Jacaylbaro Posted February 6, 2007 Fifteen children have been deployed to fight in Iraq since June 2003, it has been disclosed. The figure, given by defence minister Adam Ingram, was described as "shocking" by the Liberal Democrats. Mr Ingram said the "vast majority" were deployed within a week of their 18th birthdays or were removed from theatre less than a week after arriving. All were 17 years old, while as many as four were girls. He said: "Provisional estimates collated from manual records show that no 16-year-old and 15 17-year-old personnel have been deployed to Iraq since the 'Optional Protocol to the Convention on the rights of the child on the involvement of children in armed conflict' was ratified on 24 June 2003. None have been deployed since July 2005." In a written answer to the House of Commons, Mr Ingram said that new procedures had been introduced to ensure that under-18s were not deployed to war zones. He added: "Unfortunately, these processes are not infallible and the pressures on units prior to deployment have meant that there have been a small number of instances where soldiers have been inadvertently deployed to Iraq before their 18th birthday." But Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman Sarah Teather, who requested the information, called on Prime Minister Tony Blair to apologise. She said: "This is an inexcusable blunder by the Government that reveals a shocking level of incompetence. We have rules about sending those under 18 into conflict for a reason. "There is no way people so young are mentally or emotionally prepared to face bloodshed on the scale seen in Iraq." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taliban Posted February 7, 2007 This is absurd; a 17 years old isn't a child. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites