What changed?

On Friday, the SMH ran a story about another soldier being killed in Afghanistan. The first half of the story was about the soldier, and the 2nd half was about how the Army is supposedly sending younger soldiers off to fight.

I think the SMH was trying to imply that the Army is despatching the young and the innocent to get killed.

I went back to that story this morning and it had changed. The 2nd half was gone.

Good. I thought it was a bloody disgrace. Someone had hijacked a story about a soldiers death and turned it into an accusatory tome against the government. It was "I was only 19" all over again.

Which is all bollocks of course. The Vietnam-era protesters can't get their heads around the fact that our soldiers these days are all volunteers, and as such, many are probably keen as mustard to go and "have a go". I know I was when I was 25.

The soldiers are probably getting younger partly because soldiering is a young mans game, especially in harsh terrain like Afghanistan. Unless you've put on a pack and webbing and picking up a gun and tramped up and down steep hills all day and night, you've got no idea how physically and mentally demanding it is. It's not like going trekking in Nepal with a sherpa and a donkey, except with uniforms. It's excruitiatingly hard work. It takes its toll on people through injuries and stress fractures and the like - and that's apart from getting shot or blown up occasionally.

Those best able to cope with the physical demands are the young. I'm buggered if I could do it now, even if I went on a six month training course. My knees and neck and back would probably kark it in the first month.

So yes, the troops may well get younger as the Army weeds out the fat and the unfit, who if they are like me and my mates, will tend to be older.

In the meantime, someone needs to go punch an SMH sub-editor in the head.

Lest we forget.