E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Andrew Medichini / AP, file
Members of the British military rest on July 27 after working at London's ExCel Centre, days before the start of the 2012 Summer Olympics.
LONDON -- Britain's armed forces will take two years to recover from its deployment at the London 2012 Olympics, the country's chief military planner for the Games told a British newspaper.
Wing Commander Peter Daulby also told The Guardian that the need to send 18,000 troops to Olympic venues after security shortfalls by private contractor G4S proved that Britain "needs a military for more than war fighting."
He said that the deployment took troops away from normal duties and highlighted the danger of "pulling the military down."
The Olympics became the largest peacetime operation ever performed by Britain's armed forces after G4S could not supply all of the promised 10,400 guards for the two-week sporting festival.
'It will take two years to recover from this'
"We were originally planning to provide niche capabilities. When the requirement for venue security was doubled, that was a bit of a game changer," Daulby was quoted as saying in the Guardian on Tuesday.
"It will take two years to recover from this, to get back to normal, to get everything back into kilter. You can't expect them to go back to normal routine very easily," the newspaper quoted him as saying.
London 2012: Who were the real winners, losers?
Daulby said Britain's commitment to Afghanistan had not been affected by the Olympics but the military had exceeded by 6,000 the maximum number of people he thought the Ministry of Defense could supply.
With music and cheekiness, 'happy and glorious' Games close
"Anything above 18,000 and you start to shut down elements of defense," he was quoted as saying.
Just two weeks away from the Olympic Opening Ceremony, the British government has announced thousands of additional soldiers will be sent to provide security at game venues.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defense said the contribution to the Olympics had been planned to avoid an impact on current operations.
More coverage of the Olympics in London 2012: Hosting the Games
"While some individual training and leave may need to be rescheduled, this will be managed and will not impact on operations including the ongoing mission in Afghanistan," he told Reuters.
Peter Macdiarmid / Pool via Reuters
British Prime Minister David Cameron hands out brownies as he meets with soldiers from 5th Battalion, The Rifles, on security duty on Oct. 2 near his official Downing Street residence during the London 2012 Summer Olympics.
Analyst: An 'overstatement'
Valentina Soria, a research fellow in counter-terrorism and security at the Royal United Services Institute in London, told NBC News that Daulby's comments may have been an "overstatement."
More on this story on NBC News' UK partner ITV News
"The kind of day-to-day security required for the Olympics would have had an impact on the military personnel and the training of the armed forces, but I don't think it would take so much time for them to recover from the effort at the Games," she said.
"In any case, it was well-planned ahead of time and so it would not have been a complete surprise for the military," she said.
Olympic security plan transforms London into fortress
Soria added that Daulby's comments could also be understood in the context of the funding pressures faced by the British military and to demonstrate that the armed forces were needed for both defense and domestic security purposes.
Regular trained members of Britain's army will be cut to 82,000 from 102,000 by 2020 to save money.
/
Click for more from the 2012 summer games in London.
Defense chief: Military has been 'humanized'
British Defense Minister Philip Hammond said Tuesday that G4S's failure to provide enough guards showed that there were some things only state organizations, such the army, could be relied upon to do.
Complete international news coverage on NBCNews.com
Hammond, currently overseeing the largest overhaul of Britain's armed forces in a generation, said in an interview with The Independent newspaper that "the story of G4S and the military rescue is quite informative."
As the Olympics come to an end in London, there are the 2014 Sochi Games in Russia to look forward to. NBC's Jim Maceda reports.
Hammond also said that deploying troops in civilian venues would have a positive impact on the military's reputation within Britain.
"It has humanized the face of the armed forces. In Afghanistan the image is of people in helmets, and kit (equipment), and tooled up. But underneath all that are people you can enjoy a drink with in the pub or a bit of banter at the checkpoint," he told the newspaper.
NBC News' Daniel Strieff and Reuters contributed to this report.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Will world inaction help al-Qaida gain foothold in Syria?
- Analysis: Egypt's Morsi shows he's a force to be reckoned with
- Vatican says the 'butler did it,' orders trial
- Olympic heroes turn tourists as London 2012 end nears
- Mormon church brings in $7 billion a year from tithing
Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Generals always want more money.
All I get from this article is blah, blah, blah, these wankers worked 2 weeks for the public and it will take them 2 years to get back to being soldiers?
I think the point the General was making is that refreshment training events were missed by these troops, and it will take 2 years to bring them all back up to a fully trained status.
Whay was in those brownies?
I wonder how long it would take them to refit if they had actually been in combat?
Im sure the general is talking about everything, including the cost of transporting 18k soldiers, it isnt cheap..
G4S easily could have made the quota but they thought it would be cheaper doing this, instead of raising the pay rate or flying in foreigners. If this goes without a severe penalty, this could easily be quite common, with British Gov contractors..
Yep that's right spend 9 months being shot at & bombed, living in @!$%#e and then F__K up their leave. Betcha no senior officers were involved in the
"Olympic deployment"
What I see here is that it takes 18,000 MILITARY members to perform the task of 10,000 security guards. I wonder how many British soldiers it would take to secure a shopping mall.
HarryOinTex, probably about the same number as it takes here to secure one. Or to fight a wildfire. Or to respond to a natural calamity.
No wonder they needed Americans to save their lazy ass during WWII.
Read a few books on the British in WWII before making such comments so you dont make all us Americans look as dumb as you are.
pj795048----lazy ass? clearly you were not alive during ww11. and i guess you are not a student of history. england mounted a herculean offense against germany and the english cracked the german code allowing the allied forces to defeat them in the air and gound attacks. your insult is baseless.
I certainly was not alive during WWII. But where exactly British Soldiers beat Germans in WWII? The russians beat the Germans from east and the Americans finished the war from west. Are you saying that without codes in allied hands the Germans would've prevailed?
Isn't that nice? I've always wanted to put a friendly face on a gas mask, toddle down to the local pub and share a few laughs and shoulder thumps with a bunch of kids whose first job is learning how to kill me with a chop to the throat, elbow in the kidney or boot in the temple.
"Hey guys, where're you stationed? Hmm? What's that? Oh well, somewhere too difficult to pronounce, forget I asked. Who? Oh that's my sister. Hey! Get your hands off her. Who? That's my granny. Hey! Get your hands..."
News flash: Civilian crushes throat by falling against bar counter. Our brave men in uniform rushed to assist him but were too late. In other news. Girl missing.
Dear PJ-1795048
Before the first G.I. put boots on the ground in WWII, and when Stalin was having his ass handed to him by the german army, Churchill made a personnel change. He put MONTE in charge of north africa. Those lazy ass british troops kept Rommel at bay until the u.s. had a trained force large enough to land in africa.
I think you should study the British army after the invasion of Europe. Granted the U.S. army had over twice the man power shortly after the invasion, the U.S. took on 2 german armies and the british took on with no help fron the U.S., a very large and well trained army in the north of france and holland. They tore it up and spit it out. That is just a fact of history.
The only thing that I find myself doing is asking myself, why do I waste time responding to a fool.
@mike - just cut the crap. Tell me one thing - what would've happened if Russia and US didn't defeat Germany. Would you British asses saved yourselves?
Don't tell me about Africa. You had Indian army helping you there.
The Indian army wasn't in Africa - it was in the Far East/ Burma campaigns.
If Britain hasn't have held out for three years - as Germany attempted to starve us out -while America practiced appeasement (rather a lot of powerful Americans rather liked that Hitler-chap) the US would almost certainly have sued for peace and let the rest of the world rot.
I think you'll find there would have been a lot less loss of life if the US hadn't sat on its hands for so long.
(By the way, Roosevelt didn't like or trust Churchill but thought that nice Mr. Stalin was someone he could really trust and do business with so gave him favourable terms at the Yalta Conference: thus laying the foundations for the Iron Curtain and Cold War - just as Churchill predicted. Strange that.)
Our own forces are also going to have to be drawn down if we want to slow down our borrowing. Frankly since Ive been in the Navy the wages paid to military personal has ballooned, my Dad during the Korean war made less than $55 per month, I as a E-5 in the early 80's made $500 per month. Congress has made the keeping of large amounts of personal too expensive so we will have to reduce the personal drastically. The upside of a large draw down is we can keep the best and accept the best. I see a lot of folks who shouldnt be in the armed forces.
And, at about the same time as the Korean War, my parents bought a three-bedroom house for $8,500. Costs and wages rise. What your father earned isn't relevant. Also, there was a draft in place. The military didn't have to compete for its personnel.
I was also an E-5 in the 80's, I made alot more than $500 a month though it was quite low compared to what I made when I got out and to now.
I wonder how long it will take Obama to figure this out.
Figure what out? That we were lucky that NYC didn't get the Olympics?
Obama doesn't figure out anything unless his wife tells him what to do and when to do it.
Don't forget his brain was burned up on drugs so his thinking went with it.
That is why we pay all of henchmen to think for him.
When the Pentagon recommended cuts Paul Ryan told them that they didn't know what they were talking about.
Currently it's the Republicans fighting against cuts to the military budget
What the hell does Obama have to do with this story?? Any excuse to draw American politics into the conversation, huh? smh
So private contractors --
- Couldn't do the job they promised
- Couldn't do the job at the price they promised
- Wouldn't step up effort to fullfill obligations
- Begged on the Govt. and Taxpayers to bail them out to save the Olympics
=== Just like Romney's Olympics in Utah ===
Cost aside- I dont underswtnad why say 4 weeks working the Olymics will have s 2 YEAR impact ont he British forces...
When we have to watch Bob Costas, everybody loses.
So Romney was correct. Stupid Brits.
Actually he wasn't correct since they did pull it off.
Had the overpaid Private Business gotten its act together for the security aspect like they were handsomely paid for, there would have been no need for the British Forces to step in.
If anything that contradicts Romney's statement. He drew attention to a problem with the security aspect, yet it all went off without a hitch.
The military industrial complex never misses an opportunity to grub for more money. The bigger questions are why it will take that long and are the Brits that incompetent? Evidently the money that is already being spent on their military is money that is not well spent if they can't effectively redeploy after a 2 week, non-combat deployment.
So the government should extract the cost from the contractor for failing to do its job.
It's simple! Get the Government out of the Olympics business.
You realize they were only "in it" because the private operation failed to live up to performing the task it had gotten paid for?
All of this doesn't surprise me that is why Romney said what he said they bit off more than could chew and this is the end result sad but true.
Although the company couldn't deliver enough personnel (as if there is no unemployment in Great Britain), it still took 18,000 military personnel to do what a private company was going to do with 10,400. Those aren't British things, they are bums who prefer the dole and government inefficiency - universal characteristics.
LMAO...as IF some "Research Fellow" meaning a civilian with absolutely NO military experience and who has read a few books, and watched a lot has any direct knowledge of what goes on within the military other than what she has read or has been told..is given creditiablity.....Sort of like Obama being Commander in Chief and bowing to the wants and needs of his Chief Brown nosers who want to keep their expensive Planes and Boats but as England found out,,you need the ground pounders....And I believe it might take two years to catch up on their training etc, etc. having to reschedule everything...Goes to show how the comments of naive Researcher are given creditability over some who knows...Now that is felony stupid....
This makes them look so incompetent. A 2 week operation requires 2 years to recover? How long will it take for the troops in Afghanistan to recover? 100? Several life times? No wonder England haven't won many wars without the aid of others with leaders like that.
History not one of your strong points? Britain was winning wars before the USA existed.
I guess you don't understand the concept of unbudgeted expenses? I guess you have failed to read the whinings of our own troops or states having to deploy their National Guard after having to get involved in issues like that?
I particularly admired the US victory in Vietnam during the 60s and 70s. Sorry - couldn't resist.
The reality of this article is it's all down to domestic politics, jockeying for position, protecting the armed forces from spending cuts, being played out through the pages of the national daily newspapers.
Another reality of the article is that the newspaper in question is centre-left who use any excuse to attack the current Government which is centre-right to right wing.
Context is quite important.
Two years is overstated; these soldiers can be back at their units and training next week; and in six months be ready to deploy. What will take a hit is the RA budget.
Obama should go live in the UK where socialism is a wanted disease! no toher country has had to call out the military for the Olympics! it would be intolerable here in the USA, where no Olympic ever had military called up or out! sounds like the generals are trying to set the table for MORE money, which is what they always do! the civilian work was not unlike military, so they were getting ON the Job training as they worked, all they have to do is go back to sitting in the barracks! that takes 2 years? they are not fighting a war, they withdrew and ran home. You cannot count on the Brits or the French for much of anything when it comes to the military, except pomp and circumstance. Everyone wants the USA to do the heavy lifting.
You don't seem to comprehend what happened. In simple terms, the army was called out on short notice since the private sector contractor failed to deliver as agreed. It will now take 2 years for the Army to recover financially. Clear?
A pretty pathetic military if 2 weeks off requires 2 years to recover. What happens when soldiers go on leave?
Just try to imagine what it would have cost to put on a 2016 Olympic event in Chicago? Whatever the British spent triple it and it might be close. It is time the Olympic purists look for permanent locations and spare everyone the penalty their desire costs. I think they are stretching the viewer totals they reported, 210 million world wide. From reports, few vendors made money it seems in London and the other sites.
it is way past time to shrink the Olympics... too many sports that do not need the venue (tennis, golf, etc)
I see the Brits. play the same military industrial complex game we play here in the U. S.
Let try to scare our people so we can get more money to waste on trumped up threats.
Actually Dave - we're a US military family working in the UK. We see firsthand the draw down of the British troops here to cut costs. They call it being made redundant. They won't accept a relocated military member unless there is a need for them at that particular location because they are so conscious of cutting costs.
In other words, Mitt Romney's assessment was correct: The London Olympics was NOT adequately prepared.
You Yanks need to check the facts, G4S had the $50 million contract for security, but like many companies they tried to provide a service by only paying minimum wage to perspective employees and take the maximum profit, this failed to recruit enough staff to make the required numbers up. G4S only made this public two weeks prior to the start of the games, hence the Armed Forces were called on to provide the required security duties and a fine job they did! Many of them will now be either heading to Afghanistan or being made unemployed.
As for Mitt the twit his best part played in London2012 was the walk up the plane steps on his way of to Poland, let's hope he never sees the inside of Air Force One!
Thanks K Morgan. Mitt the Twitt, I love it.
From Mitt's recent trip I think he has shown that he is a poor world leader who really just wants to play the part of a politician. Tall good, good looking, nice hair. Too bad he is required to open his mouth to insert his foot everywhere he goes.
You people are missing the point. They're trying to sell us on domestic deployment of our military. There's been tank and armored car "training" in cities all over. Wake up.
Dave, you beat me too it.
The Brits have the 4th largest Military budget in the world. I'm sure they have most of the same weapons peddlers that we have.
Russia could take over Europe in a week, their military is a joke, course France would surrender first. Europe has nothing to worry about though, nobody wants it!
Russian has trouble feeding their own people. Why would they want to take over the rest of Europe?
Peter Daulby should be made a ward of the state and institutionalized for making such an absurd remark. The Brit military will take 2 years to re-coup from Olympic duty ? What a bloody wanker.
First, clearly this so-called military planner has a not very well hidden agenda behind his ridiculous comment -- getting more funding for training, etc.
Second, there is absolutely nothing about this situation that supports Romney's comments that the Brits weren't ready. From all reports, they pulled off a flawless effort from day one of the Olympics to the end. A problem occurred with the private contractor coming up short but the problem was solved and solved quickly. To make the type of comments Romney did shortly after setting foot in the country (i.e., not having had time to tour venues or talk with British Olympic officials) was foolhardy and ridiculous and certainly does not exhibit any diplomatic skills or even the wisdom/ability to keep your mouth shut when you haven't had time to study the situation.