SAS soldier quits Army in disgust at 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq

[Ali Barber]

This one is likely to be more damning than the RAF doctor for Tony. It also seems a bit strange for a SAS guy to go public.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=F11TIIDOLKRKJQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/12/ixportaltop.html

[Stafford]

I feel another book coming on :hmm:

[Ginger Beer]

A man brave enough to go to war on the streets of Baghdad and brave enough to have the courage of his convictions.

If you read the full interview, he neither asked for nor received any payment for the article.

I salute him.

[flipster]

I am sure it was a very difficult decision to make and a brave one at that What else would one expect from the SAS?

Furthermore, I suspect he's not alone in wishing to stop 'conducting american foreign policy'.

He may have even started something?

[Tombstone]

Although Afghanistan is another hell hole, I think it could be make into the UK's exit strategy for HM Forces in Iraq.

In Southern Afghanistan, our Forces will work for British Cdrs, not Americans and that, will hopefully allow us to show the world what a British soldier is truly capable of.

I salute Ben Griffin's decision, not only has he turned his back on the Army, he has written off any real chance of a security job outside, the ex-regiment lads won't even look at him.

Perhaps it was only a matter of time before these cracks started to spread and the leak to worsen, I will put money on Ben Griffin not being the last to refuse to work alongside US Forces that, are out of control IMHO.

[Rakshasa]

'I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy'
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/03/2006)

As a trooper in the Special Air Service's counter-terrorist team - the black-clad force that came to the world's attention during the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 - Ben Griffin was at the pinnacle of his military career.



He had already served in Northern Ireland, Macedonia and Afghanistan as a member of the Parachute Regiment, and his sharp mind, natural fitness and ability to cope with the stress of military operations had singled him out as ideal special forces material.

Born in London but brought up in Wales, Mr Griffin left school at 18 with two A-levels and six GCSEs and, although he could have become an officer, he preferred life in the ranks.

Within a year of joining the elite force in early 2004 and serving as a trooper in the SAS's G-Squadron, he learnt that his unit was being posted to Baghdad, where it would be working alongside its American equivalent, Delta Force, targeting al-Qaeda cells and insurgent units.

Unknown to any of his SAS colleagues at their Hereford-based unit, however, Mr Griffin, then 25, had been harbouring doubts over the "legality" of the war. Despite recognising that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and posed a threat, albeit a small one, to the West, he did not believe that the case for war had been made. The events he witnessed during his three-month tour in Baghdad, and especially the conduct of the American troops, would force him into making the most difficult decision of his life.

During a week's leave in March 2005 he told his commanding officer in a formal interview that he had no intention of returning to Iraq because he believed that the war was morally wrong. Moreover, he said he believed that Tony Blair and the Government had lied to the country and had deceived every British serviceman and woman serving in Iraq.

Mr Griffin expected to be placed under arrest, labelled a coward, court-martialed and imprisoned for daring to air such views.

Instead, however, he was allowed to leave the Army with his exemplary military record intact and with a glowing testimonial from his commanding officer, who described him as a "balanced and honest soldier who possesses the strength and character to genuinely have the courage of his convictions".

In his first interview since being discharged from the SAS in June last year, Mr Griffin explained why he has decided to speak out about the war.

He said: "I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong. I knew, so others must have known, that this was not the way to conduct operations if you wanted to win the hearts and minds of the local population. And if you don't win the hearts and minds of the people, you can't win the war.

"If we were on a joint counter-terrorist operation, for example, we would radio back to our headquarters that we were not going to detain certain people because, as far as we were concerned, they were not a threat because they were old men or obviously farmers, but the Americans would say 'no, bring them back'.

"The Americans had this catch-all approach to lifting suspects. The tactics were draconian and completely ineffective. The Americans were doing things like chucking farmers into Abu Ghraib [the notorious prison in Baghdad where US troops abused and tortured Iraqi detainees] or handing them over to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well they were going to be tortured.

"The Americans had a well-deserved reputation for being trigger happy. In the three months that I was in Iraq, the soldiers I served with never shot anybody. When you asked the Americans why they killed people, they would say 'we were up against the tough foreign fighters'. I didn't see any foreign fighters in the time I was over there.

"I can remember coming in off one operation which took place outside Baghdad, where we had detained some civilians who were clearly not insurgents, they were innocent people. I couldn't understand why we had done this, so I said to my troop commander 'would we have behaved in the same way in the Balkans or Northern Ireland?' He shrugged his shoulders and said 'this is Iraq', and I thought 'and that makes it all right?'

"As far as I was concerned that meant that because these people were a different colour or a different religion, they didn't count as much. You can not invade a country pretending to promote democracy and behave like that."

On another operation, Mr Griffin recalls his and other soldiers' frustration at being ordered to detain a group of men living on a farm.

He said: "After you have been on a few operations, experience tells you when you are dealing with insurgents or just civilians and we knew the people we had detained were not a threat.

"One of them was a disabled man who had a leg missing but the Americans still ordered us to load them on the helicopters and bring them back to their base. A few hours later we were told to return half of them and fly back to the farm in daylight. It was a ridiculous order and we ran the risk of being shot down or ambushed, but we still had to do it. The Americans were risking our lives because they refused to listen to our advice the night before. It was typical of their behaviour."

Mr Griffin said he believed that the Americans soldiers viewed the Iraqis in the same way as the Nazis viewed Russians, Jews and eastern Europeans in the Second World War, when they labelled them "untermenschen".

"As far as the Americans were concerned, the Iraqi people were sub-human, untermenschen. You could almost split the Americans into two groups: ones who were complete crusaders, intent on killing Iraqis, and the others who were in Iraq because the Army was going to pay their college fees. They had no understanding or interest in the Arab culture. The Americans would talk to the Iraqis as if they were stupid and these weren't isolated cases, this was from the top down. There might be one or two enlightened officers who understood the situation a bit better but on the whole that was their general attitude. Their attitude fuelled the insurgency. I think the Iraqis detested them."

Although Mr Griffin has the utmost respect for his former colleagues and remains fiercely loyal to the regiment, he believes that the reputation of the Army has been damaged by its association with the American forces.

"I had reservations about going out to Iraq before I went, but as a soldier you just get on with what you are ordered to do. But I found that when I was out in Iraq that I couldn't keep my views separate from my work without compromising my role as a soldier.

"It was at that stage that I knew I couldn't carry on. I was very angry, and still am, at the way the politicians in this country and America have lied to the British public about the war. But most importantly, I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy."

Mr Griffin said that although he was angered by many of the events he witnessed in Iraq, he waited until he returned to Britain on leave before making his views clear to his commanders.

"I didn't want to say anything when I was in Baghdad because I still have great respect and loyalty for the soldiers I served with. I didn't want to cause any unnecessary pressure or discomfort by voicing my opinions.

"When I returned to the UK for a week's leave I asked for an interview with my commanding officer and told him that what I thought was going on in Iraq was wrong, not just legally but operationally as well.

"Initially, he suspected that I had been offered a job by a private military company in Iraq but when it became clear that was not the case he was very understanding. It was a big decision for me. I put a lot of effort getting into the SAS, so this wasn't a decision I made on a whim.

"He understood my point of view and his attitude was brilliant, in fact everyone was brilliant about it. I didn't know what was going to happen. I thought I might be charged or end up in Colchester [the military prison] for refusing to soldier."

Mr Griffin, who lives in London, denies being a peace activist or a member of any political party, or having an agenda designed to bring down the Government.

But he said: "I do believe passionately in democracy and I will speak out about things which I think are morally wrong. I think the war in Iraq is a war of aggression and is morally wrong and, more importantly, we are making the situation in the Middle East more unstable. It's not just wrong, it's a major military disaster. There was no plan for what was to happen after Saddam went, no end-game."

• Mr Griffin did not ask for or receive any payment for this interview.



Wether you agree with him or not he seems like his head is screwed on right. SAS aside, definetly someone worthy of respect.

[SASless]

It is an all volunteer Army I believe. Thus the Trooper is welcome to un-volunteer.

I guess one Trooper quitting (novel concept in the SAS I am sure) is proof certain of the "wrongness" of the Iraq war. The fact he is the only one to quit and all of his fellow SAS troops did not, means they don't have the correct view nor the strength of character to stand up for what they believe.

So...we are expected to think he is right...they are wrong.

Bless him for having the strength of character to do what he thinks right but using him as the poster boy for the anti-war movement and suggesting he has the unique truth on this is a load of bovine feces.

Personally, I prefer to honour those that are living up to their own personal beliefs and are remaining dedicated to the task at hand. Anyone can quit.

[haughtney1]

So SAS this guy isnt living up to his personal beliefs?..seemingly he had a great deal more to lose by leaving the regiment, than by staying?
You can scoff all you like by assuming he quit as it was an easy option, Id suggest thats an overly simplistic approach. Regardless of what you or I think, most fair minded individuals (servicemen or otherwise) can see for themselves the reasons for his resignation.:ok:

[flipster]

Many other people believe the 'war' IS wrong - he's not alone!

Those UK forces still serving there seem to be carrying out US military policy but they should still have our total support. But we would do well to remember that saying

"I was only obeying orders" is no defence come Judgement Day.

Those of us at home also have a duty to ensure that what we are asking our Armed Forces to do, on our behalf, is morally right as well as 'legal'. I, for one, am not so sure that is still the case anymore.

We should have no sympathy with insurgents who deserve the full might of 'military justice'. However, we should ensure that it is only insurgents and combatants who are engaged. Certainly,we should have sympathy for the innocent Iraqis who get caught up with blinkered US-led tactics - which are, seemingly, turning against us those people we are there to help!

How did we get into this :mad: mess?:confused: :confused: :confused:

[dallas]

Total respect to the trooper. I think the war is wrong but am not in a financial position to quit; I will be doing just as soon as I can. Moral obligations are fine, but they don't pay the mortgage.

I will also say that I support the troops on the ground 100% - they're just in the middle of this stinking mess and I'm ready to stand amongst them if called upon. However, politically and morally GW and Tony have tried to con us all and so far got away with it. How on earth they are still in power continues to amaze me, but then I guess a nation of Pop Idol fans either don't care or will vote for anyone who stands for more free pizza :(

America had the moral high ground on 9/11 and could have used it to change the world for the better. Instead they threw it away, opting for invading anywhere. Same old, same old. What a pity there wasn't a true statesman in the Whitehouse at the time who could have changed the world for good, not changed it for Guantanamo and CIA hostages, let alone the initial very misguided invasion!

Ironically, whatever the 9/11 hijackers warped intent, I can't help now but sympathise with the majority of the Islamic world, who we're doing over royally in a myriad of different ways.

Send me to the Gulf and I will go and do my job, but my heart isn't in the mission, especially because I don't think for one minute the last 4 years have had anything to do with freedom. Well, not its proliferation anyway...

[SASless]

Bless him for having the strength of character to do what he thinks right

I meant that....what he did takes courage.

That I disagree with him has nothing to do with my appreciation for his willingness to do something. I think there are other things he could have done within the system that would have more effect. Reporting misconduct and any illegal acts he observed. At some point the command structure would have to either investigate the allegations or post him elsewhere and that in itself would be grounds for an investigation. I believe he would have garnered more respect that way than by simply quitting. You notice how quickly he was let go. This way he is merely an embarrassment with a very short shelf life. He has no complaint....they did not even speak poorly of him.


Certainly,we should have sympathy for the innocent Iraqis who get caught up with blinkered US-led tactics - which are, seemingly, turning against us those people we are there to help!

It seems to me the British troops in Basra...using their own tactics and "win the hearts" techniques are having much the same kinds of problems the Americans are elsewhere.

We hear of all the trouble in the few provinces but we do not hear of the postive news from the other 14 or so provinces that have returned to reasonably normal life.

When we read of the insurgents meeting with the Americans and coordinating attacks and capture of foreign fighters that strikes me that some winning of the hearts is happening.

If all you want to see is bad news then no one is going to be able to convince you there is good news coming out. Is it as much good or as often as we wish....of course not but there is good news and progress being made.

Are there Iraqi's doing torture....probably. There are old scores that are going to be settled. Are there murders being done....probably...again there are old scores being settled. I find it a bit amusing to hear folks complaining about American forces turning Iraqi's over to other Iraqi's and at the same time complaining about our holding other folks in Gitmo and not turning them over to their own countries. Seems we cannot win in that regard.

Take yourself back to Northern Island...it was not all Roses and Lilacs there either. How many complaints of murders, knee cappings and other crimes were made against the Security Forces and leaking of information to own side militias have there been?

As I recall, the British Government decided it was a national policy issue for the British to be involved in the Iraq war. It may have been in congruence with US Policy but your government decided it had an interest in being there. That makes it a British Foreign Policy decision....not an American one.

Whether you agree with it, or if it is or is not legal, proper, or popular is subject to opinion. Thus far, it has been ajudged to be a legal war. But then, just how legal are wars of any kind? Wars are fought whenever governments make decisions to engage in combat with other nations for whatever reason they elect. You can argue international law and such all you wish, but there has never been a decision to not go to war as a result of some thought it might be illegal. National leaders start wars with the sole concept of doing so thinking they can win against all opposition, not whether it is legal or not.

If you have problems with Iraq....hang on. We have to confront the notion of Iran having nuclear weapons. Are British national interests going to be similar to American, European, and Middle Eastern interests or will you sit this next one out?

[soddim]

So here we go again - UK being dragged into the killing of millions in the Gulf just to prevent the danger of Iran having weapons of mass destruction.

There has to be a better way.

[Onan the Clumsy]

If you have problems with Iraq....hang on. We have to confront the notion of Iran having nuclear weapons. Are British national interests going to be similar to American, European, and Middle Eastern interests or will you sit this next one out?We might have to as our resources have been so diminished by the current hostilities. Iran is just one more reason to NOT have go to war with Iraq. A wise commander saves his resources for a real enemy.

[flipster]

SASless

Yes - sorry, you have a point that Basrah is much 'better' than Baghad but we only get to hear what the media want us to.
Also, yes, the Brits are winning more hearts and minds - when we are left alone to do it our way.
You are also right that this war is adjudged 'legal' - by those who led us into it! But it is always those in power who write the history books, right?
Yes, you are also right that 'sponsored' torture happens in Iraq and probably did in NI (and everywhere else). War is a dirty business but it still doesn't make it right to treat everyone with absolute utter contempt - the nazis tried that and failed. Furthermore, it only lowers us to their level.

I am sure you'd agree that what is worrying is that El Tone has signed us up to the US 'big plan' and we seem to have decreasing autonomy - possibly, because we aren't as big as the Yanks ..... and getting smaller! I don't know things will work out in AFG this time - perhaps we will be picking up the pieces after 3 years of US policing - not easy! Lets see if we are 'allowed' to do it our way?

As for Iran - Lord help us if we go in there! I don't want nuclear proliferation any more than you do but how much of the US and Iranian political posturing at the UN is intentionally leading us to conflict? GWB and his oil-rich chums obviously want to go in and, perhaps, the Iranian govt are happy with this, as think they can beat Dubya in a 'home-fixture'. The govts are quite happy for the nuclear posturing, which is doomed to fail and may lead to another 'justifed' US attack on a 'threatening' mid-east country (which has lots of oil/minerals) while Iranians cry 'foul' and but get the whole of the Islamic world on their side - not a good prospect.

BTW have you noticed how the Iranian-sponsored insurgents in Iraq are keeping the US forces quite busy already? Have you also seen the terrain in Iran - not for the faint hearted - certainly, I don't want to see British forces going in there.:eek:

We are quite entitled to differing opinions but I do feel that we are agreed that Trooper Griffin did a brave thing and as such deserves respect.

Personally, I think its all madness!
:{ :{

Bon chance mon brave

[JessTheDog]

I think there are other things he could have done within the system that would have more effect. Reporting misconduct and any illegal acts he observed. At some point the command structure would have to either investigate the allegations or post him elsewhere and that in itself would be grounds for an investigation.

I doubt any complaint with regard to illegal conduct would get anywhere. There is the issue of classification of special operations in the first instance. The main reason is that the mistreatment of suspected insurgents is enshrined in US policy, from the very top downwards. Is "organ failure" really where torture starts? That is the definition the Pentagon wanted. A UK minister even tried to claim that "water boarding" may not be torture under certain circumstances.

Ben Griffin did the right thing. The US and UK administrations have acted throughout this debacle in a despicable and counterproductive manner, from the very start with lies about WMDs, and the more people that walk away from the Bush/Bliar venture the better.

[Tombstone]

SASless,

I think that most British Servicemen would like to sit Iran out and let the US make a balls of it on its own.

Iran is a war the US won't win as many of its assets will be stuck in Iraq for at least another decade, preventing anything other than a major air assault followed up by an insufficient number of ground troops to finish the job.

I agree with flipster about the Iranian sponsored insurgents giving the US forces a hard time in Iraq, not a good sign for any potential move on Iran.

The USMC & US Army is looking tired IMHO, perhaps the thought of fighting 2 major conflicts at the same time may be just that bit too much for the Chiefs, I do hope so.

[jayteeto]

There were lots of us who left because they didn't believe in this government. I did, but most people stayed. That sums up the whole reason the forces exist, democracy. I had the choice to do what I believed to be right. The bit about illegal acts in the press is unwise as it may place Brits in danger in the future. However, if he is mentioning it because his efforts to get an investigation through the correct channels has failed, then he may feel there is no other way.
So, did he try to get these 'illegal acts' investigated by military authorities??

[Crashed&Burned]

It is scary to think, but our troops are in a similar position to the Germans in WW2. High quality soldiers in the main, illegal hostilities for all the wrong political motives, civilians bearing the brunt of the whole mess, no realistic possibility of getting out until it's all over.

We, the citizens, support our troops but recognise the political misjudgement that got them in there in the first place; they are in too far to simply walk away.

The next part of the plan is to go to Afghanistan and destroy the poppy crop, thereby wiping out 75% of the economy. Heroin is a Western problem but it's the Afghan farmers who will suffer hardship.

Blair has all but destroyed the UK's standing as a honest broker and moderating force in international politics. No wonder this SAS squaddie has had enough.

C&B

[Maple 01]

It is scary to think, but our troops are in a similar position to the Germans in WW2. High quality soldiers in the main, illegal hostilities for all the wrong political motives, civilians bearing the brunt of the whole mess, no realistic possibility of getting out until it's all over.

Sure, I tell you what, show me the gas chambers, the solders rounding up Iraqis for extermination, the random reprisals and mass executions of civilians and then perhaps you can draw a parallel with the actions of Nazi Germany, Jesus! This kind of cr@p simply cheapens the whole memory of those who survived WW2.

And once more with feeling, if the SAS super-soldier was unhappy about the 'illegal war' (and show me an international court that declared it illegal) surely the time to complain was back in 2003 - not now - smacks of that doc again thinking he can pick and choose which dets he goes on and uses the fig leaf of 'conscience' to provide ‘wriggle room’. For those who have forgotten, the Allied troops are there now are under a UN mandate – so the ‘illegality’ of 2003 is beside the point – stag on, as our Army chums say……

Read somewhere else that Blair and Bush were bigger war criminals than Saddam and Slobo combined, just goes to show how many ignorant gob****es own PCs I guess…..Any danger of some proportionality?

Now can someone give me the lat and long of where Slobo is going to be buried? I want to open an all-night disco, with a branch in Baghdad when Saddam's time comes

[Tombstone]

Maple,

I see your point in relation to the comparison of WW2 German soldiers to our modern SF however, lets not pretend that the war is being fought well and with proper decorum by ALL involved. It may only be a very small minority of personnel who are no playing by the rules, probably only a handful however, it does not take many to spoil it for the rest.

I'm sure that the Trooper in question did see things that made him decide to walk away from it all. Lets not for get that we are not talking about private bloggs here, we are talking about somebody who was exceptionally motivated, skilled and determined enough to pass selection and eventually be badged.

His actions have reaffirmed my level of pride that I hold for the British troops on the ground who live in Iraq day to day, trying to prevail with very stringent ROE and stay alive to get home. I don't pretend to be in the same boat as them, very very few in the RAF are.

[B Sousa]

You guys are all probably right. The military needs more folks like him. They can all vote as to which war they wish to fight in and go home if they dont like the orders..........
Since when did being in the military become a democracy? Blame it on U.S. Policy, but realize it may just be lack of balls.

[Stafford]

What a load of bo££ocks. The guy is probably another prima donna with a book up his sleeve. His propaganda gift to the other side is a betrayal of his oppos still serving in theatre. :hmm: :*

In addition, it leads to stupid, hysterical comparisons of our coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Nazis !

[flipster]

Thank you for that reasoned and erudite contribution.

[Stafford]

Just as valid as the other posts I thought :rolleyes:

Read back over the bs posted about the ludicrous comparisons with WW2, and one has to wonder about the true motivation for such "high moral ground" and the adverse publicity leading to heaven sent propaganda for the bad guys. If you don't think such cases are manipulated by AQ and the terror groups we face, just read this mornings Gulf News !!

[flipster]

I agree that its impossible to compare WW2 with GW2 (all sides have bad people but they do seem to 'breed' if not stopped).

But before we damn the trooper to exile and treat him with the contempt you seem to exude, let's first see if he publishes a 'prima-donna' book? So far, he seems to be playing a with straight bat - which is more than I can say for the England cricket team!

[Pierre Argh]

Tombstone, I agree.

Perhaps not coincidental that the US Advocate General was recently pressing for a re-definition of the Geneva Convention... is this a case of trying to change the rules to match the behaviour rather than the other way around?

[ukatco_535]

I'm Ex RN, I have lots of friends still in.

I know that a lot of them feel this 'war' is unjust.

As for comparing WW2 to GW2, there are no gas chambers, mass roundups etc, but our troops on the ground are being led into this conflict by people who have their own personal, illegal agenda.

In that respect, it does have parallels with WW2.

Our British forces are not under our total command. Mr Bliar is allowing them to be used by the American leaders. Leaders who shout about democracy, yet will not sign up to such things as the Kyoto agreement, and will not allow their troops to be tried in the same way as everyone elses under international law.

These American 'leaders' pick and choose what rules they will abide by in the political arena, yet try to force their will and their 'standards' on others. You just have to see how they have 'helped' the poorer black communities after the not so distant hurricane. Democratic my A:mad: :mad: e

Iran is potentially worrying on 2 fronts -

One, any war there will be at a great loss to our forces,

Two - playing the devils advocate here, but what intelligence are the US and the UK using to categorically say that Iran is wanting to use nuclear power to produce weapon grade material and not, as they claim, produce semi-environmentally clean, replenishable fuel in a world that is struggling to find new resources?

Is it the same intelligence that brought us the fabled '45 minutes to deploy a WMD'?

France are ramping up there nuclear fuel capability; can we really trust them considering how they and other European 'allies' act towards us within the EU? Who are we to say "no, you cannot produce sustainable, cheaper fuel" to any country?

Politicians are supposed to have the 'whole picture'. Any two bit muppet could have told them in 2001 that an invasion of Iraq would lead to civil war and countless deaths. History rewrites itsell, it's a shame our political leaders and their lackeys, the so called advisors, do not take the time to think about and learn from what has gone before.

The world was far safer during the cold war era, at least then we had leaders who played by the rules and not by their egos

[flipster]

UKATCO

Someone once said "He who does not learn from history, is destined to repeat it".

Very true but there are always other perspectives:

1. If we learn from history, we must be quicker to be confront potential agreesors (1930s English Foreign Policy with Germany - 'peace in our time' etc).

2. Agression breeds agression. I saw that yesterday at an U10s rugby match!

3. The winners of the conflicts write the history books.
(Imagine how different GCSE history would be if Hitler had won?)



WRT to Iran, I don't profess to know which side is 'right' - sadly my gut instinct tells me that GWB is 'on a mission' but the Iranians are not easily scared and all that the sabre-rattling by POTUS is acheiving is to make the possibility of conflict only more likely.

What the world needs now is a statesman who can calm Dubya down while placating the Iranian desire not to 'lose face' - very important to Arabic people.

[Stafford]

Flipster

I don't hold the guy in contempt, far from it, but I've seen enough of the square jawed, thousand yard stares like his to know that anyone who takes to the podium while his oppos are still in theatre has another agenda. I await the book, or his TV appearances with interest.

I have a little knowledge of these things by the way and know that in certain sectors such political / publicity seeking causes have a serious detrimental effect and I also question the motives for the "whistleblower" aspect to this high profile case (not a normal tactic of the Regiment you would agree, other than several other similar egos who now cannot grace the mess at Credenhill ?)

Anyway, this under tens rugby match, I thought Ireland deserved the win !

[flipster]

I saw an U13 match last week and both teams made less errors than Wales, Italy, Scotland and England this w/e. The French would have given them a good game!

[effortless]

Brave bloke for putting his head above the parapet but I am pleased that the regiment treated him as well as it did. I wonder what would have happened to him if he was a Rock or, heaven forfend, an RAF doctor?

[Boogeyboard]

A good and brave man but his convictions and views become academic once you acknowledge G&T's assurances that they have God on their side.

[OFBSLF]

Yes - sorry, you have a point that Basrah is much 'better' than Baghad but we only get to hear what the media want us to. Basrah is not Baghdad. First, Basrah is far more ethnically homogeneous than Baghdad, so there is less sectarian strife in Basrah. Second, most residents of Basrah are Shiite. They were brutally repressed by the minority Sunnis during Saddam's reign. Consequently, they are far more favorably disposed to the current regime than the Sunnis.

Yes, Basrah is more stable and less dangerous than Baghdad. How much of that is due to the allegedly superior tactics of the Brits and how much of that is due to the nature of the populace in Basrah? I'd suggest that it is impossible to tell.

[Dogfish]

All this talk of invading Iran, what is the world coming to? Why would Mr Bush and our Tone want to invade another one of the worlds largest producers of crude oil? Remember your oath of attestation. You all agreed to protect Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Sucessors, and to help secure America's overseas oil interests......not! These two guys deserve a medal for having the moral courage to say :mad: off to the idiots who run this country.

[FJJP]

And just why would any coallition force put men on the ground in Iran? That would be tantamount to an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country and be Vietnam all over again.

I can see only high level bombing or conventional warheaded missile munitions used to destroy the offending facilities.

Neither do I see much, if any, UK involvement other than vocal support for American action - probably through a fudged UN resolution.

We have enough on our plate with The Balklans, Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. Any desire by President Bliar to get involved will be scuppered by his failure to properly fund the Armed Forces - his past actions will come home to roost [thank God]...

[snafu]

Remember your oath of attestation. You all agreed to protect Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Sucessors, and to help secure America's overseas oil interests......not!

Sorry Dogfish, but I don't ever recall having taken any sort of oath of allegiance, attestation or service. What's in it?

[Tombstone]

Yes, Basrah is more stable and less dangerous than Baghdad. How much of that is due to the allegedly superior tactics of the Brits and how much of that is due to the nature of the populace in Basrah? I'd suggest that it is impossible to tell.

I'd say that British tactics have played a huge part, along with the aussies in maintaining a level of sanity in Southern Iraq.

US forces do not know the meaning of the phrase 'winning the hearts & minds.' I'm not suggesting that you would be having a ball up north if you adopted British tactics however, sledgehammering doors down and throwing anyone in the area into trucks without questioning them first is not helping your cause. Infact, it is a certain road to failure.

Bottom line is pretty simple, the British have been doing this sort of this longer than anyone else and are bloody good at it. Shame the US forces can't handle advice as there has been plenty of it offered.

Get us out of there Bliar, you owe us that much at least.

[yggorf]

The guy is probably another prima donna with a book up his sleeve
And what's wrong with that?
This guy served his country, risked his life obeying orders coming from inept politicians for a lousy pay, and he has the guts to stand by his opinions.
He well deserves to make some money talking about what he knows best. And I bet he'll be better at it than the Ludlums, Crichtons or Browns of this world who haven't a clue of what they're writing about...
And yes, I've read all of Andy McNabs books and - with all their defects - I found (most of) them very interesting, entertaining and unputdownable...
He shouldn't have killed Kelly, though...:{

[Two's in]

I know how he's planning to earn his money after leaving the mob - look at the Telegraph link on the original post from Ali and then look at the Sky.com TV trailer for the new drama "Bones". If that's not the same bloke my dick's a kipper.

[B Sousa]

These two guys deserve a medal for having the moral courage to say off to the idiots who run this country.

Not while in uniform...........Stay away from the military if you want to make statements. (look at the fine print when you join)

[Maple 01]

Why not go the whole hog and demand Saddam back 7gcbc? After all wasn't he the democratically elected leader? And he certainly knew how to maintain control didn't he? Oh yes, I forgot about the 400,000 dead he was responsible for but I'm sure that's OK with you, at least he was a local boy.

Those bloody irresponsible Yankees had the nerve to come along and topple this much loved mass-murderer and genial dictator and create the environment where real democracy stands a chance.......bastards!

[sled dog]

Anyone got any comments on the ( non ) interview with this gentleman on BBC Radio Four this morning ? He did not come over as very bright. Perhaps his reasons for leaving the Regiment are genuine ? :rolleyes:

[effortless]

Anyone got any comments on the ( non ) interview with this gentleman on BBC Radio Four this morning ? He did not come over as very bright. Perhaps his reasons for leaving the Regiment are genuine ? :rolleyes:

He came accross as someone who doesn't speak in public much. We aren't all as media savvie as you.

[Maple 01]

Why do we not hear of water, electricity, sanitation, schools and so forth, we hear a reasonable amount of this from the British side, but none from the US.


Ah, sorry, check the interweb - the Yanks are doing lots of infrastructure and hearts and minds stuff, it's just the media don't want to report it for some reason :hmm: Remember media studies 101? “Good news is not news”

US and Israel reacted recently to the democratically elected Hammas

I see where you're coming from......US + Israel = Bad
Saddam + Hammas = good


In your own time, carry on.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Ah, sorry, check the interweb - the Yanks are doing lots of infrastructure and hearts and minds stuff, it's just the media don't want to report it for some reason :hmm: Remember media studies 101? “Good news is not news”
I see where you're coming from......US + Israel = Bad
Saddam + Hammas = good
In your own time, carry on.

I don't believe thats what he is saying at all.

What he appears to be saying is that the US world 'crusade' leads off with 'democracy for all', yet when a party they don't like is democratically elected (even the UN agree with this one) they change the rules of the game.

'Democracy for all (as long as its a nice pro-US party elected)' seems to be the reality.

Although Israel flouts many UN resolutions with its continual occupation of Palestinian areas you don't see the US standing up in the UN demanding action take, why? Because they are one and the same for all intents and purposes. Israeli money funds the US and the US arms Israel. They call the UK 'the 51st state', perhaps people should look a little further east for the true 51st state.

[Maple 01]

ah yes a media conspiracy, sure, the media are not reporting the good stuff...... lol, this from embedded journos, maybe there is NO GOOD stuff to tell ?


Well, I'm sure you've seen it all so I bow to your superior knowledge BTW, when were YOU there?

Some of us got to read reports from the regional reconstruction people on the ground doing the hearts and minds stuff rather than relied on a discredited media working to it's own agenda - but that can't be true, can it?

now, apply the safety, mag off, cock the weapon, check your 'facts', release the working parts and carry on

edited for spooling mistakz

[N Arslow]

Having a rant will solve nothing because it so obviously turns off the side that are trying to be persuaded.
American policy is not global policy because american values are not shared by the rest of the world. Democracy and freedom of speech is not a unique american value and it can and should exist globally but the net result will be far removed from the american view. Priorities are different elsewhere.
I question the american and british supposed priority for democracy when they chose to not return to the UN for a mandate to go to war - this they would not have got from that "global democratic body". Rather than risk defeat they chose their own version of an existing resolution as their mandate - but continually do nothing in support of resolutions ignored by other states (Israel most notably). Hypocracy - oh yes.
So what now. Well my 2c don't add up to much but with Sunnis and Shiites against each other in a war ravaged land with extremist elements inciting the differences in a violent fashion, then success is a long way off. Regional states, perhaps under an umbrella country may stand a chance. But here is a key difference - those states would need some kind of religous boundary perhaps rather than geographical - which may advance later. Only a minority of muslims are extreme - just as a minority of christians are, however many more muslims practice their religon actively than declare a lapsed status - unlike christianity.
Education - balanced, fair and honest without greed and bias has to be the long term goal, but where does that exist anywhere in the world?
And to touch back on the original thread: this gentleman has, in my view, been honourable in supporting his colleagues as he draws his pay to do, but on returning has questioned his part in those proceedings and resigned. We are a democracy, so allowing him to write a book is of course, a right. Someone with alternate views can write a book to counter argue if so desired. I believe he stands for what is good about the western democracies - support to his country while exercising his rights to question the way his country is run. I for one, am proud that we live in a country where that is possible, and it is these ideals that we can present to others.

[airborne_artist]

His R4 interview is online here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today2_griffin_20060314.ram) - needs RealPlayer.

[N Arslow]

NC43 - apparently we both think this individual acted honourably - but neither of us are saluting him beyond that. If he publishes then we can judge on his account at that time. I think it is right that he should be able to - but for sure any discomfiture for the government in his present actions or in a subsequent book will have a knock on effect for those serving. It might be good if clearer and more honest decision taking is made by politicians but equally it can be bad for providing propaganda to the extremists. Is that not a price for democracy?

[bushbolox]

Flipster,
Iranians are not Arabs.

[Days Like These]

NUTCRACKER43 - I understand what you're trying to say but ultimately there was no evidence.

...weapons inspectors, I do not think, had unimpeded access to all areas...as I understand it, many of them were not convinced that there were no WsMD...

You're probably right but where was the evidence? Last time I checked we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty.


As for whether he gets a book deal or not who cares...if it's worth reading people will buy it. Those of you so quick to criticise him for selling out I think are unfair. He went to Iraq on numerous occasions for his country and I can assure you he did it for a hell of a lot less money than the man who sent him there. I doubt he has a £4m mortgage anyway. Writing a book wouldn't be my cup of tea and I doubt I'd read it if he did but I'm not going to criticise him for it. I mean do you honestly think Tony Blair won't be writing a book when he stands down? lead by example after all...

I'm prepared to go out out on a limb and venture that most of the British military are against the reasons for war but are proud of the way we conduct ourselves (for the most part) as a military force. Enforcing your morals on other people because they're "better than other peoples morals" isn't an excuse. Nor is the "well Saddam killed 400,000 so we're better than him" philosophy.

With no end in sight 400,000 might not be too far away. The problem is that the world was lied to about the reasons, the UN were bypassed in order to achieve ulterior agendas and the reasons we went into this war were not those of the greater good.

Let's hope the justifications for the next fuel stop in Iran are 'adjusted' a little more 'intelligently'...

[N Arslow]

There are quite strong feelings here that the war was not justified - perhaps more this side of the Atlantic than the other. I make no further comment on the reasons good or bad, other than my personal view that without a fresh and clear mandate from the UN then I could not support it. That does not mean I believe we should extract troops tomorrow and leave the mess we helped to create.
It is a sad fact that with 24 hour news channels, internet and the like we live in a for-the-moment society so while I might prefer that dirty laundry is hung out when it is safe to do so - it will have no effect then. Today's government sent us to war and it is those politicians making decisions now. That they should be questioned now is imperative because the immediacy of their jobs will concentrate their minds far more than when they are writing their memoirs later. And importantly, if heads roll in response to mistakes made, later politicians will think more about the consequence of their decisions.
I was proud to be a part of and still am proud of the UK military. Now out of the service I can question any order given - when serving you have to obey first. It is important that politicans are reminded on a regular basis of what that means .

[Big Unit Specialist]

SASless,

Brit tactics vs US tacics:

I was in Baghdad for a while last year and was involved in many operations and convoys, working alongside US troops and British ones (yes there are Brits in Baghdad). Without exception every single convoy I went on with the US forces had an incident; conversely every convoy I went on with the British forces was without incident. Please note that this was same routes, same times, same size convoys, same time of the month etc. The only real diference was the tactics used. We tried to advise the US commanders that a more restrained approach would reap dividends but it fell on deaf ears. Furthermore in the whole time I was there I did not see a single foot patrol in the Green Zone, the only view the US troops had of Baghdad was either from the top of a Humvee travelling at 60mph doorhandling poor Iraqis off the road or through a 4'' by 4'' vision slot......

Oh and the US troops had an unnerving habit of pointing .50cal machine guns at everybody including me

Empirical evidence doesn't lie.


:}

[Big Unit Specialist]

SASless,

Note that these were purely military convoys in the Baghdad AO not logs convoys along the MSRs and also note that I did say this was personal experience over a protracted period - I did not say that no Brit convoy was ever subjected to an incident, just that no Brit convoy I was on was subjected to an incident.

Pointing a .50 cal does put the wind up an enemy but it really irritates a friend:*

At the risk of telling you a war story, the most irritating thing a US trooper did to me was to shoot the front tyres of my vehicle out.........and my vehicle was part of the convoy he was protecting...... 'twas a few stray shots from the full magazine he decided to fire a nothing in particular!!

We did have words afterwards!:ouch:

When I was there the US had full responsibility for the Green Zone however, that may have changed to some degree now.