SAS soldier quits Army in disgust at 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS soldier quits Army in disgust at 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq
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...portaltop.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
If you read the full interview, he neither asked for nor received any payment for the article.
I salute him.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Furthermore, I suspect he's not alone in wishing to stop 'conducting american foreign policy'.
He may have even started something?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
mess?
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
mess?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Bless him for having the strength of character to do what he thinks right
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!
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?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
There has to be a better way.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
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
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
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??
So, did he try to get these 'illegal acts' investigated by military authorities??
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.