Soldato
I agree 100% with everything in your post. What I don't understand is why you singled out individualism when what you appear to have meant was positive disruption in the way that a lot of successful companies actively employ people to challenge the quid-pro-quo. I totally agree that such people would not be welcomed in the UK Armed Forces, irrespective of how amazing they were. As you correctly point out, they have a (hopefully successful) way of doing things and while they want people to think outside the box, the box is VERY well defined and they don't want people going too far away.I agree
As you're confused about my meaning I'll try just one more time, anymore just gets in the way of the thread but just to be very clear - none of what "you've" said is even close to what "I've" said.
To try again, Recruit A (irrespective of race, colour, sex, gender age etc) during recruit training will be trained in the same way as every other recruit and they will be expected to carry out an order in exactly the same way as every other recruit - that is not diversity, nor is individualism - it is the military way to ensure an output of consistently trained recruits (irrespective of race, colour, sex, gender age etc). Once those people join their units, the unit (RAF, Army, Navy, RM etc) then indocrinates that person into the specific ways that their specific unit operates and they learn what their role within that unit will be and they train to carry out that role in exactly the same way that thousands of other people have done before them - again that is not diversity, nor is individualism - once that person is trained and experienced they can move to other units and the process starts again with them learning the same things in the same way that thousands of others have done before - once more that is not diversity, nor is individualism. This holds true whether your a lowly Army Private, whether you are a Navy Commander or an RAF Air Vice Marshal, at every point the training you go through as you advance through your military career, the way you are expected to carry-out your role is the same way it's been done by so many before you - that is not diversity, nor is individualism.
The Air Vice-Marshal is suggesting that simply making the RAF "diverse" (i.e. recruiting more women and more ethnic minorities) will improve it's capabilities yet it can't and it won't, because we train that diversity out of people from the instant they join, because we want a repeatable output when the input is the same. For example, when an Army JNCO mechanic is told to fix a tank then irrespective of race, colour, sex, gender age etc they will fix the tank the same way following a set procedure or when an RAF Admin Officer writes a report they will do so following the set procedure for writting that type of report, or if a Navy Captain in charge of an Aircraft Carrier is told to sail from Portsmouth to Gibralter, they will follow the same procedure which tells that what they need such supplies, routes, timings, notices to be given etc - that is not diversity, nor is individualism - everyone is just following a set of pre-written procedures, so how will "diversity" help in any of these situations - it can't, because every single member of the military, irrespective of race, colour, sex, gender age etc, still has to follow procedures, no-one is allowed to just "do what they want" or to say "hey, I'm from the Bangladesh community, I'm going to do things my own way", thats not how they military works as you should understand.
However, for certain units or personnel there will be some leeway to change things. Someone, for example, has to write the procedures and these are open to change based on operational experience (Afghan and Iraq are great recent examples of rapid procedural changes due to combat) but those who get to write/change procedures are a very limited set of people within the military, and they require a great deal of evidence to be presented before any changes occur.
Now, none of this takes away the individuals ability to make small-level day to day decisions such as "where to eat lunch, should we run 3 miles or 5 miles, should I start working on a repair job now or have a tea-break first" etc but when orders are given, processes and procedures take precedence so, for example, a Junior Army Infantry Officer will have some leeway when given the order "I want you to capture that ridge" but that very limited leeway is down to "which side to I want to attack from, where does the enemy look strongest/weakest" etc and not "I know the procedure written for a Ridge Line attack says attack where the enemy is weakest using overwhelming firepower and manoeuvre skills backed up with heavy support from other units, but as I'm a woman I know a better way" because when they do something outside of procedure, everyone dies and the attack fails - thats a military fact, those procedures are written in blood for a reason.
So again "diversity" would have zero effect because irrespective of race, colour, sex, gender age etc people are trained to do the same job in the same way time after time after time, and people who deviate from procedure are very heavily frowned upon, even if their idea is fantastic. What happens then is the idea is sent up the chain of command (following the procedure written for "I have a better idea") and if it's agreed then the procedures are changed and the better idea is now the new procedure - and that only happens very, very rarely outside of direct combat.
Anyway, thats far longer than I wanted to type, I think if thats still coming across as myself sayiing "the military only take loners" or "BAME can't work in the military" to you then we'll just have to agree to disagree as we seem to talking at cross purposes.
What I 100% do not want to get away from is my point that the UK Armed Forces as institutions are not racist or sexist and that BAME and people who don't identify as what would be described as CIS-Male get a fair shake of the stick at every opportunity. It's just a shame that they don't apply to discover that for themselves.
