Posted on 03/11/2006 5:43:21 PM PST by blam
SAS soldier quits Army in disgust at 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/03/2006)
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.
Britain must be in sad shape when even its elite warriors turn into barracks lawyers. Pitiful. Probably has a good looking liberal girl friend who is passing along the stupid leftist ideas.
Any man that has served as SAS is no coward, the training process isn't just physically and mentally tough it is dangerous, to complete it means he has endured many challenges of courage. Before he made it into the SAS he served as a British paratrooper, another unit that to serve in, proves courage. He has served as one of the worlds best Special Forces troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I assume he is wrong, and you can think him a disgrace, but the man is no coward.
Yarddog, youre way off base. Liberty loving people everywhere are much better off for not being told by a bunch of british b*stards what they should be doing, and who they should be buying from, and who should be taking their land.
Ireland, for eg is far far better off WITHOUT the British (post victoria, I may add), than the parts of Ireland that are still under British domination.
India, for all its blemishes and scars, is far happier without the British than with.
OK, Africa has had a few foulups, but they are still FREE. I cannot agree to the idea that the British empire was some sort of great panacea.
Im glad it bit the dust, and hard. And the only sort of braiwashing I've had, is to value LIBERTY.
Last December this former SAS "gentleman" was with Cindy Sheehan.
As well as endorsing the initiatives taken by the wider anti-war movement, the session highlighted a focus on supporting soldiers who refuse to fight.
One of them, Ben Griffin, told delegates, “Until June this year I was a soldier in the SAS and was serving in Iraq. What’s going on there is like a gold rush town in 19th century America.
“The indigenous people are having a way of life forced on them on the one side, on the other multinational corporations are plundering resources and making money out of the people’s misery.
“Look at what’s happened over the last eight years. In 1997 we were told we would have an ethical foreign policy. Now we have become the lap dogs of US imperialism.
“We are supposedly fighting for democracy, but Tony Blair is ripping apart democracy at home.
“I volunteered nine years ago, but I have to say I was wrong to go to Iraq. I have recovered broken bodies from the battlefield and all for what? It was for the interests of the multinational companies.
“I volunteered for the army. But the Iraqis didn’t volunteer for ten years of sanctions, to be invaded, for the destruction of their country or for production sharing agreements that drain the country’s oil wealth.
“They didn’t volunteer to have thousands of mercenaries roaming the country and doing what they want. They didn’t volunteer for white phosphorous, Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.
“You face a moral dilemma in the army. You are trained to follow orders, but you also have a moral obligation to do what is right. Standing by while others commit crimes makes you guilty as well.
“And history has shown that using the excuse that you were only following orders is unacceptable.”
Many speakers renewed the calls for protests across Britain on the day when tragically the 100th British soldier is killed.
Speakers in the session were Cindy Sheehan, Rose Gentle, Medea Benjamin, Kelly Dougherty, Reg Keys, Peter Brierley, Ben Griffin, John Miller and Chris Nineham. It was chaired by Andrew Burgin and Judy Linehan.
Well you just might be right about Ireland, but not India or any of the others. Of course Africa and the Caribbean and parts of South America are perfect examples of how badly the people are faring since Britain left.
A soldier believing he makes foreign policy.
He is even an embarassment to the Queens.
Say what? Is this guy psychic!
Sorry, but I stand by my case. And India too, is far better off than it was under the British. I need only reference the Bengal famine of 1943, resulting in 3 million deaths, caused by British export of grains to UK to ease rationing.
Im not going to buy the argument that British life was more valuable than that of the so called 'empire's Indian subjects, as it is thoroughly specious.
Since Independence, India is once again a food exporter. Except minus the famine deaths.
As to Africa, it is better off because it is free of the british. It is worse off, because it isnt yet free of the buggers who keep taking over and pretending to be the new colonial masters.
Or payee of George Soros and/or some Saudi buggar.
Agreed, a brilliant judo type move! lol
Considering their tactics against subjects of the Queen in Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant, yeh, it's down right unFReeking believable.
IIRC the first of the Colonies to break away from the mother country. Also one of the few to do so militarily, and to not remain in the Commonwealth. IIRC, even India and Pakistan stayed in for a time, but I could be wrong about that.
Of course, we may be guided by a difference in viewpoints, but I see no reasons thus far, why what you say is correct.
I have to confess, while I bear the British people no ill will, I'm no anglophile. And definitely definitely no fan of the British Empire.
In my eyes, it was no better than the Soviet Empire, or the so called thousand year Reich. It used the same methods: Brutality, racial discrimination (for parallels look to the asiatic soviet empire, the jews, the gypsies, the Roma, as in Nazi Germany), subjugation, concentration camps (south africa), selective patronage and intrigue, genocide (bengal famine).
Just because they spoke the same language than us, didnt make them good people.
And to go a step further, although we've been on the same side for the last centuries major wars, doesnt justify anything they did in the colonies.
Looks like the money quote to me.
He's been flipped. See Southhacks post @ #65
El Gato, at the time of the United States declaration of independence, there was no commonwealth. So the US never joined it. Dont know if the founding fathers would have thought much of it anyway.
As to the present dat composition of the commonwealth as you have referenced it, India remains in the commonwealth, as do Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc.
I dont know for sure, but I think Pakistan's commonwealth membership was suspended since it acquired its latest military government. Otherwise they too were members of the commonwealth, along with many other countries.
Yarddog, Im going to go out on a limb, and say Singapore is much better off without the British too (independence in the 1960s I believe) Just a dump back then.
So, any guesses as to which Sunday morning talk show he will show up on first?
I was thinking the same thing.
Maybe he sees himself as a fifth columnist.
He is a traitor to his oath and his country.
What does SAD mean?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.