Posted on 04/29/2006 6:53:53 PM PDT by blam
British troops in Iraq are afraid to open fire, secret MoD report confirms
By Sean Rayment. Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/04/2006)
British troops in Iraq "lack the confidence to open fire" because of a "fear of prosecution", says a confidential Ministry of Defence (MoD) report seen by The Sunday Telegraph.
It confirms that soldiers believe that if they shoot dead insurgents they will become embroiled in a "protracted investigation" and if prosecuted will receive "no support from the chain of command".
British troops show restraint when attacked in Basra
The study into soldiers' confidence is understood to have been ordered by senior officers because of a growing belief that the fear of prosecution could result in a soldier being killed because he was too scared to open fire.
Senior officers from the Land Warfare Centre flew to Iraq to question dozens of soldiers from the 7th Armoured Brigade. The report's observations are "drawn solely from those discussions".
Under the heading "Confidence to Open Fire", the report says: "All agreed that there was a certain British reticence to open fire, and that this was largely a positive feature at the start of an operational deployment. Further, given that this reticence will be reduced as the tour continues there should be some caution in case it is reduced too much. However, there remained a common belief that many soldiers lack the confidence to initiate opening fire when it is tactically and legally sound to do so.
"There is a widespread fear of being investigated for having opened fire, and of a protracted prosecution system that might ensue. Some believe that individual soldiers would not open fire as a result of this fear."
In a section headed "Lack of Support from the Chain of Command", the report indicates "widespread feeling that whilst the battalion/regiment would support an individual, the wider chain of command (senior officers) provided insufficient support".
The report follows persistent denials by the MoD of claims made by senior officers to this newspaper that soldiers were becoming "over cautious" because they feared investigation and prosecution.
The Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch has conducted more than 150 investigations in Iraq involving British soldiers, with more than 100 of these launched after troops opened fire when attacked by insurgents.
The report's findings come at the end of a three-year investigation into the death of Sgt Steven Roberts, who was killed in a friendly fire incident in the opening days of the Iraq war. Five soldiers, including an officer, faced a variety of charges including murder, manslaughter and negligence over the death of Sgt Roberts, a tank commander, who was shot dead by a soldier under his command. On Thursday, the Attorney General told Parliament that none of the soldiers would face charges because of a lack of evidence.
Patrick Mercer, the Tory spokesman on homeland security, who is a former infantry commanding officer, said last night: "We went through all of this in Northern Ireland 30 years ago and we arrived at rules of engagement that worked. The MoD has got to be held to blame for eroding a soldier's ability and willingness to defend himself. You can't send lads into action who are not completely confident that they will be backed to the hilt by the people who sent them to this war in the first place. The MoD has been consistently economical with the truth on this matter."
An MoD spokesman said: "Soldiers have nothing to fear from the investigation of incidents, so long as they act within their rules of engagement. The Armed Forces can also be certain that they will always receive the full support of the chain of command.
''The Land Warfare Centre's dialogue in Iraq, and their training recommendations, provides the Armed Forces with the reassurance needed to operate confidently within their rules of engagement, without fear of prosecution."
"British troops in Iraq "lack the confidence to open fire" because of a "fear of prosecution", says a confidential Ministry of Defence (MoD) report seen by The Sunday Telegraph.
It confirms that soldiers believe that if they shoot dead insurgents they will become embroiled in a "protracted investigation" and if prosecuted will receive "no support from the chain of command"."
One of the greatest achievements of worldwide Russian subversion in our time. Don't think these kind of thoughts are not also on the minds of American soldiers.
To exit from my Ping list, just send me one request to that effect, public or private.
There's another aspect, too...
If I was a Brit soldier issued an L85A1 who was unable to obtain another arm, I wouldn't open fire either - because it's foolish to start a firefight with a weapon that you know is going to jam, explode, or just stop working for no apparent reason.
Even H&K can't make the L85 work reliably.
"An MoD spokesman said: "Soldiers have nothing to fear from the investigation of incidents, so long as they act within their rules of engagement. The Armed Forces can also be certain that they will always receive the full support of the chain of command."
That's all right then.
When the subversives started launching the attack to achieve this type of end with our American troops in Iraq (i.e. Pantano, etc.) I started to think about police and soldiers. If you look at the casualty figures for police, compared to soldiers, the casualties are minuscule. Yet, police have huge levels of stress. Why? Precisely because police are constrained by incredibly constricting rules of engagement.
Probably most freepers feel the rules of engagement on police are overly strict. Nonetheless, we will generally except that police do need to be subject to some kind of fairly strong rules of engagement.
What the subversives have done (and really, I have to give these scumbag/snakes credit for the surface effectiveness of their pseudo logic here) is to, first, equate police work with soldiery. Then, they have gone about trying to create rules of engagement for our soldiers that are roughly equal to the rules of engagement for our police.
What would be handy, is for some people with dual experience---infantry combat and police work---to quickly put out a nice little book on this subject---exposing just what these lying scumbag snakes are trying to do, which is to get our soldiers killed, and to disarm the US military, so they cannot hurt anybody.
Shouldn't that be: 'shoot insurgents dead' ??
When I went through basic training in the late 1960's, the drill instructors would tell us, "shoot first, ask questions later." I recall hearing these very words in several WWII war movies.
"There's another aspect, too...
If I was a Brit soldier issued an L85A1 who was unable to obtain another arm, I wouldn't open fire either - because it's foolish to start a firefight with a weapon that you know is going to jam, explode, or just stop working for no apparent reason.
Even H&K can't make the L85 work reliably."
Do you have any idea why the British soldiers are issued such a weapon? Is this the standard infantry weapon for them?
I love this bit of classic British understatement: "The MoD has been consistently economical with the truth on this matter."
And the MoD proves it in their statement at the end of the article. What comfort is there in being let off "for lack of evidence" after a THREE YEAR investigation? Who the hell is going to risk having that happen to them?
And these same British troops go home and slander our guys for not knowing what to do. Unbelievable.
"When I went through basic training in the late 1960's, the drill instructors would tell us, "shoot first, ask questions later." I recall hearing these very words in several WWII war movies."
Exactly. We're a long way from that attitude.
"I love this bit of classic British understatement: "The MoD has been consistently economical with the truth on this matter."
And the MoD proves it in their statement at the end of the article. What comfort is there in being let off "for lack of evidence" after a THREE YEAR investigation? Who the hell is going to risk having that happen to them?"
LOL!
Now you know why the U.S. refuses to join the International Criminal Court.
That's Brit-speak. Kind of like when we report an accident victim is in "a" hospital, they report that the victim is "in hospital".
DING!!!!!
"Now you know why the U.S. refuses to join the International Criminal Court."
Got that right.
"That's Brit-speak. Kind of like when we report an accident victim is in "a" hospital, they report that the victim is "in hospital"."
Yes, but Cicero's example also happens to be wickedly funny---another aspect of Brit-speak.
"WWII war movies.
Every wonder why the left tookover Hollywood. You don't see any movies where America and her army are the good guys. "United 93" is the first in a long time( at least word of mouth says so) that even begins to paint America in a good light. Have you seen any good war movies lately. Where war is seen as a good thing to protect our freedoms?"
You're right, and here's something else to think about. Why does everyone say World War II was so great? They pretend it's because we thought Hitler. So what, Hitler was no worse than Stalin or Mao---and you never hear anything good about wars to contain communism.
The reason why everyone loves World War II is because we fought on the same side as Stalin.
"soldiers believe that if they "shoot dead insurgents" they will become embroiled in a "protracted investigation"
If they're dead, kill them them again? Wait, wasn't that close to what Sean Connery said to Nicolas Cage in that movie "The Rock"? (Rhetorical)
It's their standard infantry weapon. It was adopted, despite the existence of far better arms that could have been license-built, because it was the only domestic Brit weapon offered. It continues to be used because of the British Unwarranted Cultural Superiority syndrome - the same thing that sank their auto industry (along with their unions).
The smarter Brit soldiers cadge M-16s from us whenever they can, in-theater, and this causes a bit of scandal. Some of it has even hit the press and has been reported here on FR over the years.
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.