In his own words…

“It was a split second decision.

“I either wasted vital seconds changing the magazine on my rifle or went over the top and did it more quickly with the bayonet.

“I took the second option. I jumped up over the bank of the river. He was just over the other side, almost touching distance.

“We caught each other’s eye as I went towards him but by then, for him, it was too late. There was no inner monologue going on in my head I was just reacting in the way that I was trained.

“He was alive when it went in – he wasn’t alive when it came out – it was that simple.”

No need for further comment

There has been a predictable outcry fro the press and politicians alike complaining of cuts to defence spending resulting in dangerous cuts in training, ultimately reducing effectiveness.

What these cries fail to realise is that any armed forces at war does not to exercise as often, it substitutes the real thing for a simulation.

In addition the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan means that complex overseas all arms exercises are not needed as much as role or theatre specific training that matches the conditions of Afghanistan. Rest assured, anyone deploying to theatre will have undergone a great deal of training as an individual, sub unit or unit.

Reducing the number of exercises will also give units invaluable ‘down time’ to recover from intense periods of deployment on operations.

So the alternative point of view is this, the reduction in exercises is a sensible response to the continued deployment in Afghanistan and draw down in Iraq.