,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD. A response to yet another old and bold blustering about the new generation and new Army. telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/0…
When I answer the telephone - like most human beings - I say ‘Hello’. I don’t expect my soldiers to answer every call they ever receive with ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am’. To place this expectation on soldiers is frankly Victorian.
Gender neutral terms are part of a cultural shift, in society as well as the military. You can be the oil or the grit in this process. I’m not sure how you make the causational link between language and operational effectiveness?
With the inclusion of women into all roles in the Army it’s already a bit crass to refer to a collective group in a singular way like ‘chaps’ or ‘gentlemen’ because the odds are - they’re not all of one gender!!!!!
Good leadership is about inclusion but also the environment you want to set up. You can tell a lot about an organisation by how it refers to its people. Terms like “manpower” “liability” are a strange way to talk about our people - who are anything else but mere liability.
“You can’t have both” is insulting. It implies that unless you’re male and in the Tim Collins view of what a soldier is - you can’t hope to be effective. Which is complete rubbish. We thrive on diversity. That doesn’t mean gender, orientation or labels. It means we’re open to all
Tim Collins goes on to boldly state that ‘this woman’ clearly has no idea about the realities on warfare or conflict - clearly listing his campaigns (now over a decade ago). We’ve had some pretty tough challenges since Sierra Leone, N Ireland and the invasion of Iraq.
Those challenges have been far more sophisticated, far more deadly, demanded far more endurance, patience, innovation and sheer determination. But tell me again Tim Collins about these two limited and finite experiences compared to a decade of persistent conflict.
We didn’t address the challenges of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, ISIS with sheer intimidation and brute force. We used nuance, guile, partners across government, host nation forces, industry, intelligence, contractors - all of which is about as diverse as you can get.
The whole piece reads like a poorly thought out, inconsistent, flawed rant. Tom Collins should look in the mirror and ask of these thoughts, presented in this way, reflect well on his rank, intellect and experience.
Tim Collins. Demonstrate the causational link between language and operational effectiveness. Demonstrate that a mixed gender & background unit is less effective than what you propose. Demonstrate where your recruiting strategy from the 90s and 2000s would be effective now.
The quote used at the end refers to the size of the Army. That’s a worthy debate. But it has nothing to do with who we want in the Army and the strength that comes from diversity. I prefer to listen to leaders that had the courage, commitment and selflessness to stay.
Take a look at the life lessons from @Martin_Dempsey through #RadicalInclusion listen to champions like @SEAC_Defence You implore is not to ‘day dream of a better world’. And we don’t.
The serving generation don’t ‘daydream of a better world’ or Army. We deal in the harsh realities of trying to deliver a safer one. The best way to do that is not settle for a ‘type’ or a mould. Our complex world demands diversity of thought not a return to what we were.
