Ethics Training in Iraq
"I am not suggesting that the UK Armed Forces' behaviour has always been beyond reproach, nor that we have not engaged in brutal and even illegal behaviour.
But you compared USMC murders of large groups of civilians with "the actions of some Brits in NI when under the extreme stress they were under."
That's not justified, or fair, and should not go unchallenged"
Sorry for the long quote, but it helps the illustrate the problem with your statement.
As I read your retort I can't help but think that you're talking numbers to justify your position, and indignation if I might add. If by your admission the UK forces are guilty of same, then why do you need to get your dander up about my statement? The degree, the numbers? Its like being pregnant, either are, or you aint. No in between.
But you compared USMC murders of large groups of civilians with "the actions of some Brits in NI when under the extreme stress they were under."
That's not justified, or fair, and should not go unchallenged"
Sorry for the long quote, but it helps the illustrate the problem with your statement.
As I read your retort I can't help but think that you're talking numbers to justify your position, and indignation if I might add. If by your admission the UK forces are guilty of same, then why do you need to get your dander up about my statement? The degree, the numbers? Its like being pregnant, either are, or you aint. No in between.
The point I was clearly failing to make was that UK forces in NI may have over-stepped the mark and engaged in extra-legal actions against enemy combatants, and may also have injured and killed innocent civilians believing them to be combatants, or by failing to exercise due caution, BUT they have not deliberately targeted civilians in the way in which US forces have done in Iraq, and have not been as criminally negligent in failing to protect the innocent.
While an individual may be pregnant or not, groups of women can be pregnant to varying degrees. 50% of one group, 1% of another. Numbers do come into it, and so does intent. The UK forces have been guilty of some bad behaviour, but not the same behaviour as we've seen in Iraq. It's like the UK squaddies beating up the teenagers - it's bad, but it's not cold blooded murder.
And it's not a question of my position - it's entirely about your offensive and unjustified attempt to equate what these USMC scum have done with what the British Army did in Ulster, which you should have the wit and good grace to withdraw.
Bad show!
While an individual may be pregnant or not, groups of women can be pregnant to varying degrees. 50% of one group, 1% of another. Numbers do come into it, and so does intent. The UK forces have been guilty of some bad behaviour, but not the same behaviour as we've seen in Iraq. It's like the UK squaddies beating up the teenagers - it's bad, but it's not cold blooded murder.
And it's not a question of my position - it's entirely about your offensive and unjustified attempt to equate what these USMC scum have done with what the British Army did in Ulster, which you should have the wit and good grace to withdraw.
Bad show!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
The point I was clearly failing to make was that UK forces in NI may have over-stepped the mark and engaged in extra-legal actions against enemy combatants, and may also have injured and killed innocent civilians believing them to be combatants, or by failing to exercise due caution, BUT they have not deliberately targeted civilians in the way in which US forces have done in Iraq, and have not been as criminally negligent in failing to protect the innocent.
Again, take a look at the Elkins' book, as one of many examples available pointing out past UK deeds doing exactly that.
So, perhaps you could dismount this particular 'holier than thou' horse.
Both our countries have had less than shining moments in our histories, undoubtedly, both will in the future. I still hold that most us in both countries are not monsters and try to do the right thing.
"BUT they have not deliberately targeted civilians in the way in which US forces have done in Iraq"
Were you there? Can you beyond simply believing in some Brit ethos say that based in fact and not an emotive desire to be better than the Yanks?
Clearly the answer is no.
Were you there? Can you beyond simply believing in some Brit ethos say that based in fact and not an emotive desire to be better than the Yanks?
Clearly the answer is no.
Now explain Bloody Sunday and the Paras to us please. Seems that was what....eleven or twelve dead was it?
Regretable things happen in combat. Emotions run high. Doesn't make it right but it sure doesn't mean the Yanks have a monopoly on it either.
Seems the Boer War had some similar events no one likes to discuss much.
The Scots might remind you English types of some unpleasantness.
Please....get off yer high horse here.
Regretable things happen in combat. Emotions run high. Doesn't make it right but it sure doesn't mean the Yanks have a monopoly on it either.
Seems the Boer War had some similar events no one likes to discuss much.
The Scots might remind you English types of some unpleasantness.
Please....get off yer high horse here.
Judging by what seems to have happened (and none of us were there) the US Marines appear to have gone in AFTER a firefight and executed civilians on at least one of these occasions.
Bloody Sunday may (or may not) be regrettable, but those killed were rioters, and the Paras were (or had good reason to believe that they were) coming under fire, and were being stoned and having petrol bombs slung at them.
Despite the political imperative to do so, they've been unable to find evidence of any criminality at Bloody Sunday.
Again, you're trying to equate an 'honest mistake' with a deliberate war crime.
If we're going back to the Boer War for examples of British massacres of civilians, I'd say that things have probably changed, just a tad.
Bloody Sunday may (or may not) be regrettable, but those killed were rioters, and the Paras were (or had good reason to believe that they were) coming under fire, and were being stoned and having petrol bombs slung at them.
Despite the political imperative to do so, they've been unable to find evidence of any criminality at Bloody Sunday.
Again, you're trying to equate an 'honest mistake' with a deliberate war crime.
If we're going back to the Boer War for examples of British massacres of civilians, I'd say that things have probably changed, just a tad.
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Now explain Bloody Sunday and the Paras to us please. Seems that was what....eleven or twelve dead was it?
There are significant and obvious differences.
It is clear that #1 were shot at, though here seems to be a merest of acknowledgement by the media, local IRA or PIRA have admitted (unofficaly)to sniping (or gunfire in the general direction thereof) at the #1 Para.
#1 Para section were out of communications with their base commander and the was a significant breakdown and ambigiouity in command which led to misinterpretation of intentions, along with the usual RUC/HM negotiations that seem to only ever happen at the 11th hour. (perhaps a review of procedures
)obviously, and this in in common with the Marines , further training was required as there is no excuse for shooting at unarmed civillians, whilst there is the fact that #1 were shot at, and obviously responded inappropriately, with the loss of civilian lives , they were under immediate significant stress of fear for their safety from a formidable and dangerous enemy. There is however no excuse for their behaviour, but in the terms of their positioning that day, it is understanderable.
No such fear existed with the USMC section at the time they committed the work, moving from room to room, camly and under no immediate threat at Hadditha some hours after the threat had passed, thus we can only conclude that it was clear and pre-meditated murder in the pursuit of revenge, and a bitter-sweet revenge indeed it may turn out to be.
I doubt very much that ethics lessons will work.
edited to add: A most casual look at the Northern Ireland issue (try google) will generally peg "Bloody Sunday" as the most significant point from which the PIRA or IRA started a huge recruitment drive.
I wonder how Hadditha will be remembered ? It's fine having imported koran bashing jih-addietes firing off ak's in the general direction of a convoy, but when you actually lose the local indiginous population (who know every nook and cranny) you are indeed in trouble.
Last edited by 7gcbc; 4th Jun 2006 at 12:33.
That was 13 dead on the scene, one died a year later, and 17 wounded.
Zero gunshot wounds to the Para's.
No weapons recovered.
The latest inquiry was a bit daft according to the rules laid down by the government. Thus the real "truth" of that day will not be known.
The only reason I bring this up is to remind everyone that evil things happen in war and it can happen to any force no matter how well trained. Occasionally the command structure breaks down and troops committ crimes.
One big difference however, once identified and the case is made, we punish our troops who murder innocents.
Zero gunshot wounds to the Para's.
No weapons recovered.
The latest inquiry was a bit daft according to the rules laid down by the government. Thus the real "truth" of that day will not be known.
The only reason I bring this up is to remind everyone that evil things happen in war and it can happen to any force no matter how well trained. Occasionally the command structure breaks down and troops committ crimes.
One big difference however, once identified and the case is made, we punish our troops who murder innocents.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can't find any posts on this thread where anyone, including me, has defended this squad of Marines. However, before I vote to hang 'em, let's let the investigation run its course. (Now, why the investigation took so long to occur is also worth investigating.). I do defend the majority of US forces as being essentially good, decent troops. I'd also say that about the UK forces (be nice if you had more of them, but that's a separate thread.).
The thread creep of who's troops are morally worse or better is ridiculous! My point for jumping up to Jacko was to get him off his morally superior hill. It's fine to bash Yanks when it's deserved, but how about the other side of the coin? Haven't read much from him or most media types about the many good things the good ol' US of A does. Yes, even in Iraq.
Hmmm, why is that? Perhaps just a bit of bias?
Don't like us? Fine, come out and state your opinion. Trying to prove your moral superiority with unbalanced fact presentation just doesn't cut it.
The thread creep of who's troops are morally worse or better is ridiculous! My point for jumping up to Jacko was to get him off his morally superior hill. It's fine to bash Yanks when it's deserved, but how about the other side of the coin? Haven't read much from him or most media types about the many good things the good ol' US of A does. Yes, even in Iraq.
Hmmm, why is that? Perhaps just a bit of bias?
Don't like us? Fine, come out and state your opinion. Trying to prove your moral superiority with unbalanced fact presentation just doesn't cut it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I generally like the people I meet from the US forces, although that's mainly USAF people; I can't comment on your Army/Marines. The British Army tends to be two extremes - highly professional and world beating (no pun intended) at what they do, or cannon fodder who have few post-school options. I would imagine the US Army is the same, with the majority of problems coming from the latter.
I think there are two main causes for trouble.
Firstly, education. 19yr old Spc Smith from Wisconsin will have grown up with TV and tabloid press telling him that Arabs as a whole are a culture to be mistrusted. Jingoistic threats of 'bombing the rag heads back to the dark ages' will have been commonplace and it's certainly never crossed his mind why a suicide bomber chose that line of work.
Secondly, rules of engagement. If Pfc Smith feels sufficiently threatened, Pfc Smith can open fire. I have heard of multiple occasions where uniformed British personnel have come under the locked and loaded weapons of US personnel because they walked the wrong way through a checkpoint or something similar. That's because Smith and his buddies are routinely trained to respond with weapons, as opposed to the British application of minimum force.
If you put a lack of education together with a loose trigger policy you're going to get casualties.
I think there are two main causes for trouble.
Firstly, education. 19yr old Spc Smith from Wisconsin will have grown up with TV and tabloid press telling him that Arabs as a whole are a culture to be mistrusted. Jingoistic threats of 'bombing the rag heads back to the dark ages' will have been commonplace and it's certainly never crossed his mind why a suicide bomber chose that line of work.
Secondly, rules of engagement. If Pfc Smith feels sufficiently threatened, Pfc Smith can open fire. I have heard of multiple occasions where uniformed British personnel have come under the locked and loaded weapons of US personnel because they walked the wrong way through a checkpoint or something similar. That's because Smith and his buddies are routinely trained to respond with weapons, as opposed to the British application of minimum force.
If you put a lack of education together with a loose trigger policy you're going to get casualties.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dallas
I agree with your second point as that has happened to me a couple of times.
SASless
The point about 'no weapons found' is that the IRA have always been masters of concealment in this area and weapons were seldom found, even after they had been used in the open. Look at the many IRA 'guards of honour' where pistol salutes were fired at Republican funerals in town and city centres, and seconds later the guns had gone one way and the personnel another. When judging activities during the Troubles never make the mistake of thinking that the IRA were just a disorganised bunch of rebels, as seen in many of the other political hotbeds around the world.
I agree with your second point as that has happened to me a couple of times.
SASless
The point about 'no weapons found' is that the IRA have always been masters of concealment in this area and weapons were seldom found, even after they had been used in the open. Look at the many IRA 'guards of honour' where pistol salutes were fired at Republican funerals in town and city centres, and seconds later the guns had gone one way and the personnel another. When judging activities during the Troubles never make the mistake of thinking that the IRA were just a disorganised bunch of rebels, as seen in many of the other political hotbeds around the world.
Dallas,
You do recall there have been several bombings inside supposedly secure areas with great loss of life. Confronted with someone unknown to the sentry, who gives the appearance of being unfamilar with the correct protocols, would you not consider that an understandable defensive response?
To date, I do not believe any Brits have been shot by US Forces in such a situation. No one likes having a weapon pointed at them but then no one likes to get hurt by an attacker either. Suicide bombers are generally very passive and low key until the bomb goes off.
The very nature of the urban warfare taking place in Iraq, with the close proximity of hostile forces to friendly forces does not allow much time for the troops to take effective defensive response against an attack. The fact someone is in "uniform" does not preclude that person from being a threat.
Let Basrah heat up a bit more, and your forces lose more people to IED's and snipers, and you will see the response level change.
You do recall there have been several bombings inside supposedly secure areas with great loss of life. Confronted with someone unknown to the sentry, who gives the appearance of being unfamilar with the correct protocols, would you not consider that an understandable defensive response?
To date, I do not believe any Brits have been shot by US Forces in such a situation. No one likes having a weapon pointed at them but then no one likes to get hurt by an attacker either. Suicide bombers are generally very passive and low key until the bomb goes off.
The very nature of the urban warfare taking place in Iraq, with the close proximity of hostile forces to friendly forces does not allow much time for the troops to take effective defensive response against an attack. The fact someone is in "uniform" does not preclude that person from being a threat.
Let Basrah heat up a bit more, and your forces lose more people to IED's and snipers, and you will see the response level change.
Last edited by SASless; 4th Jun 2006 at 14:55.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I started this thread, so I will express my point of view.
If, and I say if, the individual fire team who was involved committed misdeeds, they should be punished, what more they should be seen to be punished. However....
There have been enough anguished howls not only by the Iraqis but by others, such as ex-SAS who have refused further service, that is a symptom, not a one off.
I acknowledge that the US army knows that, see here for the work being done for the next generation. However....
The point of leadershp is too learn from the mistakes of others. The UK has taken 3o years to learn the lesson in NI, why did the US rush into Iraq without listening? Why are the same mistakes being mde in the field?
The other lesson is the PR lesson. The Bloody Sunday incident is still making news 30 years later with accusations of a cover up. Perhaps,and I say perhaps, the inquiry into haditha will be sufficiently open to be accepted by the local population. But the inquiry into Ishaqi will not. Even if the US army report is correct and they obeyed the rules, it doesn't matter. I'll repeat that, It doesn't matter. The locals do not believe i and the new Iraqi government do not believe it.
The US armed forces blamed the politicians for losing the Vietnam war. believe we are no looking at a case of the US military, having won the war, losing the piece.
Michael Portillo has written a piece in the Times today concluding wth the paragraph:
"Vietnam ended with American helicopters plucking marines from the roof of the embassy in Saigon as the Vietcong overran the city. It is not impossible that one day the scene will be re-enacted in the green zone of Baghdad."
Unless they get a grip he could be right.
This needs reignations at a high level. Whilst the training of the next gerneration, as referenced above, is a right step, it should have happened long ago. Either the military did not foresee urban warfare, or did not prepare for it, in which case there should be resignations at a high military level. or they did and were overruled by civilians at the DoD/Administration level, where they should resign.
Regardless, they unite at the Secretary of Defence level where, regardless of whether it was a predecessor or his fault, Rumsfeld should resign.
If a succicently frank apology is made, an indication that enquires involving the Iraqi government will be opened, that all past and future claims will be investigated, and sufficient heads role. The USA has a chance, and only a chance, of coming out of this with there heads held high.
If it looks, and I say looks deliberately, like a fudge or a cover up, their reputation will shot for another generation, as it was after Vietnam.
Just my two ha'porthworth.
Postscript. Just came across this in the Times from the 3rd June. Seemed apposite.
.....scepticism about using the military as a tool to remake nations and civilise a hostile world was put best by an article in the periodical Foreign Affairs in 2000. The author attacked the misuse of the US military in nation-building projects in the Clinton years.
“The president must remember that the military is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.”
It was a succinct indictment about the dangers of using the military as anything other than a fighting force. Its author was Condoleezza Rice.......
If, and I say if, the individual fire team who was involved committed misdeeds, they should be punished, what more they should be seen to be punished. However....
There have been enough anguished howls not only by the Iraqis but by others, such as ex-SAS who have refused further service, that is a symptom, not a one off.
I acknowledge that the US army knows that, see here for the work being done for the next generation. However....
The point of leadershp is too learn from the mistakes of others. The UK has taken 3o years to learn the lesson in NI, why did the US rush into Iraq without listening? Why are the same mistakes being mde in the field?
The other lesson is the PR lesson. The Bloody Sunday incident is still making news 30 years later with accusations of a cover up. Perhaps,and I say perhaps, the inquiry into haditha will be sufficiently open to be accepted by the local population. But the inquiry into Ishaqi will not. Even if the US army report is correct and they obeyed the rules, it doesn't matter. I'll repeat that, It doesn't matter. The locals do not believe i and the new Iraqi government do not believe it.
The US armed forces blamed the politicians for losing the Vietnam war. believe we are no looking at a case of the US military, having won the war, losing the piece.
Michael Portillo has written a piece in the Times today concluding wth the paragraph:
"Vietnam ended with American helicopters plucking marines from the roof of the embassy in Saigon as the Vietcong overran the city. It is not impossible that one day the scene will be re-enacted in the green zone of Baghdad."
Unless they get a grip he could be right.
This needs reignations at a high level. Whilst the training of the next gerneration, as referenced above, is a right step, it should have happened long ago. Either the military did not foresee urban warfare, or did not prepare for it, in which case there should be resignations at a high military level. or they did and were overruled by civilians at the DoD/Administration level, where they should resign.
Regardless, they unite at the Secretary of Defence level where, regardless of whether it was a predecessor or his fault, Rumsfeld should resign.
If a succicently frank apology is made, an indication that enquires involving the Iraqi government will be opened, that all past and future claims will be investigated, and sufficient heads role. The USA has a chance, and only a chance, of coming out of this with there heads held high.
If it looks, and I say looks deliberately, like a fudge or a cover up, their reputation will shot for another generation, as it was after Vietnam.
Just my two ha'porthworth.
Postscript. Just came across this in the Times from the 3rd June. Seemed apposite.
.....scepticism about using the military as a tool to remake nations and civilise a hostile world was put best by an article in the periodical Foreign Affairs in 2000. The author attacked the misuse of the US military in nation-building projects in the Clinton years.
“The president must remember that the military is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.”
It was a succinct indictment about the dangers of using the military as anything other than a fighting force. Its author was Condoleezza Rice.......
Last edited by ORAC; 5th Jun 2006 at 10:52.
