Those who have denigrated the OP’s post seem to have fallen into the trap of only fighting the current conflict and not looking to the bigger picture. Maintenance of diplomatic, professional links and liaison with allies is essential to future defence requirements and the nation must be prepared to pay for it. Deployment to sandy parts, though critical, is not the be all and end all of military operations in the 21st century. Those who think that only those who spend time in the desert in support of operations have opinions that are worthwhile are highly misguided; essential support is also given by those in REMF tours who get no official recognition. People in overseas tours maintain the forgotten defence requirements that the government think they can dispense with due to the main effort in Afghanistan. The denigrators also show their ignorance of coalition operations at staffing levels where British input seriously affects conduct of conflict or conflict avoidance– even if it is from 4000 miles away and it could be in NATO posts in Germany, Washington, Italy, Frankfurt, Brussels or any exchange posts wherever needed. It is irrelevant that life-enhancing experiences can be gained from ‘overseas’ tours – that should be a bonus. What should be relevant and concerns us all, is that British service personnel are being disadvantaged because of bean-counters inputs to enable the excessive welfare budget, overseas aid and Government waste to be continued. UK service personnel are overseas for a damn good reason – let’s support the idea that they are worth a damn good remuneration for their efforts and not resort to playground-level retorts that we have seen above. Thank you Scuttled for raising the issue.