Posted on 03/29/2002 1:59:42 AM PST by Podkayne
BRITAIN is to end its centuries-old policy of sending boy soldiers into battle after deciding to ratify a UN protocol aimed at preventing the use of children in warfare.
But it will continue to recruit 15-year-olds even though the protocol is specifically aimed at stopping armies from recruiting anyone under 18. At present, more than a third of recruits to the Armed Forces are below this age.
The deployment of 17-year-old soldiers during the Gulf war and the Kosovo conflict led Save the Children and other campaign groups to compare Ministry of Defence policy to that of Third World countries.
An investigation is continuing after two soldiers of 17 who were equipped with live ammunition died in shooting incidents at a barracks in Surrey.
In anticipation of the protocol's ratification, the Army has amended its rules to ensure that no one under 18 can be deployed on military operations abroad where there is a possibility of hostilities, said an MoD spokesman.
"We are putting in place policies that will enable us to comply with the new policy once the protocol has been ratified," he said. An unspecified number of 45 Commando, which is joining US-led attacks on al-Qa'eda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan, have been withdrawn because they are under 18.
The optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be laid before Parliament after Easter, a spokesman said. However, one of its key aims, to raise the age of recruitment above the age of 18 goes directly against Army policy.
The Army believes that recruiting soldiers young ensures that they stay in the service longer. This eases the chronic retention problems that have left it unable to get its numbers anywhere near the 108,500 personnel laid down by the 1998 Strategic Defence Review.
The Army is still struggling to raise regular strength above 100,000 and has been forced to reduce manning levels to just 107,000. Recruiting teenagers is seen as the answer to these problems.
Technically, the Army can recruit children as young as 15 years and nine months. They do not begin training until they are 16 and only then if they are joining the Army Foundation College at Harrogate, North Yorks.
All three services recruited 16-year-olds for similar "boy service" training until the early 1990s when the Major government stopped the practice. The MoD believes that decision led to today's recruitment problems.
Last year's Defence Training Review recommended that a second college be built and that training should cover all three services. Even servicemen joining the "man's service" need to be only 17, provoking anger among campaign groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Save the Children.
A report last year by the International Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers singled out Britain as one of the worst offenders among 178 countries, most of them in the Third World. The MoD said it unreservedly condemned the use of children in armed conflict.
But the recruitment of 16- to 18-year-olds with the consent of their parents was fundamentally different to "the abusive, compulsory, or coercive involvement of children as members of militia or para-military forces".
No British servicemen or women under 18 would now be deployed on land operations outside the UK, although they might participate in purely humanitarian missions where no hostile forces are involved.
No one under 18 would be allowed to carry out operational patrols in Northern Ireland, although they might be sent there in other roles. A spokesman for Amnesty International said: "The UK holds the lowest minimum age for recruiting within Europe and is still seeking to broaden its recruitment of children.
"It has to decide what is the best way to defend Britain, with children or with adults."
The only question to ask is who is running the store and what will it look like in 20 years?
Of what use is the soldier then? Especially those in this category that are trained as combat troops? If they can't deploy they're just taking up space and money. Britain might as well install Amnesty International as their Minister of Defense.
Sounds like the Kumbya Korps. < /Americorps sarcasm>
I think too, there is a trade off for mental preparedness. Older men would be more psychologically prepared to deal with the rigors of combat, and it is a fact that men in their late twenties and early thirties have more endurance. Maybe teens wouldn't have as much emotional baggage though. But still, bottom line. If you train a young man to be a combat soldier and then you legislate yourself out of being able to use him for that very purpose- what's the point? What I object to is Britain bending under pressure from the UN. I served alongside 17 year olds and some of them were good troops. That they didn't "deserve to die because they're too young" never entered my mind, at what age does it become okey dokey to die for one's country? Amnesty International just going to forget about the next Joe because he's 24 or what?
I say, if a man has the guts to put his name on the line and take up arms for his country, he's thrust himself into the role of manhood and that should be respected. It is only very recently in history that any nation has even had the luxury to pamper (as it were) young men 15- 19 years of age. For the rest of of human history, they were thought of as men in this age bracket and were expected to act like it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.