Wikileaks, security of our forces and why do we do it? (Merged)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wikileaks, security of our forces and why do we do it? (Merged)
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'?
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'?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ...
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 ...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cannot dot the 'I's and cross the 'T's when faced with a bunch of barbarians.
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.
Have Wikileaks revealed any real military secrets or are these leaks merely an 'inconvenient truth' for the politicians?
PTT wrote:
Lets hope the Chilcot Inquiry doesn't shy away from pointing the finger where it deserves to be pointed.
PTT wrote:
Those who abuse their power should be held to account.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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'.
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'.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Last edited by PTT; 24th Oct 2010 at 22:52.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
If that isn't a death sentence for the individual (or even the whole village) concerned, I'm not sure what it is.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Liam
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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).
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: France
Age: 83
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wikileaks 2
This is posted purely for comment.
Iraq war logs: Apache attack's child victims speak out | World news | guardian.co.uk
Iraq war logs: Apache attack's child victims speak out | World news | guardian.co.uk