Tab
Obviously a 'town', not a 'gown' espression. Thanks BEagle.
But getting back to the thread (which I have seemed to have hijacked). It is very likely that overstretch will continue to be a feature of Service life. The forces are designed for contingencies but are increasingly being used in Capitalist ventures of choice, not for conflicts of national survival, ie self defence (UN Charter Art 51). This begs the question of the effect that a Service person would have if that person refused to participate in expeditionary ops if s/he believed it to be unlawful (ie an undertaking to prohibit state acts of agression Art 2(4) et seq.) The Monoist legal system in Britain immediately adopts international treaties and conventions as domestic law (subject to Parliamentary ratification), thus to participate in an aggressive act, unless bound by the principle of collective self defence, in itself would be unlawful. Nor would the Nuremberg defence be acceptable to wit 'I was following orders'. Without reference to matters sub judice, an order from a superior requiring a Service person to carry out an unlawful act - eg torture, should not be followed, irrespective of the conditions under which such order was given.
I am not sure that there is much sympathy in the eyes of the public for service personnel with respect to time spent away, on the asssumption that 'they know what they were in for when they signed up'. I have heard on several occasions from otherwise well-informed people, 'well, what are the army doing when they are not at war?'. The RAF, of course, is never distinguished form th army. The assumption is 'you're soldiers, therefore you fight'.
As I heard a senior enlisted USN chap say once: Choose your rate, accept your fate'.