Letters: the army should be used as an emergency service

Flood relief

Sir: In my lifetime there have been at least two major flood emergencies when the armed forces have played a key role: the 1947 floods, and the East Coast storm surge in 1953 (Leading article, 4 December). Both of these major catastrophes required large inputs of manpower and machinery. We should remember that National Service was in operation then, and because the second world war was so recent there was an innate sense of collective responsibility and discipline which extended to the many volunteers who came forward to help.

Disaster and emergency response and relief is a highly interconnected activity, requiring many different roles and responsibilities. Flood-watching is only a minor part; throwaway lines such as those in the recent government plan about utilising troops on flood watch must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

James Dent

Brent Eleigh, Suffolk

National emergency service

Sir: Your leader says: ‘If we need a national resilience force to deal with pandemics, floods, supply-chain issues and myriad other problems, then we should create one rather than trying to turn the army into that.’ But surely using the army as an additional emergency service in national emergencies makes complete sense in every way, particularly economically. Assuming we are not at war, these units would usually be on training and exercise programmes. What could be better training, or better for soldiers’ morale, than helping to restore normality to civilians who have been hit by storms, floods or other misfortunes?

Elizabeth Francis

Tory blues

Sir: James Forsyth identifies many of the shortcomings of the present government (Politics, 4 December) but neglects to mention the two elephants in the room: Covid and green energy. In my neck of the woods, no one cares about what should or shouldn’t have been done regarding Owen Paterson.