Take the invisible ones first.  In 2007 Combat Stress warned they had seen a 53% increase in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) cases since 2004.  They were already dealing with cases returning from two war fronts, but that wasn’t the only reason for the increase.  First, those who deal with ex-servicemen suffering from PTSD will tell you that it can take up to 14 years either for the damage to fully surface or for those affected to seek help.  Second, the first (short) Gulf war took place 14 years before the noticed rise in cases.  Our forces have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for the last 8 years.

In November 08 the MoD were insisting that, of 195,100 serving personnel, only 0.45% suffered from mental disorders(4). 

The physically injured are a little more visible, or what’s left of them is.  But again, despite the fine words, the Government seems to be more concerned about financing the damage that has been done in our name.  Figure this: in July this year the MoD was defending the practice of spying on servicemen suspected of lodging false claims for damages for injuries(8).  It said the tactic helped stop fraudulent claims and saved millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.  Since 2000, 284 claims have been secretly tracked and monitored.  This, said the MoD, was less than 1% of all claims.  Not a lot, is it?

Not until you do the maths.  284 is 1% of 28,400.  That means that in the last 8½ years, there have been around 28,500 claims for damages because of injuries.  And that is over 7% of the total Armed Forces strength(9), or over 16% of the regular Armed Forces.  Take out all those engaged in office or non-combatant jobs, and suddenly a very large problem appears.   Either there is a compensation culture within the Armed Forces (hard to believe seeing how desperate many injured soldiers are to get back on active duty with their units), or an awful lot of people are getting hurt badly enough that they need and seek compensation.  Admittedly some of the injuries would have occurred anyway, through accidents or negligence.  But the majority must surely be for injuries sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some will be for loss of hearing, most affecting those serving in Afghanistan.  In October 2008 the Times reported that

And yet - there is something odd about the figures of injuries sustained by British Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There are proportionately more people dying of the injuries they have received in action now than in previous years.  For instance, in Iraq in 2003, 39 were ‘killed in action’ and only one ‘died of wounds’.  Yet in 2006 18 were killed in action and 9 died of wounds.  And the following year 24 were killed in action and 13 died of wounds(11).  In Afghanistan things were a little better but followed the same trend.  In 2006 20 were killed in action and only one died of wounds, but from January to 15 July 2009, 41 were killed in action and 5 died of wounds(12).  Are they running out of field hospitals and medical supplies?  Is the lack of transport to get the wounded into medical care the problem?  Or is it because they are not in tanks any more, but in vehicles which the MoD say are armoured, but in practice insufficiently so?  Considering the MoD’s record for kitting out the forces it has committed to fighting its wars, it would come as no surprise.

For the MoD’s record on procurement and supply is truly terrible.  It has been known for years that MoD procurement deals often wildly exceed their budget, sometimes by as much as 40%(13).  A recent report by the National Audit Office, being sat upon by the Government, is believed

But without helicopters to move the troops around, they have to travel on land, constantly at risk from

‘The driver sits over the front wheel, the most vulnerable part of the vehicle which is also the most likely to trigger, and so take the full force of, a mine. The bottom of the Jackal is flat, meaning the blast is not dissipated. Reinforcing the bottom with more armour – as with the Jackal II – means that the vehicle will flip over with the force of a blast and crush its passengers…… The Jackal is just the latest failure by the Ministry of Defence to provide a mine-resistant vehicle to both Iraq and Afghanistan. A quarter of the 195 service personnel to have died in Afghanistan were travelling in poorly protected vehicles. Such is the problem from mines that convoys travel at four miles an hour, with a minesweeper on foot walking in front’(18).  

At the same time modern warfare doesn’t work in an ancient land with guerrilla fighters.  Tanks work against tanks not hit and run insurgents.  Nor can Snatch Land Rovers, Jackals and similar vehicles succeed against IEDs.  Because modern warfare can’t cope with the nature of fighting in Afghanistan the sniper is being resurrected (19).  Mind you, judging from the photos of the camouflage being used I suspect it won’t be long before the insurgents start targeting anything that looks like a small mobile haystack.  Worzel Gummidge with a Kalashnikov isn’t in it.

And as a final blow to the Armed Forces sagging self-esteem, there is this.  A

Can one even begin to picture it?  Our Army, so full of ‘brave heroes’ and ‘first-rate soldiers’, so ‘fully supported’ (and kitted out) by the MoD, reduced to this – a convoy of not quite well enough armoured vehicles crawling across the Afghan landscape at 4 mph, preceded by a walking man with a red flag (sorry, mine sweeper), hopefully watched over by some small protective haystacks concealing the army’s best sharpshooters(21).  They also, presumably, have at times to move at 4 mph.   Who volunteers to walk in front of the convoy like this?    Or will the unlucky man have been ‘volunteered’ because, being a little overweight, it was thought some extra exercise was called for?  How else find someone willing to be such a sitting duck?  After all, not all the moveable vegetation in Helmand will be British.