| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Britain | ||
| Shock toll of British injured in Afghan war | ||
| 2007-08-19 | ||
| The human cost of the war in Afghanistan to British soldiers can be revealed today as figures show that almost half of frontline troops have required significant medical treatment during this summer's fighting. In a graphic illustration of the intensity of the conflict in Helmand province, more than 700 battlefield soldiers have needed treatment since April - nearly half of the 1,500 on the front line. The figures, obtained from senior military sources, have never been released by the government, which has faced criticism that it has covered up the true extent of injuries sustained during the conflict. The Ministry of Defence releases the number of soldiers taken to hospital, a fraction of those who require treatment on the battlefield. The new figures relate to the number of soldiers patched up and sent back to the front line and who do not appear in official casualty reports. By contrast, US official figures take into account soldiers treated on the front line. In their figures, wounded troops include those away from the front line for 72 hours or more. One British army official said the 700 cases include a 'handful' of officers who suffered injuries and chose to carry on fighting. The injuries include shrapnel wounds, cuts, burns, acute heat stroke and diseases such as 'DnV' - diarrhoea and vomiting that can incapacitate a man for days. Of the 700 cases, 400 combat troops were described as being so ill they were forced to 'lay down their bayonets'.
Military sources said the willingness of soldiers to carry on fighting while suffering was indicative of the bravery being routinely displayed. 'The courage of the soldiers has been remarkable. Many are getting patched up and just want to get on with it. Most do not want to leave their comrades,' said the source in Helmand. Last week, details were released about how 26-year-old Captain David Hicks, of the 1st Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment, refused morphine after being mortally wounded by shrapnel so he could keep a clear head to lead his men. He later died of his injuries. The MoD said the figures should not be confused with its published 'casualty' figures, claiming that cases treated by frontline medics often related to minor ailments and complaints that were not considered life-threatening or serious. The spokeswoman went on to say that, in serious cases, troops were not given the option to carry on fighting. However, the number of serious injuries is rising. A spokesman for the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association said that 27 British soldiers had lost limbs serving in Afghanistan and Iraq during the past 12 months.
'You could be in the army for decades and you will never get anything like that again. Will it be bettered? I can't see it,' said one soldier. Commanders are understood to be concerned that the Helmand conflict could precipitate an exodus of combat troops who feel military life will never offer the same challenge again. Campaigners have frequently argued that British troops are paying a higher price on the battlefield than has been made public. Casualty figures are expected to rise in the coming months as the current tour, from April to October, finishes, when regiments that have experienced the brunt of fighting push on to gain ground before they leave. | ||
| Posted by:lotp |
| #5 Al-Guardian - I might have known. Just another BS-filled piece of enemy propaganda from Britain's internal enemies masquerading as "news". Look, dipwad, soldiers don't go "looking" for combat, and it's not the only thing that keeps them serving. Obviously the closest the "reporter" has ever come to a military unit is watching the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace. The idiot's own words contradict what he writes. The officer that refused to leave his men, the soldiers that have been "nicked" but not seriously injured continuing to fight, etc., shows a military with high morale and cameraderie - something this dipwad wouldn't understand in a thousand years. The British military may not be as well-equipped and well-trained as some of the US troops (mostly special operations types), but they punch well above their weight, and deserve the respect of those at home. Sadly, it doesn't seem as if the British "elite" feel obligated to point that out. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-08-19 16:53 |
| #4 Shock toll of British injured in Afghan war It's nothing compared to the First Anglo-Afghan War. On January 1, 1842 following some unusual thinking by Elphinstone an agreement was reached that provided for the safe exodus of the British garrison and its dependents from Afghanistan. Five days later, the retreat began, The departing British contingent numbered around 14–16,000, of about 4,500 military personnel, and over 10,000 civilian camp followers; the military force consisted mostly of Indian units and one British battalion, the 44th. As they struggled through the snowbound passes, the British were attacked by Ghilzai warriors.The evacuees were harassed down the 30 miles of treacherous gorges and passes lying along the Kabul River between Kabul and Gandomak. and massacred at the Gandamak pass before reaching the besieged garrison at Jalalabad. The force had been reduced to fewer than forty men by a retreat from Kabul that had become, toward the end, a running battle through two feet of snow. The ground was frozen and the men had no shelter and little food for weeks. Only a dozen of the men had working muskets, the officers their pistols and a few unbroken swords. The only Briton known to have survived was Dr. William Brydon. Lady Butler's famous painting of Dr William Brydon, reportedly the sole survivor, gasping his way to the British outpost in Jalalabad, helped make Afghanistan's reputation as a graveyard for foreign armies and became one of the great epics of Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Afghan_War |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-08-19 09:18 |
| #3 I'm remember a Willie & Joe cartoon caption. I already got a Purple Heart, gimme an asprin. |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-08-19 08:06 |
| #2 Will the ones who are serious about real soldiering join the U.S. Armed Forces? Or perhaps the Polish Army? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-08-19 07:31 |
| #1 Only adding to the shame and sorrow of what's happening to the UK military - not a question of courageous and able practitioners, but a rot in their home country's understanding of its responsibilities and the way the world works. The US is not immune to these, of course. Don't want any of my discouraging words to be construed as disrespect for the British military. The political class and electorate that fails to support them, that's another story. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-08-19 02:02 |