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."
Balderdash!
One is a grammatical error as correctly pointed out by Technomage while the other is an idiomatic diference.
ping
Yeah, now they're on par with the M16A0. :-P
They still have problems that cannot be solved without replacing the receivers. And if you're going to do that, you might as well replace the entire rifle.
"This secret report was leaked for a reason, and it wasn't to support British efforts in Iraq."
I agree. Then there is this from the thread below. Many think it was improper to give specific info on our SOPs forces. This line about the Z man is disturbing to me.
"Zarqawi's escape in Yusufiyah was not the first time special ops troops have nearly had him. In early 2005, they came so close they could see the Jordanian's panicked face as he fled."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623878/posts
You are soooooo right and isn't it interesting the British Government just disbanded the 'Black Watch'?????????????
I also read a report in which a Brit General called the US forces 'swaggering John Waynes'....maybe that's because when the bastards try to kill us we feel OK about shooting back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not really sold on the idea of a bullpup rifle in the first place, so I agree with you that they could have done much better. It's surprising however that they managed to so thoroughly mess up an AR18 based weapon, given that it is generally an extremely reliable design.
Even so, M16's aren't the most reliable rifles, either. They jam all the time, too. In this respect, AK's are much better.
Exactly - when the H&K G36 is also based on the AR-18 and is considered a superb weapon. They had to *work* at it to screw it up.
I do like bullpups, but I think that FN finally got the idea right with the FN2000 and its soft-eject system. Most other bullpups have one or another glaring flaw, though some are more usable than others.
Well, I know where his wife fits into all of that. If there was ever a socialist/communist sympathizer, it would be her.
Yes, but the M16 is still worlds better than the L85.
On the other hand, Stoner himself designed the AR-18 after he heard about the problems that the AR-15 was having, but the US Government wasn't interested in it.
Ironically, it was the IRA that made the AR-18 (as made by Sterling) famous.
My understanding is that Stoner utilized the direct impingement system on the M16 in an effort to minimize weight, but he had no illusions that it was as reliable as a gas piston.
"British policy isn't the problem, British troops fear engaging the enemy because of a feeling of lack of support from the chain of command, that has nothing to do with policy.
The British commanders were taking steps to correct the problem when this report was released, I.E: the first step in correcting a problem is identifying it. The newspaper reporting a secret memo does notyhing to correct the problem either since it now allows Muslims in Great Britain with terrorist ties to report back to those in Iraq with the weaknesses of british troops."
Upon rereading the article, I've decided you are correct and I was mistaken.
""I guess we have to do the best we can to lead them."LOL.The Brits are quite capable of leading themselves.Quite competent as a matter of fact:)"
Got a bit pretentious there, didn't I? Sorry about that.
""Zarqawi's escape in Yusufiyah was not the first time special ops troops have nearly had him. In early 2005, they came so close they could see the Jordanian's panicked face as he fled."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623878/posts"
I follow your point. A very specific piece of intelligence that one would imagine is highly confidential is released here---a precise description of how close the British came to capturing Zarqawi. Interestingly, it is done in a descriptive, conversational style that makes it seem casual and nothing but an attempt to "add interest" to a story by adding a "human interest detail." Very skillfully done.
"As US Marines congregated in the Fallujah area, town of Karma to the NE some miles preparing for the battle in Fallujah, the Black Watch made themselves proud by holding down their new AOR."
Good point. It seems plausible that the officers of an elite command would tend to be stronger in resisting this sort of nonsense.
I realize most people don't agree with me that the Russians have penetrated many institutions in democracies around the world by inserting their agents of influence there, but can we agree that this story, along with the Pantano story (US Marines) and others---emit a strong odor of traitors? Or does everyone really believe that policies such as this are the result of well-meaning incompetence? Because my blood is boiling.
"You are soooooo right and isn't it interesting the British Government just disbanded the 'Black Watch'?????????????"
If this is not the action of a traitor in the service of enemies of Great Britain, then what is it? It used to be one of the advantages of the British Army vis-à-vis the American that old units such as this were NEVER disbanded, while the U. S. seem to have less of a grasp of the importance of the history of a unit.
" Well, I know where his wife fits into all of that. If there was ever a socialist/communist sympathizer, it would be her"
True. the predecessors to Bill and Hillary.
Standard infantry weapon for UK Army is the SA80A. Modified for desert use, it has proven very reliable in combat this time round. It more accurate than the M16 given to bullpup design which allows for better weight distribution and handling.
Very good rifles.
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.