no, no, no Mr. Anonymous You completely idealize the Pentagon. Everything you complain about has happened to the U.S. military. I wrote all about it in a book titled The Kinder, Gentler Military which was published in 2000 by Scribner of New York. Do not idealize the Pentagon. Whether people wear uniforms or not on the job means little. Any organization that becomes too big -- and the US military is needlessly bloated -- becomes a bureaucracy and begins to be dominated by bureaucrats and clerks. It's easy to get very far from military values when you are very far from the fray, locked up in a fluorescent-lit, rather dingy office complex (i.e. the Pentagon) competing for funds bestowed by a politically correct, civilian congress.

Re anonymous on the civil service, above: It is uncertain if anonymous read the article - RFA - or only what he wanted to hear / was told to see. The Civil Service has a number of unions, official or otherwise - from the First Division through to the Permanent Under Secretaries' get togethers. One should not underestimate their influence and control - including on things like the wearing of uniform and conduct in general. See the Civil Services' own (much breached) code of conduct if you are uncertain. Like many things, it depends on where you make the cut. The article was about MOD (Whitehall) I think. It mentioned also the extended and parallel departments that have formed in the last 15 years. Take the cut where 'power and policy connect' and the ratios are nothing like the ones you portray and probably more like the one's suggested in the article. But who actually knows? Looking at the article from a number of angles, the author does not appear to attack the civil service solely or per se. It appears to me to be an attack against 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. But look at those (more often than not specialists as opposed to generalist managers and junior, not senior civil servants) that do? Do they get advancement or preferential treatment for serving their country so honorably in this way? By and large no. They are out of Whitehall and out of sight (and off site) and promotion is more likely to go to the noble souls, safe at home, than the ones returning. Why? And in case you have not noticed, the same rules the CS abide by are restricting those specialists going out to difficult places on grounds of 'Health and Safety' or ridiculously applied EO or diversity. And when you try to contact a major department, you invariably meet with someone on 'job share'. So when you call back, you have to start all over again...civil and service? In my mind the great civil servants were those who knew what service and serving was about. They were honorable and trusted individuals driven by what was good for their Country and Queen (when she was still head of the Civil Service, as the article notes). They were not civil in the sense of servile but civil in the sense of discretion, dignity, service and reputation. Clearly you write from experience. You appear though to protest too much. The Civil Service by any yardstick is a failing organization - particularly in Whitehall - driven, as it is, by managerialism. A key rule of warfare (or any successful business / organization for that matter) I seem to recall, is 'not to reinforce failure'. By defending the indefensible you are essentially doing just that. The CS needs to change itself and its culture - can it? That is the question the Country as a whole wants to know and anonymous, I would humbly suggest, might do better answering than protesting.

Its very easy to knock civil servants isn't it? And the author seems to make a very good case, until you know a little of what he's talking about. There's no point arguing against much of what he says, it seems to be petty frustrations on his part but there are some mistakes which should probably be pointed out. Firstly civil servants or their unions have nothing to do with the policy on wearing the uniform, this is down to security concerns and if the author has been to other mod establishments around the country he'll see the rules are relaxed locally. Secondly, across the department the ratio of military to MOD civil servants is more like 3 armed forces personnel to 1, not 6 to 1 the other way. There also seems to be a common misconception that big procuremnet projects are run by civil servants alone. A quick peek inside the world of military procurement will demonstrate that military personnel are leading and are at the heart of all procuremnt teams - and the many many projects that go according to plan just aren't reported. Yes, there is a lot wrong with the MOD but to blame it solely on civil servants is rather simplistic. I'd be willing to bet that the majority around the country, and those serving alongside their military colleagues abroad, are incredibly proud to be doing the job they do. Many have also dedicated their entire lives to supporting our armed forces, without recognition. From my experience, which goes beyond working in the HQ in London, civil servants and their armed forces colleagues work well together and share many of the frustrations of working for a large government department together. I'm certainly proud of doing what I can to make the lives of the brave men and women who serve our country better and easier and have seen first hand the incredible job they do in very difficult situations.

Ring fencing 3% of GDP for the armed forces is a great idea. As for the MoD, a revolution is needed. Maggie sorted out extreme unions. Who will tackle the Civil Service (a double oxymoron)?

Does one detect in the defensive response by 'anonymous' the skilled hands of the naval staff - certainly the run of figures would suggest so!? The RN is indeed paying for operations from its budget. It has also been hobbled by the replacement Trident Programme when a) it was unnecessary to replace at this time (see the House of Lords debate on the subject) and b) alternative (submarine) solutions were 'hoving too' over the horizon. It would have been better to have waited - but then 'orders were needed', you see. CVF is something else entirely. The Navy wanted this and has brought it / wished it upon itself at huge cost when other solutions might have been more appropriate. Numbers count. The RM are indeed hugely involved around the world but they too feel distanced from the RN. Why, for example, were neither of the 'Robs' made CINCFLEET and then VCDS or even CDS? Why, because the RN system, fixated as it is on its own 'elite' and on technology and capabilities, would not allow it. That is Luddite, arrogant and incompetent in my book. The worry about the 'Iran incident' is that it exposed a real concern in the country and the other Services, as a whole, about the Navy. How deep were the problems and why were there no Courts Martial's? The only way to have cleared the air was to have Court Martialled - in the traditional (non-Byng) naval sense - those culpable. By not doing so, the RN a) surrendered the high ground and so huge amounts of authority to the civil service (and thence to the Cabinet Office, Spads and politicos) that has affected all three services adversely ever since and b) 'signaled' to everyone that the RN top brass was, indeed, covering up. It was also the cowardly PC thing to do. Of course the UK needs a Navy and all you say is right - but we need a navy of scope, size, vision, capacity and numbers (of ships and people). That is not what we have at the moment; nor is it where the RN is heading. Wish that it were. Finally, of course, the Services need to unite but they will not do so without heavy dollops of humble pie (at least with each other) and an honest appreciation of the current situation. My advice: seize the day; seize back HQ!!!

I couldn't agree with you more they should make the MOD insulated from party politics with its own fixed % of GDP Run by its own military and civilian personnel who should be outside of the civil service governed by political parties. Procurement should be based on quality than used as political tools for winning votes like the CVF program or Typhoon fighters . The winning of contracts on this basis just flushes money down the toilet i.e Type 45 Destroyer cost per ship about £1 billion pounds / Arliegh Burke cost £700 million pounds,future lynx helicoptors for 70 helicoptors £ 3 billion pounds which is an unbelieveable amount when 70 UH/MH 60 Blackhawks cost about £700 million where is the cost saving in this why did this government sell 3 type 23 Frigates costing over £500 pre 1997 prices for only £134 million pounds to Chile when the royal navy are having to send RFA and Ampihibious ships on anti Drug patrols in the Carribean and sending out the aircraft carriers to sea without its Aircraft (GR7/9)harriers because they can't send another european white elephant the GR tornados instead running these harriers into the ground the government use the old we have the longest stustained growth in the defence budget for ten years but £30 billion pounds in 1997 bought a hell of a lot more than £33.4 billion does now it says alot for the contemp this government this government shows for the military when they spend more on the national Debt interest than it gives for the defence of this country. I always thought the first priority of government is defence of the realm not defence of labour vote's for jobs

There are some good points made here about the attitudes of the Civil Service and government towards defence. However, the criticism of the RN is entirely mis-placed. Equipment shortfalls and problems have been caused by unexpected operational demands (we were clearly not equipped fully for current ops, a scale which was actually set out in the 1997 Strategic Defence Review). Instead of being funded from contingency funds the GBP2bn operating costs has led to a...2bn hole in the procurement budget. The Navy's systems of which the author is so critical will provide the fire/air support which he is crying out for (via CVF, also TLAMS and NGS). The Royal Marines have sustained disproportionate casualties in ops and the RN has put huge effort into providing air support and transport! Without the logistical support provided the Army would not be able to deploy anywhere. The author also fails to realise that maritime systems form the UK's conventional and nuclear deterrent are to some extent therefore NOT intended to be used! A consistent failure of understanding by the other services - the RAF most of all - politicians and the public alike is the central role in the UK's foreign policy and national strategy that the RN plays. It could easily be argued that ops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been extremely misguided and the UK should focus on a contribution to the maritime domain, a position in which it's national interests and security are truly at stake. One error mishandling the Iran incident does not require slurs on the professionalism or excellence of the RN and this kind of finger-pointing attitude (which certain members of the Army have been all to willing to do against both sister services) will not help the forces to win the Whitehall battles they must fight - and learn to fight better.

Yes!, the UK would be much better forming new ties with the new members of new Europe - in Rumsfeld's terms. The problem is two fold: first that multinational organisations make you legitimate; not necessarily effective. The second, which is linked, is that as one expands, the harder it becomes to make yourself effective. Effective means being deployable - not just acting as border guards. On that count, NATO Europe fails miserably and the Eastern members, although deploying, need a great deal of support (and dollars) to do so. NATO has for a long time needed to move towards a tiered organisation. That is politically unacceptable. But certain members should be able to join the top table - by percentage contribution in terms of boots on the ground and gold expended. On that basis, at the top table one would see the US, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK (France as it returns), Norway and Turkey (both not part of the EU) and (probably ) Poland. Since this will not be possible - NATO expansion has created NATO dilution in terms of effectiveness if not legitimacy.

In your article you refer to "the expansion (and therefore dilution) of Nato." I'd argue that the expansion of NATO brought in greater vitality and several members who are well aware of the need for a robust military, and whose professional military personnel are respected for their judgement and expertise. The addition of the Poles and the Romanians has not diluted either the military capacity or the political will to use force if needed to confront threats to collective security. If wise, the UK and others would forge strong cooperative ties with the new members' militaries and military traditions before they are emasculated by the Brussels bureacrats.

It is not only MOD that is unfit for purpose, but the entire civil service. We have more educational bureaucrats than teachers, and an NHS manager for every 4 hospital beds. A policeman must fill in 15 forms when he makes an arrest, and spends more time at his desk than out on the streets. The government simply doesn't know how to reverse this trend, so they spend a lot of money on management consultants to tell them; but they don't know either, or won't say because the repeat business is so lucrative. It's a disease of modern life. If you knew how to cure it, you would probably win the Nobel Prize for Economics.