SAS man refuses to return to Iraq.

[canard]

Hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm:

An SAS soldier has refused to fight in Iraq and has left the Army over the "illegal" tactics of United States troops and the policies of coalition forces.

After three months in Baghdad, Ben Griffin told his commander that he was no longer prepared to fight alongside American forces.

Ben Griffin told commanders that he thought the Iraq war was illegal. He said he had witnessed "dozens of illegal acts" by US troops, claiming they viewed all Iraqis as "untermenschen" - the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human.

The decision marks the first time an SAS soldier has refused to go into combat and quit the Army on moral grounds. It immediately brought to an end Mr Griffin's exemplary eight-year career, in which he also served with the Parachute Regiment, taking part in operations in Northern Ireland, Macedonia and Afghanistan.

But it will also embarrass the Government and have a potentially profound impact on cases of other soldiers who have refused to fight.

On Wednesday, the pre-trial hearing will begin into the court martial of Flt Lt Malcolm Kendall-Smith, a Royal Air Force doctor who has refused to return to Iraq for a third tour of duty on the grounds that the war is illegal. Mr Griffin's allegations came as the Foreign Office minister Kim Howells, visiting Basra yesterday, admitted that Iraq was now "a mess".

Mr Griffin, 28, who spent two years with the SAS, said the American military's "gung-ho and trigger happy mentality" and tactics had completely undermined any chance of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population. He added that many innocent civilians were arrested in night-time raids and interrogated by American soldiers, imprisoned in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, or handed over to the Iraqi authorities and "most probably" tortured.

Mr Griffin eventually told SAS commanders at Hereford that he could not take part in a war which he regarded as "illegal".

He added that he now believed that the Prime Minister and the Government had repeatedly "lied" over the war's conduct.

"I did not join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy," he said. He expected to be labelled a coward and to face a court martial and imprisonment after making what "the most difficult decision of my life" last March.

Instead, he was discharged with a testimonial describing him as a "balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions".

Last night Patrick Mercer, the shadow minister for homeland security, said: "Trooper Griffin is a highly experienced soldier. This makes his decision particularly disturbing and his views and opinions must be listened to by the Government."

The MoD declined to comment.
I would be interested to hear your opinions on this article.
BTW the journo interviewing said Ben Griffin did not request or receive any payment for this article.

[canard]

Before anyone says it, no, I don't believe everything I read in the bloody papers, just thought it would make an interesting talking point, with the mix of nationalities and experience on the board.
It is only his perspective, he only saw through his eyes... but that does not stop it being without precedent.

[flash010]

if this is a true account then i would say good on him he is no coward he told them what he beleves to be true. you remember the old natzi excuse (i was only following orders) the sas only take the best ,,,,,,and andy mc nab,:D so if the guys a gen grunt he could not desert so he quit i have never thought of an enemy as sub human i have of the ppl who carry out sub human act,s (bosni) so he has told them the way things are happening. i have no prob,s with him he,s a solider with hounner :) ;)

[Mise]

I hope, for his creditability, that he will never turn up in Iraq in the private capacity.

[flash010]

yea that would kinda kick the ass out of my argument for the defence haha:D

[st george]

Thats the sort of man i would fight along side any day and all the best to him full stop......

[flash010]

yea if you dont have morals your just as bad as those you fight ;)

[RaiderDingo]

I'm dissapointed in this youg man, normaly when you're a member of such an elite corp you really don't have the option to criticize your govt policies. Surely he's not the first SOMCOM operator to have problems with the current situation. What would happen if they all thought and did what he did. Black Ops would no longer be. ALL I CAN SAY IS WHAT A WASTE and they should have screened this guy before letting him in with his free sprit. May be he should set up accross Big BEN with a little sign with all the rest of the protesters.

[Chas]

It is unfortunate that this episode has reached the light of day. He should have been quietly discharged. Morality and war do not make happy bedfellows. Having said that, side comments about Big Ben and protesters serve little purpose. In a democracy you have a right to lawful protest. Likewise under common law there is a right to 'habeas corpus' which some democratic countries with a common origin choose to ignore...

[Rapace]

This is a disturbing testimony. A little like when Gen Paris de Bollardière, a WW2 and Indochina hero having served in the Free French SAS (coincidence ?), publicly resigned during the Algeria war, because of what the French army was doing there (to put it candidly, torturing prisoners). Other officers in Algeria faced the same dilemma. I wouldn't like to be one day in this situation.
I think war was illegal from the start, but I have respect for the Brits attitude over there : trying to get an in-depth understanding of the situation, win hearts and minds (well... those which can be won), differentiate between ordinary people and terrorists, etc.
Otherwise, saying that Iraq is a "mess" is an understatement. It's a question of weeks before it falls into civil war. And then, the troops there will be swimming in a huge bowl a genuine shit.

[flash010]

i think as chas said it should not have come out but i still admier his balls. i would fight on and not question my officers less i was told to do somthing not right :)

[Nidas]

He should have been quietly discharged. Morality and war do not make happy bedfellowsMy point too. As a soldier you're a tool. In such regiment as SAS, with their history of ops, there's no space to start question orders and so on. What is right and what is wrong? Some situations might be spot on when it comes down to that, but i believe you have to leave all the moral thinking to your commanders.

On the other hand, have I been in the same situation? Nope, so who am I to say anything about it...
So now it's time for me to shut the **** up :D

[Rapace]

It is unfortunate that this episode has reached the light of day. He should have been quietly discharged.I agree on this.

What is right and what is wrong? Some situations might be spot on when it comes down to that, but i believe you have to leave all the moral thinking to your commanders.I strongly disagree with that. You cannot just say nowadays "I was ordered to do such and such things." As a soldier, it's your duty (and by the way, your interest), whatever your level, to refuse doing something morally reprehensible like torturing (I mean real torture, not one slaps or two), killing civilians not involved in the combats, summary execution of unarmed prisoners, etc.
Not easy doing, I admit, especially in the heat of action, but if the shit hits the fan (I mean if such things go public), saying "I obeyed orders" will not be deemed a valid excuse in front of a court martial or a civilian tribunal. Let alone the nasty dreams, you'll have to live with for the rest of your life.
This kind of dilemma was exactly the theme a good war film discussed in another thread, Platoon, if I remember well (long time I saw it).

[Martin Scott]

It is unfortunate that this episode has reached the light of day. He should have been quietly discharged. Morality and war do not make happy bedfellows. Having said that, side comments about Big Ben and protesters serve little purpose. In a democracy you have a right to lawful protest. Likewise under common law there is a right to 'habeas corpus' which some democratic countries with a common origin choose to ignore...I'm with Chas on this one. I also like to know what happened to the Chiense Parliament, where every trooper gets his say. But as Flash so rightly stated if he does turn up in the private sector his argument doesn't hold any water at all.

[Nidas]

Moral is a strange thing, in war that is. During my service in Sweden we had an interesting discussion about moral and ethics. The whole story is just fiction, only to make us reflect on moral in war.

It's about an sniper in a war zone. Well, this sniper was in his op waiting for the target to show up. The target was an informer (sorry, don't know what word to use) for the enemy. Sending info about troop movements and a lot of vital information who had caused the snipers own army great losses. When he gets the target in his sight he realise that it is a boy at the age of about 8yrs who is the massenger. What would you have done, and why?

I promise you, we had one hell of a discussion! Some 30 totaly different persons in it.

[Chas]

For the greater good-one well placed shot for the boy aged 8. The caveat which then opens a can of worms, being is there any form of alternative such as capturing the little bugger ? The shot repugnant but necessary as last resort.

[Nidas]

Nope, we had no options. Only kill, or not kill. Should have wrote that too. Sorry about that. Just a clear cut to force us to take a stand.

[Chas]

No options then one clean shot.

[Rapace]

Nidas, in your example the boy is, in some way, taking a part in the combats. It would certainly be a heartache, but shooting him can be acceptable.
What I was talking about are clear violations of international rules and regulations (Geneva Convention, etc.). There are tons of literature on what is 'acceptable' in war and what is not. Once again, torture, killing of civilians not directly involved in the combats (eg as a retaliation or just because you're a "trigger happy"), summary execution of unarmed prisoners, etc. all these sorts of things are a clear no-no.
This kind of situation recently happened with the French army in Ivory Coast. A wounded prisoner was killed in cool blood by an NCO. Although the guy was a known bandit ("coupeur de routes"), although the NCO states that he obeyed (implicit) orders, I can tell you that this guy (and others) are in the shit up to their teeth.
If this SAS soldier has witnessed such things in Iraq, he has the right (and the duty) to say "I've had enough and won't participate in this anymore." Whether it should have been made public is another story.

[Nidas]

I took that last thing about moral out of the subject. I went a bit off topic, sry about that. It was not an exampel compared with this SAS guy. Just something to reflect on the moral topic

[Nidas]

But this is good, it make you think about it. To be honest, when I first read this thread I was sure where I stood, but the more you think about the more dimensions comes up. Eh, hope you understand what I mean. My English is not up to par..

[Coinnach]

Moral is a strange thing, in war that is. During my service in Sweden we had an interesting discussion about moral and ethics. The whole story is just fiction, only to make us reflect on moral in war.

It's about an sniper in a war zone. Well, this sniper was in his op waiting for the target to show up. The target was an informer (sorry, don't know what word to use) for the enemy. Sending info about troop movements and a lot of vital information who had caused the snipers own army great losses. When he gets the target in his sight he realise that it is a boy at the age of about 8yrs who is the massenger. What would you have done, and why?

I promise you, we had one hell of a discussion! Some 30 totaly different persons in it.Carlos Hathcock put a round through a young boy in Vietnam, the kid was wheeling a bike ladden with ordinance for use against American troops - he felt that by killing the kid he was saving his comrades lives.

[flash010]

Carlos Hathcock put a round through a young boy in Vietnam, the kid was wheeling a bike ladden with ordinance for use against American troops - he felt that by killing the kid he was saving his comrades lives.yea i would have killed him to its things like getting orderd to kill some one who is not a legit target civvis non combatons thats the only time i would refuse to do what i was orderd i was a soider not a killer there is a differnice:)

[sam]

"I did not join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy," he said. He expected to be labelled a coward and to face a court martial and imprisonment after making what "the most difficult decision of my life" last March.



We are overlooking the stated political and anti-American reasons why he does not want to return to Iraq. There is more to consider than his claims of torture. He was not drafted, he enlisted and must put HIS personal politics and viewpoints aside for the duration of his enlistment. He was not asked nor ordered to commit illegal acts. He can protest the war, America, torture or whatever he chooses...........AFTER his enlistment ends. Until then he needs to shut-up and complete that enlistment with honor and dignity.

[Martin Scott]

The only one who will question his morals is himself at the end of the day. I don't want to turn this thread into what it's not. I all up for moral discourse but can we keep to subject chaps.

[greatza1]

I respect the decision of this SAS soldier and I think that it wasn't easy for him to make that step but in my homeland (Romania) army it is a replica, the order it is not to be discussed but it will be executed. What if in the next years we will hear that an FFL soldier will not go into the battle because it is not a legal war. After how i said i respect the opinion of this Brit. but as a soldier i disagree. I propose you a topic: what if captain Danjou refused to take the command of the company and take position on Camerone because it wasn't a fair war or the legionnaires from Dien Bien Phu refuse to jump from the planes cause it was for the first time in their life when they use the parachute.Think about it.

[Martin Scott]

I agree on what you said but the guy has taken his course of action and thats all there is to it. But as other members of the forum have said iF he turns up in the private sector hes is going to make a complete arse out of himself.

[Rapace]

Greatza : in my view you're missing the point. It's not about discussing an order in general, which of course is unacceptable in any army. It's about refusing to execute illegal orders. As I already said once or twice, there's a clear definition of what is an illegal order and there are tons of literature and international agreements about it. For example killing civilians not involved in the combats, torturing or executing prisoners, etc. are illegal orders. In this case (AND ONLY IN THIS CASE) a soldier CAN and MUST refuse to obey.
Captain Danjou at Camerone was not ordered to kill Mexican civilians. The legionnaires (and others) who jumped over Diên Biên Phu were not asked to perform any kind of illegal action : they were asked to do their soldier's job. That's it.

Revert to the Legion Code of Honour, articles 6 and 7 :

6. A mission is sacred, you will carry it out until the end, respecting laws, customs of war, international conventions and, if necessary, at the risk of your life.

7. In combat, you will act without passion nor hatred, you will respect the vanquished enemy, you will never abandon your dead or wounded, nor surrender your arms.

In my view, it's very clear. No need to split hairs on this.

[Tom G]

My own opinion about this matter: he was according to the story never issued an illegal order so he had no grounds for quitting his mates in the first leg of a combat tour NONE his butt should have beeen court martialed with prejudice. If he disagreed with the morality of the conflict his butt should have protested these "policies" before he was deployed and people whom he trained daily with and depended on him would not suffer. Do your time then go home and resign and protest...as far as I'm concerned that is the honorable thing to do and I could respect that and would listen much more to his arguments than some do nothing blow hard politician whom has never put his ass on the line.
I always respected the late Col David Hackworth more than any politician because he proved his mettle on the battlefield then spoke out. Not the other way around :(

[flash010]

Greatza : in my view you're missing the point. It's not about discussing an order in general, which of course is unacceptable in any army. It's about refusing to execute illegal orders. As I already said once or twice, there's a clear definition of what is an illegal order and there are tons of literature and international agreements about it. For example killing civilians not involved in the combats, torturing or executing prisoners, etc. are illegal orders. In this case (AND ONLY IN THIS CASE) a soldier CAN and MUST refuse to obey.
Captain Danjou at Camerone was not ordered to kill Mexican civilians. The legionnaires (and others) who jumped over Diên Biên Phu were not asked to perform any kind of illegal action : they were asked to do their soldier's job. That's it.

Revert to the Legion Code of Honour, articles 6 and 7 :

6. A mission is sacred, you will carry it out until the end, respecting laws, customs of war, international conventions and, if necessary, at the risk of your life.

7. In combat, you will act without passion nor hatred, you will respect the vanquished enemy, you will never abandon your dead or wounded, nor surrender your arms.

In my view, it's very clear. No need to split hairs on this.yea if in dout refer to the code du honner ;)

[Kristo]

I think many soldiers would get sick of a conflict if they saw people you would be bringing in, being tortured by assholes.

[Martin Scott]

Lets get this straight the guy has made his decision and that is that,but seeing as some people are calling for Court Marshal,others are o shit here we go again'
A few points.
1. The guy is 22 Sas.
2. A volunteer soldier who had most probably served in Northern Ireland
and Yugoslavia probably,and has seen conflict where he served in the green Army.
3.He volunteered for selection for the regiment,and passed(fair play I never could)
4.He knew as a special ops soldier he would see a fair amount of crap.
5.If he has not compromised a direct order and Pvrd from the Army so be it.
6.If he has he should face a court of inquiry from his senior officers,and be displined, I tried reading this thread again and everybody has put good and bad points across. I going to close it now as I dont want it to develop into a pissing contest.:D