Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Alright, I was at work listening to the radio today and there was a 4 hour debate.

Do we give the armed forces enough help when they leave the service?

Here is a link to the news night page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8781382.stm

Nobody is more pro armed forces than me, I did a half career in the RM. I did 6 tours and 10 years in a combat role. Not some pansy REMF unit like the engineers, signals, RLC, almost all of the Navy and the Airforce as a whole. I'm also stunned by the amount of sheer bs I hear when a serviceman is talking about his job "Yeah I was in the RLC but I was a sniper and I saw loads of dead babies and that" or "I joined the engineers but I'm a para-commando in the kung-fu regiment so I got PTSD"

Anyways..


For myself, after 10 years in, I came home from Afghanistan about 5 months before I was due to leave the service. I had 6 weeks RnR which I spent leathered in the USA, I then returned to 40 Commando in Taunton and had a full medical/dental check, and had a long chat with a doctor, who obviously asked me questions about my mental state as well, but signed me off when it was clear that war and death only made me stronger because I am a colossus that straddled the battlefield like a giant of old.

Following that, I attended a week long "adjustment course" which was basically practice for interviews, CV writing class, cover letter writing, a short computer course and such like. We were then presented with a range of courses you could do to help, such as short courses in welding, bricklaying, plumbing, rope access.. whatever it was you fancied getting into, you could also jack your own stuff up, and for example my mate was on the same course, and his wife kept horses and they had a stable, so he actually did equestrian dentistry!

I then had another 5 weeks off, before I went back to camp for one week to hand all my kit in, shake the CO's hand and get a nice letter off him for my CV. I then went on my merry way, but they still paid me for about.. I dunno ten weeks? I think my leaving date was April 22nd but I left the camp for good middle of February and received my last pay check at the end of April. Perhaps Its just the RM that take such good care of their men because of their fighting role, but is it really that different for the rest of the armed forces?

If it isnt, then what the hell are people complaining about, and what more do they want? A hand job off the secretary of defence?!

So.

Do you think the armed forces need more help? What help do you advise? Do you think that there is much more that can be realistically done?

I'm particularly after ex or serving military personnels opinions, but I'm curious as to what most people think.

In general, I think that there is a lot of froth and anger coming from people that really don't know what they are talking about. People obviously support the armed forces, because they are just young, working class lads who usually join for honourable reasons, but does that mean you should throw endless resources into the laps of people leaving?

Are you talking about your average well-to-do service member or injured/shell-shocked individuals that need more help here?

Personally, I fully support the goverment looking after people that take bullets for them for the following reasons:
1) It's healthy if you can secure them a career outside of the military, good for everyone really.
2) These guys got shot and watched their mates die for you, letting them have it easy for a while after their service sounds only fair.

What would you have done if you hadn't joined the Royal Marines?

Emp clearly we agree, of course we should help them, injured and able bodied alike.

My point is simply that both parties seem to be well catered for already. I disagree with the argument that the government is not providing the soldiers with acceptable assistance.

Medium, I would have been an architect or a paramedic. ;-)

I know a good number of guys who have came out of the military and couldn't hold down or ever get a job because they've served. A bit off topic a tad, but what they assume is the reason is that well their employer's don't really want to have people who have been trained to kill working for them (been watching a little too much Full Metal Jacket probably). Nonetheless who's going to take on a guy who's been dishonourably discharged for any number of reasons-desertion's a biggee. Meh, admittedly its a lot better than it was though- lot of Falkland's vets became junkies afterwards around here. =/

Sounds like Gulf War syndrome, which is a highly debatable 'disease' in some cases. Studies showed that people in close combat suffered from the same symptoms as members of the Canadian Navy who weren't in the same area and not exposed to anything like the in-combat groups were.

As far as help going out for ex-military I do believe in it, I know several people in and outside of my family who were injured during their service. My grandfather scraped up his left leg when he jumped into a foxhole filled with rocks during Korea and walks with a limp because it destroyed a lot of nerve endings there, my dad was on a ship during the gulf war when a wave hit it and he went down the ladder and busted his elbow. My friend's dad was in Vietnam and was hit with Agent Orange which messed him up, these compared to certain other ones like a guy who blew off his pinky toe in basic and got 100% compensation for it compared to my grandpa who gets around 50% means that we need to revamp the way we look at who needs more help among the military.

People in the Navy are surrounded by metal, which hurts if you hit it. Then you have the fact that the metal ship is moving and waves are also moving the ship back and forth and everything is tight and compact. Ladders are more like stairs that are angled at 70 some degrees which are made out of metal.

The injured seem to get poor treatment in particular. My best friend from school is infantry now and will do term in Afghanistan in about a year or so. The problem is that some people are becoming battle weary. We've been effectively on a war footing for 10 years and it's really putting a strain on the forces. People who lose body parts and have psycological damage aren't well looked after at all.

It's really quite shameful, my friend has been told he has to buy his own insurance to go into a combat zone. My understanding is that the Americans provide it. Again, my friend is not alone in spending £2-3K in replacement kit because the stuff supplied is sub standard and will probably increase his chances of needing to make a claim on that insurance he has to buy.

The other thing is that the armed forced is a very close knit environment and not a lot like the outside world. Some things are good, the discipline and efficiency. Ex-servicemen make among some of the best employees. But on the other hand, a lot of day-to-day activity is nothing like normal life and adjusting can be difficult if you've been in the army for a long time.

I think it depends on the person. I can't see that they can do a lot more for most people leaving the forces. But the provision for the injured is poor and the way they look after those actually in the forces seems lacking too.

Cool beans, perhaps it's the ones without another game plan that can't adjust when they leave?

Wait, that's what the RM in your username stands for? Royal Marines? I always thought it was your middle initial and surname! You being a marine is much more interesting.

mattyrm wrote: Medium, I would have been an architect or a paramedic. ;-)

You'd have been a rabble rouser out there rousing the rabble.

I've always been of the opinion that if only the people that actually needed assistance from the VA took it, there'd be plenty of money to take care of them.

It's the leeches that are the problem. I guess it's like any other government entitlement program, really.

It's possible that Marines are trained better and therefore are able to cope better when they come out. From what I picked up from my dad they appear to be more self sufficient than other forces. My dad came out and set up a window cleaning business and then expanded into a small cleaning business. I have a mate who was able to pack a bergen and day sack and move to Taiwan at the drop of a hat (was a arty commando who did the commando course).

Wolfstan wrote:It's possible that Marines are trained better and therefore are able to cope better when they come out.

Cope better with what? How to shop at the grocery store on a budget? Training on how to survive in rough environments and to efficiently dispatch your enemies doesn't translate that well to civilian day to day life. Some people readjust well, some do not. There is mounds and mounds of research dealing with the subject. In the US I know the Marines typically have the hardest time readjusting, statistically. The divorce rate is through the roof compared to other services as well as bar fights and things of that nature. Several of my Marine buddies have talked about how they hated civilian life for a good amount of time because they didn't see it as 'efficient' as Marine life. People wouldn't just do what they were told, there wasn't a clear focus on goals or a sense of homogeneity.

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:It's possible that Marines are trained better and therefore are able to cope better when they come out.

Cope better with what? How to shop at the grocery store on a budget? Training on how to survive in rough environments and to efficiently dispatch your enemies doesn't translate that well to civilian day to day life. Some people readjust well, some do not. There is mounds and mounds of research dealing with the subject. In the US I know the Marines typically have the hardest time readjusting, statistically. The divorce rate is through the roof compared to other services as well as bar fights and things of that nature. Several of my Marine buddies have talked about how they hated civilian life for a good amount of time because they didn't see it as 'efficient' as Marine life. People wouldn't just do what they were told, there wasn't a clear focus on goals or a sense of homogeneity.

From what I've and heard over the years the way US Marines are trained is fundamentally different to Royal Marines. It's likely the "gung ho" aspect has a lot to do with it. It's then a good fighting force, but possibly not great for civie life.

No, we in the USA don't treat our vets appropriately. Especially when it comes to treatment for Traumatic Brain Injuries, one of the most common maladys for returning soldiers.

And no, it's not because of the leeches.

The VA simply doesn't have:
1) Enough mental health facilities
2) Enough TBI specialists
3) An effecitve mechanism for getting Vets approved for care outside the VA. ( can take many months with few options if a request is turned down)
4) A timely or remotely efficient system for getting TBI diagnoses and treatment within the VA system.

Not to mention the lack of effective protocols for active duty soldiers when it comes to recognizing TBI's and getting treatment before a second TBI. Successive TBI's being exponentially worse than the first when it comes to cognitive damage and recovery time.

Too many of our boys (and girls) are getting TBI's and not getting diagnosed, and then coming home and not getting the treatment they need. They deserve much better.

Eilif wrote:And no, it's not because of the leeches.

Bro, I am a veteran and I know a lot of others, and I know people that work in the VA.

The entire problem isn't leeches, obviously, but they certainly contribute. It's simple math; the more money that the VA has to spend the less there is to go around.

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:It's possible that Marines are trained better and therefore are able to cope better when they come out.

Cope better with what? How to shop at the grocery store on a budget? Training on how to survive in rough environments and to efficiently dispatch your enemies doesn't translate that well to civilian day to day life.

On the contrary, I find that my ability to coordinate timely and accurate artillery fire helps me out when I...

No, you're right.

Indeed, the US VA bureaucracy is shamefully inadequate.

Monster Rain wrote:

Eilif wrote:And no, it's not because of the leeches.

Bro, I am a veteran and I know a lot of others, and I know people that work in the VA.

The entire problem isn't leeches, obviously, but they certainly contribute. It's simple math; the more money that the VA has to spend the less there is to go around.

Yeah MR has the right of it, I see the scrawny piss ant soldiers whinging on TV and, I can just tell when a guy is swinging it. Some are genuine, some most definitely aren't.

Hardly any RM or SF soldiers seem to struggle with it, its always some REMF who was so behind the front line he had to send his fething laundry forwards.

There most definately are loads of people taking the piss, and sucking resources away from those that genuinelly need it.

My brother is an ex-RM and he's really well adjusted. More so than when he went in, in some ways. He was a sniper in afghanistan and it didn't bother him at all. He went on to work in a call centre and get into management for a couple of years, and is now heading out to do some other work around Somalia.

I reckon certain people have the right mindset to be a soldier - Matty's posts on here remind me a lot of the sort of cheerful pragmatism my brother displays, as well as that sort of humour that RM mostly seem to have. From what my brother said, ex-bootnecks keep in touch too and look out for one and other.

Definitely, my brother doesn't feel hard done by. I guess with badly wounded veterans it's always going to be difficult. I doubt many people will be satisfied if they are badly wounded in a war, because the government will probably not pay to keep them completely looked after forever. However this is similar to any citizen who gets injured working for the state, I guess.

Heh. From my point of view it's strange because my brother was a soldier in a foreign military, fighting a war I don't really agree with at all. So I supported the troops, yeah, but totally disagreed with the war. I reckon that sort of opinion is not respected enough as it should, or even often misunderstood.

I would much rather support our armed forces over our politicians....

Slarg232 wrote:I would much rather support our armed forces over our politicians....

But would you support sending your politicians in place of the armed forces?

Give 'em a gun and send them over?

Da Boss wrote:Heh. From my point of view it's strange because my brother was a soldier in a foreign military, fighting a war I don't really agree with at all. So I supported the troops, yeah, but totally disagreed with the war. I reckon that sort of opinion is not respected enough as it should, or even often misunderstood.

For some, it can be hard to understand, and simply falls under "If you're not for the War, you're for the Other side".

I reckon if you're gonna declare war, you probably should have some stake in it. Not sure how that could be implemented though.

MrDwhitey wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I would much rather support our armed forces over our politicians....

But would you support sending your politicians in place of the armed forces?

Give 'em a gun and send them over?

Da Boss wrote:Heh. From my point of view it's strange because my brother was a soldier in a foreign military, fighting a war I don't really agree with at all. So I supported the troops, yeah, but totally disagreed with the war. I reckon that sort of opinion is not respected enough as it should, or even often misunderstood.

For some, it can be hard to understand, and simply falls under "If you're not for the War, you're for the Other side".

That's the position that most republicans took towards protesters of the invasion of Iraq...

Da Boss wrote:I reckon if you're gonna declare war, you probably should have some stake in it. Not sure how that could be implemented though.

National Service? Greatly increases the chance you're going to know someone involved, if nothing else.

Yeah. Something like that.

MrDwhitey wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I would much rather support our armed forces over our politicians....

But would you support sending your politicians in place of the armed forces?

Give 'em a gun and send them over?

Our 40-80 year old politicians? No.

Their sons and daughters being the first drafted/selected to go over during any "Skirmish" or war? Yes. I think we would have alot more political, peaceful responses if we did that.



But I don't know nothing, don't mind me.

Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.

Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.

I agree. But I would extend the potential service to working with the emergency services, and civic maintainance too.

Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.

I also would not be against this. The ONLY reason I haven't joined any of our military branches is because I love Mountain Dew too much, and it deteriorates muscles (ESPECIALLY four bottles a day......) and I really have no personal reason to go into one of them. But I am still thinking of going in, not sure yet.

htj wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.

I agree. But I would extend the potential service to working with the emergency services, and civic maintainance too.

Oh sure, it doesn't necessarily have to be military service.