|low graphics version | feedback | help|
|You are in: Talking Point|
Wednesday, 3 January, 2001, 12:25 GMT
Should the disabled be able to join the military?
Britain's most senior military officer has attacked proposals for disabled people to be allowed to join the armed forces.Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie said that disabled people had no right to serve in the armed forces, adding that the idea showed a lack of awareness of military issues.
The general said that he welcomed women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities in the army, but "drew the line" at disabled people.
Is he right? Is it a job too far? Is there a place in the military for the disabled?
Some jobs are surely possible during peace time. There may even be circumstances where disablement increases the suitability for a particular post. It is also a morale booster to accustom soldiers to possible disablement, and to show that disablement is not the end of the road. However, fighting strength may be compromised if for example, extra resources are required to support disabled staff during times of hardship. This idea should not be dismissed once and for all. There are definitely pros and cons that I can see.
I just hope that all the armchair critics and politically motivated politicians have the wisdom to accept advice from those who have real experience. Otherwise they could be putting the security of our country at risk and that thy have no mandate to do. This opinion does not in any way mean I am anti-disabled. I have nothing but the healthiest respect for them. I am not fit enough myself to join the army (and how many of us are?), but I don't feel undermined by that.
Annie, Dubai/Br ex-pat
We all cheered when Steve Redgrave won gold for the UK. His diabetes would disqualify him from the army. He is fitter and healthier than many serving members of the armed forces.
Let us not confuse disability with inability
Tony of the USA, FDR was president of the United States. The president holds the title of commander-in-chief, that does not make him a soldier. FDR did not carry a weapon, he did not land on a beach, he did not kill someone! He had the full force of the American government working for him. When I was in Vietnam many times I cried because I was wondering where was the full force of the American government that was going to save me and my buddies in some stinking jungle. If you people that have never served in a war zone suggest that someone in a wheelchair should serve active duty you are very uninformed.
At the present time, when the services are medically discharging serving men and women for injuries sustained whilst on duty; how can we then employ disabled personnel within an organisation they do not know, or understand. Only fellow military personnel know how unique the environment really is.
I do not wish to appear dispassionate, however this "discussion" is futile and should never have come to light.
Guy Cooper, Canada (ex-UK)
I have always wanted to be a part of the armed forces and joined the TA's when I was able to. Now I am disabled but I still feel I have a lot to offer the Armed Services. I cannot be part of the ARMED forces but I can offer my mental capabilities in the field of computing, working in the background, freeing up a valuable pair of hands, doing the so-called boring office work which most people would refuse to do.
As a soldier who has recently left the Army, I think that disabled people have no right or place to be in the military. Every soldier regardless of how 'active' his job must undergo rigorous infantry training before learning his trade skills. Disabled people would clearly be unable to complete this training and would end up being a liability to units. A soldier's lot can be a high stress environment in which each one relies on others around him - there is no place for a 'weak link' in the chain. If disabled people want to serve their country they should join the MOD Civil Service. That way, they will be serving their country and be able to work in a military unit without affecting its operational effectiveness.
Is not the face of modern warfare changing. No longer do we send hoards of soldiers "over the top". Modern warfare with all its computers and technology is just as suitable to the abled as it is to the disabled. As long as they have a finger that can push the "launch missile" button they'll be more than qualified.
W Richmond-Pickering, Esq, UK
At first I thought this question was a joke, but when I had time to think about it, I realised that it makes sense to use people with certain disabilities in clerical positions, therefore freeing other more able bodied military personnel to participate in active duty.
Every "desk job" builds upon experience gained in a field job. Can a disabled person attend and graduate from the rigorous Combined Arms Schools and Speciality Schools, serve as a platoon leader in garrison and the field, deploy on a moment's notice, serve in unaccompanied, medically remote billets in the world's least desirable environments, and not endanger himself or others?
If disabled people are qualified and are able to handle the job at hand, why deprive them of a chance to serve for Queen and country. Not only this would help raise the level of confidence among disabled people in general, this will also help in removing the public stigma that attaches to these unfortunate souls that they are incapable and useless.
Anyone joining the military knows that they must be prepared to fight and kill an enemy on a personal level. This is an exhausting physical and mental challenge.
The military sets up appropriate medical examinations to ensure that all applicants are able to do the job. If you pass, you are in - if not you are out. Simple.
Chris Thompson, UK
One assumes that the "disabled" soldier would have to be paid at the same rate as an "able" soldier. But would not be expected to serve on the frontline where you can get shot at, shelled, gassed and all the other goodies. Bit discriminatory that, init! I await the wheelchair ramps being fitted to my tank.
I spent 14 years in the Royal Navy, doing a variety of different jobs. One, instructing, I could just about have done from a wheel-chair, the rest required full fitness. Reading these comments brings home the fact that few people now have had any connection with the armed forces. Not surprising, therefore, that they have little knowledge of what the military life entails.
Adam Nayyar, Pakistan/USA
I cannot see any harm in the disabled being allowed into the armed forces as long as it was in a non combatant role. But what does disabled actually mean? There are obvious cases such as those in wheelchairs, or the blind, but what about asthmatics? Surely it would be quite all right for people with such minor and easily controlled disabilities to have a role in the armed forces. Therefore each case should judged upon its own merits.
Amanda Bradley, Washington, USA
Individual Members of the Armed Forces should mirror the society they are sworn to protect and defend. They include ethnic minorities, non-residents, gays, women and people with disabilities. Just remember that President Delano Roosevelt, an American with a disability (Polio), was Commander-in-Chief of the US Military during World War II. The disability did not prevent him from making critical decisions at Yalta often flying within the theatre of war.
Rob Anderson, UK
My son was devastated when he was turned down for the Army and Royal Air Force because he has a hearing problem. He was told, quite rightly, that under pressure it was possible that he might not hear a command/order. If this was a good enough reason to turn down an otherwise very fit young man then how on earth can a "disabled" person expect to be admitted. PC and the so called equality campaigners are simply taking their cause many steps too far. Utter rubbish. At this rate this country will be a bigger laughing stock to the rest of the world than it already is, and that's not difficult.
The purpose of disability legislation is to assure civil rights protections to qualified people with disabilities. I stress the word QUALIFIED. It should be up to the military to determine what the standard means.
To not do this will create absurd scenarios in which the military could reject a person who they considerto be a "weak" candidate, but is forced to consider a person who is legally disabled.
I think there has been too much discussion based on sweeping generalisations. What kinds of disabilities are we talking about? What kinds of positions? I think that if we were to talk a little more in specifics, both sides of the debate would soften their positions a little.
It is all very well saying that in a modern armed forces, such as the UK's, there are plenty of desk jobs and back room jobs available to people with disabilities, but these people often make key decisions, drawing from their experiences of soldiering earlier in the life. To fill desk jobs with people without the experience with hugely reduce to armed forces ability to operate to the high standards it does today.
A lot of the comments made on this website show a profound ignorance of what disability means and the contribution made to society by the disabled. Whilst accepting that certain disabilities would prohibit an individual from certain tasks I do believe that to simply bar the disabled in total is discriminatory and depicts an uncaring and ignorant society.
The keywords used in this debate, "disabled", "banned", "not suitable", will always cause controversy. However the fact remains that to serve in the armed forces you have to meet a set standard, whether physical or mental. This is imperative as the role has a huge element of risk, not only to the individual but also to his/her peers.
Absolutely not! I'm an expat, ex-RAF man and as much as I sympathise with those who are disabled, the armed forces is simply not the place for them. Service life requires mobility, working unsociable hours and the sharing of sometimes tiring and unpleasant duties. This is why of course, that the upper age limit (for the most part) was set at 55. In addition, in the event of a national crisis, every one has to be capable of bearing arms. Whilst superficially the idea might seem a charitable one, it would prove to be a serious handicap to everyone else. Ironically, I recently read that the recruit drop-out rate (for all sorts of reasons) has become worse and the MoD are most concerned.
Surely the only relevant question is "Can this person perform the duties required, to a high enough standard?" If they can't, for whatever reason, then no they should not be accepted. If they can, then it's irrelevant whether they are male or female, young or old, gay or straight, disabled or not. Why do we insist on trying to exclude entire groups from society just because they don't match our ideal of what a human should be?
A bit of common sense would seem useful. The armed forces have a lot of non-military roles that could easily be done by people not able to undertake combat duties. Also on another note the SAS keep on all their disabled soldiers and find roles for them. They see it as good for moral and as a way of keeping experience within the unit and thus to benefit of others.
Am I missing the point? Has anyone actually suggested placing "disabled" people in a combat zone? Surely there must be a measure of common sense applied to the whole issue, for instance there must surely be vacancies in the logistical 'tail' particularly on the "home-front" where people who have some form of disability could perform in precisely the same position as an able bodied person. If a person is willing to serve their country, surely that patriotism should be respected and not rejected out of hand.
In response to 'Carlos' from USA. War is not conducted from behind a PC screen. British and American infantry attacked on foot with shoulder arms and bayonets as recently as the Gulf conflict. I think it ridiculous to allow disabled people to serve in the forces as every recruit is expected to be able to fight if needed, ever heard the expression 'Ready, willing and able'? This really is political correctness gone barmy and I fully support the Defence Staff on their comments.
S. Fox, UK
The armed forces should have the right to make the final decision as to what criteria they use to determine who joins; providing the efficiency of the fighting forces is the prime consideration. There is really no room for square pegs when the life of everyone is on the line. Fighting wars is, at times, a desperate and bloody business where the survival of each depends on the ability, skill and courage of the other.
I was invalided out of the Army six years ago and I would be of no use there now due to my disability. The training alone is both very physically and mentally demanding and I'm afraid that, personally, if I decided to fight to join up, I would be nothing but a liability.
Douglas Bader and Nelson were both injured carrying out their duties and were senior enough to have an ongoing use, although I seem to remember Bader met with extreme resistance when he wanted to fly again, despite the RAF being desperate for pilots. I agree with General Guthrie when he says that the ethos of service and duty is not well understood and we should let the experts get on with it. It is a hard enough job as it is.
I am in the USAF stationed in Oxon. Everyone, from an administrative person to a fighter pilot, needs to be ready to fight in battle at any given moment. Maybe I am slightly biased being in the military, but I don't understand why this is even being considered. We are not being discriminatory. We are simply maintaining the most physically capable personnel we can.
If special jobs can be found for disabled people in the military then shouldn't they also allow people to join up to age 65? After all, there must be desk jobs that older people can perform.
There are so many able-bodied people who are not up to the physical demands of the armed forces that I cannot see how our over-stretched forces could possibly cater for the disabled. The MOD does not discriminate against the disabled but the armed forces must, for the sake of security. As far as I know it is a basic requirement for all the Armed Forces personnel to be able to go into combat. Could a disabled person do this without putting lives at risk?
Having recently left the forces after 22 years I have found the quality of today's soldier to be very poor and to dilute whatever quality there remains with the recruitment of disabled personnel would be the final nail in the coffin of this country's armed forces. God help us if we have to go to war in the near future.
You have to be very ignorant to make such statement. I have a friend with "disabilities" who has worked in the U.S. military for 10 years at least. In a world where the military kill using computer technology, I don't see how people with "disabilities" can be excluded. My question is why should they be willing to serve in the military.
The point is that there are disabled people in the armed forces doing tasks commensurate with their skills. These are people who have been injured on active duty. If there are jobs that these can do why then impose a blanket ban on disabled people. Nobody is suggesting that they should be ready for the front line, but many of the puffed-up generals probably aren't ready either.
I think that General Sir Charles Guthrie, while not coming across as politically correct in this day and age, is right on the mark! There are plenty of civilian jobs in the Armed Forces that could benefit from the talents and skills of disabled workers.
Rebecca Southwell, UK
So they're going to let blind people fly planes? How cool is that?
Disabled people should and I believe are allowed to work for the Army. However actually admitting them into the Forces is a completely different story. Logistically it would be a nightmare and impracticable in a fast moving combat situation. Also where would the money for extra costs come from?
If a war breaks out and it's a disabled person that saves my life, I really am not going to care either way.
I have nothing against the disabled in the army as long as the person in question is fit for the job.
What else could be meant by this suggestion?
Keith Lomax, UK
As much as we must ensure that the disabled have all of the rights of a citizen, I do think that it would be detrimental to the forces to employ disabled people. Today's forces are much smaller than they were a few years ago, and there are no 'hiding places' for those that cannot carry out the full range of duties.
Every member of a professional army needs to be able to fight in battle, at the very least every member will have to go on operational tours. The army is stretched enough without having to specifically cater for disabled people in an operational environment. We have to remember that the army is there to protect our society and the more PC it becomes the greater difficulty it has in fulfilling that capacity.
Colin Jones, UK
Do the Navy and RAF share the General's views
Has the world gone mad? Of course disabled people can't join the army. Combat demands physical perfection and in a dangerous situation, having to make special concessions for the sake of political correctness will endanger lives and affect the performance.
Pete B, UK
Of course "disabled" people have no place in the military. Military effectiveness cannot be undermined by the requirements of the PC liberal elite. What next - blind pilots?
This is do-good attitiude is going one step too far. The armed forces are there to perform very specific tasks, most often under very physical conditions. It seems we are no longer allowed to say it without being branded a bigot/racist/sexist/ageist etc but there are differences between people and some people are unable to perform certain tasks. The sooner we get that through to people the sooner we can actually move forward and find real equality of opportunity.
Thankfully, it is now easier for the disabled to work in many areas in which they are at no material disadvantage to anyone else.
This is so obviously not true in the case of professional soldiering, I'm astonished the suggestion is taken seriously by anyone.
Surely it is simply a case of whether they can do the job or not? I see no good reason why there should be a blanket ban on people with disabilities. If their disability does not prevent them from doing a good job, then they should be allowed to work there, just like anyone else.
20 Dec 00 | UK
General rejects disability plan
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Other Talking Points:
Links to more Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy