The Fatal Divide At The Heart Of The Coalition

**Shek** · 12 Mar 06,, 13:04

Dave,
What's the British reaction to this book and this sentiment?

London Sunday Telegraph
March 12, 2006

The Fatal Divide At The Heart Of The Coalition

By Max Hastings

Here is a quote from a British security contractor in Iraq about his American counterparts: "I hate those bastards more than the scumbag insurgents." A British colonel recently returned from a tour in the country said that, in our next war, he would sooner fight alongside the Russians than the US.

This is another quote from a British security contractor: "The American way is not my way. I don't mind a scrap but I draw the line at mooning the enemy and inviting him to shoot at my backside, and that's virtually what the Yanks are doing. I'm also convinced that many Americans hate the Iraqis, not just the insurgents but all Iraqis… What a mess."

Those last lines are taken from a rather good new book about the experience of Iraq today, Highway To Hell, written by an ex-SAS man who signs himself John Geddes. My point in all the above, is to show that Ben Griffin, the former SAS soldier who vents his dismay about what is happening to Iraq in today's Sunday Telegraph, is not a lone voice.

There is a widespread belief in both British special forces and line regiments that American tactics are heavy-handed and counter-productive; that firepower continues to be used as a substitute for a "hearts and minds" policy; that local people will never be persuaded to support Coalition forces unless Americans, in uniform and out, treat ordinary Iraqis vastly better than they do today.

Historical parallels should be cited cautiously. But it is impossible to study any informed critique - including some written by Americans - of operations in Iraq without recalling the Vietnam debacle. There, too, most Americans treated ordinary Vietnamese with contempt, whatever their political allegiance. American convoys forced Vietnamese vehicles off the road, killed peasant livestock with impunity, brought down fire on suspected enemy positions heedless of civilians in the target zone, and treated even educated, professional Vietnamese with condescension.

All this is being repeated in Iraq, with predictable and identical consequences. Iraqis feel a bitter resentment towards foreign troops, whom few would call liberators without irony. US special forces are perceived as behaving, if anything, worse than line combat units because they have a wider and more aggressive mandate, an intensely macho ethos, and less accountability.

"I've had conversations with many [US security contractors] and regular US soldiers who are evangelical Christians," writes John Geddes, the ex-SAS soldier quoted above, "who see themselves in a crusade against the Muslim hordes. In my view, they're not much different to the Iraqi militiamen and foreign fighters who see themselves at the heart of a jihad against the Christian crusaders."

In fairness, we should acknowledge that when Britain was "top nation" in the last days of empire, the British Army was sometimes less good at "hearts and minds" than we delude ourselves. Things happened in Kenya during the Mau Mau insurgency, in Cyprus, Aden and elsewhere that would today result in an orgy of war crimes trials.

Counter-insurgency experts and many special forces officers of all nationalities would assert that it is impossible to fight a campaign of the kind being waged in Iraq with completely clean hands. The enemy strives to goad or deceive Coalition forces into actions that will harm innocents. In Northern Ireland, the British Army learned over 30 years how hard it is to fight insurgents without alienating the civil population.

In Iraq, the problem is multiplied many times by the gulf of language and culture, and by the fact that the declared allied aims are probably unattainable. With wholly inadequate forces on the ground, the Americans and British are striving to hold the country together as a unitary state; to restore economic and social activity; and to enable local forces to provide security against criminality as well as terrorism. All this, in place where historically law and order has been enforced exclusively by terror, torture and summary execution.

There is a further dimension, even more fundamental. From the day the first American forces crossed the border into Iraq in 2003, neither they nor their government have resolved the issue of whether they are there to serve Iraqi interests, or those of the United States. Whatever Washington may say, most Americans think they are working for their own country.

From President Bush downwards, the doctrine has been propagated that every insurgent engaged and killed in Iraq is one less to assault the US homeland. "Force protection" - the welfare of those wearing US uniforms - is the governing factor in any tactical situation. Only a tiny handful of American servicemen have been disciplined, far less put on trial, for excesses in combat that have cost civilian lives.

All this makes many British servicemen feel as uncomfortable as Ben Griffin. Because there is only around one British soldier in Iraq for every 20 Americans, it is hardly surprising that our influence on policy and tactics is small. We have the worst of both worlds: responsibility in the eyes of international opinion, but precious little power to determine events.

It is often justly said that the US army respects the British, and in particular our special forces. But mass matters, and we do not have it. There is no way of getting around this. If Britain, with its tiny armed forces, chooses to engage alongside the US in Iraq or anywhere else, we should never again delude ourselves - as have so many British prime ministers - that the mere fact of throwing a few chips on the table will enable us to call the turn of the wheel.

Reading all that I have written above, I dislike it because British bleating about our position vis a vis the United States sounds so unattractive. There is a case for putting up and shutting up, acknowledging that we are in Iraq whether we like it or not, and should simply persevere.

Yet are the things true, said by people like Ben Griffin and John Geddes? The answer is almost certainly "Yes". They are what make it so hard to be optimistic about Iraq and what our forces are trying to do there, hanging on to American coat tails.

**dave angel** · 12 Mar 06,, 14:23

Shek,

i'm afraid that British reaction would be 'and in other news rain makes **** wet'

its a running sore, i presume you've read Brigadier Nigel Alwyn-Foster's report - it got pretty massive publicity and i think there's a topic on here somewhere - it was published on the US Army website, though whether its still there i don't know.

sorry mate, i know you're one of the (few?) proponants of actually winning in Iraq, rather than just killing more people than the insurgency, but i think the general attitude towards the US amongst British forces is 'head in hands having beaten it repeatedly against a brick wall'.

this was also in todays telegraph, and this is the reaction on Arrse. have a poke about, theres a few other threads that you might like to take a butchers at.

sorry lad, but thats the way its worked out.

**Ray** · 12 Mar 06,, 16:55

The experience of US troops in India who have trained at various of our facilities is that since they pay total emphasis over US servicemen's safety over other considerations and it appears as if they have the "shoot first and then ask questions" psyche.

That is the general opinion, but not universal applicability.

The US officers and men who have trained in India realised the difference in the approach to a situation between them and the Indians.

Who is right and who is wrong is very difficult to state. I presume, the man on the spot is the best judge.

It would also be presumptuous to outrightly condemn the US approach, though they could go a wee bit easier on the shoot first psyche since civilians whose hearts and mind have to be won are very sensitive to any hardship caused and the media is always there to twist the story to make the situation gory and inhumane.

**Confed999** · 12 Mar 06,, 19:31

Originally Posted by shek

mooning the enemy and inviting him to shoot at my backside, and that's virtually what the Yanks are doing.

I hope moral is that high...

**Officer of Engineers** · 12 Mar 06,, 20:30

Captain Angel,

Could you please comment? I'm simply flabbergasted at this. Since when did we allow soldiers to dictate deployment policies?

British soldier quits army in Iraq over "illegal" US tactics
www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-12 17:30:44

LONDON, March 12 (Xinhuanet) -- A Special Air Service (SAS) soldier from Britain has refused to fight in Iraq and left the Army over the "illegal" tactics of United States troops and the policies of coalition forces.

Ben Griffin, 28, who spent two years with the SAS, told his commander after staying three months in Baghdad that he was no longer prepared to fight with American forces, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

He said he had witnessed "dozens of illegal acts" by U.S. troops, which he claimed regarding all Iraqis as sub-human. 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, he added.

"I did not join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy," said the soldier.

This is the first time an SAS soldier has refused to go into combat and quit the Army on moral grounds, said the report.

Griffin also noted that he now believed that Prime Minister Tony Blair and the British government had repeatedly "lied" over the war's conduct.

The move not only marks an end to Griffin's eight-year career with the Parachute Regiment but also serves an embarrassment to the government while exerting great impact on other soldiers who have refused to fight.

Coincidentally, 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 will face pretrial on Wednesday.

So far there has been no comment from the Ministry of Defense. Enditem

**dave angel** · 12 Mar 06,, 23:48

he's not dictating deployment policy, he's saying he no longer wishes to be involved and the regiment, being thoroughly professional, is saying that if he doesn't want to be there then he shouldn't.

the eight year stage is also rather crucial - its a get out point, usually with a years notice, but often not.

most illuminating is his discharge reference, it appears his OC/CO agrees - or at least sympathises - with his views.

individual concience plays a very big part of modern society and the war that it makes, 'only obeying orders' went out at nuremburg.

as far as i'm concerned he's got balls as big as church bells for saying this outright to his hierachy, and they have equally big ones for giving him his discharge on request.

**Officer of Engineers** · 13 Mar 06,, 01:28

'I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy'
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/03/2006)

As a trooper in the Special Air Service's counter-terrorist team - the black-clad force that came to the world's attention during the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 - Ben Griffin was at the pinnacle of his military career.

He had already served in Northern Ireland, Macedonia and Afghanistan as a member of the Parachute Regiment, and his sharp mind, natural fitness and ability to cope with the stress of military operations had singled him out as ideal special forces material.

Born in London but brought up in Wales, Mr Griffin left school at 18 with two A-levels and six GCSEs and, although he could have become an officer, he preferred life in the ranks.

Within a year of joining the elite force in early 2004 and serving as a trooper in the SAS's G-Squadron, he learnt that his unit was being posted to Baghdad, where it would be working alongside its American equivalent, Delta Force, targeting al-Qaeda cells and insurgent units.

Unknown to any of his SAS colleagues at their Hereford-based unit, however, Mr Griffin, then 25, had been harbouring doubts over the "legality" of the war. Despite recognising that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and posed a threat, albeit a small one, to the West, he did not believe that the case for war had been made. The events he witnessed during his three-month tour in Baghdad, and especially the conduct of the American troops, would force him into making the most difficult decision of his life.

During a week's leave in March 2005 he told his commanding officer in a formal interview that he had no intention of returning to Iraq because he believed that the war was morally wrong. Moreover, he said he believed that Tony Blair and the Government had lied to the country and had deceived every British serviceman and woman serving in Iraq.

Mr Griffin expected to be placed under arrest, labelled a coward, court-martialed and imprisoned for daring to air such views.

Instead, however, he was allowed to leave the Army with his exemplary military record intact and with a glowing testimonial from his commanding officer, who described him as a "balanced and honest soldier who possesses the strength and character to genuinely have the courage of his convictions".

In his first interview since being discharged from the SAS in June last year, Mr Griffin explained why he has decided to speak out about the war.

He said: "I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong. I knew, so others must have known, that this was not the way to conduct operations if you wanted to win the hearts and minds of the local population. And if you don't win the hearts and minds of the people, you can't win the war.

"If we were on a joint counter-terrorist operation, for example, we would radio back to our headquarters that we were not going to detain certain people because, as far as we were concerned, they were not a threat because they were old men or obviously farmers, but the Americans would say 'no, bring them back'.

"The Americans had this catch-all approach to lifting suspects. The tactics were draconian and completely ineffective. The Americans were doing things like chucking farmers into Abu Ghraib [the notorious prison in Baghdad where US troops abused and tortured Iraqi detainees] or handing them over to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well they were going to be tortured.

"The Americans had a well-deserved reputation for being trigger happy. In the three months that I was in Iraq, the soldiers I served with never shot anybody. When you asked the Americans why they killed people, they would say 'we were up against the tough foreign fighters'. I didn't see any foreign fighters in the time I was over there.

"I can remember coming in off one operation which took place outside Baghdad, where we had detained some civilians who were clearly not insurgents, they were innocent people. I couldn't understand why we had done this, so I said to my troop commander 'would we have behaved in the same way in the Balkans or Northern Ireland?' He shrugged his shoulders and said 'this is Iraq', and I thought 'and that makes it all right?'

"As far as I was concerned that meant that because these people were a different colour or a different religion, they didn't count as much. You can not invade a country pretending to promote democracy and behave like that."

On another operation, Mr Griffin recalls his and other soldiers' frustration at being ordered to detain a group of men living on a farm.

He said: "After you have been on a few operations, experience tells you when you are dealing with insurgents or just civilians and we knew the people we had detained were not a threat.

"One of them was a disabled man who had a leg missing but the Americans still ordered us to load them on the helicopters and bring them back to their base. A few hours later we were told to return half of them and fly back to the farm in daylight. It was a ridiculous order and we ran the risk of being shot down or ambushed, but we still had to do it. The Americans were risking our lives because they refused to listen to our advice the night before. It was typical of their behaviour."

Mr Griffin said he believed that the Americans soldiers viewed the Iraqis in the same way as the Nazis viewed Russians, Jews and eastern Europeans in the Second World War, when they labelled them "untermenschen".

"As far as the Americans were concerned, the Iraqi people were sub-human, untermenschen. You could almost split the Americans into two groups: ones who were complete crusaders, intent on killing Iraqis, and the others who were in Iraq because the Army was going to pay their college fees. They had no understanding or interest in the Arab culture. The Americans would talk to the Iraqis as if they were stupid and these weren't isolated cases, this was from the top down. There might be one or two enlightened officers who understood the situation a bit better but on the whole that was their general attitude. Their attitude fuelled the insurgency. I think the Iraqis detested them."

Although Mr Griffin has the utmost respect for his former colleagues and remains fiercely loyal to the regiment, he believes that the reputation of the Army has been damaged by its association with the American forces.

"I had reservations about going out to Iraq before I went, but as a soldier you just get on with what you are ordered to do. But I found that when I was out in Iraq that I couldn't keep my views separate from my work without compromising my role as a soldier.

"It was at that stage that I knew I couldn't carry on. I was very angry, and still am, at the way the politicians in this country and America have lied to the British public about the war. But most importantly, I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy."

Mr Griffin said that although he was angered by many of the events he witnessed in Iraq, he waited until he returned to Britain on leave before making his views clear to his commanders.

"I didn't want to say anything when I was in Baghdad because I still have great respect and loyalty for the soldiers I served with. I didn't want to cause any unnecessary pressure or discomfort by voicing my opinions.

"When I returned to the UK for a week's leave I asked for an interview with my commanding officer and told him that what I thought was going on in Iraq was wrong, not just legally but operationally as well.

"Initially, he suspected that I had been offered a job by a private military company in Iraq but when it became clear that was not the case he was very understanding. It was a big decision for me. I put a lot of effort getting into the SAS, so this wasn't a decision I made on a whim.

"He understood my point of view and his attitude was brilliant, in fact everyone was brilliant about it. I didn't know what was going to happen. I thought I might be charged or end up in Colchester [the military prison] for refusing to soldier."

Mr Griffin, who lives in London, denies being a peace activist or a member of any political party, or having an agenda designed to bring down the Government.

But he said: "I do believe passionately in democracy and I will speak out about things which I think are morally wrong. I think the war in Iraq is a war of aggression and is morally wrong and, more importantly, we are making the situation in the Middle East more unstable. It's not just wrong, it's a major military disaster. There was no plan for what was to happen after Saddam went, no end-game."

• Mr Griffin did not ask for or receive any payment for this interview.

**Officer of Engineers** · 13 Mar 06,, 01:34

Mr Griffin expected to be placed under arrest, labelled a coward, court-martialed and imprisoned for daring to air such views.

Instead, however, he was allowed to leave the Army with his exemplary military record intact and with a glowing testimonial from his commanding officer, who described him as a "balanced and honest soldier who possesses the strength and character to genuinely have the courage of his convictions".

You're right, Captain. Mr Griffin was not trying to dictate policy. He expected to live up to his consequences, including a GCM and bar time.

What's disturbing me even more is the divide between the military and the government.

**Ray** · 13 Mar 06,, 03:27

A very interesting situation and a very sad commentary of the situation.

If this has happened in the "old times", it would surely have been solved "within the house".

If true, it may not be the right way to solve the Iraqi problem.

It is not for one to like the people of the country which one occupies, it is for one to like the task one's own country has taken up and do everything feasible to get one's own country's mission emerge successful.

Obviously, the country occupied would not like to be dictated or guided in their decision making since that does effect the ego of the citizens of the country being occupied. Therefore, though diplomacy is not the task of a soldier, yet for the sake of one's country one has to be diplomatic and sensitive to the local customs and traditions so that the mission is accomplished the fastest and own troops return home quick.

Prolonged wars are very nerve wracking and the weaker amongst the soldiery tend to resort to illegal means to release their anger and in turn that gives a bad reputation to the complete military that is doing an impossible, exacting and a very difficult task.

**Ray** · 13 Mar 06,, 03:29

Dave,

Do you post in the Arrse?

**dave angel** · 13 Mar 06,, 10:32

Ray, i used to, but now i just watch

i think there is a big difference between Tpr Griffin's actions and attitude and the RAF Flt Lt (Doctor) who is currently facing Courts Martial over refusing to serve - for the third time it must be said - in Iraq.

Tpr Griffin is saying 'i can't in all concience do this any more, and if that means leaving the Army/going to colchester military prison as a consequence then i accept that'.

the crab is saying 'in all concience i can't do this anymore, but i want to stay in because while i won't do this i'm quite happy to do the next thing'.

Colonel, i agree with your concern over the division between the military and the government. skimming through any number of threads on Arrse will show you the massive distrust between those two organisations - mainly caused by Iraq - and i can't see anyway of closing that gap.

IMV the gulf between the military and the government is approaching levels not seen since the Curragh mutiny. i think the mutiny was hideously wrong in what it stood for, but on the other hand if you don't stand up to something you think is fundamentally immoral then you shouldn't be responsible for a bag of chips, let alone the defence of a country.

difficult times.

**lemontree** · 13 Mar 06,, 11:25

If troops of ones own coalition partner feel so replusive about their conduct in Iraq, just imagine what the Iraqi public must feel. Its a very sad turn of events - a war gone wrong.

**Blademaster** · 13 Mar 06,, 12:27

Geez, a war gone wrong?

We removed a tin pot dictator before he could develop WMDs to use against US thereby igniting a wider WWWIII.

What we are seeing in Iraq is nothing but growing pains of a country unshackled by three decades of dictatorship. People are learning and feeling new things as they try to govern themselves.

Yes Americans made the mistake but they are merely tactical mistakes not strategic mistakes. We must stay the course and damn all torpedoes.

I mean take a look at Germany and Japan. We did our fair share of mistakes. Division of Germany and Berlin, anyone?? Hello? Berlin Wall? Yet that didn't stop Germany from becoming a postwar power in the later days of the Cold War.

The way I see it is that Iraq had a real election which led to the first formation of a government that was truly elected by the people.

As for people crying about sectarian violence. NEWS FLASH!! Americans can't solve that. The Iraqi people have to solve it themselves. They could go through the Balkan way aka a civil war and secterian cleansing or the Indian way, where Indian ethnic groups created a lot of problems in the beginning but learned to how to resolve most of their differences peacefully. If you look at the circumstances behind those two countries, you will find that people made the choice, not any other foreign power.

So if something **** happens in Iraq, don't blame it on Americans. Blame it on the Iraqi people squarely. It is the only way that they can learn responsibiity for their actions and face the consequences so they can learn from their failures and apply the lessons to the next endeavor. I mean take a look at Lebanon. A country racked by ethnic violence and yet they are still holding the country together for 15 years after a brutal 15 year civil war. Lebanon is slowly returning to its glory days of a progressive Arab country. I hope the Iraqi people take a lesson from the Lebanon history in regards of reconciling their sectarian differences.

**Ray** · 13 Mar 06,, 13:22

BM,

What you have stated is good for the morale pep talk before kicking off into the blue, but the reality is a trifle different if one looks at it from a military standpoint.

**Ray** · 13 Mar 06,, 13:25

Captain Dave Angel,

Good to know you are an Army officer. I did not know that. Which regiment if I may ask. My cousin is in the Royal Scot Dragoon Guards.

Since you quoted the Arrse, could I ask to satiate my curiosity if nothing else, how far can one take the posts there as a reflection of the British military?

There are some fine posts up there and there are some fine lads up there, but a whole lot of bellyaching that sometimes appear to be trifle done for the show-window!