Ethics Training in Iraq

[ORAC]

Do they seriously think a powerpoint presentation is either going to solve the problem or in any way mitigate the disastrous effect on their reputation?....

The Times: US orders coalition troops to take lessons in the ethics of battlefield

THE US military has ordered all 150,000 coalition troops in Iraq to undergo a crash course in battlefield morals, values and ethics within the next month, as it tries to repair its image after the suspected killing of 24 civilians in al- Haditha.

General George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq, called for the emergency tutorials in “warrior values” after leaks from the al-Haditha investigation suggested that US Marines went on a shooting rampage in the western Iraqi town after one of their men was killed by a roadside bomb in November........

British officers privately expressed surprise at their inclusion in the morals programme. The 7,200 British troops in Iraq have largely escaped charges of being trigger-happy. “Our rules of engagement are much tighter than the American version and there are differences in approach between the British and American troops,” one senior military source told The Times.

The US military appears to have learnt the lessons from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in 2004, when the Pentagon was taken aback by the public outcry after photos of humiliated Iraqi prisoners were obtained by the media. This time it appears eager to shape the debate before the al- Haditha investigation reports.

It announced yesterday that commanders had been directed “to conduct core warrior values training, highlighting the importance of adhering to legal, moral and ethical standards on the battlefield”. The training will be based on “a slide presentation with training vignettes”...........

[Megawart]

Given the now constant revelations about American attrocities in Iraq, and the quite grizzly online 'home videos from Iraq' in which Americans proudly demonstrate the use of exessive force, is it actually legal for British forces to work alongside with and support American operations in Iraq?
Is there an official line on what actions British troops are to take when witnessing American war crimes?
The SAS soldier who refused to work with Americans on the grounds of their inability to recognise or treat Iraqis as human beings was removed from service and, as far as I know, his allegations were not investigated by Britain or America.
Is that the official line, are war crimes now ok?

[dallas]

I rolled my eyes when I heard "the US-led forces will receive..." I immediately saw another opening for our own EO Politikal Officers who only got away with permission for a one-off patronising course last time. We can either say to the Yanks that our lot don't need it or bend to public opinion and do it anyway. Say no or cave...hhmm, anyone got a fiver?

Maybe we could make it an annual thing and add to our list of other made-up courses, maybe even do it seven weeks and one week before going away somewhere, like the running up and down the gym thing!

Embrace Pointlessness

[EC Does It]

Why not? They already do Iraq training in Ethics. Or is it still Germany like in the good old days?

[buoy15]

Questions
When everybody has been done, do they award themselves an IIP certificate to hang in the HQ tent?
Will there be a refresher every 6 months?
Will it be ok just to watch the video if you are not a desert warrior to get a tick in the box?
Megawat - good point - I do believe that when you are under combined rules of engagement, and you witness a war crime, you have to quickly consider whether NATO, UN or National rules (whichever has most authority), apply in your decision to use all means possible to de-escalate the situation, even if it means dis-abling (shooting) the perpertrator
Just remember to spend 10 mins or so to make the correct challenge and read out all the details of whatever colour card you carry these days to advise them of their rights so you don't get sued:uhoh:

[Skunkerama]

I suppose that the presentation starts with Bliar or Bush asking the audience "Is it ethicly correct that we invaded Iraq?"
"Hell no, of course it isn't"
"So go hog wild guys and kill a few more civilians in the name of freedom"
"Just leave the oil, that's ours...mmkay?"

[BEagle]

You would have thought that they would have learned the lessons from the Little Big Horn....

Coming at a time when a scandal is about to erupt concerning the USMC, this is too little, too late.

I feel genuine sympathy for the good guys of the USMC who will undoubtedly be tarred with the same brush, in the public eye, as those who allegedly committed this outrage.

But images of the local area around Camp Pendelton shown on UK television news a few moments ago reveal a disturbing mentality - that is, if they are reasonably representative. "We support our boys doin' whatever they had to do" is little removed from "Befehl ist befehl"... Someone needs to weed out the steroid-chewing 'Hoo-ah' thugs who like nothing more than shooting at anything which moves - and to emphasise the reason for their true existence.

Either that or disband the whole Corps. Your choice......

[saudipc-9]

Perhaps we could translate the presentation into Arabic and have it airdropped over terrorist/insurgent hotbeds! That way they might try to act in the some cordial manner and provide the same respects on the battlefield. (sarcasim off)

There are many armies throughout history who have had this sort of thing happen. I for one will not give up on the USMC just because of this (if it's true). They are an excellent fighting force with a great history. If this did happen then it points to a break down in the chain of command. That would be the point of concern for me and needs to be corrected.

[West Coast]

Beagle, I know a fishing trip when I see it. Or in this case smell it.

The possible actions of a few in no way condemn the whole.

Before any of you get too full of yourselves, lest you not forget the actions of some Brits in NI when under the extreme stress they were under.

[Jackonicko]

I'm sorry Westie, my memory's not what it was. Just refresh my memory about the occasion on which uniformed British troops shot 11 members of the same family (including pre-school children and babies) in Northern Ireland...... Or when we executed civilians with shots to the back of the head after a patrol came under fire..... Or when our boys were stupid enough to let a TV crew film them finishing off a wounded civilian prostrate on the floor?

[Confucius]

Shame they didn't slaughter a few journalists.

[BEagle]

Why?



.

[cazatou]

Jackonicko,

I concur.

PS Can anyone translate West Coast's last sentence into "Anglais" for this poor expatriate?

[Confucius]

If someone says "it's freezing in here" do you get a thermometer out to check it's 0 degrees celcius? Why can't an offhand comment be taken as such, or does everything written and said have to be in po-faced seriousness, an absolute statement of opinion or fact? Black humour is as valid as any other form of jest. Some people need boundaries to work to, some need boundaries to jump.

[brickhistory]

I'm sorry Westie, my memory's not what it was. Just refresh my memory about the occasion on which uniformed British troops shot 11 members of the same family (including pre-school children and babies) in Northern Ireland...... Or when we executed civilians with shots to the back of the head after a patrol came under fire..... Or when our boys were stupid enough to let a TV crew film them finishing off a wounded civilian prostrate on the floor?


jacko,

As too many of our reality shows might say, "Don't go there!"
How about some of the techniques used in the suppression of the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya, some of the less than honorable escapades in India during the Raj, some collective punishments in Malaya? Oh, and isn't there some controversy still about a 14 yr old boy that might or might not have had a rifle in NI?

Please don't take my posting as a slur on the BA or HM forces. I think they are first-rate. BUT, there have been incidents with UK forces just as heinous (sp?) as the apparent Marine snafu last year. Recall the recent video taping of the teenagers getting a beating by HMG forces?

I don't condone what, apparently, that SQUAD did. But to brand all of the USMC, or all of US forces with that stigma is ridiculous. Most of them are doing the best they can in a sh*t situation. How many of us might do the same in the same circumstances? Hopefully, not many, but it is worth considering.

Now, what bothers me most about the incident is the apparent cover-up. That's worrisome.

(Edited to add: Oh, and you forgot throw in the Abu Ghraib mess in our litany of stupidity.

[BEagle]

I agree with you, SASless (despite what Westie might think).

The cover up (if there was one) cannot be condoned. But, perhaps it was trouble making TV journos and selective interviewing, I did find the remarks made by the locals near Camp Pendelton very disturbing. They gave the interviewer the impression that whatever the squad did, it must have been acceptable....because they were Marines.

The Marines they interviewed bore no resemblance to the folk who helped us out so well at MCAS El Toro many years ago.

[West Coast]

Beagle
After re-reading your post, it appears I was a bit hard on you.

Jacko
Save the pure as driven snow attitude for someone who might believe it.

[BEagle]

Cheers, Westie!

Hang ten!

[Jackonicko]

Westie,
The world is shaded in various hues of grey. It is not just black and white.
I am not suggesting that the UK Armed Forces' behaviour has always been beyond reproach, nor that we have not engaged in brutal and even illegal behaviour.

But you compared USMC murders of large groups of civilians with "the actions of some Brits in NI when under the extreme stress they were under."
That's not justified, or fair, and should not go unchallenged.

Nor, Brick, have I seen any evidence of that kind or level of indiscriminate, cowardly violence in Kenya or Malaya 50 years ago. And while beating teenagers is deplorable, in my skewed moral code, it doesn't quite equate with shooting infants.

And, Confucious, the real enemy are the bottom feeding scum whose behaviour besmirches the reputation of a once proud military formation - not those who comment on or report it.

[brickhistory]

Nor, Brick, have I seen any evidence of that kind or level of indiscriminate, cowardly violence in Kenya or Malaya 50 years ago. And while beating teenagers is deplorable, in my skewed moral code, it doesn't quite equate with shooting infants.


Try Caroline Elkins' "The Imperial Reckoning." Won the Pulitzer Prize recently. As a journo, that ought to carry some weight with you.

BUT, that is off topic and away from my point. Just because some did, apparently, something wrong, don't tar the whole Corps or US forces with the same brush. How many good deeds performed there have gone unreported? I'd feel safe to lay a large sum on the results of that bet. Same holds true for the vast, vast majority of HM forces engaged. A few clods, a whole bunch of good folks trying to do their best. And survive.

Oh, and to the topic starter of this thread; the BS powerpoint ethics training is obviously just a CYA effort. We've all seen similiar scenarios where one idiot pooped his pants and we all have to wear diapers. Same concept here.

[West Coast]

"I am not suggesting that the UK Armed Forces' behaviour has always been beyond reproach, nor that we have not engaged in brutal and even illegal behaviour.
But you compared USMC murders of large groups of civilians with "the actions of some Brits in NI when under the extreme stress they were under."
That's not justified, or fair, and should not go unchallenged"

Sorry for the long quote, but it helps the illustrate the problem with your statement.


As I read your retort I can't help but think that you're talking numbers to justify your position, and indignation if I might add. If by your admission the UK forces are guilty of same, then why do you need to get your dander up about my statement? The degree, the numbers? Its like being pregnant, either are, or you aint. No in between.

[Jackonicko]

The point I was clearly failing to make was that UK forces in NI may have over-stepped the mark and engaged in extra-legal actions against enemy combatants, and may also have injured and killed innocent civilians believing them to be combatants, or by failing to exercise due caution, BUT they have not deliberately targeted civilians in the way in which US forces have done in Iraq, and have not been as criminally negligent in failing to protect the innocent.

While an individual may be pregnant or not, groups of women can be pregnant to varying degrees. 50% of one group, 1% of another. Numbers do come into it, and so does intent. The UK forces have been guilty of some bad behaviour, but not the same behaviour as we've seen in Iraq. It's like the UK squaddies beating up the teenagers - it's bad, but it's not cold blooded murder.

And it's not a question of my position - it's entirely about your offensive and unjustified attempt to equate what these USMC scum have done with what the British Army did in Ulster, which you should have the wit and good grace to withdraw.

Bad show!

[brickhistory]

The point I was clearly failing to make was that UK forces in NI may have over-stepped the mark and engaged in extra-legal actions against enemy combatants, and may also have injured and killed innocent civilians believing them to be combatants, or by failing to exercise due caution, BUT they have not deliberately targeted civilians in the way in which US forces have done in Iraq, and have not been as criminally negligent in failing to protect the innocent.



Again, take a look at the Elkins' book, as one of many examples available pointing out past UK deeds doing exactly that.

So, perhaps you could dismount this particular 'holier than thou' horse.


Both our countries have had less than shining moments in our histories, undoubtedly, both will in the future. I still hold that most us in both countries are not monsters and try to do the right thing.

[West Coast]

"BUT they have not deliberately targeted civilians in the way in which US forces have done in Iraq"

Were you there? Can you beyond simply believing in some Brit ethos say that based in fact and not an emotive desire to be better than the Yanks?

Clearly the answer is no.

[SASless]

Now explain Bloody Sunday and the Paras to us please. Seems that was what....eleven or twelve dead was it?

Regretable things happen in combat. Emotions run high. Doesn't make it right but it sure doesn't mean the Yanks have a monopoly on it either.

Seems the Boer War had some similar events no one likes to discuss much.

The Scots might remind you English types of some unpleasantness.

Please....get off yer high horse here.

[eagle 86]

Jackonicko you are out of your depth.
GAGS
E86

[Jackonicko]

Judging by what seems to have happened (and none of us were there) the US Marines appear to have gone in AFTER a firefight and executed civilians on at least one of these occasions.

Bloody Sunday may (or may not) be regrettable, but those killed were rioters, and the Paras were (or had good reason to believe that they were) coming under fire, and were being stoned and having petrol bombs slung at them.

Despite the political imperative to do so, they've been unable to find evidence of any criminality at Bloody Sunday.

Again, you're trying to equate an 'honest mistake' with a deliberate war crime.

If we're going back to the Boer War for examples of British massacres of civilians, I'd say that things have probably changed, just a tad.

[7gcbc]

Now explain Bloody Sunday and the Paras to us please. Seems that was what....eleven or twelve dead was it?


13 actually SASless, all of which were civillian, 12 odd wounded.

There are significant and obvious differences.

It is clear that #1 were shot at, though here seems to be a merest of acknowledgement by the media, local IRA or PIRA have admitted (unofficaly)to sniping (or gunfire in the general direction thereof) at the #1 Para.

#1 Para section were out of communications with their base commander and the was a significant breakdown and ambigiouity in command which led to misinterpretation of intentions, along with the usual RUC/HM negotiations that seem to only ever happen at the 11th hour. (perhaps a review of procedures :uhoh: )

obviously, and this in in common with the Marines , further training was required as there is no excuse for shooting at unarmed civillians, whilst there is the fact that #1 were shot at, and obviously responded inappropriately, with the loss of civilian lives , they were under immediate significant stress of fear for their safety from a formidable and dangerous enemy. There is however no excuse for their behaviour, but in the terms of their positioning that day, it is understanderable.

No such fear existed with the USMC section at the time they committed the work, moving from room to room, camly and under no immediate threat at Hadditha some hours after the threat had passed, thus we can only conclude that it was clear and pre-meditated murder in the pursuit of revenge, and a bitter-sweet revenge indeed it may turn out to be.

I doubt very much that ethics lessons will work.

edited to add: A most casual look at the Northern Ireland issue (try google) will generally peg "Bloody Sunday" as the most significant point from which the PIRA or IRA started a huge recruitment drive.

I wonder how Hadditha will be remembered ? It's fine having imported koran bashing jih-addietes firing off ak's in the general direction of a convoy, but when you actually lose the local indiginous population (who know every nook and cranny) you are indeed in trouble.

[SASless]

That was 13 dead on the scene, one died a year later, and 17 wounded.

Zero gunshot wounds to the Para's.

No weapons recovered.

The latest inquiry was a bit daft according to the rules laid down by the government. Thus the real "truth" of that day will not be known.

The only reason I bring this up is to remind everyone that evil things happen in war and it can happen to any force no matter how well trained. Occasionally the command structure breaks down and troops committ crimes.

One big difference however, once identified and the case is made, we punish our troops who murder innocents.

[brickhistory]

I can't find any posts on this thread where anyone, including me, has defended this squad of Marines. However, before I vote to hang 'em, let's let the investigation run its course. (Now, why the investigation took so long to occur is also worth investigating.). I do defend the majority of US forces as being essentially good, decent troops. I'd also say that about the UK forces (be nice if you had more of them, but that's a separate thread.).

The thread creep of who's troops are morally worse or better is ridiculous! My point for jumping up to Jacko was to get him off his morally superior hill. It's fine to bash Yanks when it's deserved, but how about the other side of the coin? Haven't read much from him or most media types about the many good things the good ol' US of A does. Yes, even in Iraq.

Hmmm, why is that? Perhaps just a bit of bias?

Don't like us? Fine, come out and state your opinion. Trying to prove your moral superiority with unbalanced fact presentation just doesn't cut it.

[dallas]

I generally like the people I meet from the US forces, although that's mainly USAF people; I can't comment on your Army/Marines. The British Army tends to be two extremes - highly professional and world beating (no pun intended) at what they do, or cannon fodder who have few post-school options. I would imagine the US Army is the same, with the majority of problems coming from the latter.

I think there are two main causes for trouble.

Firstly, education. 19yr old Spc Smith from Wisconsin will have grown up with TV and tabloid press telling him that Arabs as a whole are a culture to be mistrusted. Jingoistic threats of 'bombing the rag heads back to the dark ages' will have been commonplace and it's certainly never crossed his mind why a suicide bomber chose that line of work.

Secondly, rules of engagement. If Pfc Smith feels sufficiently threatened, Pfc Smith can open fire. I have heard of multiple occasions where uniformed British personnel have come under the locked and loaded weapons of US personnel because they walked the wrong way through a checkpoint or something similar. That's because Smith and his buddies are routinely trained to respond with weapons, as opposed to the British application of minimum force.

If you put a lack of education together with a loose trigger policy you're going to get casualties.

[Zoom]

dallas
I agree with your second point as that has happened to me a couple of times.

SASless
The point about 'no weapons found' is that the IRA have always been masters of concealment in this area and weapons were seldom found, even after they had been used in the open. Look at the many IRA 'guards of honour' where pistol salutes were fired at Republican funerals in town and city centres, and seconds later the guns had gone one way and the personnel another. When judging activities during the Troubles never make the mistake of thinking that the IRA were just a disorganised bunch of rebels, as seen in many of the other political hotbeds around the world.

[SASless]

Dallas,

You do recall there have been several bombings inside supposedly secure areas with great loss of life. Confronted with someone unknown to the sentry, who gives the appearance of being unfamilar with the correct protocols, would you not consider that an understandable defensive response?

To date, I do not believe any Brits have been shot by US Forces in such a situation. No one likes having a weapon pointed at them but then no one likes to get hurt by an attacker either. Suicide bombers are generally very passive and low key until the bomb goes off.

The very nature of the urban warfare taking place in Iraq, with the close proximity of hostile forces to friendly forces does not allow much time for the troops to take effective defensive response against an attack. The fact someone is in "uniform" does not preclude that person from being a threat.

Let Basrah heat up a bit more, and your forces lose more people to IED's and snipers, and you will see the response level change.

[ORAC]

I started this thread, so I will express my point of view.

If, and I say if, the individual fire team who was involved committed misdeeds, they should be punished, what more they should be seen to be punished. However....

There have been enough anguished howls not only by the Iraqis but by others, such as ex-SAS who have refused further service, that is a symptom, not a one off.

I acknowledge that the US army knows that, see here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2210068,00.html) for the work being done for the next generation. However....
The point of leadershp is too learn from the mistakes of others. The UK has taken 3o years to learn the lesson in NI, why did the US rush into Iraq without listening? Why are the same mistakes being mde in the field?

The other lesson is the PR lesson. The Bloody Sunday incident is still making news 30 years later with accusations of a cover up. Perhaps,and I say perhaps, the inquiry into haditha will be sufficiently open to be accepted by the local population. But the inquiry into Ishaqi will not. Even if the US army report is correct and they obeyed the rules, it doesn't matter. I'll repeat that, It doesn't matter. The locals do not believe i and the new Iraqi government do not believe it.

The US armed forces blamed the politicians for losing the Vietnam war. believe we are no looking at a case of the US military, having won the war, losing the piece.

Michael Portillo has written a piece in the Times today concluding wth the paragraph:

"Vietnam ended with American helicopters plucking marines from the roof of the embassy in Saigon as the Vietcong overran the city. It is not impossible that one day the scene will be re-enacted in the green zone of Baghdad."
Unless they get a grip he could be right.

This needs reignations at a high level. Whilst the training of the next gerneration, as referenced above, is a right step, it should have happened long ago. Either the military did not foresee urban warfare, or did not prepare for it, in which case there should be resignations at a high military level. or they did and were overruled by civilians at the DoD/Administration level, where they should resign.

Regardless, they unite at the Secretary of Defence level where, regardless of whether it was a predecessor or his fault, Rumsfeld should resign.

If a succicently frank apology is made, an indication that enquires involving the Iraqi government will be opened, that all past and future claims will be investigated, and sufficient heads role. The USA has a chance, and only a chance, of coming out of this with there heads held high.

If it looks, and I say looks deliberately, like a fudge or a cover up, their reputation will shot for another generation, as it was after Vietnam.

Just my two ha'porthworth. :suspect:

Postscript. Just came across this in the Times from the 3rd June. Seemed apposite.

.....scepticism about using the military as a tool to remake nations and civilise a hostile world was put best by an article in the periodical Foreign Affairs in 2000. The author attacked the misuse of the US military in nation-building projects in the Clinton years.

“The president must remember that the military is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.”

It was a succinct indictment about the dangers of using the military as anything other than a fighting force. Its author was Condoleezza Rice.......