I have just watched the Panorama programme on B20 and am hopping mad. "Mal" and "Mike Coburn" are whinging that they were left for dead in Iraq, and that they found out they were considered "Expendible". A couple of thoughts: 1. If you are SF and working behind enemy lines then you have to expect that you are to an extent, on your own. In fact selection attempts to find the remarkable and resourceful soldier. If every mission that went tits-up were to have a full SF flt of CH47s running after it there would be no rotary resources left. Further, it would make the point and principle of SF redundant. 2. You take the glory, you take the consequences that being SF entails. SF missions are dangerous, and there are only certain factors that you can make allowances for. There will always be the unexpected compromise. If you seek a life on the edge then you have to accept the inherant dangers of what you do without complaint. 3. It is a fallacy not to expect that as a soldier, no matter what your role or cap-badge, you ARE expendible. Being SF does not make this different. No commander in the field will risk disproportionate resources to rescue a patrol, especially if those resources would be exposed to an unacceptable degree. I am curious as to what these guys expected? Did they think that being in the SAS suddenly entitled them to immediate resource diversion and rescue if things went wrong? In the age of touchy-feely claims for stress, perhaps we will see some claims in the courts for compensation at the stress of being considered expendible. Then, the complaints began about being gagged. Again boys, SF work is often clandestine, and while we all love reading about your brave exploits, some things are best left un-discussed. Being in the SAS shouldn't be seen as a cash-cow for future memoire writing. It saddened me to see not only the whinging of ex-Regiment members, but also for their stupidity in allowing the Blair Broadcasting Company another chance to undermine the British Army and show us all in a bad light.