Is the Army too small?

With fewer than 100,000 trained men and women, and two conflicts to fight, it is easy to see why the Service is stretched to the limit. A bigger Army might be the answer but it would seem unrealistic when it is not even possible to recruit and retain enough for the present manpower requirement. The Army is 3,640 soldiers short of its needs.

Are too many soldiers now tied up with overseas operations?

When the Government published its Strategic Defence Review in 1998, it never envisaged that the Armed Forces would be sending thousands of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan for long periods of time. Here we are near the end of 2007, and we still have 5,000 troops committed to Operation Telic in Iraq (500 of them in Kuwait), and 7,800 in Afghanistan, most of whom are engaged in a full-scale insurgency war with the Taleban. Soldiers like to go on operations but they also deserve some time at home in between the overseas tours. Harmony guidelines, under which servicemen and women are supposed to have a 24-month break in between tours, are being breached regularly. Some units, such as signals, logistics and reconnaissance, keep going back and forth between Iraq and Afghanistan because they are in short supply.

Iraq timeline: five years of conflict

From accusations that the weapons of mass destruction dossier had been sexed-up to withdrawal of British troops from Basra

Multimedia

• Poll: Was Iraq war worth the sacrifice?

• Audio slideshow: Iraq conflict explained

• Pictures: Iraq, war and aftermath

Related Internet Links

• Read the Inside Iraq blog from our team in Baghdad

Related Links

• Forces rehabilitation centre 'overcrowded'

• ‘We’ll still be able to help Iraqi forces’

Is the Army approaching burnout?

Not yet, largely because the Iraq commitment is being wound down. The Government’s policy is to reduce the size of the force in Iraq to 2,500 from the spring (with the additional 500 logistics troops in neighbouring Kuwait). This will lighten the burden but, as Gordon Brown made clear in the Commons, the 7,800 troops in Afghanistan are there to stay. Officials and ministers talk openly of a commitment lasting at least a decade, and probably two, although that’s not to say that all 7,800 troops will still be in Afghanistan in 2027.

Where else is the Army committed?

To ease the burden somewhat, there have been significant changes in the Army’s commitments that have led to troop withdrawals elsewhere. Northern Ireland, thanks to the “normalisation” programme, now has a typical garrison-strength force of about 5,000, half the number it was a year ago; only 160 soldiers are still in Kosovo, and the last British soldier in Bosnia left this year. One warning, however, about Kosovo. There is the potential for more violence in the former Yugoslav province after the majority ethnic Albanian population voted for independence, and a British infantry battalion (650 troops) is on standby in the event of trouble to fly to Kosovo next month.

Is morale low?

Morale is a word often played with insensitively by politicians. It is not true to say that the Army in general is suffering from poor morale. Civilians may find it difficult to understand, but soldiers actually like participating in operations. They genuinely feel that they are achieving something worthwhile, and fighting an enemy is, as they say, what they are trained for. So mostly, morale is good. However, back home, living perhaps in poor accommodation, morale can begin to sink.

Has the Government broken the military covenant?

This is the agreement under which the Government and the general public support the Armed Forces in every way in return for their willingness to risk their lives for their country. In recent years there have been serious failings, including apalling accommodation for many, and severely injured soldiers being treated in mixed military-civilian hospital wards. But the Government is now, as one minister said this week, “on catchup” and trying to rectify the failures.

Were the former defence chiefs right to complain in the Lords about the treatment of the Forces?

Resources are tight, and soon we will learn what cutbacks are to be made to ensure that the MoD keeps within its budgetary restrictions. But anything that reduces or harms the Army’s capability to fight wars will be greeted with dismay. For years it has been promised new armoured fighting vehicles, but there is still no decision on what to buy. Financial pressures could cause further delays.

Is drug taking a big problem?

A new study says that the number of soldiers now being discharged annually for testing positive for drugs is about 790, the equivalent of a whole battalion a year. The MoD says that this represents 0.77 per cent of the Army, and compares with more than 7 per cent testing positive in civilian life. However, drug taking has the potential to damage operational effectiveness. It’s also bad for the Army’s reputation.

Has the arrest of six members of the SAS on fraud charges damaged the Army’s reputation?

The problem with being part of an elite regiment is that any breach of discipline, whether allegedly criminal or otherwise, has a far greater impact on reputation. In this case, the Royal Military Police were investigating allegations that the six men had embezzled £250,000 in funds earmarked for training. In fact, they have now been charged with offences involving “hundreds of pounds”, not thousands. Damaging for the regiment if proven? Absolutely.

So can the Army cope?

Yes, for now, but not if another war breaks out and Britain is urged to send troops.

Times Recommends

• What makes the perfect mum?
• To keep me stress-free, no more awareness days, please
• What do lottery winners buy?