Pride and tears over rising toll of teenagers sent to war
Britain allows the lowest recruitment and deployment age in Europe, critics say The day of her 17-year-old son Aaron's passing out parade in Catterick last summer is a bitter-sweet memory for Karen Lincoln. As he marched past with his regiment, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, looking every inch the professional soldier, she cheered and wept, overcome with maternal pride. But it was also then she learned her youngest son was about to be sent to Iraq. On April 2 - eight months after the passing out parade and just five months after his 18th birthday - he became one of the youngest soldiers to die in a conflict that has claimed 148 British lives. Of those, 14 have been teenagers. "They shouldn't be over there on the front line at that age," Mrs Lincoln, 43, said. "It's bad enough for hardened soldiers, but Aaron was just a bairn. He never had enough training in the first place, not to kill people." Last Thursday, the body of another 18-year-old from Rifleman Lincoln's battalion, Rifleman Paul Donnachie, was flown back to Britain from the Gulf. He, too, had enlisted at the youngest possible age of 17 and met his death on April 29 while on duty in the Ashar district of Basra, where Rifleman Lincoln had died weeks before. In a statement which served as a poignant reminder of how near to childhood he was, his family paid tribute to a "wonderful son and brother", which ended: "Take care, my little sweetheart". The rising teenage death toll has reignited fierce criticism of Britain for sending soldiers into battle so young. It is not illegal to send 18-year-olds to war, but human rights activists take issue with the very young age - 16 and 17 - at which British soldiers are recruited and could be deployed. Rifleman Lincoln's father, Peter, 60, who refused to sign his son's parental consent papers because he did not want him to join up at 17, feels that soldiers should not be sent into armed conflict until they are 21. "He couldn't get a job in the factories around here until he was 18, but he could go and learn to kill," said Mr Lincoln. "He never had a life, did he?" snip http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2074421,00.html

'Twas ever thus. Three ways out of No Hope Street - sport, showbiz and the army. Spartacus

There was a fourth, of course, Sparty: the grammar school.

Not as many as might escape into the forces, true. But surely far more than those with talent enough for show business and the football leagues? Grammar schools were the main path for social mobility in this country. How typical of socialists to pull up the ladder behind them! That was not their intention, of course ... but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. The army would, in normal times, be an excellent option for the boys in question. In the peace-time army there is the opportunity to learn a trade, to profit from educational opportunities the bog-standard comprehensive seems unable to provide, and to be promoted through the ranks to be a commissioned officer and statutory gentleman. Many have done it, and many more will do it in the future. Not something to knock, in my opinion.

I wasn't knocking the army - or sport or showbiz, for that matter. Simply making an observation. Spartacus

the UK may recruit earlier than many, but you can't deploy until you're 18, so its pretty irrelevent. much as i have sympathy for the parents of the soldiers concerned, i'm afraid i don't agree with them. their sons - and daughters - have recieved significantly more training in the fundamentals of soldiering than pretty much any other Army before they are allowed to deploy, that training - the warfighting bit, rather than the trade training - has also increased since Afghanistan and is really pushed accross all trades. in the late 1990's it was reduced to 10 weeks, now its at 14 weeks - the increase is almost all 'field' work. in the 1990's in Bosnia you could meet trade specialists - Royal Signals, REME, Int Corps, RLC - who barely knew one end of a rifle from the next and who would of been utterly flumoxed on an infantry course. not now though. the Infanteers, the two young men who's parents contributed to the article, are superbly trained. like every other member of the Army they do 14 weeks just learning how to be a soldier, they then train another 24 weeks learning how to be an infanteer. compare this the US Marines who do 13 weeks of recruit training, and just 8 weeks of Infantry training. put simply they are vastly more prepared than either their predecessors or indeed other allied forces.

It's a great tragedy that this young man was killed, but he acquitted himself honorably and gave his life to help others, and to help his comrades. We should all live such a meaningful life if we lived to be a hundred! :D

My two penn'eth... We live in a country that doesn't allow people to drive certain classes of HGVs till they are 21 and where certain nightclubs can deny entry to people under 21. It takes years to train for most professions or trades. It takes 5 years to train to be a lawyer, 4 years to become an accontant, similar for a teacher, and so on and so forth. Was talking to a plasterer the other day, who told me it took him 2 years to learn how to plaster a wall properly. And yet we recruit 16 and 17 year olds for training and once they turn 18 we send them off to kill &/or be killed, with less than a years training. I find that bizarre.

Agreed, Dog. If you're old enough to fight and die for your country, you're old enough to enter a night club and get drunk with Prince Harry and your other compatriots. :wink:

Er ... not sure that's what BD was getting at, JP. Spartacus

Well, I know that Dog would rather that young men and women be allowed to enter nightclubs rather than be sent abroad to kill or (possibly) be killed. So would I. But the whole thing is silly, and Dog was calling our attention to that. I don't want to speak for another person, though. Hope Dog weighs in.