit. 

Finally, there is the fact that society itself is moving on. Over the past three decades men have increasingly expected to be more closely involved in bringing up their children, and men and women have become less tolerant of the idea that fathers have to be away for long periods of time. These are healthy developments, which are difficult to reconcile with the demands of service life, but a great deal more imagination needs to be deployed in the attempt than has been until now. 

More a symptom of the gap between the services and real life than a great cause in itself is the attitude of the top brass to the idea of homosexuals serving in the military. It would not be such an issue if there were more women in the services, or if people moved more easily from civilian careers into the military and out again.

It is not an issue, for example, in the Israeli armed forces, which in some respects is a model modern army, with its first-name terms, liberal social attitudes and fearsome fighting reputation. Of course, Israel has conscription and is a state that feels under constant military threat. But there is no reason why our professional army cannot learn lessons.

General Guthrie's successor must wean the armed forces away from the belief that discipline and professionalism are served by separating the services from civilian life. It is only by ending that separation that the tide of "desertion" can be reversed.