They don't have to kill you to take your life away. The words of an ex-serviceman, reported in The Herald last year, eloquently describe how engagement in combat zones can have psychological as well as physical consequences for the armed forces. The psychological impact can be devastating. The ex- serviceman was one of some 1000 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cases helped by Combat Stress, the charity that provides residential care for eligible veterans suffering from severe psychological problems. According to the charity, there has been a 26% increase in such cases in the past four years. It warns that it could be swamped by the number of cases unless there are the necessary resources to keep pace with growing demand.

There was recognition, of sorts, of this yesterday when Derek Twigg, the Armed Forces Minister, announced a phased, near-50% increase in residential grants to Combat Stress. The announcement, while welcome, confirms what the charity and other organisations involved in caring for the pyschological casualties of combat have been saying for some time: that they were underfunded by government. Ministers have been accused of breaking the military covenant by not caring for those it puts in harm's way by its policies.

The willingness of Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, to intervene with force abroad, most notably and misguidedly in Iraq, brought with it its own responsibilities: to care for those whose bodies were broken and minds damaged by front-line duties. Mr Blair failed to live up to these responsibilities as they applied to PTSD, and it is only now that Gordon Brown's government is beginning to accept the scale of these duties. The dismantling of Britain's military medical network began under the Tories in government and continued under Mr Blair, despite the paradox of an aggressive foreign policy being pursued at the same time.

This has placed an added burden on organisations such as Combat Stress. It is only now that the government seems prepared fully to accept its role in creating that burden and to act to reduce it. Support must be long-term as well as adequate to cover the costs of charities caring for ex-servicemen and women. Deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan involve almost 25% of the British Army each year in rolling, six-month tours of duty, each involving 12,000 soldiers. In both theatres, the enemy are insurgents who can strike at any time and are virtually indistinguishable from local civilians.

Only those who have come under fire can begin to comprehend the terror of battle. Facing a round-the-clock threat from an enemy who is not identified, far less seen, must add to levels of stress and anxiety. Involvement in a new type of combat exacts its own price. In the absence of a military medical network and with an NHS lacking the specialist expertise to deal with the military dimension of PTSD and other psychological conditions, Combat Stress and other charities are in the front line of care. They must be properly resourced and supported, not exploited. Those who emerge scarred in mind from the front line of conflict, desperately needing care and attention, deserve no less.