Home > Speaker's Corner

SAS quits Army in disgust at 'illegal' American tactics

MobyDog
13 Mar 06, 01:27

'I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy'

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/03/2006)

As a trooper in the Special Air Service's counter-terrorist team - the black-clad force that came to the world's attention during the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 - Ben Griffin was at the pinnacle of his military career.

During a week's leave in March 2005 he told his commanding officer in a formal interview that he had no intention of returning to Iraq because he believed that the war was morally wrong. Moreover, he said he believed that Tony Blair and the Government had lied to the country and had deceived every British serviceman and woman serving in Iraq.

He said: "I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong. I knew, so others must have known, that this was not the way to conduct operations if you wanted to win the hearts and minds of the local population. And if you don't win the hearts and minds of the people, you can't win the war.

"If we were on a joint counter-terrorist operation, for example, we would radio back to our headquarters that we were not going to detain certain people because, as far as we were concerned, they were not a threat because they were old men or obviously farmers, but the Americans would say 'no, bring them back'.

"The Americans had this catch-all approach to lifting suspects. The tactics were draconian and completely ineffective. The Americans were doing things like chucking farmers into Abu Ghraib [the notorious prison in Baghdad where US troops abused and tortured Iraqi detainees] or handing them over to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well they were going to be tortured.

"The Americans had a well-deserved reputation for being trigger happy. In the three months that I was in Iraq, the soldiers I served with never shot anybody. When you asked the Americans why they killed people, they would say 'we were up against the tough foreign fighters'. I didn't see any foreign fighters in the time I was over there.

"I can remember coming in off one operation which took place outside Baghdad, where we had detained some civilians who were clearly not insurgents, they were innocent people. I couldn't understand why we had done this, so I said to my troop commander 'would we have behaved in the same way in the Balkans or Northern Ireland?' He shrugged his shoulders and said 'this is Iraq', and I thought 'and that makes it all right?'

"As far as I was concerned that meant that because these people were a different colour or a different religion, they didn't count as much. You can not invade a country pretending to promote democracy and behave like that."

On another operation, Mr Griffin recalls his and other soldiers' frustration at being ordered to detain a group of men living on a farm.

He said: "After you have been on a few operations, experience tells you when you are dealing with insurgents or just civilians and we knew the people we had detained were not a threat.

"One of them was a disabled man who had a leg missing but the Americans still ordered us to load them on the helicopters and bring them back to their base. A few hours later we were told to return half of them and fly back to the farm in daylight. It was a ridiculous order and we ran the risk of being shot down or ambushed, but we still had to do it. The Americans were risking our lives because they refused to listen to our advice the night before. It was typical of their behaviour."

Mr Griffin said he believed that the Americans soldiers viewed the Iraqis in the same way as the Nazis viewed Russians, Jews and eastern Europeans in the Second World War, when they labelled them "untermenschen".

"As far as the Americans were concerned, the Iraqi people were sub-human, untermenschen. You could almost split the Americans into two groups: ones who were complete crusaders, intent on killing Iraqis, and the others who were in Iraq because the Army was going to pay their college fees. They had no understanding or interest in the Arab culture. The Americans would talk to the Iraqis as if they were stupid and these weren't isolated cases, this was from the top down. There might be one or two enlightened officers who understood the situation a bit better but on the whole that was their general attitude. Their attitude fuelled the insurgency. I think the Iraqis detested them."

Although Mr Griffin has the utmost respect for his former colleagues and remains fiercely loyal to the regiment, he believes that the reputation of the Army has been damaged by its association with the American forces.

"I had reservations about going out to Iraq before I went, but as a soldier you just get on with what you are ordered to do. But I found that when I was out in Iraq that I couldn't keep my views separate from my work without compromising my role as a soldier.

"It was at that stage that I knew I couldn't carry on. I was very angry, and still am, at the way the politicians in this country and America have lied to the British public about the war. But most importantly, I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy."

Mr Griffin said that although he was angered by many of the events he witnessed in Iraq, he waited until he returned to Britain on leave before making his views clear to his commanders.

"I didn't want to say anything when I was in Baghdad because I still have great respect and loyalty for the soldiers I served with. I didn't want to cause any unnecessary pressure or discomfort by voicing my opinions.

"When I returned to the UK for a week's leave I asked for an interview with my commanding officer and told him that what I thought was going on in Iraq was wrong, not just legally but operationally as well.

"Initially, he suspected that I had been offered a job by a private military company in Iraq but when it became clear that was not the case he was very understanding. It was a big decision for me. I put a lot of effort getting into the SAS, so this wasn't a decision I made on a whim.

"He understood my point of view and his attitude was brilliant, in fact everyone was brilliant about it. I didn't know what was going to happen. I thought I might be charged or end up in Colchester [the military prison] for refusing to soldier."

Mr Griffin, who lives in London, denies being a peace activist or a member of any political party, or having an agenda designed to bring down the Government.

But he said: "I do believe passionately in democracy and I will speak out about things which I think are morally wrong. I think the war in Iraq is a war of aggression and is morally wrong and, more importantly, we are making the situation in the Middle East more unstable. It's not just wrong, it's a major military disaster. There was no plan for what was to happen after Saddam went, no end-game."

Â• Mr Griffin did not ask for or receive any payment for this interview.[/b]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1QTC4LVJFUFXZQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas112.xml

Another Article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3XJWA5MVT2Q5XQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/12/ixportaltop.html
mrwonderful
13 Mar 06, 02:04

Excellent article. Though it does generalise the American soldiers abit too much regarding their 'branding' of Irqis as undesirables, he does make very good points, esp with the two types of Americans serving in Iraq and the question of why other countries are conducting American foreign policy, plus I also admire his courage for speaking his mind.

Yeah I suspect that what the Americans are doing to the Iraqis are much worse than reported in the newspaper and magazines.

Newsweek = American Propoganda. Times = Christian oriented Magazine.
ST = LOL

Ultimately, everyone is human and like SAF, the US Army also has plenty of cock ups.
NewAge
13 Mar 06, 17:14

I personally feel that the the Americans shld listen to the British. The British army has been known to be able to win the heart of the ppl in wars and occupation while the americans largely believe in fire power.
Atobe
14 Mar 06, 03:42

With the passing of each day, each week, each month, and each year - more revelations will soon creep into the front page.

As the war stretches beyond one year, any army will soon lose its sights, its directions - especially when Politicians have no clue of extricating itself from a policy which they have blindly followed.

The US Military has shown its invicibility in its very short campaign, as also the Israeli Military - but both became bogged down in the land mass which they had militarily succeeded in grabbing and failed to govern, as the Military has never been trained to govern any land that has been grabbed.

When George Bush, Jr came into White House with Dick Cheney as his Vice-President - the worst nightmare was already about to unfold.

Saddam Hussein was laughing at the USA for too long, after George Bush, Sr had left the White House after defeating Saddam Hussein militarily but left Saddam to continue in his political position to poke fun at the Americans.

Saddam Hussein had claimed that US Presidents will come and go with each one or two term presidencies, but he will always outlive the tenure of each and every US Presidents.

The Second Iraq War is nothing but a personal vendetta based on the ambitions of Dick Cheney and George Bush, Jr - both utilising a genuine fear by everyone towards Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of Saddam and his association with terrorist organisations in the Middle East.

The unfortunate truth is that while it was laudable to rid the world of another tyrant in Saddam Hussein - under any kind of pretext - it will seem that the USA had no Civilian Plan to follow any successful Military Plan in Iraq.

This has resulted in the quagmire that the USA has caused, and the typical 'red-neck' cowboy behaviour of the US Military will cause the Iraqis to look at the US Military Boys as immature and back-slapping gung-ho cowboys.

Can the US win a war with soldiers, who are frustrated with their prolonged duties - in a land which they have no understanding of language, culture, traditions, and history ?
lwflee
14 Mar 06, 07:17

Originally posted by MobyDog:
[b]'I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy'

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/03/2006)

As a trooper in the Special Air Service's counter-terrorist team - the black-clad force that came to the world's attention during the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 - Ben Griffin was at the pinnacle of his military career.

During a week's leave in March 2005 he told his commanding officer in a formal interview that he had no intention of returning to Iraq because he believed that the war was morally wrong. Moreover, he said he believed that Tony Blair and the Government had lied to the country and had deceived every British serviceman and woman serving in Iraq.

He said: "I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong. I knew, so others must have known, that this was not the way to conduct operations if you wanted to win the hearts and minds of the local population. And if you don't win the hearts and minds of the people, you can't win the war.

"If we were on a joint counter-terrorist operation, for example, we would radio back to our headquarters that we were not going to detain certain people because, as far as we were concerned, they were not a threat because they were old men or obviously farmers, but the Americans would say 'no, bring them back'.

"The Americans had this catch-all approach to lifting suspects. The tactics were draconian and completely ineffective. The Americans were doing things like chucking farmers into Abu Ghraib [the notorious prison in Baghdad where US troops abused and tortured Iraqi detainees] or handing them over to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well they were going to be tortured.

"The Americans had a well-deserved reputation for being trigger happy. In the three months that I was in Iraq, the soldiers I served with never shot anybody. When you asked the Americans why they killed people, they would say 'we were up against the tough foreign fighters'. I didn't see any foreign fighters in the time I was over there.

"I can remember coming in off one operation which took place outside Baghdad, where we had detained some civilians who were clearly not insurgents, they were innocent people. I couldn't understand why we had done this, so I said to my troop commander 'would we have behaved in the same way in the Balkans or Northern Ireland?' He shrugged his shoulders and said 'this is Iraq', and I thought 'and that makes it all right?'

"As far as I was concerned that meant that because these people were a different colour or a different religion, they didn't count as much. You can not invade a country pretending to promote democracy and behave like that."

On another operation, Mr Griffin recalls his and other soldiers' frustration at being ordered to detain a group of men living on a farm.

He said: "After you have been on a few operations, experience tells you when you are dealing with insurgents or just civilians and we knew the people we had detained were not a threat.

"One of them was a disabled man who had a leg missing but the Americans still ordered us to load them on the helicopters and bring them back to their base. A few hours later we were told to return half of them and fly back to the farm in daylight. It was a ridiculous order and we ran the risk of being shot down or ambushed, but we still had to do it. The Americans were risking our lives because they refused to listen to our advice the night before. It was typical of their behaviour."

Mr Griffin said he believed that the Americans soldiers viewed the Iraqis in the same way as the Nazis viewed Russians, Jews and eastern Europeans in the Second World War, when they labelled them "untermenschen".

"As far as the Americans were concerned, the Iraqi people were sub-human, untermenschen. You could almost split the Americans into two groups: ones who were complete crusaders, intent on killing Iraqis, and the others who were in Iraq because the Army was going to pay their college fees. They had no understanding or interest in the Arab culture. The Americans would talk to the Iraqis as if they were stupid and these weren't isolated cases, this was from the top down. There might be one or two enlightened officers who understood the situation a bit better but on the whole that was their general attitude. Their attitude fuelled the insurgency. I think the Iraqis detested them."

Although Mr Griffin has the utmost respect for his former colleagues and remains fiercely loyal to the regiment, he believes that the reputation of the Army has been damaged by its association with the American forces.

"I had reservations about going out to Iraq before I went, but as a soldier you just get on with what you are ordered to do. But I found that when I was out in Iraq that I couldn't keep my views separate from my work without compromising my role as a soldier.

"It was at that stage that I knew I couldn't carry on. I was very angry, and still am, at the way the politicians in this country and America have lied to the British public about the war. But most importantly, I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy."

Mr Griffin said that although he was angered by many of the events he witnessed in Iraq, he waited until he returned to Britain on leave before making his views clear to his commanders.

"I didn't want to say anything when I was in Baghdad because I still have great respect and loyalty for the soldiers I served with. I didn't want to cause any unnecessary pressure or discomfort by voicing my opinions.

"When I returned to the UK for a week's leave I asked for an interview with my commanding officer and told him that what I thought was going on in Iraq was wrong, not just legally but operationally as well.

"Initially, he suspected that I had been offered a job by a private military company in Iraq but when it became clear that was not the case he was very understanding. It was a big decision for me. I put a lot of effort getting into the SAS, so this wasn't a decision I made on a whim.

"He understood my point of view and his attitude was brilliant, in fact everyone was brilliant about it. I didn't know what was going to happen. I thought I might be charged or end up in Colchester [the military prison] for refusing to soldier."

Mr Griffin, who lives in London, denies being a peace activist or a member of any political party, or having an agenda designed to bring down the Government.

But he said: "I do believe passionately in democracy and I will speak out about things which I think are morally wrong. I think the war in Iraq is a war of aggression and is morally wrong and, more importantly, we are making the situation in the Middle East more unstable. It's not just wrong, it's a major military disaster. There was no plan for what was to happen after Saddam went, no end-game."

• Mr Griffin did not ask for or receive any payment for this interview.[/b]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1QTC4LVJFUFXZQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas112.xml

Another Article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3XJWA5MVT2Q5XQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/12/ixportaltop.html[/b]
Good man! He certainly has the courage of his convictions! Unlike some (all) politicians.

Before anyone says "deserter" note that he has resigned from the army already, unlike some RAF docter who refuse to go to iraq, yet want to stay on in the RAF drawing his officer pay.
boy in blues
14 Mar 06, 16:01

What kind of man is Bush?

Tim Abbott, of Hillsville, served in the U.S. Army from 1970 to 1974 and is a tutor at New River Community College.

"I grew up during the Cold War, in the aftermath of World War II, and I am a Vietnam-era veteran, so through my life I have heard a lot about freedom.

I was raised at a time when the portraits of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln hung in schools and evoked patriotism. We were taught that we should emulate their ideals in thought and deed. They were the examples of principles such as individual conscience, political liberty and social justice.

Washington was the father of his country. He led the Revolutionary army, telling his officers to treat prisoners of war "with humanity," and, like Cincinnatus, voluntarily stepped down from the presidency.

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, stating that all men have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And Lincoln was admired for his thought, humor and compassion. He wrote with malice toward none and charity for all.

Against these men and their successors were the fascist and communist dictators. In the photographs, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin and Francisco Franco strutted in military uniforms. Their concerns were not liberty, but national security and the national interests. All who opposed them were traitors and cowards.

Today we have other wars -- the war against terrorism and the Iraq war. Once again we are told these wars are about protecting our freedom.

Al-Qaida, we are told, wants to destroy us. Perhaps that is true, though it is hard to see how it is capable of such a feat. President Bush has called al-Qaida and Islamic fundamentalists "Islamo-fascists."

Bush talks a lot about freedom, courage, transparent government and the rule of law. He talks.

His speeches are carefully choreographed before audiences of his faithful -- often Christian fundamentalists or, to paraphrase Bush, Christian-fascists -- and they must sign loyalty oaths to Bush. He speaks before audience after audience of soldiers and sailors who cannot speak except as directed by the White House.

Others before whom he speaks may ask no questions. He runs from journalists, as we have seen in China, even on those rare occasions that he speaks before them.

Even worse, he has paid journalists to say good things about him and his policies. He also produces propaganda from government offices that he offers as news reports. And any protests against his policies are diverted well away from his sight and hearing.

In his Mission Accomplished foray, he wore a military uniform, something no president has done since Washington, and Washington only wore the uniform to quell a rebellion.

Around the world he has replaced the Soviet Gulag with the Bush Gulag, where men may be tortured.

He refuses to divulge the energy industries' influence upon his policies and the records of his Supreme Court nominees.

He refuses the United Nations access to question prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and refuses the Red Cross access to prisoners at CIA black sites. Furthermore, he threatened to veto legislation against the torture of prisoners even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conveyed a "don't ask, don't tell" torture policy to the world.

In Iraq, he took us into an unnecessary war.

He uses fear, intimidation, distortion and lies. I cannot tell whether the man cannot tell the truth or he doesn't know the truth.

From these few examples of many, what kind of man is Bush? Is he like Washington or Lincoln? Or is he a man of another kind? Not a Cincinnatus, but a Tarquin.

When I think of Bush, I do not think of liberty and courage, compassion and justice. No, I think of arrogance, greed and lies. He is a thug, a buffoon and a coward. Not only is he incompetent, he is corrupt.

He is of a kind with the dictators; a strutting, sanctimonious buffoon who talks democracy but acts like Saddam Hussein. Bush might differ in degree from Hussein, not having been in power as long, but in behavior, with torture and the corruption of government, they are of a kind.

While al-Qaida is an enemy of the values and principles of the United States and Western civilization and must be confronted, it can do no more than kill people and destroy property.

Bush can subvert our principles and institutions. He is the greater enemy."
ceecookie
14 Mar 06, 16:05

i wish Changi Prison was Abu Ghirab and SAF also like US army
MobyDog
14 Mar 06, 17:26

Originally posted by ceecookie:
i wish Changi Prison was Abu Ghirab and SAF also like US army
Only difference is that Prisoners at Changi are charged by Trial and all of them are probably guilty.. and none of them are below the age of 18 yrs old.

While Abu Ghirab and Gitzmo, prisoners are not charged at all ! Including a 10 year old boy... So dangerous that the US have to fly him thousand of miles to Gitzmo and held him for two years without trial... only to release him.. I suspect was due to the the UN request for inspection some time ago. So how many are actually guilty.

The Independent has pulled the story out, and no other MMS has dared run the story.. so much for Free Press.

12 year old released from Guantanamo
by Sonia Verma, Chronicle Foreign Service Friday February 13, 2004 at 07:08 AM

Khuja Angoor, Afghanistan -- A single day forever changed the life of 12-year-old Asadullah Rahman.

Struggling to remember the exact date he was captured by American soldiers, or when he was flown to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where the United States holds "enemy combatants" without charges, he presses his fingers to his temples to conjure memories that have grown fuzzy after months in detention.

He was just 10 years old when American soldiers stormed the compound of the local Afghan commander who was holding him captive, he says. They grabbed his gun. There were handcuffs and blindfolds. Since then, he has seen the inside of three separate interrogation rooms.

On Jan. 29, after being released with two other young detainees, he returned to this village in eastern Afghanistan, a three-hour drive along dirt roads from Kabul. He was free but burdened with the uncomfortable distinction of being the youngest person ever jailed in America's war on terror.

"They should have arrested al Qaeda, not me," he said in the first interview since his release. "I was just innocent."

U.S. military officials say that based on medical tests, they believe Asadullah is older than he claims, perhaps 13 to 15. The two other youngsters released with him, who are both 15, say he was about 13 when he was freed.

As proof of his youth, Asadullah points to a Polaroid hanging on his bedroom wall, too fresh to have faded, taken just before he was captured. In the photo, he looks like a child -- standing, flanked by his cousin and older brother, in a field of wildflowers. Today he is 5 feet tall and mostly muscle, with a tired smile, dense lashes and old-man eyes.

The Pentagon claims he was a trained gunman conscripted to fight in an anti-U.S. militia.

"The Taliban leadership directed younger members to counterattack the U.S. forces in the area,'' Lt. Cmdr. Barbara Burfeind, a Pentagon spokesperson, said by phone. "The juveniles were removed from the battlefield to prevent further harm to U.S. forces and to themselves.''

Asadullah maintains that he was sold into sexual slavery to a local militia leader, one of many in lawless prewar Afghanistan, in nearby Paktia Province.

One day, his favorite uncle approached Asadullah with the offer of paid work at the compound of a local gunman known only as Commander Sammoud -- a militia leader with a reputation for terrorizing surrounding villages.

"I was brought there to service the commander's men," Asadullah says in a quiet voice. During the day, he served food and washed dishes. At night, he was asked to do other things he is too ashamed to utter.

By his 10th birthday, he had spent about a month with the militia and knew his way around an AK-47, but never pulled a trigger, he claims. And while Sammoud had lots of enemies, Asadullah insists Americans weren't among them.

"He wasn't Taliban, but he was a criminal," he says.

The military commander of the district police force, Mohammad Sabir, agrees. He says Sammoud and about 30 armed followers were not Taliban but an armed band that often extorted money from local villagers.

One autumn night -- a year and a half ago, Asadullah figures -- the gunmen were sitting down to dinner when around 50 American soldiers stormed the compound.

"They said they were looking for al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers," Asadullah says.

Most of Sammoud's followers escaped, but seven people, including Asadullah and Sammoud, were captured and taken to the U.S. base in Gardez.

Over the next week he was interrogated several times. What did he know about the Taliban? Why was he carrying guns? Had he shot at an American? Had he ever killed one? Who was he working for?

"At Gardez, I was beaten. But I wasn't beaten too much. There was some kicking, nothing more."

From Gardez, he was transferred to Bagram, a U.S. air base near Kabul. Again he was interrogated. Asadullah believes he remained at Bagram for four or five months.

Then he was blindfolded and hooded and taken on a journey by plane that lasted a very long time.

"The Americans told me it was none of my business where I was going," he says.

When he arrived at Guantanamo Bay naval base, he was questioned for hours. At the end of the session, his interrogators asked how old he was. They seemed shocked at his response.

"I was the youngest person they had ever arrested," he says.

The first sign his family received that Asadullah was alive came in a letter delivered by the International Committee of the Red Cross more than a year after he went missing.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1678473.php