Sandhurst's sheikhs: Why do so many Gulf royals receive military training in the UK?

Didge wrote:Generations of foreign royals - particularly from the Middle East - have learned to be military leaders at the UK's Sandhurst officer training academy. But is that still a good idea, asks Matthew Teller.
Since 1812, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, on the Surrey/Berkshire border, has been where the British Army trains its officers.
It has a gruelling 44-week course testing the physical and intellectual skills of officer cadets and imbuing them with the values of the British Army.
Alongside would-be British officers, Sandhurst has a tradition of drawing cadets from overseas. Many of the elite families of the Middle East have sent their sons and daughters. Perhaps the most notable was King Hussein of Jordan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28896860

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Generations of foreign royals - particularly from the Middle East - have learned to be military leaders at the UK's Sandhurst officer training academy. But is that still a good idea, asks Matthew Teller.
Since 1812, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, on the Surrey/Berkshire border, has been where the British Army trains its officers.
It has a gruelling 44-week course testing the physical and intellectual skills of officer cadets and imbuing them with the values of the British Army.
Alongside would-be British officers, Sandhurst has a tradition of drawing cadets from overseas. Many of the elite families of the Middle East have sent their sons and daughters. Perhaps the most notable was King Hussein of Jordan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28896860

Because it's the UK's best opportunity to recruit and become one with the military elites of those countries.  The US has the same program.  

Look at how it has served us (UK and US) in Egypt.  We have moved the old military out with Mubarak, yet been able to temper the 'wild 'n crazies' who were with Morsi.  The ship rights itself.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because it's the UK's best opportunity to recruit and become one with the military elites of those countries.  The US has the same program.  

Look at how it has served us (UK and US) in Egypt.  We have moved the old military out with Mubarak, yet been able to temper the 'wild 'n crazies' who were with Morsi.  The ship rights itself.

lol, behave Quill, your armed forces are very much in fact based on the British, especially your elite forces, thus the Brits already have the best trained troops in the world, all you have is equipment, not the best trained, of which was not even the point of the article, what was, is whether we should be training them, you need to read it all.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:



lol, behave Quill, your armed forces are very much in fact based on the British, especially your elite forces, thus the Brits already have the best trained troops in the world, all you have is equipment, not the best trained, of which was not even the point of the article, what was, is whether we should be training them, you need to read it all.

But that's not the point.  I thought you were asking why we are preparing military leaders for these countries.

My response is, to create a lasting bond with the people who will be receiving and operating sophisticated weapons from us.  Pakistan has a nuclear weapon, for instance.  We found and killed Usama bin Laden in Pakistan.  Should we be concerned?

Fact is, the US has all of Pakistan's nuclear devices well under control because of this very link.

Original Quill wrote:Agree about RMA Sandhurst.

Disagree that West Point isn't doing better.  End of...

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because it's the UK's best opportunity to recruit and become one with the military elites of those countries.  The US has the same program.  

Look at how it has served us (UK and US) in Egypt.  We have moved the old military out with Mubarak, yet been able to temper the 'wild 'n crazies' who were with Morsi.  The ship rights itself.

lol, behave Quill, your armed forces are very much in fact based on the British, especially your elite forces, thus the Brits already have the best trained troops in the world, all you have is equipment, not the best trained, of which was not even the point of the article, what was, is whether we should be training them, you need to read it all.

But that's not the point.  I thought you were asking why we are preparing military leaders for these countries, being that they are Middle Eastern and potentially so unstable.

My response is, to create a lasting bond with the people who will be receiving and operating sophisticated weapons from us.  Pakistan has a nuclear weapon, for instance.  We found and killed Usama bin Laden in Pakistan.  Should we be concerned?

Fact is, the US has all of Pakistan's nuclear devices well under control because of this very link.  TBS, it's no guarantee.  But what is in this world?  It's one important link.

And I'll put West Point and Annapolis up against RMA Sandhurst any day.  Phssst...

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But that's not the point.  I thought you were asking why we are preparing military leaders for these countries, being that they are Middle Eastern and potentially so unstable.

My response is, to create a lasting bond with the people who will be receiving and operating sophisticated weapons from us.  Pakistan has a nuclear weapon, for instance.  We found and killed Usama bin Laden in Pakistan.  Should we be concerned?

Fact is, the US has all of Pakistan's nuclear devices well under control because of this very link.  TBS, it's no guarantee.  But what is in this world?  It's one important link.

And I'll put West Point and Annapolis up against RMA Sandhurst any day.  Phssst...

I doubt that Quill. Try China for Nuclear co-operation with Pakistan in developing its Nuclear programme.

Nawaz Sharif has just appointed a new military chief who has no connection with the US. In fact very few (if any) of Pakistan's military chiefs have any connection with the US.