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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article