If only they had asked a military strategist to take command of the security for the Olympic Games at the planning stage.
It is a festival of sport intended to foster goodwill between nations as well as provide the highest level of athletic competition but a modern Olympics is also a major logistical challenge.
Security is just one of the services that must run as efficiently as the official digital timers but it is a vital one and to have to make an emergency call for 3500 troops to make up a shortfall just two weeks before the games begin must result in penalties for G4S, the private contractor.
With years to prepare, there can be no excuse for this last-minute fiasco. Reports from people who were recruited and trained but then told they did not have jobs indicate flaws in the front-line operation but the list of failings stretches back to the drawing up of the contract and its oversight.
The call for extra troops is no surprise to the MoD but the short notice will cause problems at strategic and individual levels. In some cases, soldiers who have just been made redundant, including some from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, will be despatched to makeshift barracks for the Games. Other who have just returned from Afghanistan will have to cancel a family holiday. The promised financial reimbursement cannot compensate for the loss of family time.
The additional cost, as yet unknown, will amount to millions of pounds and is to be borne by the Home Office rather than the MoD but that will make no difference to the taxpayer, who must foot the bill.
The comprehensive failure by G4S to supply the 13,000 staff it was contracted to provide must be investigated and those responsible, whether in the company, the London 2012 Organising Committee or the Home Office, held to account.
The lessons of London 2012 must be learned if this is not to prove a dangerous false economy. But it is an abject state of affairs when our highly professional armed forces are called upon to help London in its hour of need by a Government that has decided their country no longer needs them.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article