How can UK Army “mistakenly” send 17 year olds to war in Iraq?…?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6479769.stm

QUOTE
“The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child define ANYONE UNDER the age of 18 as a Child, yet, in UK, the Army recruit over 5000 16 and 17 year olds every year, with the Government ADMITTING it’s “MISTAKENLY SENT SOME 17 YEAR OLDS INTO BATTLE IN IRAQ” UNQUOTE.

Grown men with YEARS of combat service under their belts have been reduced to quivering wrecks from PTSD after the sights and sounds they have seen - mass graves, decapitated bodies, children blown to bits, and yet, our GOVERNMENT ADMITS they have sent Children into battle.. No matter how brave that youngster may be, no matter how much that youngster wants to be with his mater in the heat of battle, the FACT remains he/she is NOT mentally or psychologically prepared for such a role.. And Officers and junior Officers are NOT educated enough to recognise emerging psychological problems. Proper screening and assessment at recruitment office should be done

My daughter, when joining the cadets was given a lecture and GRAPHIC pics and video of the damage drugs can do by Military Police. She is MORE anti-drug than the so called UK “Govt drug czar” !

Maybe Recruiters should start showing the REAL THING - good AND bad - to those wanting to join up - what better way of screening and assessing the future Armed Forces - than at Source instead of the “Speilberg exciting” tv mass media adverts today to look for cannon fodder - because there is no time to properly train these new recruits, AND to get some experience under their belts before deploying them into the battle theatre.

Answer 1

Under new Legislation that came into effect on October 1st 2006, supported by labour, Conservative and Lib-Dems, ageism in any form of employment (viz. discrimination against any employee on grounds of his or her date of birth) is now unlawful, The new legislation is explicitly based on the hypothesis that "everybody is different" and everybody has now to be judged on their potential and ability to do any job not by their age.

Moreover the UK new Laws on this came on to the statute book in compliance with an EEC Directive. So the M.O.D. really has no choice in the matter. Compliance with the Law by the M.O.D. would not therefore appear to be definable as "a mistake" as alleged in this question?

Answer 2

Tony bLair & previous governments has over the past few years,strippep the British Forces bare.The only regiment up to full strength is the Brigade of Gurkha's. When I joined I was 17 & at that time in the mid 80's,you had to be 18 minimum to serve overseas,including Germany.
When the Berlin wall came down the government at that time decided on mass redundencies under what they called 'Options for Change'.I myself was made redundent from the RAF in 96 but have since joined the reserves (TA).
Part of the issue is retention. Because of the frequency of deployments to various theatres has got shorter.A friend of mines son got back from Iraq & was on leave & got recalled & sent down Bosnia within 3 weeks.
Specialist trades are hit even worse & with the alledged' (by the BBC) amount of AWOL soldiers being 10.000,the current military is too far over stretched.

Answer 3

If one is to agree with what you say then it is a call for a new way that recruits are recruited or trained.

If recruited at 16 then they must be rigorously trained for two years before being allowed into combat situations. The other option is to recruit them at 18.

To be honest, who is really psychologically or mentally prepared for war until placed in that situation? Until that time it´s all abstract and something that happens third party.

Boys will always think it heroic thinking from afar, but placed in the middle of it is a far far cry from how they imagine it to be. 16 or 18 ( especially in a mans case) is not that much of a difference when it comes to being mentally prepared. And to be honest i don´t think you can ever be fully mentally prepared for the reality of going to war.

It is the obligation of both the parents and the recruiters to fully inform recruitees just what joining up is likely to entail., especially in this day and age. There is no point in someone joining only to cut and run when they are asked to do what they are paid for.

The army is not a holiday camp.

Answer 4

During peace time the military recruits people to be trained as soldiers from 16yrs, they may not discriminate.
The general Idea is to have them fully trained with a years service in-country before they are deployed to a hot-zone.

However the military is well known for having mad stupid decisions, such as issuing Tropical shorts to men being deployed to arctic areas and vice versa.

So them sending 17 year olds in to kill terrs is regular behaviour.

Ever hear the oxymoron: Military intelligence?

Answer 5

Men and women of this age gave their lives in the first and second world wars, the fact they have joined the armed forces should alert them to the possibility of going to war!

I find it quite ridiculous that people demand enquiries when soldiers and other forces are killed in the line of duty, its war, and they have joined to serve their country and if that means combat, then so be it

No one is ever adequately prepared for what can be seen under war conditions, no matter how graphic films and descriptions are, its experience ands if they are reduced to quivering wrecks, then many of them shoud never have signed up in the first place

Answer 6

I come from israel. there every 18yr old must go to the army- boys and girls. Warriors are chosen by their physical and mental tests, they are not asked if they want to fight. the are TOLD to fight. These youngsters are also very young. practically children. After the war last year in Lebanon I realized that the youngster are physically stronger and as cold as it might seem- have less to loose. they still dont have wifes and children, apart from parents and siblings they are not leaving anything behind. I think war and dying is terrible both for young soldiers and for older more experienced. its sad to loose anyone- no matter how old. As for dead children, blasterd peices of skin and blood from war, etc- its a miserable horrific sight for anyone, any age. All in all war is horrible for eveyone, the age doesnt matter.

Answer 7

I was a soldier at 17 and in Vietnam at 18. By 22 I was on my second tour and a Platoon Sergeant. The young are in many ways better equipped than adults. I saw a lot of soldiers in thier early teens, boys and girls in the jungle.

Answer 8

So therefore every seventeen year old or under who served in any army served illegally tell the un to sort out its own house 17 year olds served in Korea in the 50s ,political points scoring or what.

Answer 9

What's your point? If someone wants to go bad enough, they will provide false documentation. And you said the key word in your last sentence: RECRUITMENT. That means that they were not drafted, they volunteered to join, knowing the consequences. The UK Army / government is NOT to blame here. Get over yourself, jeez.

Answer 10

mistakes happen.... increase the age of being able to join to 18 then you will not have to worry..... i don't see the point of being able to join the army at 17 and not be able to do what you have joined for or signed up for.....
i also be leave that no matter how old you are you are never ready mentally to see the horror of war...
and sorry to say we don't live in a world were mistakes don't happen...