Richard North makes a considered point this morning which, on the face of it, seems right but which, alas, I think fails on closer scrutiny. He is concerned with the fate of Marine 'A' who, apparently, shot dead an injured Taliban soldier. It appeared to be - and here I emphasise that I am not in full possession of all the facts - to be a fairly cold-blooded action. By that, I mean that the shooting did not take place in the heat of battle because there was some calm discussion between him and his fellow marines before he pulled the trigger. I'm not saying he wasn't emotional because, according to reports (which I had never heard reported before), the Taliban were in the habit of hanging body parts of British soldiers from trees as a sort of triumphant propaganda message. Anyway, there is absolutely no doubt that Marine 'A' pulled the trigger. He has now been found guilty of murder and is due for sentencing this week. Various media outlets have been insisting that he should receive the severest sentence. So far, I have only seen or read one man pleading for a lenient sentence and that was Col. Tim Collins who has an active service record that demands respect for his views which I urge you to read.
Richard North dismisses the outcry over Marine 'A's action reminding us, correctly, alas, that murder of enemy wounded "has been a feature of every major war in which British soldiers have served". In his view, if this sort of thing is going to be the subject of legal action in British courts then greater care should be taken to hide the evidence! However, he then goes on to make a wider point:
But, when it comes to high-ranking soldiers and the rule of law, such as the duty of care when it comes to sending out troops in substandard vehicles, we see the same newspaper [The Telegraph] fielding Charles Moore to tell us that, "If there is a risk of litigation and even prosecution, how can commanders make proper decisions on the ever-changing battlefield?"
Methinks we're seeing a little hypocrisy here. Certainly, "commanders" can't have it both ways.
If Her Majesty's Armed Forces are held to have a duty to uphold the rule of law, then they cannot pick and choose which laws are upheld. The law should be the law, and where senior officers needlessly expose the troops in their charge to unnecessary danger, then they too should be held to account for their actions in a court of law.
What's sauce for the soldier, one might say, is sauce for the commander.
Here, I think, Richard North is referring mainly (but not exclusively) to the so-called 'snatch Landrovers', thin-skinned and unprotected vehicles, which were developed for operations in urban Ulster but which were deployed in Afghanistan with horrifying results, not the least being, presumably, the providing of even more British body parts for the enemy! He believes that if the likes of Marine 'A' is to stand trial then so, too, should sundry Brigadiers and Generals for failing in their 'duty of care' to their own troops. Alas, in an ideal world, maybe! But in the real world, in real war, the decision-making process is too diffuse ever to allow the pointing of fingers at any one particular officer. You only have to contemplate for a few moments the less-than-grand history of British army cock-ups which even the historians afterwards are divided over whom to blame.
