Problems in the supply of personnel in the armies of the world

When I was an attaché, I had a subscription to many international military magazines. After I returned to Turkey, most of these magazines sent me e-mails to renew my address, and I renewed my address. The magazines came to my house in Ankara for a while, but during the period of the conspiracy, I had to change my address again. In the meantime, I was busy with other work, so I could not send my new address to all the magazines.

Nevertheless, some magazine officials contacted me and received my new address. These magazines used to mail me almost every issue until recently. However, I think due to economic difficulties, one by one all journals started to send their issues to my e-mail as soft (pdf) rather than hard copy. Eventually, all journals started to use this method.

For this reason, when I switch on my computer, I often browse the articles in these journals. In the articles I read, there are some important points that attract my attention from time to time. For example, a few days ago, while I was browsing through the magazines, I was intrigued by an article stating that in 2010 the USA made changes in the programme it had prepared to train future officers and non-commissioned officers.

Most of the courses and trainings in the 2010 plan, which envisaged that military personnel would be trained in every rank and duty after military schools according to the requirements of that rank and duty within the scope of lifelong education, were cancelled. As far as I understand, these cancellations were not made due to economic cost. The reason was not explained.

It is possible that these courses and trainings, some of which were conducted in the form of distance education, were considered to be far from meeting the needs of the new understanding of warfare. Another possibility is that the US army, which has bases in many parts of the world, may have problems arising from the inability to fill the existing cadres like other European countries.

To illustrate this with the example of the UK, the British land army had around 110-120 thousand personnel between 2008 and 2010, but the British army could hardly fill even 100 thousand personnel. It was understood that the British army's participation in military operations in difficult geographical conditions such as Iraq and Afghanistan, while the level of prosperity increased rapidly after the Cold War, had a significant impact on this.  

This not only led to fewer people wanting to join the army, but also to some of those who were already in the army leaving at the end of their contracts. Some of the British officers I spoke to made it clear that this was the case.

When I came across British officers who had left the army working in cafes or as barmen, I would ask them why they had left the army. The answer was always the same: "It is too risky to work in the army now. The possibility of death or injury is high. Living conditions in places like Afghanistan are also very difficult. Yes, I earn less money in a pub or café, but there is no risk. It's not as hard as working in the army. If I was in the army, I'd probably be in Afghanistan or Iraq now, but I'm in London."

This was a situation that the British military leadership worked on with great sensitivity. The British tried many methods to overcome this problem. They published advertisements and promotions in magazines published on behalf of the army. They told young people about the career opportunities of military service. They even made legal arrangements so that homosexuals, those with anxiety disorders, those with a history of drug abuse and those with tattoos, who were previously forbidden to join the army, could also join the army. But it didn't work.

The Americans are probably facing the same problems. Therefore, they must have cancelled many of the courses that led to large numbers of personnel leaving their posts in order to keep existing personnel in their posts for longer. Presumably, they plan to have personnel learn the necessary experience on the continents in a master-apprentice fashion.

However, I do not think that such measures will work very well, because the number of people willing to join the army is decreasing day by day. For this reason, army cadres cannot be filled.

The root of this problem lies in the fact that after the Cold War, most countries abolished compulsory military service and switched to professional military service. The Russian army and even the Turkish army have now filled most of their army cadres (at least the cadres of the units used in conflict zones) with such professional soldiers.

This is allegedly done in order to improve the quality of the army's personnel and to have more trained soldiers. In practice, however, the opposite situation has emerged. Whereas in the past, every segment of the society used to join the military, now people who have not been able to find a job anywhere, have a low level of education and, in layman's terms, are choosing the military profession.

Moreover, since officers and non-commissioned officers are no longer respected in the society, the number of people who want to enter military schools has also decreased. For this reason, people with lower educational and training achievements enter military schools. This reduces the number of qualified personnel in the armies. Moreover, cadres cannot be filled.

Professional military service creates other problems for armies. Not only the number of troops serving with full staff in conflict zones is decreasing, but also the personnel problems of the troops are increasing. This is because, while in the past, soldiers who went on all kinds of missions with compulsory military service were demobilised after completing their military service and replaced by new soldiers, now professional soldiers have to serve in conflict zones for years. This situation causes many problems, including psychological problems. As a result, the will and determination of the armies to fight is rapidly decreasing.

The negative consequences of these developments were clearly visible during the Russian-Ukrainian war. Before the outbreak of the war, hundreds of thousands or even millions of Russians and Ukrainians of military age left their countries to avoid military service. This means that most young people in these two countries do not want to fight for their country.

The images of Russian soldiers from the battlefield reflected in the press and social media showed how bad the Russian army was in terms of quality. Tanks and armoured vehicles abandoned on the roads with their personnel, soldiers starving and looting shops due to poor logistic planning stunned the whole world.

All this clearly shows that armies are forced to operate with both understaffed and underperforming units. In addition, the burden on the national budget and the casualties caused by professional soldiers are now causing a greater reaction than in the past.

Worse still, personnel who join the army for the sake of earning a living often do not fight with enough conviction. Since the quality of the personnel is quite low, the number of personnel with personality weaknesses is increasing. Indeed, some soldiers are involved in crimes such as human trafficking, arms smuggling, looting and even drug trafficking.

This situation is not likely to improve in any way. In most countries, those in power cannot afford to risk public pressure and reintroduce compulsory military service. Instead, the use of private companies in areas where armies are insufficient is being used, a method that has historically had many drawbacks.

The bad consequences of this have been seen almost everywhere such companies have been used. In Iraq, for example, there have been newspaper reports of US private military company personnel committing war crimes and looting. In Russia it was even worse. A Russian private military company attempted a coup against the government.

As all of this shows, changing existing systems immediately with unrealistic expectations can have irreparable consequences. In particular, changes to be made in the army, which is the main element that will defend the country against external enemies, should be made much more thoughtfully. Because war often comes knocking unannounced, and if you don't have a well-trained, well-equipped and strong enough army when you open the door, your country will suffer greatly.

Therefore, it is not good to play with the army. But unfortunately, our army has also been turned upside down since 2008 for the power struggle of the government, sects and communities and for the interests of their own organisations. The country's oldest institution has been weakened and removed from its structure, which has been built up over more than two thousand years of experience. What centre-right governments have always done because of the fear of coup d'état syndrome, and what this government has taken to the next level, has made things even worse.

In Özal's time, the police was considered as an alternative to the army and was equipped with heavy weapons and even military helicopters and the number of personnel was greatly increased. After the 15 July coup, the gendarmerie was also detached from the army. In the past, gendarmerie officers, who were trained not only as gendarmerie officers but also as infantry platoon commanders after studying at the Military Academy, were also equipped with the knowledge to serve in a conventional warfare.

In addition, some officers from the gendarmerie organisation were selected to attend the Land Warfare Academy through an exam and formed the staff cadre trained for the gendarmerie organisation. Now the gendarmerie school is a separate school. I do not know much about the school, but I hear that they only receive public order and internal security training. This information would not be sufficient to utilise the gendarmerie forces in a possible war. Moreover, gendarmerie officers are no longer sent to the academy.

On the other hand, so many gendarmerie commando or JÖH units have been established that the number of gendarmerie personnel has almost exceeded the number of personnel of the Land Forces Command. This clearly has a political purpose, but my aim is not to get into political issues. What I want to warn is that the defence of the country is more important than securing the power of a political party.

You can build a building in a week, but you cannot strengthen an army in a week. The army must always be strong enough and ready for war. "But we built UCAVs, we did this, we did that. The army used to be stronger." does not change the facts. It is the people who make the war. If you do not keep the number of trained personnel in your army and the qualifications of these personnel at a level that can defend the country under all circumstances, you will face great disasters when war breaks out.

Some may think that wars are now won thanks to technology. However, this is an incomplete and even completely wrong idea. Of course, technology is important, but personnel is more important. Because recently, almost all wars are fought in residential neighbourhoods, forested areas, mountains, tunnels or deserts.

Battles take place in the form of low-intensity conflict, unorganised warfare, etc. rather than conventional warfare. Such battles require the use of much more soldiers than in the past. Moreover, these soldiers have to be more qualified and better trained than before. I am telling you this.