Pride and tears over rising toll of teenagers sent to war

Posted: Tue 8 May 2007 6 04 am

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

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

'Twas ever thus.

Three ways out of No Hope Street - sport, showbiz and the army.

Spartacus

Posted: Tue 8 May 2007 11 29 am

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

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Bestbear wrote:

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

In my experience, Bear, the Denizens of No Hope Street rarely got through those hallowed portals ...

The "Backward" class in a Sec Mod was more their destiny...

Spartacus

Posted: Tue 8 May 2007 1 24 pm

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.

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

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

Spartacus

Posted: Tue 8 May 2007 2 11 pm

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.

Posted: Tue 8 May 2007 3 46 pm

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!

Very Happy

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Jeffpaul wrote:

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!

Very Happy

I'm sorry, JP, but to my mind that's a platitude.

I would want more for my son or grandson than to die needlessly in a futile war to bolster politicians' egos.

A brave man, yes. But to my mind, his bravery was squandered.

Spartacus

Posted: Tue 8 May 2007 4 05 pm

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.

Posted: Wed 9 May 2007 3 16 pm

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

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

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

Spartacus

Posted: Wed 9 May 2007 3 42 pm

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.

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 809

Bulldog wrote:

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.

It could be argued, Dog, that once you have trained for these other professions you can go set up on your own and be your own boss. In the military you are guided and follow orders during most of your career. It takes years of experience to get to the top. No soldier works on his own. Nobody gives him a gun and says "Right, off you go and kill some enemy." They follow set procedures under the command of a more senior rank.

Unfortunately, war does not always allow time for recruits to grow and gain experience. This Iraq war was unecessary, but if you take WW2 as an example, without the younger men we'd have been wiped out long before the end. War is tragic. I wish there were none, but humanity tends to keep starting them for one reason or another.

There is no ideal age to die. There is also the point I made once before, that the younger recruits have quicker reflexes and are more ready to follow orders and digest instruction. In an ideal world they wouldn't be sent to war until slightly older and better trained .... but in an ideal world we would have no wars.

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 809

Spartacus wrote:

Bestbear wrote:

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

In my experience, Bear, the Denizens of No Hope Street rarely got through those hallowed portals ...

The "Backward" class in a Sec Mod was more their destiny...

Spartacus

My uncle, born into a humble family with a father who worked at a lino factory and a mother who took in laundry, went to the grammar school, became head boy, then qualified as a civil engineer and enjoyed a very sucessful career.

He might be an exception, but he's proof that it can happen.

Posted: Wed 9 May 2007 5 29 pm

Jeffpaul wrote:

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.

I couldn't give a stuff about the nightclubs.

I just wish we didn't send anyone, and particularly those too young to properly understand the risks, to kill or be killed in bloody Iraq.

Posted: Wed 9 May 2007 5 35 pm

Highlander wrote:

My uncle, born into a humble family with a father who worked at a lino factory and a mother who took in laundry, went to the grammar school, became head boy, then qualified as a civil engineer and enjoyed a very sucessful career.

He might be an exception, but he's proof that it can happen.

I know a few people with a similar story, as I'm sure we all do.

There is at least

I seem to recall that Sparty himself was a grammar school boy from a relatively humble background.

As were John Major, Ken Clark, David Davis, Norman Tebbit and Margaret Thatcher - no wonder the left don't like em!

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Confucius, he say, before posting read whole strand.

The expression I used was "No Hope Street".

Not Working Class street or Blue Collar Street.

I certainly didn't originate in No Hope Street and I suspect that the folk you named wouldn't think they did either.

And before you ask, I didn't say that everyone in the army, sport or showbiz was from there either ... Wink

Spartacus

Posted: Wed 9 May 2007 6 24 pm

He wasn't an exception, Highlander. His story could be repeated many thousands of times. Not least among the high fliers of the labour party, who then pulled up the ladder behind them in the interest of equality.

But, in fairness, you would have to say that the same thing can happen with a comprehensive education - but it can be far more of a struggle for the boy or girl. The whole point of the grammar school was to put the children in an environment where hard work and accomplishment was normal. rather than something despised by the majority.

Of course, Sparty will now tell us that there are many comprehensives where this ethos prevails ... but there are many more, mostly in "no hope street" areas, where this is far from the case. The "good comprehensive" tends to be in the middle-class area. The "bog standard" comprehensive is elsewhere.

My new neighbour is supply teaching in a secondary modern. He says it is the first time he has arrived at a school where no one in the staff room has warned him against specific disruptive pupils. I am not sure this proves anything, but it seemed to echo Mrs Bear's youthful teaching experience in a secondary modern that was a happy school where pupils were excelling, but in different subjects from those on offer in the grammar schools.

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 809

At the time my uncle went to the Grammar and my father to the "county modern", the Grammar was the only school offering any exams. My father did not sit any and so has no qualifications, not having bothered to take up later offers of night classes, etc.

I did, and always do, read the full posting. Not sure that there ever was a No Hope Street that was apart from Working Class Street. Even today, some kids from the non-working/benefit claiming "no hopers" do break out from their natural habitat and make it into one of the better schools. No Hope is a state of mind, and even in the worst of the 'can't be assed' communities there will be some who strive for greater things.

Posted: Wed 9 May 2007 10 23 pm

Spartacus wrote:

Confucius, he say, before posting read whole strand.

The expression I used was "No Hope Street".

Not Working Class street or Blue Collar Street.

I certainly didn't originate in No Hope Street and I suspect that the folk you named wouldn't think they did either.

And before you ask, I didn't say that everyone in the army, sport or showbiz was from there either ... Wink

Spartacus

But how many actually are from "No Hope Street" ?

1% ?

5% ?

10% ?

And should they majority be denied something better because a minority can probably never achieve it?

Joined: 24 Jun 2009 Posts: 1

i think 5% Very Happy

Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 1816

Here in the US the Heritage Foundation did a major study to determine who joins the military. The conclusion was that the people that serve in the military are generally more educated and come from slightly wealthier families than those that donâ€™t serve.

In this modern era of all volunteer forces is it any different in the UK than the US? Isnâ€™t the military in the UK relatively well educated and represent a reasonable cross section of society? I would be surprised if the answer was different in the UK.

It is too bad the man was killed in battle at an early age. Unfortunately a bullet or an IED doesnâ€™t ask for proof of age before doing its intended job.

Posted: Wed 24 Jun 2009 1 24 pm

kelvinsteele wrote:

i think 5% Very Happy

Greetings Kelvin.

Nice to see a new poster, we don't get many these days.

But I wonder what prompted you to resurrect this thread from 2007?

Posted: Wed 24 Jun 2009 1 27 pm

Gator wrote:

Here in the US the Heritage Foundation did a major study to determine who joins the military. The conclusion was that the people that serve in the military are generally more educated and come from slightly wealthier families than those that donâ€™t serve.

In this modern era of all volunteer forces is it any different in the UK than the US?

I'm sure Sandman, RM or Highlander can answer this better than I.

However, I understand that many American young people join the military partly in order to receive an education, or at least qualify for some subsidy towards paying for one. Is that correct?

I don't think the same benefits are on offer to British recruits.

Posted: Wed 24 Jun 2009 3 25 pm

I am admitedly out of touch with the military these days. But have we abolished the Royal Army Education Corps? Since before the Second World War, certainly, the army has educated its men in general subjects, as well as in trades proficiency. I have my father's Army Education First Class Certificate to prove it. He went from his family of "woodcutters" (true!) to become the RSM of a famous cavalry regiment by the time he was thirty.

Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 1816

Bulldog wrote:

Gator wrote:

Here in the US the Heritage Foundation did a major study to determine who joins the military. The conclusion was that the people that serve in the military are generally more educated and come from slightly wealthier families than those that donâ€™t serve.

In this modern era of all volunteer forces is it any different in the UK than the US?

I'm sure Sandman, RM or Highlander can answer this better than I.

However, I understand that many American young people join the military partly in order to receive an education, or at least qualify for some subsidy towards paying for one. Is that correct?

I don't think the same benefits are on offer to British recruits.

There is a "GI Bill" that provides educational assistance for college.

They just improved the program. After my son gets out of the Army after his three year enlistment he will get all books, tuition and fees paid and in addition $1500 a month for the fours years of school.

There is always a big debate on how much that benefit influences recruitment. The bill was first started after WWII for the draftee military. Although many people take advantage of it I donâ€™t know how many people join just because of it. I donâ€™t think it is that many but I could be wrong.

I used the GI Bill to go to college but that was not the reason I joined.

In my son's Cav Scout Basic Training class about a forth of the enlistees already had college degrees.

One of my son's friends from Basic was a 27 year old engineer. I met him at the Regimental graduation dinner. He was from the DC area and had a very good job working for a defense company. He was married and decided to join the Army for patriotic reasons. Although he is not the normal recruit I donâ€™t think he joined for the GI Bill.

Joined: 18 Oct 2006 Posts: 648

Most victims of War are now Children

http://www.questionwar.com/children.html

Most Victims are Children

As wars have developed in the twentieth century, the ratio of civilian deaths to military deaths has changed radically. One hundred years ago 5% of war casualties were civilians. In World War I civilian deaths were about 10%. In World War II, 65%. Tactics of modern wars have shifted casualties to 90% civilians. More than half of these civilian casualties are children less than 14 years of age. This is only the direct casualties from bombs, bullets and landmines. Add to this indirect and long-term casualties caused by destroyed infrastructure and a fractured society. resulting in disease, starvation, homelessness and the numbers become even more grim. On top of this add the long term effects of highly toxic armaments rained down upon the victim country â€“ Agent Orange in Viet Nam, Depleted Uranium in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan â€“ and the result is generations of suffering borne by civilians, mostly children.

Your tax dollars pay for this. Your politicians vote for it. Your media obscures it. And a few profit from it.
Do something. Learn more. Talk about it.

"War, we must realize, is the massive and indiscriminate killing of human beings. War, is always fundamentally a war against children. And therefore, whatever just cause is presented to us, whether true or invented, whatever words are thrown at us about fighting for liberty or democracy or against tyranny, we must reject war as a solution." -- Howard Zinn
boy

The countries, the names, the skin colors change, but the story of these wretched ones is tragically similar. There is the one who is walking in the meadow, the one who is playing in the backyard or who is shepherding goats, the one who tills the ground or who gathers its fruits. Then the blast . . . . Djamila felt a metallic click under her foot and had a fraction of a second to think before her left leg disintegrated . . . . Many others like Esfandyar do not remember a thing. A deafening noise and they are hurled on the ground.

They wrapped Esfandyar in a big sheet, and they loaded him in the back of a farm truck. Esfandyar did not complain-the father told us - not of the pain, nor of the uneven roads. It was as if he were sleeping. And he was still in that drowsy state when he arrived at the emergency room of our hospital . . . . He woke up different, Esfandyar, without an arm and a leg, and he will remain different, a young disabled person in a country so poor that it cannot afford to care for him.

--Gino Strada, Green Parrots

Copyright Â©2005 QuestionWar.com. All rights reserved. Terms of use.