100th British soldier killed in Iraq.

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Grim milestone as 100th British soldier killed in Iraq
By Simon Freeman and agencies



British soldiers killed in Iraq (L to R): Lance Corporal Allan Douglas; Sergeant John Jones; Sergeant Chris Hickey; Major Matthew Bacon; Fusilier Donal Anthony Meade (MoD)


A British soldier was killed by an explosion in southern Iraq this morning, the 100th British serviceperson to die since the invasion almost three years ago.

The Ministry of Defence said three other members of the 7th Armoured Brigade were hurt, one seriously, in a blast at 8.34am local time (0434GMT) in the port town of Um Qasr in Basra province.

Um Qasr was one of the first places in Iraq to be captured by Allied forces in May 2003. The grim milestone of the 100th soldier to die has prompted fresh calls for the British government to set a timetable to withdraw its troops.

John Reid, the Defence Secretary, said that it marked an appropriate moment to remember the sacrifice being made by the troops and their families. A spokesman for Tony Blair emphasised, however, that British forces would remain on the ground "as long as is necessary".

News of the latest fatality came less than 24 hours after Lance Corporal Allan Douglas, 22, was killed in an ambush outside a police station. His was the first British death in Iraq for two months and marks an upsurge in militia violence against British forces, who until now have attempted to foster good relations with the fragmented Shia and Sunni Arab factions.

Lance Corporal Douglas was on patrol in the town of Amarah in the volatile Maysan province of southern Iraq with the 1st Battalion The Highlanders, also part of the 7th Armoured Brigade, when the troops came under small arms fire.

At the family home in Aberdeen, his mother Diane and father Walter described their son as a "lovely lad" who had not wanted to go to Iraq.

Walter Douglas told the Daily Record: "Allan was against the war. He couldn’t see the point of it - but he thought it was his duty to be there and he had no choice."

His mother added: "He was home just before Christmas. That’s the last time we saw him. He told me he wasn’t looking forward to Iraq. He knew himself it wasn’t going to be a good one."

L/ance Corporal Douglas had earlier served in Bosnia and Kosovo and had trained in Canada before heading to Iraq.

Of the 100 servicemen and women who have died while on Operation Telic, 77 are classed as being killed in action, while 23 have died from illness, non-combat injuries, accident or an unknown cause.

In addition, 230 British troops have been injured in enemy action since the March 2003 invasion. In all, just over 4,000 people, including Iraqis and British civilians as well as servicemen and women, have been evacuated back to the UK for medical treatment. The vast majority suffered illness or an accident while in Iraq.

Mr Reid gave a short statement outside Whitehall this morning in which he said that the troops were playing a vital role in "lifting the burden of tyranny" from troubled countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said that the deaths were a matter of great sadness, not only for their own families but for the armed forces and the nation. It marked, he said, an appropriate moment to reflect on the "dedication, courage, professionalism and sacrifice" of the armed forces and their families.

He said: "Every single one of the deaths is a tragedy, we are not in any way singling out a particular death but at the stage at which 100 people in Iraq have lost their lives it's appropriate to mark it today."

Tony Blair was "deeply saddened" by the latest death, as he has been by all those members of the forces who have died in Iraq, his official spokesman said. "No life is worth this kind of sacrifice, but in terms of why we are in Iraq we have had now three democratic elections in a country which has been brutalised for decades.



"It’s a tough struggle to make progress, particularly because there are those determined to stop democracy in Iraq, but the Prime Minister believes it is worth persevering with that struggle because we are making progress."

Asked whether the Government was worried at the bombing in an area previously considered one of the safer parts of the southern region, he added: "I do not think we should do the terrorists’ job for them by in some way hyping this kind of incident. What we need to do is recognise that any death is deeply sad and deeply regrettable and it will be for operational decisions on the ground to decide how to respond to this kind of attack and any further attacks."

He said there was "growing confidence" that Iraqi security forces could be quickly trained to the level needed to allow coalition troops to be withdrawn.

The death of 100 British soldiers triggered renewed calls from anti-war protestors for Britain to withdraw from Iraq. Rose Gentle, from Glasgow, whose 19-year-old son Gordon, of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, was killed by a roadside bomb in Basra in 2004, said: "How many of our boys are going to die before we say enough and put an end to this bloody illegal war?

"Is Blair willing to have as many troops killed as the Americans? They’ve had the elections, they’ve got Saddam on trial. We need to bring the troops home now."

Reg Keys, whose son Thomas was one of six Redcaps killed more than two years ago, said: "We have had 100 chances to learn our lesson. It just goes on and on and as long as we are there, there will be a steady trickle of coffins coming back."

Lance Corporal Thomas Keys, 20, was killed by a mob in Al Majar, near Basra, while serving with the Royal Military Police in June 2003.

Andrew Burgin, from Stop the War Coalition, said the organisation would be holding an impromptu illegal protest at Parliament Square at 5pm today, where they will read out the names of the 100 dead soldiers. "We will be there to mark this terrible number of soldiers who have died so unnecessarily," he said.

Mr Burgin said he hoped the 100 deaths would make the Government think before sending 3,000 more troops in to Afghanistan. "This incredible decision to send several thousand soldiers to Afghanistan - why are they involving large sections of the British Army in what are completely unnecessary wars?"

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Tory former foreign secretary - who opposed the war - said that he was "deeply saddened". But he insisted that it was not yet the time for a wholesale withdrawal of British forces. "We cannot just cut and run. The British and American governments have helped create these problems. For as long as our presence is helping to improve the situation, we have to see it through."

thetimesonline.co.uk
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
I think it's sad when any soldier dies, but I don't think losing 100 is a reason to turn and run now. It seems very immature and self indulgent to wallow in grief over them as a way to excuse ourselves from our responsibilities.
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
As a soldier I take offense to hearing useless tripe come from bleeding hearts and pacifistic people in Western society:

"This incredible decision to send several thousand soldiers to Afghanistan - why are they involving large sections of the British Army in what are completely unnecessary wars?"

Is the war in Afghanistan really unnesessary? Or is that a label the masses hand to something that they can't see first hand or comprehend? Do people honestly believe that if we let a failed state, such as Afghanistan, fend for itself, our World will be a safer place? Can people be so stupid to think that what happens 1/2 way around the World will have no impact on our lives? Look at Word War I, a crisis that started in the Balkans with a simple assasination lead to 4 of the Worlds bloodiest years. If we don't bring security to lawless regions of the planet then no one is really safe. Letting religious zealots rule nations and start "holy wars" based on religious belief is not a secure and prosperous way to live. If we leave nations like Afghanistan to their fate then how long do we have to wait until conflict spreads to our borders? The last time my nation was invaded was in 1866; The Fenian Raids, however while that invasion may be lost in Canada's past, that doesn't mean North America is an island in the storm, so to speak. Security at home starts with proactive measures overseas, something the U.S. has fully grasped in the latter half of the 20th Century. How can we expect to be safe if we let terrorists flourish in failed states? It's like having a home in a bad neighbourhood. Sure, you may be left alone for the time being while the thugs go after "easier pickings" but eventually you'll catch their attention and be subjected to all you failed to prevent.

When it comes to Afghanistan it all boils down to a question of necessity. Is it necessary to help a struggling nations rid itself of people who would enslave the youth of the nation to wage "a holy war" on the West? Is it necessary to help a nation that has fully and publically requested our help? It is necessary to go to war in a far away land to prevent global instability? The answer is yes, unequivocally yes. Within the next two weeks, 5 of my best friends will be heading to Kandahar Afghanistan, to Camp Nathan Smith, the home of over 2,000 Canadian soldiers. Why are they going? To prevent the unrest in that nation from ever reaching the nation they've sworn to protect. Before I get off my soapbox and stop preaching, let me point out; that the people that bitch and moan about going to war in Afghanistan, would be the exact same people bitching and moaning about how the Government never did anything to prevent it if their nation was imperiled.