THE LATEST British soldier to be killed in Afghanistan died on August 27 in a heavy enemy attack on a "platoon house" in Musa Qala which has been attacked on average two or three times a day in recent weeks.

Conventional infantry doctrine requires operational units normally to operate in a static environment in battalion or at a minimum in company groups, so that they have the numbers and firepower to repel attacks, and the human resources to provide reasonable breaks for rest and administration as well as operational duty.

The concept of "platoon houses" has been developed not because it is stronger and safer but because there are so few troops available. It is appallingly risky against a wellequipped and fanatical enemy who can attack using hijacked bulldozers, suicide bombers, etc.

If only one section goes out on patrol from a platoon house, it is unsupported and the remaining two sections must guard the building, eat, wash, clean weapons and sleep. These dangerous tactics are due to irresponsible reductions in the size of the infantry and the undertaking of commitments in too many theatres simultaneously. Prolonged fighting with insufficient relief and rest is causing psychiatric and psychological conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder at record levels.

We risk a platoon house being overrun with 100-per cent casualties. Must this happen before something is done to safeguard our overstretched soldiers by reducing commitments to a level that can be safely resourced? Record numbers of soldiers currently want to leave the Army because they know they are being exposed to unprecedented and unacceptable risks.

If we lose 100-per cent casualties in a platoon house, we must have not only ministerial resignations but also further criminal prosecutions, not of soldiers on active service this time, but of inactive politicians.

Major (retd) Michael Hamilton, KOSB, 7 Carlton Street, Edinburgh.