How CAN our chubby, drug-addled and right- on Army protect us from our enemies?

NOT too long ago, the British military was regarded, with some justification, as one of the most effective, battle-ready and fittest fighting forces in the world. Today it is t hreadbare, illequipped and undermanned. It can’t recruit soldiers, sailors or airmen. And those who do manage to find their way through the painfully slow recruitment process are often in terrible physical shape.

As The Mail on Sunday reported last week, all three Services face a crisis of fitness and obesity. An extraordinary 17,602 members of the Army, Navy and Air Force have a body mass index of more than 30, the official measure for obesity. In the Army’s case, it is more than 11 per cent of its personnel. This is a disgraceful situation. So will the offenders be drummed out? Have they been given extra physical training to help them get into shape, or even a few choice words to chew over and digest? I very much doubt it – because in today’s world, the Army is a ‘nonjudgmental’ and supportive organisation.

Instead of imposing stricter discipline, it has put 96 soldiers on diet pills, while eight have been given liposuction. This lame official response tells you all you need to know: the British Army has been infected with the crippling disease of political correctness.

Where once it was a force to be feared and respected, it now prides itself on being liberal, welcoming and all-inclusive. And for this, its senior commanders expect diversity awards, official pats on the back and knighthoods.

At least the secret is now out: our Armed Forces are a shambles.

Of course, I accept that the British Army is constrained by the society it serves, and long has been. Our current predicament has echoes of the recruitment crisis during the second Boer War, when malnutrition was a factor in preventing many willing men joining up.

THE fact is that today’s young people are overweight and unfit thanks to less active lifestyles and an epidemic of junk food. Rampant drug taking is another feature of modern life contributing both to discipline problems in the Forces and to a serious recruitment crisis. Who but our most bitter enemy would not have winced when this paper revealed earlier this month that soldiers discharged for drugs offences were receiving tens of thousands of pounds as ‘golden hellos’ for rejoining?

It was only thanks to the adverse publicity that Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson was persuaded to order a quick about-turn and an end to the practice.

It is not the fault of our Forces that they are chronically undermanned or that recruitment has now been handed over to a private firm, Capita, which has reached record standards of ineffectiveness. A recruitment process that took 90 days now takes 380.

Nor can we blame the military for inventing the corrosive political correctness and identity politics that, in wider society, are proving so disruptive.

Yet when the drive to promote gender issues and the celebration of diverse sexuality comes at the expense of military effectiveness – and this is now the case – something has to change and urgently.

First, the military leadership must shoulder its share of blame for this disastrous situation and take responsibility for its remedy. So far, there has been a whiff of cowardice in the air.

I can reveal that an Army ‘guid- ance note’ has been circulated which, instead of identifying the problem, attempts to silence its officers. Senior Army figures, the note says, ‘have become aware that serving personnel are not following guidance and have demonstrated negative opinions’ about a series of training videos concerning Muslims, LGBT people, and other ‘sensitive’ individuals.

Military superiors, it continues, are ‘increasingly frustrated by the perceived negative impact that serving personnel are having’, warning that anyone who reacts negatively ‘can be dealt with under disciplinary or administrative action as appropriate’.

The message is clear: say nothing about the naked emperor. This failure to confront the alarming reality must stop.

Next, we should find a way of returning some degree of autonomy to commanding officers. The traditional response to obesity, for example, would have been more physical training. These days, however, a solicitor’s letter is never far away, particularly when it relates to anything that could be construed as a health matter.

MY UNIT, 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, used to go on a weekly afternoon r un cal l ed t he Friday Frolic. Anyone under 30 who finished behind me would be summoned to appear in front of me for disciplinary measures an hour later. It is hard to imagine now.

Yes, society has changed, but is it too much to ask that the Armed Services prioritise basic fitness?

The top brass must have known for years that the British Army was not so much marching on its stomach as tripping over it. The effect is corrosive. In the past, battalions wanted to be the best and the fittest. Now the attitude is: ‘Why bother, if no one else is trying?’

Some degree of autonomy was also helpful when it came to recruitment. In the face of a system that even then was poor, the Royal Irish did most of their recruiting themselves and delivered a fully manned battalion. Why must they be constrained by Capita?

The stakes are high. We live in a world where British Forces could find themselves in a hot war at short notice – a conflict which the poor physical condition of soldiers, sailors and airmen makes us illequipped to win. Our lack of battlereadiness is a danger to the lives of our soldiers and the safety of our country, and it is a matter of grave concern to the parents and families.

This matter will be critical before we know it. We are already under cyber attack and Russia has sent assassins on to our streets to murder British subjects. What next?

I would urge politicians on all sides to shoulder some responsibility, not just for the shameful spread of obesity, but the culture of political correctness that is eating away at morale and efficiency.

Sadly, one day soon, British soldiers will witness one of their own under attack. Will they dash forward in support at the risk of their lives? Or will they ‘withdraw in order to co-ordinate the response’, like Sir Craig Mackey, now Deputy Commissioner of Scotland Yard, did while watching the horrific terrorist murder of his colleague and subordinate PC Keith Palmer at the gates of Westminster?

Will our soldiers even take the risk of fighting at all, knowing that any use of lethal force means they could be dragged through the courts many years – even decades – later, with scant protection from their superiors anxious for awards and knighthoods? It is time someone objected to this farce.