Disgusting the way the British govt is treating its soldiers in Iraq.
Iraq battle stress worse than WWII
The Sunday Times
November 06, 2005
Senior army doctors have warned that troops in Iraq are suffering levels of battle stress not experienced since the second world war because of fears that if they shoot an insurgent, they will end up in court. The two senior Royal Army Medical Corps officers, one of whom is a psychologist, have recently returned from Basra, where they said they counselled young soldiers who feared a military police investigation as much as they did the insurgents. The revelations follow the collapse last week of the court martial of seven paratroopers accused of murdering an Iraqi who died near al- Amarah just after the war and amid signs of a dramatic drop in morale among frontline infantry soldiers.
The doctors’ warnings came in post-operational reports submitted by senior officers to their formation commanders after serving in a battle zone. They are exceptional because of their content. One source said: “There doesn’t appear to be any overt consideration or understanding of the pressures that our soldiers are under. “The unpopularity of the war at home and a belief that firing their rifles in virtually any circumstances is likely to see them end up in court are sapping morale.”
One corporal said that troops arriving in Basra were confronted by warnings from the Royal Military Police. “They make it clear that any and every incident will be investigated. It is also made clear that if you shoot someone, you will face an inquiry that could take up to a year. “The faces of the young lads straight out of training drop as the fear of being investigated strikes home and many ask whose side the RMP are on.”
------------------
It's so bad that even the anti-war Rod Liddle had this to say:
Sod this game of soldiers
Rod Liddle
The Sunday Times
November 06, 2005
------------------
Some background in case anyone missed it:
The Iraqi lies that put the Paras in court
Telegraph
04/11/2005
A blatant attempt to extract money from the British Army had been made by the Marsh Arabs of Ferkah, the court martial heard. They had colluded, lied and frequently spoke of "fasil" - bloody money - and compensation when they appeared to give evidence.
The Judge Advocate General, Jeff Blackett, said they had made specious claims of improper behaviour including allegations that a baby and an old man had been killed by the British soldiers. Three women witnesses had admitted making up claims that they were assaulted by the soldiers and the family of the dead man, 18-year-old Nadhem Abdullah, had encouraged other villagers to tell lies about the incident.
Fourteen witnesses had been brought from their homes in Iraq to give evidence to the court but much of their evidence was "too inherently weak or vague for any sensible person to rely on it" and it had been based on "a corporate recollection discussed by the family or tribe", said Judge Blackett.
Paras cleared as Iraq trial collapses in £8m fiasco
Telegraph
04/11/2005
The court martial of seven paratroopers accused of murdering an Iraqi teenager collapsed yesterday after the Royal Military Police investigation was condemned as "inadequate" and riddled with "serious omissions".
The hearing, which cost up to £8 million, came to an abrupt halt after the most senior judge in the Army courts directed that the defendants be found not guilty. Jeff Blackett, the Judge Advocate General, described the evidence presented by the prosecution as "too inherently weak or vague for any sensible person to rely on".
He strongly condemned the Special Investigations Branch of the RMP for making significant errors during its inquiry.
10 comments:
This seems to be the same phenomenon as that in the case of the Iraq Paras. Any ideas on what greater forces are behind this? Can we just put it down to "pc gone mad" and leave it at that?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/10/ncop10.xml
Pc disciplined for hold used on would-be suicide
Telegraph
10/11/2005
A police officer who saved a young man threatening to jump out of a second-floor window has been reprimanded because he did not use a Home Office-approved "hold" when he grabbed him.
The probationer constable received "words of advice" - the lowest form of disciplinary action - from the Independent Police Complaints Commission for using excessive force to restrain the youth as he threatened to jump.
Officers in the Cambridgeshire force - which had rejected the complaint from the would-be suicide's father - have reacted with disbelief.
..
David Sanders, a member of the Cambridgeshire police authority, said: "Police chiefs are too anxious to take up trivial complaints, which undermines police morale. Will a copper put himself out time after time just to find a complaint against his name at the end of it?
"If a bobby is out of order, then he should be disciplined, but the abuse of the system is sapping the morale of many good officers."
Did you read the article? A police officer saved a guy's life and was disciplined for it. This is not simply a "debriefing", and while it's not the end of the world, it certainly seems newsworthy to me (especially as I spent my journey home on the tube last night reading headlines about "Royal Playboys" ie Lichfield).
And while of course papers may have their own agenda etc etc, if you're referring to the Dudley thing with your Telegraph comment, it turns out there *was* a case to answer.
http://www.expressandstar.com/articles/news/es/article_81881.php
as posted in thread
http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/10/making-pigs-ear-of-defending-democracy.html
Same story in the Mirror.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16352667&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=hero-cop-rapped-for-rescue-name_page.html
Still doesn't *necessarily* make the story either true or newsworthy (I think it probably is on both), but makes accusations of political motivation for the story harder to sustain.
And in the local rag too (the Evening Telegraph), political affiliation unknown:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=845&ArticleID=1249727
Turns out the pc is a Sikh (well, he's called Singh), and more details are supplied:
They found a man, high on drink and drugs, who was acting aggressively and threatening to jump from a second-floor window. Pc Singh, then a probationer, grabbed the man despite being kicked between the legs and assaulted.
1. The officer did not follow the correct procedures, you say. The point of the story, which I find hard to believe you missed, is that while the officer was found not to have followed correct procedure by the IPCC, eyewitnesses suggest this was an extraordinary finding that flew in the face of the facts. Do you perhaps have reasons to believe the IPCC infallible?
2. Nobody disputes that complaints have to be followed up, it's how they are followed up that is being critised here.
3. If the IPCC's job is to protect the public against over-zealous policing, but in fact they discourage appropriate police action and demoralise the force, they are actually endangering the public.
4. Re: words of advice. Singh *was* disciplined, you seem determined to avoid that fact. Yes, it was a mild disciplinary action. But mild disciplinary action when (as witnesses claim) praise was in order is worthy of condemnation.
5. It is not a news story. How about this then: "Policeman attacked by drug addict he tried to rescue"? Even as it stands this would surely be newsworthy - all the more so given the subsequent complaint, investigation and outcry. You seem to have extraordinary standards of what constitutes a newsworthy story.
6. Is there a conspiracy afoot? I wouldn't put it that way. But given the similarity to the Paras incident, and anecodotal evidence (from a friend) I have of the emasculation of the fire service by "pc gone mad", it does not seem implausible to me that perhaps well-intentioned efforts to reform the more macho services our society relies upon is having a counter-productive effect.
Naturally if the story is false, much of the above does not apply. But you seem to be doing much more than cautioning against believing everything you read - you seem to be saying that even if the story is true as reported, that nothing bad happened and it's not even newsworthy. I disagree with both of those positions.
PS FWIW, the friend is a fireman and the stories I have heard are first-hand, so it's not a "black bin-liner" scenario.
PPS Nasty business that thing involving your dad, didn't know about that. Can see why it would make you sensitive to issues of press exaggeration.
I posted this link during the Dudley pig debate, but I don't think anyone noticed. So here it is again. It's relevant.
Answering the points re: police story:
1. NEWSWORTHINESS
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Were I, as a newspaper editor, to see a story with violence, drugs and injustice at the heart of it, I dare say I'd leap on it. You wouldn't, fair enough.
2. POLITICAL MANIPULATION?
Since I *do* see the story as newsworthy, I cannot make your automatic leap to seeing it as an example of political manipulation at work.
Furthermore, I find it hard to see whose political agenda this story would suit. Black bin bags, black coffee - that was clearly the right bashing the left. But IPCC bashing? Exactly whose agenda is that? Especially as the story appears in both the Telegraph *and* the Mirror.
Answering the point re: Dudley story:
3. COUNCILLOR RAHMAN
The Telegraph article quoted the Councillor as being in favour of the pig ban, and indeed he was. The omission in the article was to imply that the ban (and the Councillor's approval of it) applied to the council as a whole, rather than within just one council department. Whether this issue of scale (one council department v many) actually makes any difference to the point being made is still open.
Original Dudley thread: http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/10/making-pigs-ear-of-defending-democracy.html
Still no comments on the original Paras article, I note...
;-)
Post a Comment