AS a military historian, I was interested to read the comments made by Mr Barlow in the BEN and I wish to make the following points:

Britain has never wholly relied on a strong "regular"army. In every major war and conflict this century, and in those previous, the British Army has called on volunteer soldiers, be they volunteer, militia or territorial to defend this island state.

History has shown that Mr Barlow's argument is flawed. In both the First and Second World Wars, the Territorial Army prevented the enemy forces from overrunning the allied lines. Academics have spent years arguing that in 1915, Britain could well have lost the war had it not been for her "Saturday afternoon soldiers". The same has to be said of the Second World War, where after the disaster at Dunkirk, the only means of defending the British Isles were the RAF, Royal Navy and the Territorial Army.

Mr Barlow seems oblivious to the fact that the Territorial Army is designed to protect Britain, leaving the Regular Army to undertake active service abroad. The question, therefore, has to be asked if the TA is suffering cutbacks, where does this leave the Home Defence force in the event of a national security scare.

I have several close friends who are currently serving with the army to whom I showed a copy of Mr Barlow's letter. All unanimously agreed that the argument is flawed. To take his point on the Gulf War, the TA played a vital role in the allied victory during the allied offensive against Saddam. The fact cannot be ignored that many Territorials who took part in this operation are now suffering from Gulf War Syndrome.

Since the Gulf, the Territorials have served alongside the Regular Army in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, as well as fulfilling peacekeeping duties in other parts of the world.

With all due respect to Mr Barlow's contribution to defeating Hitler, there is a very real threat that Europe could once again become embroiled in war. To snipe at the British Army appears to be a common feature of the society we live in. Criticise it until we need it to defend us. As far as I am concerned, any man who is prepared to don uniform in the name of democracy should be respected, not put down. The role of the Territorial Army cannot be ignored, and in these days of stringent defence cuts, we have to rely increasingly on the Territorial Army.

I have to ask the question, did Mr Barlow himself volunteer, or was he conscripted? Whatever the case, how does Mr Barlow view his own contribution to the war effort. From his letter it would appear that his primary concern is financial reward, not maintaining peace and democracy.

I urge Mr Barlow to reconsider his criticisms.

David R Partington

Worcester Street, Halliwell, Bolton

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.