Wikileaks, security of our forces and why do we do it? (Merged)
We are conducting a counter-insurgency campaign against domestic insurgents, foreign terrorists, extremists and criminals, tribal leaders and spivs. We are not fighting a soldier as defined by the Geneva Convention. There is no enemy uniform, no battleflag, no parole given. The enemy do not discriminate, use proportionality, or any of the things we are expected to do.
The rules of the game have changed irreversibly since the first Geneva Conventions, the founding of the UN, the Nuremburg Trials, the end of the Cold War, Bosnia, 9/11, and they keep on changing.... Those who bandy the terms 'murder' and 'war-crime' about are making mock of uniforms that are starvation cheap (apologies Rudyard!). I woulld argue that there are people out there on this forum and in the wider world who are not involved in the fight and remain unaware of ALL the issues and facts of a very dirty and tricky campaign and therefore have no authority to coment on such matters.
The rules of the game have changed irreversibly since the first Geneva Conventions, the founding of the UN, the Nuremburg Trials, the end of the Cold War, Bosnia, 9/11, and they keep on changing.... Those who bandy the terms 'murder' and 'war-crime' about are making mock of uniforms that are starvation cheap (apologies Rudyard!). I woulld argue that there are people out there on this forum and in the wider world who are not involved in the fight and remain unaware of ALL the issues and facts of a very dirty and tricky campaign and therefore have no authority to coment on such matters.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst many may seek to justify the mistakes in this conflict that led to attacks on friendly forces and non-participants, it is an inescapable fact that we will be judged by the public who not only support our military but also provide the funding.
You cannot simply say that those who are not directly involved have no valid opinion. In modern warfare the opinion of the public counts a great deal. Without their support the troops have no warrant to be there - Vietnam was the first example of trial by media and every conflict since has been subject to the same scrutiny.
Apart from the moral argument, how on earth are we to win the hearts and minds of the locals if we are so trigger happy and so brutal in interrogating possibly innocent people?
I fear that, just like Iraq, we are simply alienating the Afghans too.
You cannot simply say that those who are not directly involved have no valid opinion. In modern warfare the opinion of the public counts a great deal. Without their support the troops have no warrant to be there - Vietnam was the first example of trial by media and every conflict since has been subject to the same scrutiny.
Apart from the moral argument, how on earth are we to win the hearts and minds of the locals if we are so trigger happy and so brutal in interrogating possibly innocent people?
I fear that, just like Iraq, we are simply alienating the Afghans too.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VinRouge
"It's combat" is the excuse of those who can't be bothered empathising with those who they are killing accidentally. It is the off-hand dismission of the death of another human being because they were in the way, and personally I find that pretty appalling in a "civilisation" which is based on individual equality and rights.
Yes, the enemy are vile. They are criminals. That's how they need to be treated. But to blow up a village because an insurgent might be there is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and if you can't see that then it's because you're not one of the people living in the village about to be blown up.
Just because the enemy do it doesn't mean we should - what value our moral outrage if we do?
"It's combat" is the excuse of those who can't be bothered empathising with those who they are killing accidentally. It is the off-hand dismission of the death of another human being because they were in the way, and personally I find that pretty appalling in a "civilisation" which is based on individual equality and rights.
Yes, the enemy are vile. They are criminals. That's how they need to be treated. But to blow up a village because an insurgent might be there is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and if you can't see that then it's because you're not one of the people living in the village about to be blown up.
Just because the enemy do it doesn't mean we should - what value our moral outrage if we do?
I remember some time ago, early eighties, wandering through the city and coming across a protest march on save the whales or some such thing. What I found highly insightful was a banner with a number of people marching under it protesting against rape of women in war. Apart from the homeless, the orphaned, the maimed, the dead, tortured etc I thought it had reasonable validity but still couldn't quite come to grips that perhaps protesting and stopping wars would resolve their issue. Obviously the death and destruction was a minor concern but more importantly was the violation of a woman by a man.
People occasionally focus on the leaves and not the tree. There is no such thing, anymore, as a clean war. The locals do not go and sit on a hill over looking the battle with a picnic basket. No side is lily white in their application of death and destruction.
Whether it should be published is debatable.
Do we apply our own values and convictions when the opponent has a significantly different set. Is torture a valid option. No, we do not lower oursleves to this inhuman level. If you knew that this person had information that would save lives, particularly of your own forces let alone women and children, you would stick to the high ground and let death occur because you did not hold with torture.
Rules in war, ROE ??
To quote Mr Churchill, a POW is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.
People occasionally focus on the leaves and not the tree. There is no such thing, anymore, as a clean war. The locals do not go and sit on a hill over looking the battle with a picnic basket. No side is lily white in their application of death and destruction.
Whether it should be published is debatable.
Do we apply our own values and convictions when the opponent has a significantly different set. Is torture a valid option. No, we do not lower oursleves to this inhuman level. If you knew that this person had information that would save lives, particularly of your own forces let alone women and children, you would stick to the high ground and let death occur because you did not hold with torture.
Rules in war, ROE ??
To quote Mr Churchill, a POW is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...ROE...
As far as I remember, no matter what ROE you work to, you are still bound by the application of the GV - when you are on 'our' side anyway.
The Geneva Conventions (GV) comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:
wounded or sick fighters
The observation of the shots taken AFTER the initial shooting clearly shows an injured individual, who is clearly being assisted into a Bongo Van. Clearly this individual is wounded - and clearly is no longer taking part in hostilities...
Whether he chooses fight at a later date is an unfortunate aspect of our application of the GV....
As far as I remember, no matter what ROE you work to, you are still bound by the application of the GV - when you are on 'our' side anyway.
The Geneva Conventions (GV) comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:
wounded or sick fighters
The observation of the shots taken AFTER the initial shooting clearly shows an injured individual, who is clearly being assisted into a Bongo Van. Clearly this individual is wounded - and clearly is no longer taking part in hostilities...
Whether he chooses fight at a later date is an unfortunate aspect of our application of the GV....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had hoped the focus on this would be not so much the actions taken 'in the heat of battle' but on the overall policy, the follow-up investigations and the claim of 'security risks' to attempt to cover it all up.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
WikiLeaks and Iraqi WMD
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction......
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction......
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they know where the stuff is - just they don't want to let out HOW they came to know for damage to the source gatherer.....
Think bigger picture.
it would not surprise me in 10 years when a firm is looking for "oil" somewhere to "find" a whole lot of bad things that justified them...
Think bigger picture.
it would not surprise me in 10 years when a firm is looking for "oil" somewhere to "find" a whole lot of bad things that justified them...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFP,
WMD was undoubtedly woven through the justification for War, however it was not the reason we went to war. I believe the decision to go to War was resultant of a process that commenced back in 1990 when Sadam invaded Kuwait and Sadam's subsequent behaviour through the 1990's and the failure of sanctions, Weapons Inspection and limited military actions to get Sadam to behave. Ultimately, a "coalition of the willing" threatened Sadam with invasion and Sadam called the Coalition's bluff....
I accept that there is room for others to hold the view that this was all about WMD's, however consider these facts;
1. In 1998 Clinton passed an Act called The Iraq Liberation Act, that called for regime change in Iraq, and
2. GWB 48 hrs prior to Gulf War 2, with all his forces in place, issued Sadam and his sons an ultimatum to avoid war; leave Iraq or else. There was no option to resume inspections or seek some undertanding on WMDs. GWB's intention was crystal clear: regime change.
3. If this was solely about WMD, why invade? Invasion meant regime change.
I never understand this argument. Are you saying, because we can't fix all the world's problems we will fix none? Fixing all the world's ills is an admirable objective, however surely it is prudent to try and fix them one at a time. Alternatively, are you saying there was a more pressing world problem? Whilst there are many objectional regimes in the world many lines crossed over Sadam, not least of which was the threat he posed to the interests of the UK and its allies.
BOAC,
Sorry to Hijack your thread. However, I cannot help feel that many "Whistle- Blowers" pronounce Iraq/Afghanistan to be an illegal/immoral/unwinnable war and then feel wholly justified engaging in actions that are somewhere between treason and "breaches of security". To hold the view that these wars are both legal and moral is highly unfashionable, but there were/are valid reasons to persecute these wars and I cannot help but feel that Wikileaks, in particular, have an agenda beyond truthful reporting.
I must confess, I had to google Saul Alinsky. I read the quote at the information centre at Bergen-Belsen many years ago and it bounced around in my subconcious until the day I saw the news footage in 2001 of the Taleban destroying the Buddhas of Baniyan. A lesson from history perhaps?
That is the $64 question. I believe Bush and Blair were the moving force behind these 2 wars. Although different characters, they are both ambitious and both idealists. The more I hear and read the closer I am coming to the conclusion that the shared ideals of these 2 men are why events occurred as they did.
Have to disagree with you on this one Liam. I agree with everything else you said about him and his record, but the cry from those above was "WMD!" That was the floated reason
I accept that there is room for others to hold the view that this was all about WMD's, however consider these facts;
1. In 1998 Clinton passed an Act called The Iraq Liberation Act, that called for regime change in Iraq, and
2. GWB 48 hrs prior to Gulf War 2, with all his forces in place, issued Sadam and his sons an ultimatum to avoid war; leave Iraq or else. There was no option to resume inspections or seek some undertanding on WMDs. GWB's intention was crystal clear: regime change.
3. If this was solely about WMD, why invade? Invasion meant regime change.
If we're talking about it being regime change, then let's start looking at other places that have leader's who harm their population and ask why not there
BOAC,
Sorry to Hijack your thread. However, I cannot help feel that many "Whistle- Blowers" pronounce Iraq/Afghanistan to be an illegal/immoral/unwinnable war and then feel wholly justified engaging in actions that are somewhere between treason and "breaches of security". To hold the view that these wars are both legal and moral is highly unfashionable, but there were/are valid reasons to persecute these wars and I cannot help but feel that Wikileaks, in particular, have an agenda beyond truthful reporting.
I must confess, I had to google Saul Alinsky. I read the quote at the information centre at Bergen-Belsen many years ago and it bounced around in my subconcious until the day I saw the news footage in 2001 of the Taleban destroying the Buddhas of Baniyan. A lesson from history perhaps?
I support your idealistic intentions in those countries, of course, but doubt they really go much higher than you or me and suspect other 'ideals' are at play
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make no mistake, when Bliar appears before the Chilcot enquiry again, he will be asked to justify his decisions based on the evidence that was available at the time that the decisions were made.
It would not be beneath the consciences of either the American or British political 'elites' to plant or fabricate 'evidence' after the fact.
It would not be beneath the consciences of either the American or British political 'elites' to plant or fabricate 'evidence' after the fact.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJR
I have no idea what you can remember, but the reality of how British forces have operated over the last one hundred years does not support your memory.
Britain has chosen to ignore the Geneva convention at troop, company, regiment, brigade and even 'army' level at certain times. This is very well known and accepted, and perhaps it is the modern phenomena of TV that allows folks who are not in danger to tell those who are, what to do.
One glaring example for you is the D day assault, where you may find that prisoners were not taken by allied troops, be they combatants or not.
I sometimes wonder how many folks have voted, knowing the party they vote for will keep Britains nuclear deterrent (possibly a million civ casualties per blast) while all the while condemning British troops for rare accidents (troops acting under government orders).
I have no idea what you can remember, but the reality of how British forces have operated over the last one hundred years does not support your memory.
Britain has chosen to ignore the Geneva convention at troop, company, regiment, brigade and even 'army' level at certain times. This is very well known and accepted, and perhaps it is the modern phenomena of TV that allows folks who are not in danger to tell those who are, what to do.
One glaring example for you is the D day assault, where you may find that prisoners were not taken by allied troops, be they combatants or not.
I sometimes wonder how many folks have voted, knowing the party they vote for will keep Britains nuclear deterrent (possibly a million civ casualties per blast) while all the while condemning British troops for rare accidents (troops acting under government orders).
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 71
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely our intentions in the region are stability. Stability to continue trading and of course particularly trading for oil, so that we in the west can continue with our high standard of living.
Saddam did originally help with stability and even when he attacked Iran we weren't too concerned. But when he went for Kuwait and became a threat to Saudi Arabia we had to do something. The first Gulf War didn't really nullify Saddam and nor did sanctions so we had to have another go at him.
WMD were a symptom of the problem but the problem was Saddam.
And Saddam was a problem because he threatened oil rich regions that we in the west rely on.
Is our way of life worth all the fuss. Our politicians think so and I suspect most in the UK, if confronted with a poorer lifestyle or a war in Iraq would go for the latter.
That's the way I see it anyway.
Saddam did originally help with stability and even when he attacked Iran we weren't too concerned. But when he went for Kuwait and became a threat to Saudi Arabia we had to do something. The first Gulf War didn't really nullify Saddam and nor did sanctions so we had to have another go at him.
WMD were a symptom of the problem but the problem was Saddam.
And Saddam was a problem because he threatened oil rich regions that we in the west rely on.
Is our way of life worth all the fuss. Our politicians think so and I suspect most in the UK, if confronted with a poorer lifestyle or a war in Iraq would go for the latter.
That's the way I see it anyway.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam,
I don't need convincing that the reason we went to Iraq was regime change; that's as plain as day to see. But that was the hidden agenda. Those in Congress / Parliament that bought off on it did so under the intel provided about WMD. It was being said daily in the run up that "this isn't about regime change" If it was being sold as "regime change" then that wouldn't have taken off quite as well. When you commit lives to a conflict under false pretenses, that's when I have an issue.
The problem with regime changing is where do you stop ? My "argument" points out that selection of a regime falls on the whim of whose in charge (i.e. Bush and Blair). It sets a dangerous precedent in my eyes. If Obama believes that Venezuela poses a threat to the US and it's allies, who stops him ? Are you saying you really don't get that argument and see it's merits ??
What "threat" did Iraq pose ? WMD.......?
Am I glad he's gone ? Yes. Do I think it was worth all the lives it cost, across the board, ? No.
I assume you feel that Iran is a similar threat (if not more serious) today as you believed Iraq was in 2003 ? They talk about wiping Israel (an ally) off the face of the earth with nuclear facilities being advanced daily.
I'd love to see Ahmadinejad removed, but since we've finished in Iraq, by your logic, it's time to start working on the next world ill (We can't fix them all, but we were fixing 2, now 1, so scope to choose another one eh ?)
I don't need convincing that the reason we went to Iraq was regime change; that's as plain as day to see. But that was the hidden agenda. Those in Congress / Parliament that bought off on it did so under the intel provided about WMD. It was being said daily in the run up that "this isn't about regime change" If it was being sold as "regime change" then that wouldn't have taken off quite as well. When you commit lives to a conflict under false pretenses, that's when I have an issue.
The problem with regime changing is where do you stop ? My "argument" points out that selection of a regime falls on the whim of whose in charge (i.e. Bush and Blair). It sets a dangerous precedent in my eyes. If Obama believes that Venezuela poses a threat to the US and it's allies, who stops him ? Are you saying you really don't get that argument and see it's merits ??
What "threat" did Iraq pose ? WMD.......?
Am I glad he's gone ? Yes. Do I think it was worth all the lives it cost, across the board, ? No.
I assume you feel that Iran is a similar threat (if not more serious) today as you believed Iraq was in 2003 ? They talk about wiping Israel (an ally) off the face of the earth with nuclear facilities being advanced daily.
I'd love to see Ahmadinejad removed, but since we've finished in Iraq, by your logic, it's time to start working on the next world ill (We can't fix them all, but we were fixing 2, now 1, so scope to choose another one eh ?)
Even up until 2003 the UN teams were still finding and destroying Iraqi WMD.
Media Advisory 2003/2602 - UNMOVIC IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq - 26 February 2003
The Wiki Leaks reporting on WMD finds is nothing new or ground breaking. Old legacy WMD was still being found and some chemical filled shells were being used by the insurgents. It is unclear if the insurgents were actually aware of what the shells contained as they were using them as roadside bombs?
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
If you look at the amounts of WMD found by UNSCOM then it is no wonder that not all were accountable. The Iraq Survey Group after the invasion were still finding remnants of 1980 era and some from experiments in the 1990s.
ANNEX B - STATUS OF THE VERIFICATION OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMME
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
TJ
Media Advisory 2003/2602 - UNMOVIC IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq - 26 February 2003
The Wiki Leaks reporting on WMD finds is nothing new or ground breaking. Old legacy WMD was still being found and some chemical filled shells were being used by the insurgents. It is unclear if the insurgents were actually aware of what the shells contained as they were using them as roadside bombs?
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
If you look at the amounts of WMD found by UNSCOM then it is no wonder that not all were accountable. The Iraq Survey Group after the invasion were still finding remnants of 1980 era and some from experiments in the 1990s.
ANNEX B - STATUS OF THE VERIFICATION OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMME
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
TJ
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Age: 46
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what the Apache driver saw at the time, bearing in mind a US Cavalry unit had just been ambushed in the same AOR and had been in contact with a group fitting the description of this one.
The ROE at the time classafied anyone in the area picking up wounded or weapons as combatants...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam - in no way do I see your posts as 'hijacking' - they are indeed thoughtful and important. (In any case we now have 3 threads..........
)
To others - I cannot see that Liam is actually endorsing a policy of 'selective' regime change, but I concur that the argument for taking out Iran (and possibly ruining the fabric thereof in the process) is in fact more pressing than that for Iraq or Afghanistan.
As FFP says, the 'public' face of both actions has been other than 'regime change'. It is disingenuous to say the least, apart from immoral, to attempt to hoodwink the public. To fabricate a case for war is by no means unusual, but one must be prepared for the consequences of being 'found out' as Bush and Blair have been.
In any case, I was trying to look a little differently in this thread and put aside the WMD etc issues and focus on the bigger picture of should we know the truth and are the reasons for trying to suppress the truth genuine/valid?
)To others - I cannot see that Liam is actually endorsing a policy of 'selective' regime change, but I concur that the argument for taking out Iran (and possibly ruining the fabric thereof in the process) is in fact more pressing than that for Iraq or Afghanistan.
As FFP says, the 'public' face of both actions has been other than 'regime change'. It is disingenuous to say the least, apart from immoral, to attempt to hoodwink the public. To fabricate a case for war is by no means unusual, but one must be prepared for the consequences of being 'found out' as Bush and Blair have been.
In any case, I was trying to look a little differently in this thread and put aside the WMD etc issues and focus on the bigger picture of should we know the truth and are the reasons for trying to suppress the truth genuine/valid?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam
All fine points Liam and a well constructed point of view........however, Saddam was backed by the US regime for a least a decade prior to the Kuwait event. The Iran war????
Rumsfeld was in Baghdad pleading with Saddam not to invade Kuwait, which, and I am sure I may be corrected on accuracy by historians, was due to the Kuwait regime pulling on an oil deal - supplies and embargos during the 9 year war. SIMPLIFIED
This is supposed to be an intelligent and (lessons learnt) society
, and the consequence of war has to be taken into account, PRIOR, to going to war.
There is not one good reason to condone what has happened here. The numbers of civilians and miltary personnel who have given their lives - for what? My view Blair and Bush should be tried in the Hague.
Rumsfeld was in Baghdad pleading with Saddam not to invade Kuwait, which, and I am sure I may be corrected on accuracy by historians, was due to the Kuwait regime pulling on an oil deal - supplies and embargos during the 9 year war. SIMPLIFIED
This is supposed to be an intelligent and (lessons learnt) society
, and the consequence of war has to be taken into account, PRIOR, to going to war.There is not one good reason to condone what has happened here. The numbers of civilians and miltary personnel who have given their lives - for what? My view Blair and Bush should be tried in the Hague.