to think that Gordon Brown was writing with good intentions to the mother of the dead soldier.......does handwriting really matter??

[SquirrelTrap]

I think it is all rather unfair.

I would prefer a scrawled personally written letter than a spell-checked standard Word document letter? I think it is all rather nasty.

Really??? Loads of jobs on civvy street? For young lads who prehaps didn't have the best of education or coming from places where there is extreamly high unemployment there are not alot of jobs on civvy street. So they join the army where they can get a decent wage and prospects.

I don't think of my husband has a hero I think of him as just that... my husband. There is no buying into anything, my husband has a job to do and he does it. He does a hard job and does it well.

There is no brainwashing going on I'm old enough and know my own mind enough to have my own views about the armed services. I don't think they are all killers and I don't think they are all hero's they are ordinary men doing a job in extrodinary circumstances. Some of those ordinary men then step up and prove they are hero's; the lad who crawls through thick fire to rescure his wounded mate, the lad going forward in a gun battle with no thoughts for himself. The army promotes moral and physical courage not heroism.

About being in denial would you say that to a policeman, and I suppose you could say that there is less chance of a policeman getting killed or maimed, well what about the police from Northern Ireland? The PSNI do a job which could get them killed but they still do it. I make me laugh at all the slating of the Armed Forces, people are quick enough to call on them during the fireman strike.
What about the nurses and doctors who join the army? They don't just help British Forces but civilians and Taliban too.

see all the aggression, and the ???? and the 'what planet' etc... it just rather imo goes to substantiate the groupthink at play in the military. i write my posts carefully, and absolutely am happy to discuss any point contained in them, there's no need for such an aggressive reaction.

for the record there have been PLENTY of jobs for low-skilled people in call centres etc here for the last decade, there absolutely have been other options than the army.

good to see that you acknowledge that there has to be a certain amount of denial involved, agree absolutely about the car, scaryteacher, we could get killed every time we step inside it. i take as many precautions as i can wrt my driving experience, and one of them would be not driving in Afghanistan with a known enemy trying to blow myself to bits. that's all i'm saying, i just don't get why there is so much outrage from the families when a soldier dies in a combat situation, that's what they're there for. and the nurses and the doctors and all of them for whom a life on civvy st was not enough. they want more, something indefinable it sounds like, and sometimes they pay with their lives. that's their choice, imo.

re the r4 soldier, he was very clear that he felt guilty about his excitement at going to put his training into practice, because he could see his girlfriend was terrified. what's that training in? it's in going to kill people because that's what he's been told to do, and trying not to get killed himself. a normal chap does not want to do this, and whether he was a normal chap prior to joining up, the military has to defeat that programming by creating fear, sometimes with imagined threats (wmds for example) and a notion of brotherhood that is not necessary under normal conditions.

it is interesting that herbie (i think it was) spoke of the lack of mh back-up for returning servicemen. certainly from what i've seen on documentaries etc this seems to be shamefully true, men are encouraged to spend two weeks getting arseholed and then get on with things. no wonder they can't, because regardless of what they've seen in combat zones, the fact is that they are trained killers and can't be untrained. that must be a head-fuck of monumental proportions. i don't know about the americans treating their staff, but i do know that the wives and children of american servicemen run a much higher risk of being murdered by their husbands and fathers, and that domestic violence is endemic to army bases, and is not being tackled proactively. how can it be? these men can't be pussycats, they're needed to do a violent job.

www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/12/fortbragg200212 this is quite interesting, following up some murders at fort bragg.

how the us air force responds to claims of rape

Apologies I didn't realise that there were such sensitivites on here that ???? could be seen an aggressive.
I don't agree about the plenty of low skilled jobs for people. The maain recuiting numbers for the army are from places where there are not a lot of jobs for people. I have family in Liverpool and the few that can get a job are working in warehouses for very poor money. Is it any wonder that faced with this people join the army. My dh has got a trade and qualificatiobs that will enable him to get a job when he leaves the army. This would not have been possible if he had not.
Am not sure where you are getting this two week drinking from. I see you are quoting from the US Army so could be that but in the British Army soldiers spend 48 hours in Cyprus where there is water sports and BBQ and controlled drinking. The get approx two days at home then they go back to work. They absolutely are not encouraged to run wild for weeks, they are brought back to work under a controlled enviroment.
The US Army is not the same as the British Army.
What about police though, don't you think they are in denial maybe nobody should join the poice either?

cyprus is exactly what i'm talking about actually, there was a doc on recently (was it a panorama, i think maybe it was) where they followed a number of ex-soldiers after they left the army. as i recall the investigation was into mh problems and the shocking no of suicides, and the doc and the soldiers said that the two weeks were spent getting out of their heads. maybe their experience was different to your dh's, i dunno.

i don't think i was saying that the US army was the same, i mentioned their record on DV and familial murder because it had come up as a paragon. i'd be interested to know about DV etc in the british military, i wonder if there are figures? it doesn't make sense to me that men can be taught to access their aggression and then switch it off when they come back home.

we'll just have to agree to disagree about the jobs, although as a scot i'd agree that the military has long used up the lives of very poor, uneducated working class men. again, though, that's the trade-off, that's the risk taken.

i'm not sure that the police is a good example, is it? the attrition rate is hardly comparable...

I think the police is a prime example of a good comparison especially if you look at the Northern Ireland police. The PSNI and before that the RUC were always getting targeted. People still joined though.

It's not that my husbands experience is different it's just a fact of what happens. Was probably different years ago but has been this way for a while. I'm not saying the whole process is perfect it's not but the MOD don't just let them loose.

People are angry about their loved ones dying because there should be no question that when a soldier is sent to war they should get the best equipment available and anger is a part of the grieving process.

oh right, specifically the RUC? sure, same thing, signing up to be a target. re supplies etc, twas ever thus as Penth et al pointed out. anger being part of the grieving process... yes, but i think that the anger should be directed at person who decided to join up.
and wrt the doc, it was only on six weeks ago, very shocking. so either the guys on there were lying or someone along the line has been misinformed.

Well with this we will have to agree to disagree you got your info from tv mine from real life. If it was the same program I watched one of the lads was saying about this huge piss up in Cyprus at the very time my husband was working decompression. RUC were the police as is the PSNI now. Are you suggesting that there shouldn't have been a police force in NI? Or even now considering a policemen was killed in March? You do realise that they have been told that they are still legitamate targets?

Saying about struggling afterwards and not being able to get on with things, DV etc
it was on radio 4 just yesterday that the UK has more ex-servicemen in prison than we have soldiers in Afghanistan.

well then anyone joining up has to factor that into their decision, then...

which is it, then? great back up for soldiers returning with mh problems? not what your fellow wives are saying on this thread.

and you know what, water sports and controlled drinking? i mean, really... how is that decompression from a combat zone?

Well what do you suggest then, previously it was said that there was nothing for soldiers when they return home and then when I say that there is it's not good enough? They also go back to work so that any troubling signs can be spotted. Some aren't I admit that but people with mh problems don't walk around with a sign round there neck proclaiming it.
I didn't say that it is great support for soldiers returning with mh but it is getting better.

really, paisley? bloody hell. how sad.

i suggest that it's something that should be taken into account by people joining up, that's all. i don't understand why people join up, i don't understand why they don't realise that it's not foreign holidays and great pals, that they're signing up to give their lives in a war, and if they do realise it then i don't understand why their families don't realise that they had to take responsibility for that choice. i think that they're all in deniial and i think they need to be in order to keep a standing army. the military has no doubt honed its methods over hundreds of years.

How many people in the Armed Forces do you know Aitch? Closely? I think you are spouting crap quite frankly.

My db goes off to Afghanistan shortly. He is in the RN, over 40, married with 2 kids, with an MSc. He is going there to do a job involving logistics, to support those in the field, not shoot at people. Both he and my dh were perfectly aware that their jobs entailed the risk of being killed at sea by a reactor going wrong; or in combat at sea if the Cold War went hot. Both have thought about what it means to kill or be killed and accept that as part of the job.

The anger from the Forces about the deaths in Afghanistan is that in many cases they are avoidable. The troops are being sent out without the correct kit, and the Government, having wilfully underfunded the Forces for the past 12 years, now say they all go out with the right kit; there are enough chinooks etc, which we all know is complete bollocks. If there were enough chinooks then the guys wouldn't be killed by IEDs, as they wouldn't be travelling along roads, they'd be flying. Again, I point out that we are not in denial about the fact our family members may be killed when they are at sea/deployed etc, we know it could happen, but we don't spend every minute of every day worrying about it. It's a calculated risk.

As to the civilian jobs - there may be callcentre jobs - but what about well paid jobs for highly qualified chartered engineers who also work in the field of international relations? Non existant, so dh will be staying in the RN until he retires. There are no engineering jobs out there that would give him the salary he gets now.

I'm disappointed Aitch that you can't see the inherent bias in some of what is portrayed in the media. I am very sceptical about a lot of what is put out. The current front pages about the MOD bonus scheme for example. This is a scheme that has been going on for years; I don't think any Civil servants should get bonuses, as they are paid and get a good pension (which should more than make up for the pay), but the media haven't commented on it before particularly afaik.

I have been closely involved with the Royal Navy for 43 years and I have yet to see anyone I know offer their wives or children domestic violence. Neither my dh or my db does, nor do our friends. Mind you, the wives I know are a very feisty lot, and we would not put up with it for a minute. The Armed Forces personnel I know are all normal people who wanted the chance to do something different and in my dh's case a specific branch of engineering in a very specific environment. That's why people join - see my earlier post for all the reasons.

My car analogy was better than you thought. There are about 3000 fatalities in RTAs per annum in UK. To date, since 2001, 232 service personnel have been killed in Afghanistan, which equates to 29 a year. We are focussed on the deaths that occur in Afghanistan, but not on those who do get home safely.

The mental health care does concern me. I know of an Army medic who had come back, and recently committed suicide, leaving a wife and 3 kids. I would like to know why that wasn't picked up.

I'd also like to point out as Ferret does that you can't really compare the US Army and the British Army. They are a much larger beast and operate under different rules to us domestically. I wouldn't have any problems being on a UK base of any description - even dh felt threatened by being on the large US run base he goes to at times the other day.

Oh, and Aitch, the what planet wasn't aggression - it was disbelief, eye rolling and headshaking at what you were saying, for which there are no emoticons.

lol, of course it wasn't. what planet are you on?

so bottom line, once again, "Both have thought about what it means to kill or be killed and accept that as part of the job."

fine. so i don't want to hear you moaning about it if it happens. because there has never, as Penth pointed out, been a war where equipment has been in abundance, and that must also have been built into the acceptance that you speak of.

it's flat out crazy to assume that this govt would break the habit of history and fund wars to the satisfaction of the military wives. there's a financial tipping point, presumably, of how many men the govt is prepared to lose (as you point out, the current death rate is low so this contradicts your position that they are so vastly under-resourced) and how much it's costing them. a soldier signs up to be part of that equation, however unpalatable that is.

and i didn't compare the US army, as i said before, i mentioned them because they'd been brought up as a paragon of virtue wrt to the way they look after their troops. those articles contradict that wildly.

i have to accept that you have never heard of any DV in all your years of being involved with the military, but in all honesty your use of the 'we're a feisty lot' just speaks of someone with their ears tightly shut. i'd be interested to see what dittany thinks, but ime (having dealt with WA and Zero Tolerance) tellingly it's a word often used by families who don't want to acknowledge that a female family member is being abused, that she's 'too feisty for that to happen to her etc etc'.

I haven't weighed in so far on this thread because it seems to to have veered massively from its original purppose but there are several issues I'd like to address.

1 - GBs letter. I'm no fan of GB but I do think that sending a letter to the bereaved family is a kindly-meant gesture. I agree that he should have double-checked the name and other mistakes but I also think that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion for political gain. So, blame on both sides IMO.

2 - The notion of brainwashing in the Army/Forces and that anyone who enjoys their job is a de facto psychopath.

I don't think the Forces indulge in as much "brainwashing" as other posters on this thread seem to think. Yes, the training encourages the cohesiveness of the unit and emphasises the need to think of others around you - a you-watch-my-back mentality. However, there is a definite sense of brotherhood and camaraderie in a unit and a good commander fosters and develops that. I know this because my husband spent two years at RMAS as DS, involved in the training of officer cadets.

The notion of the regimental family is a strong and real one and one with which I have some familiarity (my husband is in the Army). I certainly haven't been subject to any brainwashing/compusory bonding (unless one counts the competitive dinner party circuit!).

I didn't hear the young officer on R4 but his attitude sounds very familiar and understandable to me. My husband has just come back from his latest tour of Afghanistan and before he went he was a mix of nerves (it's a dangerous place and people we know have been killed and injured) and excitement (the knowledge that he'd be doing his job in the field as opposed to training conditions). I can assure you that he is not a psycopath - he's a well-adjusted, happy family man who is very proud of his professional abilities.

This might be an uncomfortable thought but war can be exciting - like any other situation where one risks one's life.

3 - The "decompression". Yes, men returning from tour are encouraged to spend two days in Cyprus before flying home where they are back in work for a couple of weeks before they can take their post-tour leave. The thinking behind this is that they wind down from the operational tempo gradually rather than come from a warzone to a family home in 24hrs. So far, it seems to be a more effective way of helping the soldiers adjust to normal life after six or seven months away. I'm not sure how long this practice has been commonplace - it's certainly within the last five years or so - so it's possible that the soldiers in the documentary Aitch mentions are referring back to an earlier time.

4 - Why anyone joins up. There are as many answers to that question as there are servicemen and women, I think. My husband knew he wanted to join the Army from a young age. He went to Uni (with encouragement from Army recruitment - he'd planned to join as s soldier) gained two degrees and hesded for Sandhurst and he's never looked back. He joined up prior to 9/11, so his choices were not influenced by the "war on terror". In all honesty, he joined for a mix of reasons. Firstly, it offered him opportunities not available on civvie street - university being one of them. Secondly, he has always wanted to do a job that fulfilled some sort of public service (the police would have been his second choice if he'd failed selection for the Army). He believes in the values that he was taught at Sandhurst - courage (moral and physical), duty, integrity (professional and personal), service before before self and he tries to live by those values both as an officer and as a man.

He did know that it wasn't all "...foreign holidays and great pals..." and he did know that he might find himself in the position we are in today - fighting a very real and dangerous war.

Not all families speak out about the death of their loved ones but those who do blame the government are generally saying that the deaths were preventable - not because of the war per se but because equipment that should have available was not provided. There are, I'm sure, some deaths that were avoidable and there are many that weren't. Most families accept those risks - I know I do.

When my husband went away, he left me with the file that was mentioned earlier - letters for me and our sons as well as his parents, a photogrpah, financial details, funeral plans, a will - everything I would need to get organised in the weeks following his death. So, while we certainly hoped he would come home safely, we were not naive or unprepared in thinking that the worst would not happen to us.

So, my husband and I are fully prepared to take responsibility for his choice to join up and serve and accept that he might be killed or injured in the line of duty.

Families and veterans and serving personnel are campaigning for the governement to honour the Miltary Covenant (quoted below):

"Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices ? including the ultimate sacrifice ? in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action."

However, in accepting our side of the Military Covenant - that we may pay in blood - we expect and challenge the government to fulfill their side - that they will pay with treasure by providing suitable equipment, adequate pay and conditions and care for the wounded and bereaved.

So, when families protest, they're not always refusing to take responsibility for their choices - we're trying to make the government own up to their responsibilities.

i imagine you are offended, herbie. i'm just not sure what i can do about that, tbh, because you're operating on the basis that what your dh has signed up for is quite different to what i think he signed up for.

imo your dh committed himself to war by signing up, and he did so regardless of the funding situation (although there was a lesson from history that he presumably ignored), regardless of the ethical basis for going to war, regardless of the politics when he joined up to fight for other men's arguments.

we fundamentally disagree about job opportunities during the last decade or so of economic boom, i think there were other options out there, and i do not understand why someone would sign away their right to autonomy in that manner.

On the issue of DV - I'm sure there are cases of it, after all, it stands to reason that if it affects a certain percentage of marriages then some of those marriages must involve Service personnel.

However, I don't know of any such cases through personal experience. The men and wives I know appear to be a happy, normal bunch.

Of course, no one can be sure what goes on behind closed doors but I have no evidence that incidences of DV are any higher in the Services than they are on civvie street.

jscot am in process of reading your post, must dash away, but just wanted to be completely clear that i specifically said that it wasn't brainwashing, more an ultra-bonding and something else i can't remember. not that this has prevented it being somethign that 'was definitely said' iykwim?

excellent post, jscot, a fine sense of balancing the inherent danger, the responsibility and the personal rewards. re the military covenant, i have no issue with that other than the fact that it appears never to have been observed at any point in history, so on that basis alone it seems naive in the extreme to expect to have all the equipment needed.

the programme that mentioned cyprus was only on a few months ago.

"the programme that mentioned cyprus was only on a few months ago."

Yes, but the soldiers interviewed may have been referring to a time before the current scheme was in place.

just from a quick google

"The number of former servicemen in prison or on probation or parole is now more than double the total British deployment in Afghanistan, according to a new survey. An estimated 20,000 veterans are in the criminal justice system, with 8,500 behind bars, almost one in 10 of the prison population.

The proportion of those in prison who are veterans has risen by more than 30% in the last five years."

"Those involved had served in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. They are most likely to have been convicted of a violent offence, particularly domestic violence."