Yesterday the country marked 100 years since the start of the First World War. This was the latest milestone in a year of reflection on a conflict that changed our world forever and claimed the lives of 16 million people across the world.

As Dan Jarvis said in parliament in June the commemorations are an opportunity to reflect on the sacrifice not only ‘of those who served us 100 years ago, but also those who more recently served our country in very difficult circumstances’.

In that spirit one of the stories I have been reflecting on in the past few days is that of Private William Tickle. William was only 15 in 1914 when he enrolled in the British army, less than the age allowed but so desperate was he to serve that he lied about his age. Sadly like so many others William died a few years later at the Battle of the Somme. He was just 19 years old.

We might think that it would be impossible today for someone who is so young to join our armed forces, yet that is exactly what happens every day. With their parents permission, children as young as 15 years and seven months can apply to join the army.

This is because the United Kingdom is one of only 19 nations who still recruit 16 year olds to the army – an undistinguished list which also includes North Korea and Iran. Even Zimbabwe has stopped recruiting under-18s, yet minors make up over a quarter of new recruits to the British army. In response both the United Nations and the UK parliamentary joint committee on human rights have called for the UK to abandon this practice, yet successive governments have refused.

Now at this point I should mention that those who defend this practice would tell you that I am not giving you the full picture. They would tell you that although you can join the army at 16, you cannot actually be deployed into combat until you are 18. They would also tell you that thousands of 16-year-olds join the army each year and serve with as much bravery, courage and distinction as any of those who join at 18.

They would also be right on both counts. No one, least of all me, is going to dispute that all members of our armed forces show incredible bravery and make huge sacrifices in order to keep us safe, no matter what age they are when they join.

However, what those who defend the status quo fail to mention is that there is a clear link between how young you are when you join the army and your risk of developing a serious mental health problem when you leave.

Last year Forces Watch published research showing that those who are recruited to the army as minors are statically far more likely to be affected by post-traumatic stress disorder and other serious mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse, self-harm or violent behaviour in the future.

The effects of suffering from post-traumatic stress are truly life changing and if you want to truly understand the reality of it this short Guardian video of an interview with a former soldier will tell you all you need to know.

On the basis of the mental health risks alone it is worth raising the recruitment age to 18. When you also factor in that because of the higher dropout rate of recruits aged under 18s compared with adults, recruiting at 18 would actually save the Ministry of Defence between 81 and 94 million pounds every year, the case is surely overwhelming.

Yesterday we paid solemn tribute to the millions of young men, many of whom were little more than boys, when they risked their futures to protect ours. One hundred years later and to our shame we are still asking children to do the same. The difference today is that we can, if we want to, prevent this from happening. The only question then is why are we not?

———————————

Rich Durber is a member of Progress. He tweets @richdurber and blogs here.

———————————

Photo: Defence Images