Category Archives: Defence

Afghanistan, Britain, Defence, Government, Human Rights, Military

Anger as RAF airmen gloat over dead bodies of Taliban fighters…

RAF POLICE & MILITARY INVESTIGATION

Two British servicemen from the RAF Regiment have been withdrawn from the frontline in Afghanistan and returned to Britain. Damning photographs apparently showing airmen posing in a glorified manner next to the bloodstained body of a Taliban fighter are now being investigated after images were brought to the attention of the Military Police.

In one graphic picture, a grinning serviceman gives a thumbs-up as he crouches beside a body. Trails of blood, seemingly from the man’s wounds, can be seen beside him.

Other photographs show more bodies of insurgents and there are concerns that the images could be used for recruitment and propaganda by the Taliban in the months leading up to the withdrawal of UK forces from Afghanistan later this year.

Described by some as being grotesque, others have been quick in condemning the apparent ‘stupidity’ of the airmen which they say has handed the Taliban a tool to beat the remaining British troops with prior to their departure from this war-torn country.

The photographs were taken after a Taliban attack on the main British base at Camp Bastion in September 2012, while Prince Harry was deployed to fly Apache attack helicopters.

A group of 15 Taliban fighters wearing stolen US military uniforms crept towards the camp, which was ringed by a 30ft metal fence and barbed-wiring. They cut through the wire and destroyed aircraft situated on the ground inside the camp, vehicles and equipment.

A three-hour gun battle then raged involving 50 British troops, some of whom have been decorated for bravery. Two US Marines were killed and 16 troops – eight US and eight British – were injured. Of the 15 insurgents, 14 were killed and one captured.

It is two of these Taliban bodies and the actions of two members of the RAF Regiment that are now at the centre of the hugely sensitive inquiry. The airmen are from 51 Squadron RAF Regiment, currently based in Moray, Scotland.

The Ministry of Defence said the images came to its attention last month and that military police are now investigating.

Two of the photographs appear to show British airmen giving the thumbs-up but it is unclear whether it is the same man. Defence officials said there was no excuse for such behaviour. Contrary to all instructions, these appear to break military rules.

The RAF insists it has a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ on the mistreatment of deceased enemy personnel. The incident is now the subject of an ongoing RAF Police investigation.

A spokesperson for Amnesty International, said: ‘These pictures are appalling. They violate international humanitarian law standards, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the disrespectful and degrading treatment of the bodies of dead combatants.’

The photographs emerged following the conviction of Sergeant Alexander Blackman, a Royal Marine, for executing a seriously wounded Taliban prisoner. The 39-year-old shot the captive in the chest at close range with his 9mm pistol.

Controversially, Sergeant Blackman is serving a minimum of ten years in prison after becoming the first British serviceman to be found guilty of murder in a war zone since the Second World War.

Blackman killed the insurgent on September 15, 2011. Recordings from a helmet-mounted camera worn by a fellow Royal Marine captured the moments when Blackman shot the prisoner.

OPINION

The unedifying sight of a British airman doing the thumbs-up next to the dead corpse has understandably provoked widespread anger. For civilians the images offer an uncomfortable position between death and glee. Such actions fall short of the respect demanded in the articles of the Geneva Conventions for the bodies of enemy combatants.

Laid before you above are the events that transpired on the evening of September 14, 2012, in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. 15 Taliban fighters dressed in US Army uniforms started their attack at 10pm, cutting through the perimeter wire of the base and opened fire with assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The firefight that ensued lasted for several hours and, by the end of it, six RAF Harrier jets were burnt out and destroyed, two Marines were dead, and a dozen more British and American soldiers were injured. All but one of the Taliban fighters was dead.

The attack that night was, undoubtedly, one of the most shocking incidents of the Afghan war since deployment began in 2001. The attack revealed culpable security lapses in the running of the camp, and the RAF airmen instantly caught up in it must have been terrified yet exhilarated to be alive. It is apt to point out that many defending the base that evening were decorated for bravery.

Two of them, however, did something in bad taste, by posing victoriously next to an enemy corpse. Such folly has been compounded and made much worse as the images have appeared online, provoking outrage as the pictures could be used as a propaganda weapon against Western forces as they prepare to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year. A ‘selfie’ type culture which has now stemmed into the battlefield seems certain to be at the centre of the military police investigation, and how it ever came to pass publicly.

Opinions will vary as to the extent of the damage caused and what action should be taken. We should trust, though, that a sense of proportion is retained. Young men have found themselves in extreme danger given the perilous circumstances of the moment and were sent there at the behest of our government.

But the difficulty will be in a matter of interpretation. Whilst Camp Bastion is not Abu Ghraib, in which US guards pictured themselves degrading Iraqi prisoners, the British authorities seem likely to draw parallels. Having survived the attack the airmen clearly would have felt euphoric, but the reality of war – including the rogue emotions that accompany killing and survival – does not always chime with civilian sensitivities.

  • The images concerned will not be posted on this site.
Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Military

Ministry of Defence introduces the residency rule for recruitment into the Armed Forces…

RESIDENCY TEST THAT WILL HIT CITIZENS FROM COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

Soldiers from Commonwealth countries have been banned from joining Britain’s Armed Forces unless they have lived in the UK for five years.

The residency test, which came into force two days ago, will prevent overseas recruits joining immediately as they do now.

The Ministry of Defence reinstated the requirement, which was scrapped in 1998, as it attempts to reduce the size of the military by nearly 30,000 troops.

But the controversial move could lead to accusations of betrayal because Commonwealth troops have shed blood for Britain on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan – as well as in previous conflicts and two world wars.

In the past decade 24 Commonwealth soldiers have been killed in conflict. Dozens more have been wounded. If the rules had been in place when Sergeant Johnson Beharry arrived in Britain from the Caribbean island of Grenada in 1999, he would not have been permitted to join the Army in 2001.

And the soldier, who serves with the 1st Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, would not have been on the Iraq battlefield in 2004, when he won the Victoria Cross (VC) for twice saving comrades in ambushes.

Typically, 500 Commonwealth soldiers are among the 7,000 new recruits each year and the residency rule could leave the Forces perilously overstretched if they failed to recruit enough British soldiers.

Throughout the infantry, about one in ten soldiers is from outside Britain. Many join units that fail to recruit their full complement of soldiers at home.

Mark Francois, the Armed Forces Minister, said the new residency rule was unavoidable as the military coped with sweeping cuts. In a written ministerial statement he acknowledged the contribution of Commonwealth citizens serving in the British Armed Forces.

Mr Francois said:

… In order to deliver the future structure of the Armed Forces under the requirements of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, we are already reducing their size by adjusting our recruit intake and making some redundancies.

… We are confident that we will still be able to meet our recruitment targets.

The changes will not affect Gurkhas or those from the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta.

Labour’s shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, said:

… When rightly recruiting those from the UK, ministers must never undermine the many sacrifices and commitments made by those from the Commonwealth who have served on frontlines across the globe in the name of British national security.

… The country will want to know this is based on the best possible military advice and nothing else.

Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan, praised the long tradition of ‘sterling service’ that Commonwealth soldiers have provided in the Army.

Colonel Kemp said the Armed Forces had ‘depended heavily’ on Commonwealth troops to bring units up to strength and accused the MoD of using ineffective recruiting techniques.

But he also added:

… However, at a time when our Armed Forces are reducing to the lowest levels in more than a century, it is right that priority should be given to British citizens.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Scotland

Lib Dems say Trident should be replaced on the cheap…

TRIDENT

A senior Liberal Democrat within the UK coalition government has suggested that Britain should ‘move on from the Cold War postures of the past’ and get by with a cut-price nuclear deterrent.

Treasury chief secretary Danny Alexander said a government review had identified ‘alternatives’ to a full like-for-like replacement of the Trident deterrent.

The review was ordered because of a Coalition split over the £20 billion cost of replacing Trident.

Whilst the review is expected to conclude there is no serious alternative to the submarine-based system if Britain wants to maintain a continuous deterrent safe from enemy attack, Mr Alexander has said there are alternatives in moving from the Cold war postures of the past to a new future with a deterrent that is credible and one to which the UK can play a role in supporting disarmament.

Trident: Lib Dems want alternatives

Trident: Lib Dems want alternatives

Trident relies on four Vanguard submarines based at Faslane on the Clyde to provide a continuous deterrent. A cheaper system involving only two would, according to supporters of those wishing to maintain a full Trident complement, expose the UK to periods of vulnerability.

Conservative MP Julian Lewis said Mr Alexander’s comments suggested the Lib Dems would push for a reduced deterrent that would put Britain at risk. ‘It is the height of irresponsibility,’ he said.

John Woodcock, Labour MP for Barrow, where Britain’s submarines are built, said:

… Few will take the Liberal Democrats seriously if they claim Britain could make do with a part-time deterrent.

Faslane and the neighbouring Coulport naval base employ 6,700 people.

But Trident is based solely in Scotland. The Scottish Government have promised that Trident will be removed if the people of Scotland vote for independence in next year’s independence referendum. There is much antipathy in Scotland in maintaining a nuclear deterrent on Scottish soil, although it is believed the missile deterrent would have to be phased-out over a period of time due to decommissioning and other demobilisation considerations.

Standard