Low pay, no equipment and little care - Blair's Army

All I can say without having to ban myself is:

For Shame. :shame:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Plight of traumatised soldiers 'ignored by Government'

By Terri Judd
Published: 13 January 2007

Those charged with caring for military personnel returning from tours of duty have warned of a dramatic increase in servicemen and women needing help because of the traumatic nature of their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The issue was highlighted when Tony Blair had to face a former lance-corporal in the Coldstream Guards who felt that he had been "abandoned" after coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder from his second tour of Iraq.

Justin Smith, 32, told the Prime Minister during a debate on ITV's Westcountry Live programme: "I have lost my house, my security and any self-belief," adding: "Now I'm living in temporary accommodation that is forcing me to go to work rather than concentrate on getting better, and I want to know what the Government is going to do." Mr Blair promised to look into the situation, insisting that there was supposed to be adequate provision for those who are medically discharged.

But last night another veteran, John Pentreath, of the Royal British Legion, accused the Government of "shutting the door" on those needing help after serving their country. He said: "I don't expect the Government to carry out their duty of care to people like Justin. They will just say that, once he's a civilian, there is the NHS."

But the leading charity in the area, Combat Stress, and the new British Armed Forces Federation say it is inappropriate to treat men and women with battle stress among civilians, and that military hospitals are needed.

Robert Marsh, of Combat Stress, said they already have 8,000 veterans on their books and will soon struggle to cope with mounting numbers. Last year, they had a 26 per cent increase and many do not present themselves for at least a decade.

"We are really busy. We have seen over 120 veterans of Iraq but we consider that is just the bow wave of what we are likely to see in the future. And, with fatalities in Afghanistan higher, we can expect the same. We are storing up a bit of shocker," he said.

Treatment of physically and mentally wounded soldiers has become a long-term thorn in the Prime Minister's side as an increasing number of high-profile figures have accused the Government of breaking the covenant with the military and failing in its duty of care.

The issue flared up again yesterday as Mr Blair promised to improve conditions for the armed forces and admitted soldiers deserved better. But he insisted that Britain must maintain its status as a major defence power and warned against any retreat from fighting wars.

Speaking aboard HMS Albion in Plymouth, he said that military might was essential to winning the war on terror as he tried to rally increasingly sceptical troops. But he acknowledged that the covenant with the forces had to be renewed as soldiers were asked to undertake unprecedented challenges.

"For our part, in Government, it will mean increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our Armed Forces - not in the short run, but for the long term," he said, adding: "On the part of the military, they need to accept that in a volunteer armed force, conflict and casualty may be part of what they are called upon to face."

Yet Mr Marsh insisted that treating returning service personnel in NHS hospitals was inadequate as often they found it difficult to discuss the trauma generated by combat with civilians. The last psychiatric military hospital closed in 1999. In 2001 a review found there were not enough military acute in-patient psychiatric cases to justify a unit and the Government found it more cost-effective to offer private care at the Priory, a clinic known for taking on celebrities.

"In an ideal world military people would be treated in military hospitals and veterans should be treated in veterans' institutions. We are the only Western nation that does not do that. If you look at the Americans, they almost get treatment from cradle to grave," said Mr Marsh.

Douglas Young, chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation, agreed: "In the NHS, with the best will in the world, any sort of group therapy would be with people with completely different problems. If you are already finding it horrendously difficult to try and explain problems that arise from battle, with respect you are not going to get much help from an alcoholic."

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said that under two per cent of servicemen and women had developed PTSD but the department was aware that it was a condition with delayed symptoms and continued to fund research into the problem.

Life in the modern army

* PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Pay remains a constant source of conflict within the military. Several soldiers told the Prime Minister during a visit to Afghanistan last year that a basic marine, who is paid a little more than £12,000, could have earned double that in the fire service.

* RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Levels of recruitment are in trouble and retention rates are plummeting. Last year more than 12,700 recruits joined up, but almost 14,500 personnel left. The MoD has dismissed claims of a recruitment crisis as a "myth".

* MENTAL ILLNESS

MoD figures show that 1,897 soldiers have returned from Iraq with mental health problems, of whom 278 have post-traumatic stress disorder. Others suffer depression or acute anxiety, or turn to drink and drugs.

* EQUIPMENT

The standard-issue rifle, the SA80 A2, has been dogged by problems, particularly when salt water and sand interfere with its mechanism. It has been upgraded but the complaints persist.

* VEHICLES

A quarter of British soldiers killed by hostile action in Iraq were travelling in "snatch" Land Rovers - vehicles designed for use in Northern Ireland rather than the arid conditions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are bullet-proof but provide no protection from improvised roadside bombs.

* ACCOMMODATION

The outgoing head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, said last month that the accommodation of some forces was "frankly shaming". The mother of a young soldier e-mailed photographs to the BBC of leaking plumbing and mildewed furniture. She said: "We treat prisoners better than our soldiers."

Meanwhile, near me, the military hospital of Haslar is being closed, depriving the military and the local popualtion of a class A medical facility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

The standard-issue rifle, the SA80 A2, has been dogged by problems, particularly when salt water and sand interfere with its mechanism. It has been upgraded but the complaints persist.

---

Generally if you want the benefit's of having high tolerances you should expect the problems that come with that. If not you should invest in lower tolerance rifles. Ak's are a wonderful weapon for this reason, they'll take all the dust dirt sludge and mal-care you can heap on it and still fire. But it wont perform as effectively as a tighter built rifle.

As for the other topics quite sad the state of affairs you have for your veterans over there. I would have expected alot more from the UK healthcare system for them. But psychiatric care from civilians for battle field born illnesses wont work period.

Not suprising they closed down the clinic though over there. The UK government is afterall paying rent for it's military bases..:inquisitive:

I agree with all of those points, the army is treated rather poorly, and then, when it still succeeds at what it's been tasked to do, is criticised for it.

Oh, and the A2 is a great piece of kit, as far as I can see - the only complaint people seem to have is that it can't be used left-handed (unless you have one made which is, in which case it can't be use right-handed). It's much more reliable than the latest incarnation of the M16 for example, and is really rather accurate (weapon handling tests had to be changed when the A1 was brought into service I believe).

Oh, and unlike pretty much every other army in the world, our (already meagre) pay is taxed.

Thats a damned shame to abandon the veterans like that and to put the lives of service men in hazard,just to save in expences.I guess its the soldiers share.:shame:

The SA80 A2 and associated weapons are deadly accurate and the A2 is quite reliable, but it is 25% havier than the M16. Soldiers I know who have been to Iraq have no real complaints regarding reliability of the rifles, whether the LSW has been updated or net yet I don't know but I would imagine so, those babies are flipping sniper rifles!

Having spent time in termporary barracks, i.e. not the ones regiments are in long term, I can tell you that they are in serious need of work, not to mention a doubling of the number of lockers.

Britain has always had a love-hate relaitionship with the Army as the lesser service, the Air Force should get off worse by rights but everyone has loved them since the Battle of Britain.

You know the amount of damage this government has done to the country is incalculable, how are we going to retrieve the services, fix the Police or stop the NHS from bleeding money?

Mmm... LSWs are upgraded too - and now that we have Minimis, the LSWs are to be re-designated as marksman rifles... good thing too, a 30 round mag is daft for a suppression weapon. All this means, unfortunately, that only two guys in an infantry section get to have bayonets (2 x Minimi, 2 x LSW, 2 x UGL, 2 x Rifle) - a lot of fire-power though, assuming we get bullets that work.

Barracks conditions... the ones I've been in are still better than being in a basha (but then what isn't?)... Pity there only ever seems to be enough hot water for a coupla dozen people to shower (or me to have one bath).

As for kit, next time you see a picture of British troops, look at what they're wearing, and try to work out what's issued to them, and what they've decided to buy themselves to replace whatever shoddy kit they have been issued with.

You can fit a bayonet to an LSW if you want to, can't you? Doesn't everyone get isssued one anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

You can fit a bayonet to an LSW if you want to, can't you? Doesn't everyone get isssued one anyway?

---

I think the bipod gets in the way or something - it's not as if I've been able to play with every bit of kit available... As for it being issued, probably - it's handy for cutting wire, opening cans, that kind of thing. But in it's role as something on the end of a gat to stick people with, it needs to be fitted, hence only the two in a section.

I read somewhere that only first line troops get bayonets and complete scabards, so no wire cutting for second-line troops. Actually I can see the bipod getting in the way, never thought of that.:shame:

As to the why of the LSW, its a BREN Gun, pure and simple.

The worst thing about the current kit has to be the boots though, all leather, with meltable outer soles and totally solid inner soles. I swear, after a couple of hours I'd almost rather be standing directly on concrete.

Pathetic. You guys used to be so powerful. :no:

Has there been any increase in military spending since the start of Iraq II?

No, cuts. Including 1,000 troops. Not to mention my local regiment being raped and turned into light infantry, in another year or so no British soldier will be able to wear "Semper Fidelis" "Primus in Indus" or "Marabout" on his cap-badge.

I've looked, I can't find a smiley to display my anger, hatred and disgust.

What the brits need is a good ol fashioned military dictator. That will get the military in tip top shape again.

Jokes aside, this thread is really sad.

Bring back the evil Tories.

Absolutely. Given ten years of totally corrupt and incompetant government it's really hard to see why we ever got rid of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Absolutely. Given ten years of totally corrupt and incompetant government it's really hard to see why we ever got rid of them.

---

Mainly because of the 18 years of corrupt and incompetent government that preceded it. Don't forget we fought a war (Falklands) because Thatcher pushed through defence cuts against the advice of both Defence and the Foreign Office. W've got something like 1000 troops down there deterring the Argies whereas we used to do the same with a single ship.

Many of the New Labour problems with the military lie in the contradiction between their desire to be an international power and the socialist belief that everyone is a citizen. If Blair wanted to use the military as befitting an imperial power, he needed to recognise the military are a class unto itself. Letting ideas of citizenship bleed into the military world only works if you're thinking of them as a Defence force, whose motivation lies in their ties to community. Once you start sending them abroad you'll need to give them another world to believe in. This contradiction could be seen in a microcosm when a General complained that his wounded were being treated in a civilian hospital, when he wanted them to stay within the military sphere throughout their recuperation. One could see the rationale for this move, but one could also see that it was plainly wrong and counterproductive.

I hear brits complaining about being America's lapdog all the time on this board, yet the quickest way to that becoming reality is stripping yourselves of any real military.

Of course there is no way you could come close to America's numbers, but maintaining a strong, independent military would allow you to act on your own around the world and apply pressure where it is needed.

Our military is independent, it is our politicians who are not.

Edit:

Labour doesn't like the military. While happy to use it they seem rather unwilling to support it. Mind you the Tories liked the military but the results were much the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I hear brits complaining about being America's lapdog all the time on this board, yet the quickest way to that becoming reality is stripping yourselves of any real military.

---

Nonsense. The key to avoiding "Yo! Blair" status is to lose any belief that one's country is a major world power. Mr Blair is so servile because he wants to be the small boy hanging with the big kid on the block. He actually thought that President Bush would listen to him! You might not have noticed, many countries in the world did not and do not support the USA blindly in all things, and most of them are not military powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Of course there is no way you could come close to America's numbers, but maintaining a strong, independent military would allow you to act on your own around the world and apply pressure where it is needed.

---

Again, nonsense. The British got a wake-up call about "acting on their own" when they tried invading Suez. That was the most sobering crash down to earth they have yet had.

There is no circumstance in which the British military, tooled up to the hilt or possessing merely a rowing boat and a pair of sharp tweezers, will ever be able to act without US permission or at least, acquiescence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

There is no circumstance in which the British military, tooled up to the hilt or possessing merely a rowing boat and a pair of sharp tweezers, will ever be able to act without US permission or at least, acquiescence.

---

Can't have those, that's a health and safety violation that is, you could have someone's eye out! And are they wearing lifevests in those lifeboats? Wouldn't want one of them falling out and drowning. Are the oars padded? Someone might hit someone with them, wouldn't want an injury now would we?



Serious point in there somewhere, all that health and safety malarkey does present a problem. Example: GMPG gives off too many toxic fumes to be used as the co-ax weapon on a Warrior. Solution? Stick in a chaingun that's prone to stoppages, and requires being dismantled to get up and running again. But it is electrically operated, so no nasty fumes during training. No bullets coming out during fighting either, but that doesn't matter does it?

Very depressing thread. I have always had great appreciation for the United Kingdom's Armed Forces, its sort of a sad reality when the world you thought you lived in was completely different than the one we really are living in.

Utterly despicable on the part of Blair's government. You guys need a good revolution, and a couple of miracles.

Quote:

---

Nonsense. The key to avoiding "Yo! Blair" status is to lose any belief that one's country is a major world power. Mr Blair is so servile because he wants to be the small boy hanging with the big kid on the block. He actually thought that President Bush would listen to him! You might not have noticed, many countries in the world did not and do not support the USA blindly in all things, and most of them are not military powers.

---

Yes, there are plenty of countries that do not tow the US line, but none of them have any influence except those with strong militaries. Just look at how much sway mainland Europe has now compared to what it used to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Yes, there are plenty of countries that do not tow the US line, but none of them have any influence except those with strong militaries.

---

It entirely depends on what you mean by influence.

If you mean influence worldwide on all possible issues, then only the United States is in a position to exert influence, and a strong military is essential. The United Kingdom used to be in this position, but no-one else is likely to usurp this status from the US in the near future. There is no point in spending tax-payers' money to try and match this role.

What then for other countries? Well, Russia has a military dying on its feet, practically useless and with woeful morale - but it has significant influence in Europe and the world because of its resources.

The EU has not formal military at all at its command, but brings a strong influence to many parts of the world.

The Republic of Ireland has a very tiny military, but we are very influential in humanitarian circles, disproportionately represented at the UN for example.

The United Kingdom has an immense influence through the Commonwealth. There are many problems within that co-operative of nations, and perhaps Britain could find her role therein once again. It has been demonstrated that however supportive of the US administration, the UK has no influence whatsoever. She might have a significant influence if she threatened to pull out unilaterally from Iraq or otherwise rocked the boat. Good or bad thing?

These are just a few examples. One could also argue that a rag-tag of armed insurgents are influencing the future of Iraq far more than the military superpower or its lapdog.

Influence does not mean solely the power to kill people in large numbers, except at the very last and savage moment.

Good points all of them. I was mainly refering to when push comes to shove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Good points all of them. I was mainly refering to when push comes to shove.

---

There we agree. My hope is that we start planning to do a little less shoving. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Not to mention my local regiment being raped and turned into light infantry, in another year or so no British soldier will be able to wear "Semper Fidelis" "Primus in Indus" or "Marabout" on his cap-badge.

---

What does "Semper Fidelis" mean anyway?
I asked my (quite knowledgeable) latin teacher some years ago since it sounds very latin but he said it's not latin.:inquisitive:

On topic, I always thought that the military always gets the best stuff that exists but looks like I was quite wrong. You hear about all those technical things they develop and all that and then they have horrible boots while civilians have nice air cushioning, gel and all that fancy stuff to make their shopping tours more comfortable while soldiers get distracted by hurting feet during combat.:sweatdrop:

On the other hand I sometimes wonder how they dealt with all this in the middle ages? Did things like mental post stress disorder syndrome problem already exist back then? Did they have better boots? Are we all spoiled kids?

I do realize that if we can make it more comfortable for people who give their lives for us, we can at least do that to a certain degree, but then again, the guys who clean the streets or the toilets also do us a great favour and don't complain about their job being dirty.

:2cents:

Semper Fidelis, motto of many groups, including the US Marine Corps, who usually shorten it, american style, to 'semper fi' (rhymes with 'eye'). :bow:

"Semper Fidelis"

Motto of the 11th of Fort (Devons) sometimes reffered to as the "Bloody Eleventh" because of a certain battle in the Penninsula Campaign as well as their general willingness to get stuck in and turn their coats red for a whole different reason.

The Motto comes from the City of Exeter and appeared on Shakko plates as early as 1860. It means "Ever Faithful" it is Latin.

"Primus in Indus"

Motto of the 39th (Dorsets) The motto refers the the Dorsets' honour to be the first regular regiment in mainland India. It means litterally "Frist in India" Latin.

"Marabout"

A unique battle Battle honour awarded to the 54th (Originally raised in Ireland as the 56th) for being instrumental in the capture of that fort during the Egyptian campaign

In a year or so the regiment is to be re-numbered as a Battalion of the Light Infantry. So all this will be forgotten.:furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Semper Fidelis, motto of many groups, including the US Marine Corps, who usually shorten it, american style, to 'semper fi' (rhymes with 'eye'). :bow:

---

Yes, "semper fi" that's what I asked my teacher about, only heard about the "fidelis" later, now I remember, should have used my brain earlier.
Thanks for the explanations Kukri and Wigferth.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What does "Semper Fidelis" mean anyway?

On the other hand I sometimes wonder how they dealt with all this in the middle ages? Did things like mental post stress disorder syndrome problem already exist back then? Did they have better boots? Are we all spoiled kids?


:2cents:

---

Yes we are spoiled kids. Soldiers back then were allowed to be mentally unstable, frequently even insane (As long as they could fight who the hell cares?). They raped, pillaged, burned, and slaughtered many communities, so im guessing they did have quite a few mental disorders. And its not like theyre were doctors to dianose they had anything.

The amount of courage it probaly took to charge a enemy army...you are almost required to be crazy.


EDIT: They probaly had much better padded boots. Im sure they were very very comfy.

Argh!
I hate the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

Yes we are spoiled kids. Soldiers back then were allowed to be mentally unstable, frequently even insane (As long as they could fight who the hell cares?). They raped, pillaged, burned, and slaughtered many communities, so im guessing they did have quite a few mental disorders. And its not like theyre were doctors to dianose they had anything.

The amount of courage it probaly took to charge a enemy army...you are almost required to be crazy.


EDIT: They probaly had much better padded boots. Im sure they were very very comfy.

---

I think your missing that the upbringing of people is hugely different today then it was back then. Most of the more's we have today did not exist back then. There was no wrong in raping and pillaging in their minds, it's what you did. They didnt feel shame, didn't have nightmares, it was the norm. They were also raised around death, they would have known even seen most of their elder's die in bed, maybe even seen their parents. There was much less of a cultural offence to those who killed. Life of strangers was not valued as much back then. I highly doubt that most were insane or mentally unstable, a few were here and there but most, no.

Let's remember sniper's have the highest suicide rate of any other soldier. Usually due to extreme shame felt for their actions on the battle field. That shame is not breed into them, it is learned from childhood. We are taught from a young age to value the persons life next to us, that only monster's and evil people kill others.

It is the same principle's and morales that tell us we all are equal, we all should be valued equally that cuase so many problems for soldiers. It is those with sign's out in the street's screaming baby killer's that cause these mental problems, not the deed itself. :shame:

Nurture > Nature

No, rape and pillage have always been looked down upon on one level or another, at the least it exibited a lack of control. Soldiers back then were unstable, which is why they used to kill each other over tavern brawls.

Her Majesties Forces are now officially pathetic...

The Army=The Militia
The Royal Navy=The Royal Coast Guard
The RAF=The Rusting Air Force

I think that was mostly due to excessive drinking and the view that life was cheaper compared to today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

I think your missing that the upbringing of people is hugely different today then it was back then. Most of the more's we have today did not exist back then. There was no wrong in raping and pillaging in their minds, it's what you did. They didnt feel shame, didn't have nightmares, it was the norm. They were also raised around death, they would have known even seen most of their elder's die in bed, maybe even seen their parents. There was much less of a cultural offence to those who killed. Life of strangers was not valued as much back then. I highly doubt that most were insane or mentally unstable, a few were here and there but most, no.

Let's remember sniper's have the highest suicide rate of any other soldier. Usually due to extreme shame felt for their actions on the battle field. That shame is not breed into them, it is learned from childhood. We are taught from a young age to value the persons life next to us, that only monster's and evil people kill others.

It is the same principle's and morales that tell us we all are equal, we all should be valued equally that cuase so many problems for soldiers. It is those with sign's out in the street's screaming baby killer's that cause these mental problems, not the deed itself. :shame:

Nurture > Nature

---

Ill give you that. But surely you dont think there was more then "A few" crazys in medieval armies? Read about medieval armies, they were savage killers. Besides, you have to be extremely brave or extremely nuts to charge a enemy army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

Ill give you that. But surely you dont think there was more then "A few" crazys in medieval armies? Read about medieval armies, they were savage killers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

I highly doubt that most were insane or mentally unstable, a few were here and there but most, no.

---

I agree that they're were a few crazies among them. But not all or even most. Berserker's are a good example of the truly crazy out there. While sure they did alot of drug's, those do have so wonderful long term side-effects.

Quote:

---

Read about medieval armies, they were savage killers. Besides, you have to be extremely brave or extremely nuts to charge a enemy army.

---

Extremely brave maybe, but that's how they fought. It's how they were taught. You would also have all your comrades abreast of you, something I think would go far in calming you and if nothing else give peer pressure to perform and follow through with the charge. Not only that, but for the most part good martial prowess could give you decent chances of surviving.

I would say soldier's today have it far more dangerious then back when melee combat ruled. Back then you could see your enemy, you could even smack him. Now they are hundreds of meter's away, even upwards of hundreds of miles. You wont even see what can kill you, let alone touch it. I consider that requiring far more bravery to go through then just charging the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Soldiers back then were unstable, which is why they used to kill each other over tavern brawls.

---

That has far more to do with alochol then anything else. But also speaking we don't have the morales we have today. Killing someone else was not looked at like it is today. While rape and rampant destruction has never been looked upon as horribly as it is today. Roman levy armies would look forward for the most part to that massive loot and plundering after conquering a city.

Soldiers today fight for good pay. Back then they fought for loot and adventure.

And I wish we still fought melee in modern times. It seems so ....simple. No satellite photographs, high technological machinery.

Quote:

---

She said: "We treat prisoners better than our soldiers."

---

That certainly seems true.

CR

Government doesn't need any armies! They need more cameras and surveillance software to keep an eye on their real enemies.

(Would that be us????)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

Soldiers today fight for good pay. Back then they fought for loot and adventure.

---

Soldiers fight for more than just pay... if the money were the only thing, there's far more lucrative, and safer occupations to be in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

Soldiers fight for more than just pay... if the money were the only thing, there's far more lucrative, and safer occupations to be in.

---

Some people were meant to be in the military. And some people like being in the military.

Tex: Why do you think they drank so much? The same reason soldiers do today.

Bandit: Soldiers fight for each other, for the men next to them, for their families back home. Most soldiers will fight a LOT harder when women and children are at stake.

Why they join is another matter.

"Justin Smith, 32, told the Prime Minister during a debate on ITV's Westcountry Live programme: "I have lost my house, my security and any self-belief," adding: "Now I'm living in temporary accommodation that is forcing me to go to work rather than concentrate on getting better, and I want to know what the Government is going to do." Mr Blair promised to look into the situation, insisting that there was supposed to be adequate provision for those who are medically discharged."

:bigcry:

Please tell me that's not the best you've got in the UK. People complain about the nanny state yet they champion people like this. Shame indeed.

I'm sure letting him sit around in a wonderful government hospital will make him all better. Has the UK ever been in a war before? What did the government do then? The article doesn't get off to a promising start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Tex: Why do you think they drank so much? The same reason soldiers do today.

---

Well what else were they going to do on their nights off? Go to view the local art gallery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Please tell me that's not the best you've got in the UK. People complain about the nanny state yet they champion people like this. Shame indeed.

I'm sure letting him sit around in a wonderful government hospital will make him all better. Has the UK ever been in a war before? What did the government do then? The article doesn't get off to a promising start.

---

That's unfairly harsh. I suppose every man coming back to the US is bright and hale and hearty.

The man has done two tours of duty in Iraq. There's many a soldier, US and UK who has come back from that theatre with terrible mental anguish.

There are few facilities for supporting this specialist need. A military hospital is likely to have more staff with experience to help this condition. If this soldier is not recieving specialist help, it is likely he is in a hostel for the homeless, drawing a benefit called Jobseeker's Allowance, which requires him to work. If he is suffering from post-traumatic stress, he'll only get worse.

I think the government that sent him to Iraq has a duty of care. And in one previous war at least, the government dealt with this kind of thing by executing the men as cowards. Would you exhort a return to that solution?

Neither you or I can have any conception of what this man may have gone through. I suggest you find some compassion for men who have given a great deal for the sake of mistaken policies.

:no:

In essence, as it's clear we can't support looking after the mess we cause in our own populace, we have no place meddling in the running of someone else's country.

~:smoking: