WHEN recruits join the armed forces, they must accept that they may be sent to war, and that their lives may be placed at risk.

Their loved ones must also face up to that possibility.

But what no one who joins the armed forces should have to accept is that they could be sent to war ill-equipped to cope with the dangers.

And nor should their loved ones.

An inquest has concluded that six Red Caps who were killed by a mob in Iraq three years ago could not have been saved, however well-equipped they had been. That may be true but it is beside the point.

Whether rescuers could conceivably have got there in time does not alter the fact that the military policemen could neither call for help nor defend themselves properly.

Sent out without a satellite telephone because handsets were in short supply, and given insufficient ammunition, they were placed in unacceptable danger and lost their lives in the process.

If our armed forces are to be sent to war, it is ultimately the responsibility of the government which sends them there to ensure they have the right equipment to do the job.

It is clear that, with the murdered Red Caps, that was not the case.

And while the experience of the Deepcut saga demonstrates that a public inquiry is a vain hope, the parents of the tragic Red Caps are right to press for action by the Army.

And coroner Nicholas Gardiner is right to question Defence Secretary John Reid about war zone equipment and procedures.