Wikileaks, security of our forces and why do we do it? (Merged)

[BOAC]

Once again the west appears to have done significant harm to another people - this time following our intervention in Iraq. The noble thought of the US Cavalry riding in to save them from a terrible dictator seems to have backfired, the infrastructure is not much improved, thousands of people are dead and many awful torture and abuse events have taken place under the eyes (and hands) of the US forces and, probably, the rest of the 'peacekeepers' too.

For a long time Mrs B has said we should just leave these countries alone to fester and sort themselves out. I have disagreed strongly for a long time. I now think she is right. She is not, by the way, hard-hearted' nor does she view the dreadful conditions of the oppressed easily, but she challenges the overall benefit to these peoples. I also endorse Wiki leaks - it is right that we know what is done 'in our name'

From a military p.o.v, the cry goes up 'Beadwindow/security/our troops' etc etc, but is this not just camouflage for the fact that they do not like being caught out? I cannot believe that any sentient military 'spokesperson' (is that a contradiction in terms?) seriously believes that our enemy does not have a handle on our IED disposal, RT, evac, support procedures etc etc? They only need to read one of the many books that have been published about our Ops in Iraq and the Stan.

Is there any real risk to the 'troops' in this? What say you all? Is it not better that we should know? Is it not more of a 'sin' to expose our forces to the losses and injuries they have suffered n the name of 'freedom'?

[Jig Peter]

With you, BOAC, even if "nasty things do happen in war".
Both Middle East current affairs were/are indefensible from the start, I felt at the time, and still do.
And that's from an Oldie well trained for air combat ...

[Wholigan]

Please use non-inflammatory language to make your points in a civilised manner. Then the relevant issues can be discussed in an open thread!

[TheChitterneFlyer]

There's nothing new about war... the attrocities of war have been ongoing for many centuries; however, the technology of modern-day warfare is equally matched by moderrn-day communications; hence, we become more and more involved from the safety of our armchairs.

As Armistace Day approaches let us not forget the attrocities that happened during WW I and WW II, inasmuch that it's taken many years to learn what really happened during those earlier wars; without Broadband etc.

Let us also not forget those images of John Nicholl (no doubt incorrectly spealt) and his pilot who were brutally beaten by the Iraqi's during the Gulf War.

You cannot dot the 'I's and cross the 'T's when faced with a bunch of barbarians.

TCF

[PTT]

You cannot dot the 'I's and cross the 'T's when faced with a bunch of barbarians.And yet that is precisely what you have to do when you go in claiming to have the moral high ground.

Barbarians is an interesting word to use, too. Very reminiscent of untermenschen.

Organisations like Wikileaks ensure that those in positions of power are accountable, whether that power is that of a government, corporation, or simply being on the right end of a gun. Those who abuse their power should be held to account.

[4mastacker]

Have Wikileaks revealed any real military secrets or are these leaks merely an 'inconvenient truth' for the politicians?

PTT wrote:

Those who abuse their power should be held to account. Lets hope the Chilcot Inquiry doesn't shy away from pointing the finger where it deserves to be pointed.

[Avitor]

I think the Chilcot enquiry terms of reference do not include pointing a finger. Considering the prime mover of the Iraq debacle is at the centre of it ....need I say more?

[Dengue_Dude]

Let us also not forget those images of John Nicholl (no doubt incorrectly spealt) and his pilot who were brutally beaten by the Iraqi's during the Gulf War.

Well . . . viewed dispassionately, they were bombing Iraqis at the time when they were shot down.

Actions not really designed to endear them to the indigenous population at large.

I always find it bizarre that wars have rules, in the past, it was only the winners who wrote the books and recorded the 'history'.

We live in interesting times.

I just wonder if all this 'release of sensitive information' is a pre-cursor to saying, we're all pulling out because we realise we don't have the moral high ground.

Both 'major' powers (as we like to view it) went to war under the 'previous' political regime and would dearly like to get the hell out.

We'll see.

[Pontius Navigator]

PTT, you are quite right about rules.

It was interesting that the Germans, by an large, obeyed the rules when engaging western forces as both sides were signatories of the Convention. They did not feel obliged to conform when engaged with non-signatory States.

Now of course we comply with the Convention regardless of what our opponents do. As Nation-States with a western rule book we cannot chose when to apply and when not to apply the rules no matter what you, as an individual might think.

The Taliban are not barbarians, they just have an entirely different set of rules which are almost entirely incompatible with western rules. I don't use the word Value as that suggests better than or worse than but in their case it is really just 'different from'.

[green granite]

One of the examples put forward by a paper today took place at a check point, a car was driven at speed at the check point and ignored the soldiers motioning to stop, so the soldiers opened fire to kill the driver and thus stop the car. Unfortunately there were also a couple of women and children killed as well.

Given that the point of the check point was to stop arms and bombs getting into the city what else were they supposed to do?

Soldiers are basically there to kill the enemy, the role of policeman does not come easily to them and society, if they expect the army to do that, must stop this vilification of them when something goes a bit astray.

[Alber Ratman]

Errh, why did things happen as they did? Donald Rumsfeld... Top of the shop.. Simples..:E

[PTT]

Given that the point of the check point was to stop arms and bombs getting into the city what else were they supposed to do?Them? Nothing different.
Their superiors, however, should have ensured that they were equipped and trained to stop vehicles through application of non-lethal vehicle stopping devices. Killing someone because they might be a threat is hardly acceptable.

Soldiers are basically there to kill the enemy, the role of policeman does not come easily to them and society, if they expect the army to do that, must stop this vilification of them when something goes a bit astray.Indeed. Instead it is the politicians and senior officers who demand that the role be filled by inappropriately trained individuals who should be vilified.

[Two's in]

The cries of "But they are endangering our troops" are indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel in this case. Politicians live to spin the top level political strategy and message, but here we have the day to day details of the lowest level tactical details - and it is not a pretty picture.

Them? Nothing different.
Their superiors, however, should have ensured that they were equipped and trained to stop vehicles through application of non-lethal vehicle stopping devices. Killing someone because they might be a threat is hardly acceptable.

PTT summing up above the entire false premise of the "war". When all you have is a hammer, every problem you meet is a nail.

[Liam Gallagher]

As always, your posts are thought provoking.

You and/or Mrs BOAC appear to be saying that individuals, disenchanted with the way events are unfolding in the Middle East, are doing the right thing by reporting military failures/ embarrassments/ perceived transgressions of Rules of War, to organisations such as Wikileaks. Should I have read your post correctly, I respond as follows.

I believe it was right to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan on the terms that we did. Clearly, the results have not been what we had hoped and the loss of so many good people has caused me to question my beliefs (daily) and wonder if it would not be better just walking away.

Nonetheless, no amount of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" can change the fact that the reasons we went in are as valid now as they were then; namely;

Afghanistan: Firstly, to deny a safe haven to Terrorist Organisations/ quasi military organistions that had established a proven track record in causing measurable harm to our civilian citizens, and their way of life, both of which we, as a legitimate military, are charged to protect. These organisations were attempting to use their success as leverage to alter our Foreign Policy, particularly in the Middle East, a strategically important area to this country and a region containing Israel.

Secondly, to protect Women and those who did not share the Taleban's hard-line views.

Iraq: Firstly, to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. A regime that had invaded one of it's neighbours, continued to threaten a number of his neighbours, some of whom were granted protection by formal Treaty or by our Foreign Policy. His regime had engaged in acts of genocide and used Chemical weapons on his own citizens. Under, UN mandate we placed our aircraft over his territory in an effort to protect his own people. He repeatedly fired upon those aircraft.

Saddam had made threats towards the West, and whilst these threats had never been taken too seriously, 911 had caused a major re-think over the ability of smaller countries to unduly effect larger countries. Sanctions, whilst successful in hurting Iraqs' poor, had failed to unduly affect Sadam's regime. Moreover, France and Russia were gaining traction in getting sanctions eased. Sanctions were doomed to fail.

Secondly, to establish a successful vibrant democracy in Iraq thereby destabilizing Iran and other hard-line ME states in a similiar way the Warsaw Pact broke up in the 1990s.

I accept that many will disagree with what I have just written and that is of course is their right. However, what is not their right is to engage in leaking sensitive material to the press or any other organisations that they know will use that material to embarrass the UK Military and/or use it for purposes the "whistle-blower" has not contemplated. Should they have witnessed any event that they believe to be wrong, there are ample avenues other than publicly embarrassing and undermining the efforts and sacrifices of their comrades. They would be wise to study a quote from Saul Alinsky;

"There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father".

In other words, the difference between a freedom-fighter/Patriot and a re-viled traitor is to back the winning side.... I do not see Wikileaks as being the winning side in this matter.

[7x7]

If these documents being made public include - as I'm told they do - transcripts of raw intel. reports from individual patrol commanders, I feel really sorry for the poor Afghan who might have passed on some trivial piece of info. to that Coalition patrol, now to find the day/date/village name and quite possibly his name is now in the public domain.

If that isn't a death sentence for the individual (or even the whole village) concerned, I'm not sure what it is.

[BOAC]

You and/or Mrs BOAC appear to be saying that individuals, disenchanted with the way events are unfolding in the Middle East, are doing the right thing by reporting military failures/ embarrassments/ perceived transgressions of Rules of War, to organisations such as Wikileaks. Should I have read your post correctly, I respond as follows. - complicated to answer that properly:

disenchanted with the way events are unfolding in the Middle East- yes I/we are, of course. I desire peace in this vital area.

are doing the right thing by reporting military failures/ embarrassments/ perceived transgressions of Rules of War, to organisations such as Wikileaks - I have not commented on this facet and am unaware of real motives. I asked for peoples' views on the balance of the argument.

I believe it was right to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan on the terms that we - I did too, she did not. I, possibly as a result of a longish military service mindset, believed the 'intelligence' brief in the case of Iraq. I now have extreme doubts about the whole idea. I support your idealistic intentions in those countries, of course, but doubt they really go much higher than you or me and suspect other 'ideals' are at play.

Should they have witnessed any event that they believe to be wrong, there are ample avenues other than publicly embarrassing and undermining the efforts and sacrifices of their comrades. - I don't think those 'avenues' guarantee an impartial hearing or proper investigation.

In other words, the difference between a freedom-fighter/Patriot and a re-viled traitor is to back the winning side.... I do not see Wikileaks as being the winning side in this matter. - I do not suggest that Wikileaks should be considered as a 'contender' in this - I hope that truth will be. One question surely is who WILL be 'the winning side'?

Your ideals on preventing the spread of terrorism I support. I would rather see an improved system of intelligence and entry control at home to solve it. I do not think we have a chance of stopping the 'spread', but fear that some of the actions taken 'in our name' may be provoking it.

I am not familiar with Saul Alinsky, but in response to a single quotation would ask how many 'fathers' in history may have been considered 'traitors' and possibly even punished or put to death for their beliefs?

7x7 - indeed, and regrettable. I would have preferred some censorship. I do, however, suspect that in those countries 'loyalties' can be such (bought and sold, tortured?) that it would only be a matter of time before individuals were 'unmasked'. The question is which is for the better good of all?

We will face many more of these 'challenges' in our modern world of the unrestricted internet.

Thanks to all for the responses.

[PTT]

individuals, disenchanted with the way events are unfolding in the Middle East, are doing the right thing by reporting military failures/ embarrassments/ perceived transgressions of Rules of War, to organisations such as Wikileaks.
Assumption of motivation. You're assuming that the reason for the reporting is due to disenchantment with the events, whereas the reason may well be that previous reporting of said perceived failures/transgressions has achieved nothing. In assuming that motivation you devalue the action unfairly.

Should such failures/embarrassments/transgressions be reported in their own right? Of course they should - we must be willing to admit to and learn from our mistakes.
Does reporting them through the chain of command work? Probably, but only up to a certain level. After that point it gets very political, and we all know that those involved in politics are as likely to admit to their own (or the system's) failings as pigs are to make a solo transatlantic crossing. Such a dereliction of duty is likely to cause resentment among those doing the reporting.
What do we do when the command chain (and I include politicians in this) fails in its duty? What can we do? Certainly there are rules in place to demotivate people from reporting these situations to outside agencies (e.g. Official Secrets Act), but if the motivator in the other direction (frustration, anger, grief etc) is strong enough and the individual finds that the punishment for talking is less than the "punishment" for not talking (usually self-induced stress of some sort) then he will talk to whoever will get something done. Reduce the chance of punishment for talking (such as source protection) and the chances of talking increases - that's why people talk to Wikileaks.

Whether we agree on the reasons for going to war in the first place or not, turning a blind eye to failures, embarrassments and transgressions of the rules of war is completely unacceptable at all levels, and should be investigated publicly (while protecting individual security).

[Sir George Cayley]

Crazy Horse 18 - I'd like a word with you.

Sir George Cayley

[rogerk]

This is posted purely for comment.

Iraq war logs: Apache attack's child victims speak out | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/25/wikileaks-apache-attack-iraqi-civilians)

[green granite]

It's called 'the fog of war'.

[L J R]

It's called 'the fog of war'.

No it is not. Shooting a van that is evacuating an incapacitated person (even if it were an ex combatant) - is Murder....

[Vie sans frontieres]

Is the Fog of War another way of saying Indiscriminate Slaughter?

[Jig Peter]

Sorry if my post above raised a hackle because of excessive brevity. When I used the word "indefensible" I was taking a short cut - having been in forward area service during the Suez crisis I recognised the same kind of high-volume, high speed "spin" before the Iraq/Afghan operations were embarked on, and having also had some involvement with intelligence, I felt that there was some degree of disagreement (perhaps about details) between the providers and users of what intelligence there was. Being long retired from the military, I have/had of course nothing other than "the media" (British/US/French & German - tks to the internet) to go on, but enough to make me feel that something nasty was in the woodshed.
"Indefensible" was perhaps too strong for some, and in any case I certainly don't feel I side with the more vociferous opponents anyway: just that the case for "going in" wasn't made in a way which persuaded me personally.

PS. I'm not for Wikileakery either ...

[FFP]

Watched it all. Noted that the ground forces say they found a suspected RPG round. Was that indeed the case ? What was the determination of those individuals ? Was the Reuters cameraman following insurgents at the time or were they all civilians in the wrong place, wrong time ?

No doubt that the attack on the van was regrettable IN HINDSIGHT, but if the guys had just engaged insurgents and this van rolls up, their actions seem justifiable (and I don't know the ROE's they were working to, so I standby to be corrected if someone can come at it from that angle)

I'll edit to say that on the face of it, the van is posing no threat and would not seem to be a viable target, but again, what were the ROE's they were working to ? Do you let the van go with the driver being an insurgent that is tomorrow's RPG firer ? In this case it was coincident that an unrelated (was he ?) driver pulls up to help, but isn't the presumption that the vehicle is connected with the group that had just been targeted ?

I noted that the brother talks of insurgent activity in the area at the time, but does not elaborate. Again, was there any connection ?

No easy answers and certainly not for the crew in the heat of the moment...Any loss of civilian life is a tragedy. Period. But that crew believed they were engaging legitimate targets (again, holding judgement on the status of the van until I know the ROE's....) and that's a tough spot to be in, for sure....

[Vie sans frontieres]

There were Rules in that Engagement? Hoping the guy picks up a weapon so they can make another notch on the headpost of 'kills from a safe distance'. We're the good guys, right?

[barnstormer1968]

LJR

Without me passing a judgement, can you expand on this comment:

No it is not. Shooting a van that is evacuating an incapacitated person (even if it were an ex combatant) - is Murder....

Are you referring to your own personal view, the view of the Geneva convention, or the rules the insurgents use, the ROE of the Apache crew (assuming you know them) or anyone else's rules?

The idea of rules of who to kill or not are a very modern addition the the battle field, and not something a lot of sides adhere to or recognise.

In some ways, I hope the idea of not being able to kill civilians does not catch on (anymore than it already is, re: combatants dropping weapons and lifting dish dash to kill another day), bearing in mind the insurgents in Afghanistan are civilians...armed, hostile, or otherwise!

Just my two penneth, while sat safe and sound at home.

[FFP]

Here's my take on that "comment" Vie.......

They believe that they have just targeted a group of insurgents. In their ROE, it must mention "holding a weapon" to show credible danger. Having injured him, they refrain from shooting again because he doesn't hold a weapon. But an insurgent targeted but not killed comes back another day and remains a threat to the guys on the ground (or the chopper in the air....?)

Now you could view it as "I want to kill more people" or as I described it above. I'm not going to pass judgement and say which way I think they meant it, as I wasn't there. Maybe it was a bit of both ?

There's 2 things I do know. The injuring of kids and innocent civilians is an awful thing. And secondly, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, circling above all this, any day of the week.

[Vie sans frontieres]

They were enjoying it.

[FFP]

Iraq: Firstly, to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein

Have to disagree with you on this one Liam. I agree with everything else you said about him and his record, but the cry from those above was "WMD!" That was the floated reason. If we're talking about it being regime change, then let's start looking at other places that have leader's who harm their population and ask why not there ?

Here's my take on the Wikileaks. I do agree that transparency is a good thing (and BOAC you are right, our enemies probably know more than we'd like them to about our procedures) but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for them. Publishing hundreds of MISREPS can reveal more than the MISREPS themselves.
Finally, the list of documents requested by Wiki Leaks (they have a huge list of what they "need") is a bit much. I know of some of those documents and can honestly say that what's in them is of no concern to Wiki Leaks (and certainly does not need to be in the public domain)

It's a bit like the ingredients of Coke. I believe there was a push at some stage to have it revealed so that it could be determined kosher / vegetarian / etc . Coke had the right attitude. They took all of the inputs, checked it against the ingredients and said "You're fine. It's all good. But you still don't need to know what's in it"

Maybe not the best example......;)

[FFP]

They were pumped up because they were in the thick of it doing their job. They believe that their actions (or indeed, inaction) has a direct effect on the lives of allied troops on the ground. I'm not standing up for them, but I am cutting them a little latitude given the situation.

Between a rock and a hard place. Inaction may have meant them returning to base to the news that X soldiers had been killed in an ambush underneath them.....

[green granite]

I shudder to think what would have happened during WW2 had this attitude had manifested it's self. War is war, if the insurgents deliberately choose to fight in an area full of civilians then there will be civilian casualties no matter how careful troops are, this is why the insurgents choose to fight there so as they get the max advantage of the troops hesitating before shooting, as well as the propaganda value they get from the accidental death of a civilian, which judging from the reactions of some people on here is certainly succeeding.

[PTT]

Nice bit of empathy there from one of the people who is not living under threat of being shot indiscriminately and "legally" due to "fog of war" ;)

[green granite]

Nice bit of empathy there from one of the people who is not living under threat of being shot indiscriminately and "legally" due to "fog of war"

I was during WW2.

[PTT]

Different age, different fight, different reasons. The moral high ground is only valid so long as you maintain it.

[VinRouge]

Its combat.

Look, either we are in this to win this, or we are not. Its a nasty business. We should be going out there and smashing any individual or group that is a threat to our people or the mission. We know what the ttp's of these ****ers are.

Quite frankly, Fallujah was a success. It is only bleading heart guardian readers that cry crocodile tears for bad people that see it "the other way". The simple fact is war is a nasty, nasty business, innocents get caught up and this is exactly why entering these sorts of situations should only be entered into as an absolute last resort.

If the GC gets in the way of winning the battle, bearing in mind our enemy has used chlorine bombs on schools, used dows victims as suicide bombers and carried out some absolutely horrific acts, I am sorry, but thats what needs to happen. Either we have the appetite to do bad things to meet our objectives or we dont.

And that includes shooting a retreating enemy combatant that may go on to kill our troops in the future, and all those that are supporting him/her. We should be shooting anyone that engages us with a weapon then drops it to avoid contact. we should be shooting anyone observing falling fire and using a radio to adjust to point of impact, even if the only "weapon" they hold is a radio. To suggest our boys need to operate under card A whilst out there is lunacy.

On the other hand, I have to question our involvement full stop in a ground war. Why we are in these sh*t holes, when we could quite simply control these animals from above on the recieving end of a 500 pounder into a terrorist training camp every now and then is beyond me. These animals need to know that wherever they sleep, we will find them. We wont put troops on the ground to kill them, at least not in numbers or footprint they become an easy target. They must know that when we find them, we will not hesitate in destroying them.

Air power is characterised with flexibility and reach, 2 elements that could quite easily get around their ttps and worldwide basing. If they live in civilised nations, we will use civilian forces to combat them. Live in some dirty little dust bowl in some third world nation, 500 pounder every time.

[green granite]

Different age, different fight, different reasons

:confused::confused: What has that got to do with anything, has death suddenly become less permanent so that solders no longer need to worry about being shot?

[Jumping_Jack]

Vin Rouge :D
Having been in Basrah at the height of the indescriminate bombardment from the insurgents I have absolutely no simpathy.

[soddim]

There should be a difference between the actions of an immoral enemy and a moral force for good. It is almost impossible to restrain forces all fired up and motivated to survive and win but that is what wartime leaders must do - nowadays, in this type of warfare, at all costs.

In my opinion, the americans do not achieve this - even our own troops are at risk when they are deployed in the vicinity. Trigger happy is the expression that springs to mind.

Our own philosphy last time I checked was that if there is any doubt there is no doubt.

Having said that, I am grateful for all those who put their lives at risk for our freedom.

[green granite]

There should be a difference between the actions of an immoral enemy and a moral force for good.

I would suggest there is a difference, the immoral ones couldn't give a toss about causing the death of non-combatants whereas the moral ones will do their level best to avoid them, unfortunately they don't always succeed.

[Wholigan]

Jig Peter - the words in my post were actually addressed to the writers of the 6 posts after your post that I deleted (and which you thus can't see), not at you.

[Training Risky]

We are conducting a counter-insurgency campaign against domestic insurgents, foreign terrorists, extremists and criminals, tribal leaders and spivs. We are not fighting a soldier as defined by the Geneva Convention. There is no enemy uniform, no battleflag, no parole given. The enemy do not discriminate, use proportionality, or any of the things we are expected to do.

The rules of the game have changed irreversibly since the first Geneva Conventions, the founding of the UN, the Nuremburg Trials, the end of the Cold War, Bosnia, 9/11, and they keep on changing.... Those who bandy the terms 'murder' and 'war-crime' about are making mock of uniforms that are starvation cheap (apologies Rudyard!). I woulld argue that there are people out there on this forum and in the wider world who are not involved in the fight and remain unaware of ALL the issues and facts of a very dirty and tricky campaign and therefore have no authority to coment on such matters.:=

[Ewan Whosearmy]

@LJR

Murder? Do you know what the ROE was?

[soddim]

Whilst many may seek to justify the mistakes in this conflict that led to attacks on friendly forces and non-participants, it is an inescapable fact that we will be judged by the public who not only support our military but also provide the funding.

You cannot simply say that those who are not directly involved have no valid opinion. In modern warfare the opinion of the public counts a great deal. Without their support the troops have no warrant to be there - Vietnam was the first example of trial by media and every conflict since has been subject to the same scrutiny.

Apart from the moral argument, how on earth are we to win the hearts and minds of the locals if we are so trigger happy and so brutal in interrogating possibly innocent people?

I fear that, just like Iraq, we are simply alienating the Afghans too.

[PTT]

VinRouge
"It's combat" is the excuse of those who can't be bothered empathising with those who they are killing accidentally. It is the off-hand dismission of the death of another human being because they were in the way, and personally I find that pretty appalling in a "civilisation" which is based on individual equality and rights.

Yes, the enemy are vile. They are criminals. That's how they need to be treated. But to blow up a village because an insurgent might be there is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and if you can't see that then it's because you're not one of the people living in the village about to be blown up.

Just because the enemy do it doesn't mean we should - what value our moral outrage if we do?

[finestkind]

GG

out of curiosity how old were you in WWII ?

[finestkind]

I remember some time ago, early eighties, wandering through the city and coming across a protest march on save the whales or some such thing. What I found highly insightful was a banner with a number of people marching under it protesting against rape of women in war. Apart from the homeless, the orphaned, the maimed, the dead, tortured etc I thought it had reasonable validity but still couldn't quite come to grips that perhaps protesting and stopping wars would resolve their issue. Obviously the death and destruction was a minor concern but more importantly was the violation of a woman by a man.

People occasionally focus on the leaves and not the tree. There is no such thing, anymore, as a clean war. The locals do not go and sit on a hill over looking the battle with a picnic basket. No side is lily white in their application of death and destruction.

Whether it should be published is debatable.

Do we apply our own values and convictions when the opponent has a significantly different set. Is torture a valid option. No, we do not lower oursleves to this inhuman level. If you knew that this person had information that would save lives, particularly of your own forces let alone women and children, you would stick to the high ground and let death occur because you did not hold with torture.

Rules in war, ROE ??

To quote Mr Churchill, a POW is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.

[L J R]

...ROE...

As far as I remember, no matter what ROE you work to, you are still bound by the application of the GV - when you are on 'our' side anyway.


The Geneva Conventions (GV) comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:
wounded or sick fighters


The observation of the shots taken AFTER the initial shooting clearly shows an injured individual, who is clearly being assisted into a Bongo Van. Clearly this individual is wounded - and clearly is no longer taking part in hostilities...

Whether he chooses fight at a later date is an unfortunate aspect of our application of the GV....

[BOAC]

I had hoped the focus on this would be not so much the actions taken 'in the heat of battle' but on the overall policy, the follow-up investigations and the claim of 'security risks' to attempt to cover it all up.

[ORAC]

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/)

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction......

[Load Toad]

If they did why wasn't the evidence presented?

If they did - could it not be argued any lab or any chemist is a potential WMD source?

[cornish-stormrider]

they know where the stuff is - just they don't want to let out HOW they came to know for damage to the source gatherer.....

Think bigger picture.

it would not surprise me in 10 years when a firm is looking for "oil" somewhere to "find" a whole lot of bad things that justified them...

[Liam Gallagher]

FFP,

Have to disagree with you on this one Liam. I agree with everything else you said about him and his record, but the cry from those above was "WMD!" That was the floated reason

WMD was undoubtedly woven through the justification for War, however it was not the reason we went to war. I believe the decision to go to War was resultant of a process that commenced back in 1990 when Sadam invaded Kuwait and Sadam's subsequent behaviour through the 1990's and the failure of sanctions, Weapons Inspection and limited military actions to get Sadam to behave. Ultimately, a "coalition of the willing" threatened Sadam with invasion and Sadam called the Coalition's bluff....

I accept that there is room for others to hold the view that this was all about WMD's, however consider these facts;

1. In 1998 Clinton passed an Act called The Iraq Liberation Act, that called for regime change in Iraq, and

2. GWB 48 hrs prior to Gulf War 2, with all his forces in place, issued Sadam and his sons an ultimatum to avoid war; leave Iraq or else. There was no option to resume inspections or seek some undertanding on WMDs. GWB's intention was crystal clear: regime change.

3. If this was solely about WMD, why invade? Invasion meant regime change.

If we're talking about it being regime change, then let's start looking at other places that have leader's who harm their population and ask why not there

I never understand this argument. Are you saying, because we can't fix all the world's problems we will fix none? Fixing all the world's ills is an admirable objective, however surely it is prudent to try and fix them one at a time. Alternatively, are you saying there was a more pressing world problem? Whilst there are many objectional regimes in the world many lines crossed over Sadam, not least of which was the threat he posed to the interests of the UK and its allies.

BOAC,

Sorry to Hijack your thread. However, I cannot help feel that many "Whistle- Blowers" pronounce Iraq/Afghanistan to be an illegal/immoral/unwinnable war and then feel wholly justified engaging in actions that are somewhere between treason and "breaches of security". To hold the view that these wars are both legal and moral is highly unfashionable, but there were/are valid reasons to persecute these wars and I cannot help but feel that Wikileaks, in particular, have an agenda beyond truthful reporting.

I must confess, I had to google Saul Alinsky. I read the quote at the information centre at Bergen-Belsen many years ago and it bounced around in my subconcious until the day I saw the news footage in 2001 of the Taleban destroying the Buddhas of Baniyan. A lesson from history perhaps?

I support your idealistic intentions in those countries, of course, but doubt they really go much higher than you or me and suspect other 'ideals' are at play

That is the $64 question. I believe Bush and Blair were the moving force behind these 2 wars. Although different characters, they are both ambitious and both idealists. The more I hear and read the closer I am coming to the conclusion that the shared ideals of these 2 men are why events occurred as they did.

[E L Whisty]

Make no mistake, when Bliar appears before the Chilcot enquiry again, he will be asked to justify his decisions based on the evidence that was available at the time that the decisions were made.

It would not be beneath the consciences of either the American or British political 'elites' to plant or fabricate 'evidence' after the fact.

[barnstormer1968]

LJR

I have no idea what you can remember, but the reality of how British forces have operated over the last one hundred years does not support your memory.

Britain has chosen to ignore the Geneva convention at troop, company, regiment, brigade and even 'army' level at certain times. This is very well known and accepted, and perhaps it is the modern phenomena of TV that allows folks who are not in danger to tell those who are, what to do.

One glaring example for you is the D day assault, where you may find that prisoners were not taken by allied troops, be they combatants or not.

I sometimes wonder how many folks have voted, knowing the party they vote for will keep Britains nuclear deterrent (possibly a million civ casualties per blast) while all the while condemning British troops for rare accidents (troops acting under government orders).

[Hipper]

Surely our intentions in the region are stability. Stability to continue trading and of course particularly trading for oil, so that we in the west can continue with our high standard of living.

Saddam did originally help with stability and even when he attacked Iran we weren't too concerned. But when he went for Kuwait and became a threat to Saudi Arabia we had to do something. The first Gulf War didn't really nullify Saddam and nor did sanctions so we had to have another go at him.

WMD were a symptom of the problem but the problem was Saddam.

And Saddam was a problem because he threatened oil rich regions that we in the west rely on.

Is our way of life worth all the fuss. Our politicians think so and I suspect most in the UK, if confronted with a poorer lifestyle or a war in Iraq would go for the latter.

That's the way I see it anyway.

[FFP]

Liam,

I don't need convincing that the reason we went to Iraq was regime change; that's as plain as day to see. But that was the hidden agenda. Those in Congress / Parliament that bought off on it did so under the intel provided about WMD. It was being said daily in the run up that "this isn't about regime change" If it was being sold as "regime change" then that wouldn't have taken off quite as well. When you commit lives to a conflict under false pretenses, that's when I have an issue.

The problem with regime changing is where do you stop ? My "argument" points out that selection of a regime falls on the whim of whose in charge (i.e. Bush and Blair). It sets a dangerous precedent in my eyes. If Obama believes that Venezuela poses a threat to the US and it's allies, who stops him ? Are you saying you really don't get that argument and see it's merits ??

What "threat" did Iraq pose ? WMD.......?

Am I glad he's gone ? Yes. Do I think it was worth all the lives it cost, across the board, ? No.

I assume you feel that Iran is a similar threat (if not more serious) today as you believed Iraq was in 2003 ? They talk about wiping Israel (an ally) off the face of the earth with nuclear facilities being advanced daily.

I'd love to see Ahmadinejad removed, but since we've finished in Iraq, by your logic, it's time to start working on the next world ill (We can't fix them all, but we were fixing 2, now 1, so scope to choose another one eh ?)

[TEEEJ]

Even up until 2003 the UN teams were still finding and destroying Iraqi WMD.

Media Advisory 2003/2602 - UNMOVIC IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq - 26 February 2003 (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2003/ma_iraq_2602.shtml)

The Wiki Leaks reporting on WMD finds is nothing new or ground breaking. Old legacy WMD was still being found and some chemical filled shells were being used by the insurgents. It is unclear if the insurgents were actually aware of what the shells contained as they were using them as roadside bombs?

Iraq Survey Group Final Report (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-anx-f.htm)

If you look at the amounts of WMD found by UNSCOM then it is no wonder that not all were accountable. The Iraq Survey Group after the invasion were still finding remnants of 1980 era and some from experiments in the 1990s.

ANNEX B - STATUS OF THE VERIFICATION OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMME (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-chem.htm)

Iraq Survey Group Final Report (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/)

TJ

[CrackBerry5288]

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4748/ak471m.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/2808/rpg1.jpg


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/4494996801_62c2b6d828_o.jpg

This is what the Apache driver saw at the time, bearing in mind a US Cavalry unit had just been ambushed in the same AOR and had been in contact with a group fitting the description of this one.

The ROE at the time classafied anyone in the area picking up wounded or weapons as combatants...

[BOAC]

Liam - in no way do I see your posts as 'hijacking' - they are indeed thoughtful and important. (In any case we now have 3 threads..........:ugh:)

To others - I cannot see that Liam is actually endorsing a policy of 'selective' regime change, but I concur that the argument for taking out Iran (and possibly ruining the fabric thereof in the process) is in fact more pressing than that for Iraq or Afghanistan.

As FFP says, the 'public' face of both actions has been other than 'regime change'. It is disingenuous to say the least, apart from immoral, to attempt to hoodwink the public. To fabricate a case for war is by no means unusual, but one must be prepared for the consequences of being 'found out' as Bush and Blair have been.

In any case, I was trying to look a little differently in this thread and put aside the WMD etc issues and focus on the bigger picture of should we know the truth and are the reasons for trying to suppress the truth genuine/valid?

[maxred]

All fine points Liam and a well constructed point of view........however, Saddam was backed by the US regime for a least a decade prior to the Kuwait event. The Iran war????
Rumsfeld was in Baghdad pleading with Saddam not to invade Kuwait, which, and I am sure I may be corrected on accuracy by historians, was due to the Kuwait regime pulling on an oil deal - supplies and embargos during the 9 year war. SIMPLIFIED
This is supposed to be an intelligent and (lessons learnt) society:eek:, and the consequence of war has to be taken into account, PRIOR, to going to war.
There is not one good reason to condone what has happened here. The numbers of civilians and miltary personnel who have given their lives - for what? My view Blair and Bush should be tried in the Hague.:O

[Sunfish]

1. Many of you are arguing "War is hell". This is a variation of the "Cosi Fan Tutti" (everybody does it) defence, and it won't wash.

2. Regarding the helicopter attack video, I watched it multiple times.

Here is what I saw:

a) Camera man embeds himself with an insurgent group, hoping to take some gritty Pulitzer winning images. One man is carrying an RPG7 which is visible in the middle of the video - hardly a "home defence" weapon. It is obviously intended to be fired at an American vehicle.

b) Camera man sticks his head around corner and photographs Bradley fighting vehicle one block away.

c) Camera man helpfully shares image with RPG man and others. They all crowd around to get a look at their prospective target.

d) Apache wastes them.

e) Van drives up. Apache assumes its a get away vehicle and wastes that too.

f) Children found in van, invisible to helicopter.

[FFP]

Concur Sunfish. Very little is said about that "insurgent" group. Can anyone confirm that was indeed the case ?

As for the van (and I don't want to cast dispersion on a dead man's character) was it again wrong place, wrong time doing the Good Samaritan bit or is the fact that the wagon pitches up shortly after a canny coincidence ? (I think you know what I'm getting at)

My sympathy wains if it's the latter, no matter what the ROE says. Today's driver is tomorrow's shooter. The fact the kids are in the picture if he was working with the insurgents is an even greater tragedy.

(All conjecture as the news articles seem to suggest he wasn't involved, but he got involved quick enough for some strangers. Maybe he genuinely is a better man than I am, as I wouldn't have gone in there after that unless I knew them......)

And as for the photographer, zero sympathy. When you step into a war zone and put yourself in those positions, then you're asking for it. Those that champion the media in today's war I counter that with no one's life is worth risking to bring me images to watch while I'm eating my dinner sat in front of the TV........

[An Teallach]

Standing the validity or otherwise of the Bush and Blair arguments for going to war in the first place in Iraq and Afghanistan; it is notable to my mind that there weren't many politicians at the time who had been to war who supported the case for war.

Whether it was to save us from alleged WMDs in Iraq or to stop failed states such as Afghanistan being used as refuges for 'terrorists', the aim was to increase the security of the West. I suspect the older and wiser heads who actually knew what war means also knew that unleashing the power of the West on Iraq and Afghanistan, far from increasing our security, would act as the recruiting sergeant for every militant nut-job in the Islamic world. Bush referring to a crusade just put the cherry on top.

The nature of military heirarchies is such that these leaks may result in some prosecutions, just as the Abu Ghraibh photos resulted in prison for an obviously retarded, hick-from-the-sticks American MP lassie. Have the leaks compromised security? I wouldn't have thought they've compromised tactical security that much. Have the leaks in themselves compromised our strategic security? Yes, but not one iota as much as the decision to unleash general war (with all its concomitant horrors) on these countries in the first place.

That these leaks have brought some of those horrors into the public domain does not change the fact that the dead are dead and the tortured remain tortured. The 'older and wiser' heads knew, or certainly feared, that would be the case. All I know is, that if I was a young Afghan who'd witnessed some of the 'collateral damage', I'd probably be reaching for the AK47 or the RPG-7.

It's not for nothing that the first princple of war is selection and maintenance of the aim. In both these wars, even those that ordered them had (and still have) grave difficulty voicing what they are or were trying to achieve. To me any recriminations start and end with those who ordered the horror without having the first idea of what they were ordering or what they wanted to achieve by it.

[Wiley]

I think what so many of those outraged that Blair and Bush led their countries into war on a false assumption about the Iraqis possessing WMD are forgetting is that Saddam Hussein, in classic Arab strongman style wanted the West (and more particularly, his many foes in his immediate region) to think he still had WMD.

With 20/20 hindsight, it's so incredibly easy to see how flimsy the basis of the intel. supporting the case for Iraq's still having WMD was. However, anyone with even passing experience of collecting intel., particularly humit., which relies all too often on shady and obscure sources (who, by the very fact they're talking to you, their country's enemy - or potential enemy - have proven they can't be trusted), will know that the real skill is in filtering that 1% of fact from the 99% of dross and deliberate misinformation the other side is feeding to you.

It's easy in hindsight to say: "See? There were naysayers. Why didn't the leadership listen to them?" If Saddam Hussein had dropped a half dozen Scuds filled with biological or nerve agents onto troop staging areas or ports in the Gulf causing even light casualties, those same critics would be screaming for Blair and Bush's heads for not believing the 'overwhelming evidence' that SH had WMD.

I accept that it didn't help that far too many in Washington wanted to believe anything that supported their case.

I think that the really huge error that was made was in Donald Rumsfeld convincing Bush and the Pentagon that the war could won on the cheap and reducing the troop levels to such a degree that there were no troops to fill the void to maintain control of the conquered lands behind the front line units who defeated the Iraqi Army. Even after this unforgivable mistake, the error was compounded to an incredible degree by L. Paul Bremer's imbecilic decision to disband the Iraqi Army, providing in one stroke of the pen a huge pool of disaffected, trained - and suddenly unemployed - men all too willing to pick up a rifle or set an IED.

As I said, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing...

[FFP]

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing (and btw Wiley, I wholeheartedly agree with your take on the Intel world, which IMO can be akin to weather forecasting but far greater consequences, for which I'm glad not to be in their shoes..;)) but take the case of Afghanistan. Can we look back now and identify the warning signs ? The rhetoric coming from OBL following the Saudi's refusal of his offer during GW1, the Embassy bombing's around the world, the USS Cole incident, the chatter leading up to 9/11 ? Can we say now that AQ, under the protection of the Taleban was a threat and should have been taken out ?

I think the answer is yes. I don't think anyone looks back on the Afg situation though and thinks we should have gone in on a pre-emptive basis, based on that hindsight. With Iraq, had things gone differently and Saddam carried out those actions you mention, I think retalliation would have been the order of the day and again, no one would have held the US / UK responsible for not taking action beforehand, because I don't think the warning signs were there. That's just me though and I accept that public feeling may be different.

On that, I don't remember seeing any "warning" signs that Iraq was about to strike (I stand to be corrected if someone knows otherwise and I'm talking about evidence generated outside of our own communities) I do remember us being busy with Afghanistan at the time and thinking "WTF ? Where has all this come from ?" As a lowly line flyer, it seemed clear to me that this was going to distract us from Afg. In contrast, I'm looking at the situation with Iran now and I DO see warning signs. I feel justified in my own mind if ever questioned by the future generations about why we carried out a pre-emptive strike on Iran that I can point to lack of compliance with IAEA and rhetoric coming from the leadership regarding Israel as a credible threat.

Who knows, in a world where Iraq didn't happen and Afg was given full resources through 2003, maybe the way we engage with Iran would be different........?

All supposition though. It is what it is and it gives me a job.......;)

[ORAC]

Grauniad: WikiLeaks founder faces Swedish detention over rape case (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/18/wikileaks-founder-faces-swedish-detention-rape)

Sweden's chief prosecutor asks for court order to detain Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, sexual assault and coercion

Sweden's chief prosecutor today asked for a court order to detain the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for questioning in a rape case. The move could mean that prosecutors were preparing an international arrest warrant for the Australian, whose whereabouts were not immediately clear.

"I request the court detain Assange in his absence on suspicion of rape, sexual assault and coercion," the director of public prosecution, Marianne Ny, said in a statement. She said the request, which will be considered by a judge later today, was made because investigators had not been able to bring Assange in for questioning. He was accused of raping a woman in Stockholm in August, a charge that was later dropped, and sexually assaulting another woman in the town of Enk.

Assange, whose website was behind the biggest leak of US military documents in history, has repeatedly denied the allegations.

Ny's statement said: "The reason for my request is that we need to interrogate him. So far, we have not been able to meet with him to accomplish the interrogation."...............