You may or may not be aware of the current policy to retain those soldiers who have been seriously injured on operations if the soldier wishes to remain in service. The questions to be considered in regard to this highly sensative subject are: 1. Is it right to retain a soldier who clearly has no, or a very limited, future career in the Army in todays current situation of over stretch and although it may be considered to be moraly correct to retain, is it being fair and just accross the board. i.e. the ruling only applies to operationaly injured soldiers and not to those injured in normal training or as the result of an RTA for example, most of whom are discharged in better nick than some of those retained. Is this a form of descrimination and totally unjust on the non-operationaly injured and therefore opens up possible litigation. 2. The long term effect of retention on unit maning considering the numbers involved. There are reportedly 7000+ undeployable soldiers being retained in the Army as a whole and the numbers increase following each subsequent operational deployment. 3. If they are retained but are undeployable they will have to be augmented to enable their unit to deploy fully maned. Thus producing additional deployments for said augumentees in an allready overstretched Army. There are other factors involved which you may feel are worthy of comment, I have entered but a few. This is obviously a very sensative subect and I ask those who respond to think with their minds and not their hearts which I accept is hard to do in this senario.