The headlines almost write themselves.

Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence announced that the upper age limit for recalling former service personnel into service would be raised from 55 to 65.

The image of pensioners (well, nearly) being frogmarched into an army barracks to be reissued with their weapons and fatigues saw Dad’s Army headlines across the UK’s newspapers.

Understandably, the temptation to mock and even deride the idea of those in their 50s and 60s getting back into uniform to play their part was too tempting to pass up, and I get it.

But I think, in an age of global tensions and the realistic threat of war, we should bear two things in mind.

Firstly, the end of somebody’s career in uniform is not the culmination of their worth and usefulness.

The strategic liability, the term given to those who have served and are eligible for recall in the event of a national emergency, exists primarily to allow the UK Government to draw on the vast experience and size of the veterans’ community, who would bring a wealth of know-how to any wartime operation.

Hard-fought experience, earned on the battlefields of Helmand, Basra or Londonderry, would prove invaluable in a time of war.

That is not to say we would likely see pensioners clearing trenches. Even for the fittest soldier, age catches up with everyone, and the strategic liability is not necessarily designed to increase the number of troops engaged in combat on the frontline.

The fact is that the infantry, the fighting force of the military, is just one component of an effective fighting force. Without air specialists to get them to the front line, without logisticians to supply them with kit and equipment, without intelligence experts to properly brief them, medics to treat them, or mechanics to fix their vehicles, close-quarter combat cannot happen.

It is in these roles that those called up under the strategic liability would still be able to add value. The ex-RAF officer who has gained experience in air traffic control would bring key skills, as would the army medic who is now a consultant, and the former Royal Logistics Corps soldier who has worked for Amazon for 20 years since leaving the forces.

Yes, they might not be as fit as they once were, but they can still add value.

That’s the positive bit.

In reality, as great as getting the band back together sounds, the MoD has no idea who would qualify, where they now live or how to contact them.

A failure to effectively track former service personnel after leaving the forces means that accurate records of their addresses and circumstances are not available.

Veterans across the country will be sent a letter each year to confirm their details, but the emphasis remains on the veteran to be diligent in keeping the MoD informed of any changes to their circumstances, and there is no penalty for not doing so.

Last year, I received mine, put it in a drawer with the intention of filling it out later and forgot all about it. It was only yesterday, following the announcement, that I got it out of the drawer, completed it and sent it back. Life is busy, and it is so easy for the current tracking method to fall by the wayside.

So, as great an idea as it might sound, in reality, yesterday’s announcement is just noise that needs to be backed up by action.

If this Government is serious, then it must work at speed to identify those in scope for recall, establish their circumstances and a means of informing them of a requirement to re-enlist.

Otherwise, you can widen the pool of talent as wide as you like, but it will have very little impact on the UK’s ability to fight in the event of war, and that should worry us all.