Wrong. If he was the only witness to the murder then your theory may pass muster, but he wasn't, was he? What if there was no recording, but one of his squad had a conscience? What if that squaddie then became the target of the murderer? How many of these murders does it take to become unacceptable? Can you give me some sort of 'rule of engagement' that would accommodate this decision to kill unarmed men (do women and children enter this scenario?). Rules of Engagement are there to protect everyone, your comments are ill-informed and naive; when we start calling murder by some other term which gives it legitimacy, then we are on a road way beyond perdition.
I think you're missing my point - it isn't a moral one, by the way. I've said all along in this thread that the Marine in question deserved his punishment, and moreover that it was politically necessary for the MoD to make an example of him for exactly the reasons you cite. If I may hazard a paraphrase, I think OLM's point was that the mere fact that there was hard evidence (as opposed to one person's word against another) turns a manageable scenario into one where all that can be managed is the fall out. Understanding the ethos of the Forces as I do, I can tell you that if there was any chance of this being downplayed or brushed under the carpet that's what would have happened, not for the sake of Sgt Blackman but for the reputation of the Armed Forces as a social institution. The situation here was crisis management, not the result of some intrepid ethical crusade within the state bureaucracy. As an aside, the RoE of the Armed Forces is incredibly robust, even stifling. I can't tell you how many British and American soldiers I've spoken to who were incensed by RoE that essentially made them walking targets for the insurgency. But most of them understand that the reason the brass made them get out of their APCs and 'mingle' was because, according to current military dogma, COIN ops are fundamentally about perception, rather than first-order effects. This is why OLM's comment on perception of the crime, rather than the crime itself, is actually quite prescient. On the other hand, the RoE governing US counter-terror operations - particularly UAV usage - is sketchy as all get out. So it's a mixed bag. Again, I don't disagree with your points re morality. All I'm saying is that it is the strategic requirements of the war that dictate the impulse for morality, not the other way round. Call me a cynic...
So people killed by bombs set by the likes of Adams and Mandela's organisations were murdered? And should not be given legitimacy.
âOnce a profound truth has been seen, it cannot be 'unseen'. There's no 'going back' to the person you were. Even if such a possibility did exist... why would you want to?â Yes, I understand where you are coming from and understand that we agree on the core argument. OLMâs post âThe problem wasn't the shooting, it was just the fact it was recorded.â is brief and to the point and it conveys to me that his belief is that, had there been no (filmed) record of the incident, the brass would have buried it; I fundamentally disagree with that. You say you understand the ethos of the armed forces, which in my experience is very hard to pin down, as it is dependent on the people involved and their moral stance â some are better than others and they move on from time to time; there is little doubt of that. A part of my argument is that, beyond the camera, there were witnesses who saw and heard how he dealt with this. Those witnesses may all believe he had the moral right to commit murder, but, then again, one or more may not have done. Loyalty and comradeship â being one of the lads â can only be stretched so far; your commanding NCO (and pal) embroiling in you in a murder (is it accessories after-the-fact?) is taking a liberty. It would not be taking a liberty if all concerned were of the same mind-set and supported his action, which would mean they are equally guilty. If the regiment knew of that culture and endorsed it by turning a blind-eye, then we have a very serious problem in our armed forces, or some elements of it. The only way this was manageable was for it to be reported and dealt with; fall out was inevitable as this type of behaviour escalates to where the lunatics are running the asylum â like I said, would a British Army witness have been the next victim - the Serpico effect? I know the scope of the Army and how it will protect its âfamilyâ, but there are limits and this action is contrary to the well-being of the armed forces in every way â action would have been taken. Regarding your points on RoE (Rules of Engagement, should anyone be confused), you are stating nothing new. They are created for a reason and are essential to maintaining discipline, they are constantly reviewed and no one ever said they are easy to work with â I did it for twenty years, so have some awareness. I would like to know when active soldiers are not a walking target. Perception and mingling go right back to Wingate â itâs the hearts and minds of soldiering and the vast majority have no issue with that. I have read nothing that makes me believe the act was anything other than wrong (which I know is not your aim) or that, if it were reported to the hierarchy by any other means than video evidence, it would not have been dealt with as it now has been.
Absolutely right! Eventually, in all wars (the definition of which is not too clear in this day and age), a truce can be reached and with that truce comes forgiveness and accommodations to move forward - some of those accommodations may sit uneasily with some, just as others might struggle with forgiveness - it's what makes the world we live in.
I don't think Mandela can take responsibility for the murders the MK committed. Yes he started the organisation, but when he was commanding it they were making sabotage missions on power stations and burning crops etc. He'd been inside a good long time before MK started targeting civilians and committing murder, so he wasn't commanding them then and I seriously doubt the government that had him safely locked up would allow him any line of communication to have a chance at ordering those attacks. I can't find out who gave the orders for them though, I've looked. But just because he started the organisation doesn't make him responsible for its actions once he's out the picture, whoever is in charge at any given time is responsible for anything within that time frame. For instance if mick sold this site and left it, and whoever took it over turned it into a grooming site, it wouldn't make Mick a **** would it.
Glad we're now on the same page. As far as where we disagree, obviously just a matter of perspective. I can't really argue with much of what you've said, except perhaps that I'd venture to say that since Herrick 7 (and intermittently in between thereafter) there has been a tendency for brigade commanders to talk up the 'hearts and minds'/'non-kinetic' aspects of missions. Which is fine of itself, but not so much when there's a severe disconnect between rhetoric and reality, ie, treating Helmand as though it were Malaya or Kenya. I couldn't say for certain but I do wonder if Blackman, Bales, the US 'kill team', etc are blowback from an inappropriate RoE. And I'm generally skeptical about the intentions of state bureaucracies, particularly those involved in security/defence. It wouldn't be the first time an unfortunate truth would have been whitewashed...but like I said, I'm a cynic.
Herrick 7 is after my time by about 10 years, although I know plenty involved and keep a track on things. Afghanistan, Malaya, Kenya, Kuwait/Iraq, Kosovo and even Northern Ireland can be described as a waste of time and human endeavour, if that is your mind-set; some of the people in those places would argue differently. Brigade Commanders have a job to do and that often includes covering the arse of inept politicians; there has been a disconnect between rhetoric and reality for as long as I can remember, it certainly played a big part in the relationship between Centurions and Legionaries. I am generally sceptical about anything that is surrounded by bureaucracy, it smothers free-thinking. But free-thinking has its own draw-backs, not least that of allowing a renegade to have free-rein. I have seen and heard of the whitewash, it's very difficult to keep quiet and for that reason, in this age of viral gossip, the bureaucracy will intervene - it must. Who knows what caused a well trained SNCO to murder an unarmed man, but he did; maybe it was anger, frustration, hate, revenge, or maybe he enjoyed the power of being judge, jury and executioner, maybe he has done it before, without a camera. Like I said, it's sad, it is always sad for the family and friends of all murderers - wearing a uniform doesn't change that.
It was murder in my opinion.. The difference between Them and US is we should not act like they do.. It also brings shame onto all of our troops if nothing is done about such incidents . Stupid bloody wars....we backed these when the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Doh
Harry Patch writes about coming across and wounding a Gerry in no mans land in his book. If you've read it, you'll know which bit I'm on about. I think that could help describe how soldiers start to feel and think out there, and why he did it. Never mind your mates getting shelled, imagine coming across their body parts hanging in trees as Taliban trophies. We can all sit here and imagine ourselves in that position and pass judgement with our feet up in front of our Christmas trees, but I don't think we'd even come close to what it's really like out there and the effect months of consecutive 'kill or be killed' and seeing people you know be butchered or blown to smithereens without rest can have on a man.
The thing is we have rules of engagement. Behaving as they do, makes us no better than them. The British Army is one of the finest fighting machines in the world, no doubt the manner in which they do the job, the skills which they display whilst conducting the job makes them stand out from the rest. In this instance the prisoner should have been reprimanded and imprisoned.
