Soldier Soldier Policeman Why?
The proud reputation of the British Army is once again at stake following press revelations of brutality against Iraqi youths. It is ironic that the history of our armed services has ensured that the hard fought freedoms and liberties we take for granted have been used in the name of press freedom to expose unlawful violence.There are a number of distinct issues in this case. The majority of our soldiers are young men who joined the army for a variety of reasons. These range from a wish to serve to being unable to find other suitable employment. I doubt if any of the soldiers featured in the footage joined the army to police an illegally invaded foreign country.
The immoral foreign policies of New Labour, and their sycophantic support of American imperialism, has led to our soldiers being thrown into a situation they should not be in. The use of the British Army in Iraq has nothing to do with the defence of this country. Deaths come without purpose or reason.
The footage will be used for political leverage by various interested parties. The army in Iraq will be used as a buffer to deflect the underlying issues. Although their behaviour cannot be condoned, and is indeed shocking, the fact that the soldiers were placed in that position in the first place is a matter for New Labour.
Do not condemn our soldiers for being treated as political pawns.
posted by World Weary Detective @ 5:32 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
You write "doubt if any of the soldiers featured in the footage joined the army to police an illegally invaded foreign country" Slightly off kilter WWD. They are sent to do a military duty in accordance with their training and orders given. The beatings they administered were not covered by either training or orders. Their frustration and whatever other excuse they will dredge up are not factors. How far would you or one of yours get with saying "I'm fed up with black people getting away with muggings" after a bit of non-PACE work behind the local gents lav. It may well be that there was a failure by their supervisors to recognise the frustration and deal with it but that still leaves the Army at fault. The wrong message is getting to soldiers from public acceptence of what was done, To comment that press publicity will increase danger to troops on the ground is facile; it is what the troops themselves did that increased the danger and they knew that full well.
These comments maybe sound the counsel of perfection. I spent more that 22 years investigating the transgressions of our troops in foreign lands - mostly where there were internal security issues - and rough justice does NOT work. Every right thinking soldier will applaud the removal of the offenders even though espirit de corps may prevent them saying so.
I can't fully express how totally I agree with you, WWD.
As you say, young men join the Army for differing reasons, but the number 1 reason for having an Army in the first place is to defend this country. It isn't to make Tony Blair feel like a big man when he goes to Washington.
I am far from being a pacifist, but the invasion of Iraq was just plain wrong. There never were any WMDs, as Tony Blair well knew. That Saddam Hussein was a cruel vicious tyrant oppressing his own people is certainly true - but there's many of them in the world (Zimbabwe comes to mind, among others) and we aren't invading all of them, are we?
Our soldiers have been placed in a terrible situation which they shouldn't be in. I don't condone the behavour seen in the video, but they had been attacked by petrol bombs and mortars immediately beforehand, and the man who wants the streets closed before he is willing to travel 300 yards to Parliament inside his armoured car is in no position to judge, either.
Good points all. I agree that the soliders must take responsibility for their own actions and anything that may happen as a result. The footage reminded me of CCTV images of police officers dishing out 'summary justice.' I had hoped such actions were a thing of the past...
No Police officer should pass judgement on video footage released by the media .... ever. We deal with fact not speculation or assumption. Leave this to the print media to feed off in a way only they can.... That this continual publication at a time of heightened tension is irresponsibility of the hightest order .. just as the good old beeb let the Argentinians know that their bomb fuses were not set correctly and therefore were passing through the ships during the Falklands war, before exploding thus allowing them to correct their error. Clearly no lessons learnt there then.
By all means investigate allegations of criminality, but this is crass and craven scoop marketing, without a thought to a possible reaction by those who would side with the "enemy" in this country ...... Or is that the idea?
John, you say "These comments maybe sound the counsel of perfection. I spent more that 22 years investigating the transgressions of our troops in foreign lands - mostly where there were internal security issues - and rough justice does NOT work."
That sounds like you've been a desk jockey for a considerable part of your service (whatever you were in)?
Have you ever found yourself facing a crowd intent on hurting/burning/killing you? Stoning and fire-bombing you? Shooting at you or trying to blow you up? DIRECTLY involved NOT remotely housed away from the front line or danger.
The reason I ask, is because only those who have, are best placed to judge how seeing the faces of those hell bent on harming you (without remorse for the results) can build up the sort of fear and anger (at facing REAL harm and possible death) that culminates in "dishing out a bit of their own medicine".
It's human nature to feel the need for revenge on those who, seemingly, have the power to hurt or kill you and are being seen to revel in the injuries or worse that they inflict.
How many times have we seen the hapless soldier or police officer being set on fire by petrol bomb to the cheers and roar of the crowd?
It wasn't that long ago when the crew of an armoured vehicle were seen to climb out of their vehicle on fire and being pelted by the baying crowd of Iraqis. Troops are being blown up, shot and maimed almost every day in Iraq and NO-ONE but the troops out there are able to say what affect it has on them.
I'm sorry but the critics of these actions often come from the armchair warriors we seem so good at pandering to in society. The press know this and that's why they dredge up any stories that sell their newspapers, no matter how long ago the events actually took place.
Oh! One other point, how does the Deputy Prime Minister JP compare in this. Anyone remember his reaction to a single egg being thrown at him by a protester? I seem to remember he punched the guy in the face and had to be seperated from the ensuing brawl.
Some commentators viewed that incident with amusement and sought to right it off as big John being the sort of no nonsense sort of man that it should be accepted as par for his course?
I'm not saying that the present incidence of violence is right, no more right than JP coming out fighting as he did.
BUT what I am advocating is a little more understanding of how the average human being reacts to very real fear.
How,through a change in circumstances, tranference of power takes place from aggressor to victim, it empowers the underdog with an opportunity to repay in kind, the same treatment they were getting up to that turning point.
Do we not relish the bully getting some of his own treatment?
Finally, yes, I have been in a situation where my life was at risk AND on other occasions I've faced persons whose only aim was to seriously injure me or my colleagues with fire, bricks, lead filled missiles and scaffold poles. Just like most police officers these days, and when you are able to see their face and therefore their determination to harm you to the best of their ability, you CAN react badly given the chance to reverse the tables.
Here Here Outsider ....very well put I wholeheartely agree with your comments. Especially about the armchair heroes of the "Shudda Squad" having been on the receiving end of both angry crowds and idiot management over the years.
What I dispair at is the repeat showing of the incident, no doubt edited for effect by the BBC, an organisation that I am forced to fund, but have no say in what is broadcast.
Personally I can understand why the incident happened. That doesn't mean I condone it and I hope those concerned are dealt with. I'm sure this wasn't the first time this has happened and won't be the last. I agree with pretty much all that the Outsider and Jurgen were saying.
The fact that the incident happened so long ago once again leaves 'us' with the feeling that there is now an 'us and them' mentality with the media. None of us believe the hypocritical bastards who proclaim to be on 'our side' - first chance of a good story and they'll risk our lives by printing/broadcasting the most saleable version of a story rather than the full truth.
Outsider:
You might want to stay "outside" and be a little careful of what you say about the desk jockeys. I know that the person who did 22-years investigating things of this nature was awarded an MBE (with oak-leaves) for services in NI, where he was most certainly not behind a desk. He was also not behind a desk in Korea, Malaysia, Aden or Cyprus either.
Laban Talls blog comments on this incident as do others. What the BBC fails to mention is that the troops were under attack by a riotous mob, throwing stones and improvised explosive devices, ie they were trying to kill the troops. The response? They came out unarmed and snatched identified ring leaders - maybe it would be better to just shoot them in future? Then bleeding heart Guardianistas could really complain, or maybe they could do nothing and let our troops be killed by the mob? Just like the 6 RMPs a while back? Just grow up, its a war zone, and they are trying to kill our troops.
baldermort:
I stand by what I said, being in a country during war or conflict doesn't mean you are on the sharp end. You can servce yor country and get campaign medals without actually firing a gun or worse being shot at.
As for the MBE, I seem to remember with monotonous regularity how many persons in the entertainment industry and sports world get one, and higher awards for"services rendered"?
A gong doesn't always mean what it used to.
It sounds as though John may have spent a great deal of his service in a non-combat role if he was able to travel around investigating other soldiers.
There isn't much time to interview, prepare case papers or take statements when you're up to your neck in bullets and blood in some dug-out or other such defensive front line combat theatre.
Anyone who has been awarded medals for bravery in the field, I take my hat off to them. But please don't tell me how 22 yrs in an investigative role equates to 22 yrs on the groung in the face of action.
A police "Good Conduct and Long Service" medal has, and undoubtedly will continue to be awarded to officers regardless of their "Good Conduct" over the requisite 23yrs "Long Service". It too no longer stands for the same values it once did, and I am sure there are those reading this who also know of recipients of that 'medal' who have had a less than 'blemish' (to put it diplomatically) free service.
The establishment have a habit of awarding gongs to persons, whose great service to their country is not always much more than "doing their job, being paid handsomely for it and feathering their own nest in life".
There are those that do and there are those that watch and judge.
The do's always seem to attract the most criticism from those that think they know better, often with little or no experience of that that they claim to understand.
How differently events might have turned out if those soldiers had sat the youths down and had a chat over a nice cup of tea rather than beating the sh!t out of them.
The overbearing feeling I got from the footage was one of sheer frustration on the part of the soldiers who are there because they're there because they're there because they're there.
And they are too good to have to die for Americans.
Post a Comment
<< Home