A British court has ruled that there is a ‘right to life’ even under combat conditions and therefore the families of soldiers killed in action can sue the government for not providing suitable equipment.
In a blow to Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, a senior judge said troops in combat zones have a “right to life” at all times, even while under fire on the battlefield. The ground-breaking decision could lead to a flood of cases against the Ministry of Defence from relatives who believe the deaths of their loved ones were caused by poor quality kit.
As I have written before, it is deplorable that British soldiers are sent into action so poorly equipped when the state manages to find money for idiotic sports and ‘cultural’ expenditures. Yet I think this ruling is very dangerous unless it is very tightly defined to only cover equipment issues, and even then, I can hear the sound of cans opening and worms escaping. Inevitably this ‘right to life at all times’ means relatives will sue on the basis of operational military decisions if a decision causes the death of British soldiers.
Were I the government I would do whatever it takes to overturn such a notion and made sure this judgement does not lead to ever wider ‘interpretation’, as such things are wont to do. I am all for properly equipping Britain’s soldiers but this is a potentially disastrous way to ensure that. Wars are, by their very nature, messy and imprecise things and the idea of having civil courts sticking their beaks in is a giant step towards making the military unable to function at all. Even from the perspective of rights and liberty, in a volunteer military clearly prior consent is present to be put in harm’s way within the military context. This ruling has ‘horrendous unintended consequences’ written all over it.
So, are they saying that every infantryman gets a tank?
I think they are saying that every battlefield decision is subject to civilian judicial review. After all, if soldiers have a ‘right’ to good equipment, don’t they have a right to good decisions? What if CO’s make bad choices? Who will punish them and reward civil damages to the soldiers’ next of kin if not the civilian courts?
I wonder what kind of statute of limitations they have in mind. Will they bring up any WWII officers for making bad decisions?
Hey! Does this mean you can sue the cops because they didn’t protect your ‘right to life’?
Lacking psychic abilities, I can’t comment on the senior judge’s motivations, but how sure are we that “unintended” is correct?
I would agree with Bill.There are so many activist judges,it wouldn’t be surprising if this were not a round about way of making war illegal.A best another brick in the edifice of a judocracy.
A best another brick in the edifice of a judocracy.
We best find another term, before some idiot starts spouting that it is all the fault of the J-O-O-O-S-S.
Besides you have mixed latin and greek roots here. A purist would be shocked.
What is the Greek for judiciary?
Kriniary? – From the Greek krino, (judge) and the Latin “iary” 🙂
There are several ways you might form a purely Greek word for rule by judges (I rule out Latin/Greek hybrids because they are traditionally regarded as inelegant: an educated person is supposed to know the difference between Latin and Greek and not mix them!):
“law” is nomos, which might give rise to “nomarchy”—but that would more convey “the rule of law”, presumably a good thing, and it’s also potentially confusable with “monarchy”
the root “dike” means variously justice, judgments in legal cases, lawsuit, and penalties awarded by judges; that would suggest dikaiarchy (dikaearchy, dikearchy) or dikeocracy (I kind of like that, because “archy” suggests legitimate authority and “cracy” suggests force or power, hence “rule by the force of judicial verdicts”)
the verb for “to judge” is “krinein,” but the combining form is kris- or krit-, and “a judge” is “krites”—so “critocracy” would be the logical form, implying rule by the power of judges
I think I favor dikeocracy, but perhaps someone with better Greek than mine can comment further.
There are several ways you might form a purely Greek word for rule by judges (I rule out Latin/Greek hybrids because they are traditionally regarded as inelegant: an educated person is supposed to know the difference between Latin and Greek and not mix them!):
“law” is nomos, which might give rise to “nomarchy”—but that would more convey “the rule of law”, presumably a good thing, and it’s also potentially confusable with “monarchy”
the root “dike” means variously justice, judgments in legal cases, lawsuit, and penalties awarded by judges; that would suggest dikaiarchy (dikaearchy, dikearchy) or dikeocracy (I kind of like that, because “archy” suggests legitimate authority and “cracy” suggests force or power, hence “rule by the force of judicial verdicts”)
the verb for “to judge” is “krinein,” but the combining form is kris- or krit-, and “a judge” is “krites”—so “critocracy” would be the logical form, implying rule by the power of judges
I think I favor dikeocracy, but perhaps someone with better Greek than mine can comment further.
I’m thinking Bill and Ron have it right. What this will do is allow people to argue any military action is likely to bankrupt future generations, what with all the added cost of litigation.
Argentina invades the Falklands? No point in doing anything – we’ll go broke trying to take them back.
“Rights” may be waived. The waivers may be conditioned.
As William Paley noted: Rights are reciprocals of obligations. So, here it seems the issue lies with the nature and form of the obligations reciprocal to those Rights so noted, and to their obvious waiver.
A famous Scot, later Admiral to Cathrine II, posted:
“Take care who sign with me; for I intend to sail in harm’s way”
Looking at all the classy classicism, one may be reminded of Logos; then of Logic, and in Logic of intensive and extensive meanings.
And, Heavens! Does no one cavil about the mythical creature DIKE? Given her legendary predilections would she not object to “Dikezycrat?”
I claim no knowledge of classical language, but I see some potential problems with “dikeocracy”. Do I need to grow up?
Lewis Page, the former bomb-disposal man who writes regularly on terrorballs for The Register, puts it very well in the Guardian CiF blog:
That last point is terrifically important. It is not about judges. The promotors of this sort of thing do not like judges.
It is about a philosophy of government that depends on legalism – the exaltation of literal interpretation of the definitions and categories held out by authority as the axiomatic basis of the outside world – a form of fundamentalism, and like other fundamentalisms inspired by a refusal to deal with the complexity, ambivalence and compromise of the world itself; an evasion of judgment, which then, when the real world clashes with the fictive one, must be exercised by someone in a way that purports to preserve the rules in the face of the facts. The judges being that someone.
Something like that actually became a (minor) issue in the 2004 (and 2006) elections here. A bunch of Democrats decided to actually try to make an issue out of the US military issuing ‘inadequate’ body armor and ‘deficient’ rifles.
Unsurprisingly, most of the complaints came from manufacturers who did not get major contracts. Case in point #1: Dragon Skin Armor. The maker tried to claim that it was a miracle equal to the discovery of Kevlar a few decades ago. Then it turned out to not perform nearly as well as everyone claimed, and to weigh too damn much besides. And so the Army didn’t buy any for issue. Then DS lost its NIJ rating[1], because it didn’t perform anywhere near advertised. Without the rating, nobody would buy it and the DOJ grants couldn’t be used for it. And so, DS threw a fit and tried to get Congress to intervene. After all, when you can’t win on the merits, bribe a legislator.
Case in point #2: The US Army and Marine Corps are constantly evaluating new rifles. After all, everyone who knows nothing about the subject, knows that the M16A4 and M4 are inaccurate, unreliable, and have poor terminal ballistic performance.[2] And mysteriously, the direct-impingement Stoner design seems to keep working just fine.[3] However, certain manufacturers (whose initials are H&K) scream and cry and call for Congressional investigations when they didn’t get the contract. Even though their last submission, the XM-8, was garbage, and their current submission, the HK416, costs too damn much: two grand, as compared to the $587 that Uncle Sam currently pays for an M-4.
And Democrats, famous for not being gun people or knowing a damn thing about the subject, work this into the narrative: “The Bushitler administration hates our troops and won’t give them the tools they need to be safe!” from a bunch of leftists who wouldn’t know how to tell a good rifle from crap.
I don’t think this has made it to the courts yet in the US. After all, it’s not easy to drag Uncle Sucker before a judge if he doesn’t want to go, and judges are very uncomfortable going anywhere near questions of military necessity.
[1] The National Institutes of Justice publish a set of standards for body armor. Armor that stops a given threat is assigned a given level. For instance, most concealable soft armor in police use is rated at level 3A, which means that it’ll stop MOST pistol rounds not specifically made to pierce armor, but will probably not stop a major-caliber rifle round, which is why noise about armor-piercing “cop-killer bullets” is generally arrant nonsense.
[2] I’m not going to say “no knockdown power” because “knockdown power” is a stupid concept that bears no real relation to reality.
[3] In terms of mean time between failures and malfunctions, the DI Stoner turned out to be significantly more reliable than either the Garand or the M-14. There were teething pains in the first year or so, but that’s common when a new system is introduced in the middle of a war.
That depends. Was the crude joke you were about to make about Holland, or about k.d. lang?
Laughing and grief, eh?
I know about the awful sin of mixing roots. I learned about it from the Television.
Does this ruling apply to private security contractors, or only to the actual military?
I am proud to be an ‘idiot’…now there’s a nice Greek word…and would suggest the following:
History shows that battles & wars are lost, not by the inability of the men at the sharp end but by bad logistics & lack of such simple kit as the right clothing ( ask anyone who was in the Wehrmacht).
As far as the UK, which is happy to chuck billions down the tube on useless social altruism, is concerned, it must decide if it wants armed forces or not.
If the answer is ‘yes’, then it must allocate a much bigger chunk of GDP than is currently & pathetically the case in order to field a viable military.
Standardization of kit…preferably with the US which, despite all, currently has the best…is essential in optimizing expenditure.
And…if you’re going to pull a gun you must be prepared to use it…just make sure that your hand doesn’t come up empty.
Judges & lawyers should either join the military or stay out.
No. They are saying that every infantryman gets a lawyer to comment on the legality of the marching orders, and on the possibilities to sue for some compensation.
WW2 ?
The real bad decisions were made in WW1.
In Israel we have an ongoing fierce debate between the Justice Minister, Prof. Daniel Friedman and the Chief Justice Dorit Beinish.
It’s mainly about Friedman’s wish to curb excessive judicial activism.
Speaking of “dikeocracy”…
I can’t believe it took me this long to ask…
According to hizzonor, does this mean that the troops can sue al-Qaeda In Iraq, or the Taleban?
Hell, can the kidnapped sailors sue Iran for violating their human rights? Or are they prevented from going after the actual bad guy?
I learned about it from the Television.
subtle
Of course they can sue. But it would be futile, as the most likely outcome is that he’ll find for al_Qaeda.
“History shows that battles & wars are lost… by bad logistics & lack of such simple kit as the right clothing”
Logistics is always bad, and some desirable items are always missing. That’s life.
In the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld: You fight with the army you have.
I’m fairly certain I’ve seen “kritocracy” in print before.
Ah. Here we are. Spelled with a “y”, rather than an “i” (although I repeat, I’m sure I’ve seen “kritocracy”).
Try the sidebar of this blog under “who are we?”
Or another way to look at it is…
Well how much more does litigation cost than proper kit? And some of this stuff is not whizz-bang stuff but things like proper boots.
Apparently the US military have dubbed their UK brothers in arms “The Borrowers” (Iraq) and “The Flintstones” (Afghanistan). Even the Danes in the ‘stan are better kitted than our lads and the Danes haven’t represented a credible military threat since the days of Ragnar Hairybritches*.
Let’s get some answers shall we? And I know the place to start asking – BAE Systems. Occasional supplier of military equipment, more involved in procuring hookers for Saudi princes these days. Just one question would suffice. Where are our Nimrod MRA4s? Alas, I know the answer. They are in a hangar at BAE Wharton in pieces and all King Abdullah’s horses and all his men can’t put them back together again.
Why pick on Nimrod? Well, since the retirement of Tornado GR1B and Sea Harrier FGA2 Nimrod was the only aircraft left in the UK inventory with the capacity to fire anti-ship missiles. Yup. The defence of the realm rested upon a squadron of 1950s airliners carrying Harpoons. And we’re a fucking island!
Of course rather than fixing-up our knackered jets we could have ordered P-8s but that would be too easy.
Yeah, right with you Permanent! We either shit or get off the pot. And surely we could have got M16s for a lot less than the SA-80 debacle cost.
The Typhoon line is shutting down (MoD is desperately trying to cancel tranche 3) and Lightning II is looking dicey. BAE don’t have a replacement for Hawk (why not?) and just a couple of years from now the last fighter will be built in this country and that will be it. Forever.
Can you hear it? That’s Tommy Sopwith turning over in his grave.
My point being that despite attempting to source kit here we have failed utterly to keep a viable defence sector. Well, frankly we make fuck all any more so why should jets be different. And if Lightning II had been named Spitfire II then I would have had a kniption fit.
*He came to an extremely sticky end at the siege of Dublin.
I have to say I feel this development is welcome. The life of a soldier is dangerous, but they are not expendable. We would not think of using infantry to cross a minefield in lieu of issuing mine detectors, although that was something the Russians were happy to do in the Great Patriotic War.
If I understand it right, the effect of this law would be that the dependents of the soldier killed because he had to give his ballistic armour to another man would be able to sue the MoD. And why not? Why should the MoD pen pushers not be able to source enough body armour, enough ammunition, decent rifles and boots? It’s the least they should do. This legislation might also prevent deaths such as that of the soldier in Afghanistan crushed by the tank he was ordered to service, despite not having the proper jacks. If the idiot giving an order like that had it in the back of his mind that he could be liable for manslaughter he might not have issued such a stupid order in the first place.
I believe Mr Justice Collins may be an old leftie with his own agenda.
He was the Barrister for the Chilian Govt trying to extradite Pinochet.
John K, then as a former squadie myself, I say you’re a fool. If you don’t have the right kit to hand in a warzone, you improvise, you don’t have the option of downing tools and quoting ‘elf ‘n’ safety regs. And unlike civi-street, if that gets someone killed, sometimes it is just tough titties. People back in the world know jack shit about the reality of military operations (and not just the shootie bits) and no good comes of allowing the civilian court’s camel to get its nose into the military tent. That is what court-martial are for.
The Chilean Govt wasn’t trying to extradite Pinochet, as Pinochet wasn’t a fugitive, always lived in Chile and had no intention to live elsewhere. What Pinochet wanted was to be freed from his detention in Britain, to return home to Chile. The Chilean government wanted that too, as it was a matter of national pride for them to let them handle this matter without external interference.
It was Spain who was trying to get Pinochet extradited to Spain, for alleged crimes that had nothing to do with Spain, it was a warrant issued by an activist, publicity seeking Spanish Judge, a Spitzer.
As to the case of Mr Justice Collins : he isn’t pursuing the goal of having the British army better equipped for battle. His goal is to hamper it and hinder it so that it doesn’t go into any battle. His aim is purely destructive (probably, re: Bill’s comment on “unintended” consequences).
Albion:
Why thank you for your kind comments, which I cheerfully reciprocate. I suggest that you are a bit rusty in your understanding of the politics of modern warfare. Put it like this: the enemy can afford to take much bigger losses than we can. They can never defeat us militarily, but if they inflict big enough losses on us we will lose the war. If the pen pushers at the MoD do not provide enough body armour, or enough decent ammunition, we will lose men needlessly, and in so doing we will lose support at home, and if we lose enough support we will lose the war. Since I want us to win the war, I want to see needless losses reduced as far as humanly possible. The next time a squaddie is told to service a tank without the proper safety equipment I want him to be able to refuse rather than get his head squashed under the tracks.
The sort of losses we took in WWII would nowadays lead to the collapse of the army, and hence our ability to fight. Since I want Britain to have the ability to fight, I want the MoD to take seriously its obligations to give our soldiers the equipment they need, when they need it, and in the quantities required. Why this should be controversial baffles me.
Well I picked that up from his wiki entry Jacob
I know that is often inaccurate but…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Collins
But we agree on his motives.
Under British Law, no waiver or disclaimer can make you immune from prosecution for wrongful death; even if someone freely signs a contract saying that they will try a medicine and know they could die for it, and they later die, the provider of the medicine can still be sued. You can waive almost anything, but never death.
By the way, the literal greek word you are looking for is “kritarchy”, from ‘krith’ to judge. On the other hand, that word has been used to mean something different from what we are talking about here.
Since these lawyers are practicing ‘lawfare’ against the British Armed Forces, and since we have plenty of ones that are doing the same over here in the US, it should be possible to bring them into the legal sphere of war as combatants.
Give the POW cards, uniforms and weapons and let them fight for the side they have chosen.
Lawfare must be legalized.
That’s “kritarchist” which I understand to be substantially different.
IIRC
Kritarchy = natural rights judgements
Kritocracy = judges personal preferences
“I think I favor dikeocracy,”
You see where that one is going don’t you?
RAB,
Looking further into a linked article I found this:
“He argued on Chile’s behalf that when the UK, Spain and Chile signed up to the international torture convention they had not intended to waive the immunity enjoyed by former heads of state.”
Which means – he represented Chile, who had joined Pinochet in the plea against his extradition to Spain, as I stated above, and for his release from house arrest in Britain.
He may well be, but this case doesn’t support the claim.
“The next time a squaddie is told to service a tank without the proper safety equipment I want him to be able to refuse rather than get his head squashed under the tracks.”
The static tank takes an AP round,the entire crew and vehicle are lost.
Which is madness. Under wartime condition, risking your head is what you do.
Having civilian courts treat a deployed army like a civilian company with health and safety issues will not make things better for squaddies, it will make the army unable to function at all. And that’s why its not controversial, its simply bonkers.
This is the actual article in question:
The operational phrase seems to be “No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally”. My question is, would not providing the proper kit be a case of intentionally depriving someone of their life? It is possible, if you did so intending for them to die, but otherwise it seems like a very strained interpretation.
There are other military practices, like ordering soldiers on a vital mission in which you know some or all are going to die, that would seem to be covered by this. And I suppose that if part of the reason you know that they’re likely to die is that they haven’t got the right equipment, and if earlier on you intentionally chose to not give them that equipment knowing that such situations could arise, and if you were a raving moonbat sub-human rights lawyer/judge on psychotropic drugs…
I’m all in favour of giving the lads better kit, although I’d rather trust their judgement, rather than that of the press, arms industry lobbyists, or lawyers. “Better” doesn’t always mean “more, bigger, heavier”. And I’m generally in favour of anything that might induce the Treasury to stop cutting the military budget. But the priority in a military situation is to get the job done, and if that means taking risks with inadequate equipment, I don’t want the clouds of circling lawyers overhead to put commanders off doing what’s necessary.
In my view, anyone “depriving our soldiers of their lives intentionally” without a damn good reason ought to be prosecutable anyway under military law. That doesn’t mean that commanders struggling to do their best with limited funds should find themselves in court because their best guess as to what would be needed didn’t work out. Nobody in the MoD or armed forces “intends” to kill our own soldiers. I don’t think this law is relevant to this situation.
Since we can’t send our soldiers, sailors and airmen in to harm’s way in case they get hurt, our response to any belligerant act from any source is going to be rather limited.
In fact, the only safe way that I can see to respond would be our fleet of Trident submarines.
So if the mad mullahs or the heirs of Galtieri commit some military, (or even terrorist), act aginst us…
Boom
We will also probably have to get (even more) used to heavily armed and armoured police as well. The next riot should be interesting to watch.
Fair enough Jacob, you obviously have more patience than I.
I followed a link to Pinochet being indicted in 2000, or there abouts, and couldn’t quite see why he would have had anything to do with that.
He , Collins, has highlighted something though. As said above, the cronic lack of good kit.
Be it armoured vehicles or body armour. Yes stuff as simple as boots that dont melt in hot sand, and guns that dont jam when you sneeze on them!
You can dig a foxhole with an AK 47 and fire it straight off if needs be, why are ours so delecate and bloody expensive.
It is the politicians that need to be sued for sending our troops into battle with last wars weapons, not the rest of us for damages in the civil courts.
We are run by lawyers , the loudest noise they have ever heard is a car backfire, or the celebratorary fireworks when they came to power in 1997.
John K: I understand where you are coming from, but you should give a thought to the title of this post – it is there for a reason.
RAB: AK47 is crap, that’s why it is cheap. An assault rifle is not for digging fox holes:-)
I think that we, who slept while the stalinsts took over the world, should have seen this coming.
(1) The compensation culture, whatever that is, is here for a bit, until we libertarians react appropriately and reinfoce the idea of Contract, and so it makes it rather hard for liberal (in a libertarian sense) states to field armies without incurring lawsuits.
(2) Since the technology is available to protect these guys, and distribution of state spend is quite discretionary (that is to say, you can buy bureaucrats who will draw their pay and do f***-all, or else you can buy some body-armour and some blast-proof vehicles that work well) then the state ought to be sued for dereliction of duty towards those of its servants who put their lives on the line, as opposed to some useless arse-sitters in a “Primary Care Trust”.
I am sure this could be done under the existing H&SE legislation that the same state has enacted.
Also I am very irritated that Norton clears out all my personal Samizdata settings once a week when it does “one-button-checkup” without asking me. Any ideas?
I posted an innocuous comment on Rumsfeld’s ‘army you have’ remark…no four-letter words…and was ‘smitten’.
The owners of this blog are, I fully concede, the final arbiters of the suitability of any comment posted. No question there but the courtesy of an explanation would be appreciated…or have I unwittingly become the resident ‘Blitzschlagableiter’?
David: get yourself AVG (the free version) instead of Norton. Only be warned, it will take digging into the registry to get rid of the damn thing, and even then never completely.
Must disagree. Accurate enough and peerless reliability is not crap.
Perry is right. When I was in the Army our M-16s were notoriously finicky (jamming when wet, or in the presence of a few grains of sand), but you can drop an AK-47 in the mud and it will still fire just fine. (And while I’ve never dug a foxhole with my rifle I have dropped one in the mud!) That’s why it’s the favorite assault rifle the world over, even after all these years.
“AK47 is crap”
The AK47 is cheap,replaceable,loads of spares. In moder warfare accuracy isn’t that important with the high rates of fire.Snipers can always have specialist weapons.
Snipers can always have specialist weapons.
Yes indeed.
Ballistics have proved that 7 British soldiers have been killed, in the past year, with the same weapon.
Obviously, I am not speaking from a combat experience, and so I have no problem with being humbled:-) My experience is training in M16 and Galil (and Uzi, but I am trying to forget that). The major problem with the latter was the weight. As to the poor accuracy, Ron has a point. That said though, I wonder how many of the currently enlisted would rather carry an AK47 than one of the M16 versions. Cost should not be one of their concerns.
The AK has its good and bad points. Reliability and cost, yes, but it’s not as accurate and the ammunition is heavy. While it’s true accuracy doesn’t matter as much for untrained guerrillas employing the “spray and pray” tactic, trained soldiers take many more aimed shots.
Heavy ammunition is big deal. Modern soldiers already lug around 70lbs of kit – the heavier 7.62 x 39 round would have to come at the expense of… something. Body armor? Food and water? Spare ammo?
Also, the M16/M4 is really quite reliable – you just have to spend significantly more time cleaning it.
Alisa:
Bad experience with the Kalashnikov?
I’ve owned one. Past tense. I found it to have poor ergonomics: it was not designed for magazine swaps to be made quickly, nor for the safety/selector lever to be manipulated easily. The sight radius is too dang short for anything approaching precision, and the sights themselves are, well, flawed. Black post-in-black notch?
Oh, and there’s no good way to mount any sort of optic, which falls under “Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.” I’ve heard that there are good mounts available for the Galil and Valmet variants, but I’ve no real experience with either.
As for the supposed reliability: that has not been my experience. I’ve never had a fail-to-feed in an AR, except with one particular brand of aftermarket magazine, which was notorious for problems. I’ve never had a failure-to-eject. I’ve never had a failure-to-fire, except for bad ammunition: the primers had good strikes, but did not ignite. Some brands may have a problem with short-stroking, because of a gas key working loose, but that’s mostly just Bushmaster and the fix is 90 seconds, a rubber mallet, and a center punch. My current primary AR, an LMT, has been flawless for over 5K rounds now.
The two AK’s I’ve owned (one Romanian and one Chinese) both had problems. The Chinese was prone to light primer strikes. The Romanian would fail-to-extract at least once every 100 or so rounds.
Laird: what time period was this, and were these shot-out training rifles or unit-issued rifles that were acting up?
Albion:
L/Cpl Tansey was in Afghanistan when he was ordered to service his Spartan without the proper jacks. His position was not under fire, he was simply ordered to do the job without the proper equipment because it was no doubt easier for someone else to have it done that way. Result: one soldier with an armoured vehicle’s tracks on his head.
You do not seem to have taken on board what I wrote. The only way the Taliban can beat us is if our losses become too great. If we send out soldiers without the right body armour, or enough ammunition, or in mobile coffins like the Pinzgauer Vector, then not only will we lose soldiers, we will lose the war.
John, no one here is saying that the troops shouldn’t have proper equipment, only that litigation is not a good way to ensure this.
Alisa:
I’m afraid that the threat of litigation concentrates the mind wonderfully. I wonder if the idiot who ordered L/Cpl Tansey to service his vehicle without the proper jacks would have done so if he thought he might face a charge?
Do you take my point that in asymmetric warfare the only way we can be beaten is if the enemy inflicts unacceptable losses on us, whatever we might inflict on him?
John, of course litigation has its pluses – it exists for a reason. But, like everything else in life, it also has its minuses. What the Perry seems to be arguing is that in the long run, the minuses far outweigh the pluses.
I don’t know if it is the only way, but it is certainly a possibility I would take very seriously. Again, I have no argument with you as to the nature of the problem, it’s the solution that I am disagreeing with.
Alisa:
I suppose we will have to see. What I hope will happen is that we get away from the rather gung ho attitudes of people like Albion. Soldiers have to fight, and some will die, but they do not belong to the army, and their lives have value. It may be cheaper and easier for the army to send troops out on patrol in an area full of IED’s in snatch Land Rovers rather than mine protected vehicles, but if they do that, not only are they treating their soldiers as if their lives do not matter, but they are indirectly giving aid to the enemy.
John, you don’t have the draft in the UK. If the military becomes too cavalier with the soldiers’ lives, kids will stop enlisting.
“I’m afraid that the threat of litigation concentrates the mind wonderfully.”
Yes indeed,local councils,businesses.schools etc have banned countless activities in the name of safety.
Litigation is wonderful,it brings most things it touches to an end.
Yes but in all the wrong ways. You just aren’t reading what I wrote. Should we have better kit and more of it? Sure, no argument. A shitload more in fact. But your “solution” is worse than the problem.
Probably not. And as a result maybe that vehicle would have sat there in REME hell for fuck knows how long until they had all the required gear to do it safely. And in that time it would not be available for combat operations no matter how much the people up the sharp end wanted it or how much they screamed down the blower for their damn vehicle. Why? Because of what some cunt in a court in Blighty might do.
Sunfish, in answer to your questions: it was in the early 70’s (so I am perfectly prepared to accept that the design has been improved since then); and yes, it was a training rifle and so might have been worn out (although I did clean it thoroughly and regularly).
Laird,
What sorts of malfunctions were you having, if you remember? I’m not disputing that your experience was what it was and was different from mine. I’m just curious about ‘what, exactly’ and ‘why.’
As far as this thread’s actual topic goes…
I have to side with Albion. War is dangerous. If a commander is careless with the safety of his men then his own superiors should call him to account. In the US, that actually does sometimes happen. Okay, more than sometimes. We have guys in the Air National Guard and formerly of the USAF who describe their service as being more risk-averse than the private sector. These folks are typically Security Forces, the USAF version of military police or infantry (this war blurring the distinction or so I’m told) and work under a sort of close mother-may-I micromanagement that I would consider unacceptable in civilian policing.
Things like wearing reflective gear over camoflage, in order to be invisible to the enemy but not be run over by a friendly truck, for instance.
Even with that sort of overreaction, I don’t have a problem with a commander being called out by his own superiors. I have a huge problem with a commander being called into court to prove that there was military necessity to order Private Snuffy to go on a patrol, taking a particular route, and getting ambushed. For one thing, the average judge is not in the least competent to judge military necessity.
For another, this is the same sort of oversight that has essentially destroyed British policing: a commander will spend so much time and energy documenting his reasons for doing what he thinks he should do, that he’ll never actually have time or resources to do a damn thing. And then, regardless of the quality of his documentation, if the court will hear a suit against him under any circumstances at all, then the suits will be filed. Some by bereaved families with legitimate complaints. Some by bereaved families without legitimate gripes, but you won’t successfully explain that to the plaintiff. And then some will merely see a set of deep pockets who will settle, because settling a groundless suit is cheaper than fighting it. In the US, that’s sometimes called the “Ghetto Lottery.”
When a government is doing something that actually is legitimately a government’s job, I want them to be both efficient and effective. Oversight is important, but at some point you have to remove the leash and just let the guys go out and shoot bad guys in the face.
Alisa:
That might be true in the long run, but it’s not much consolation if beforehand we lose the war with the Taliban. I want to preserve Britain’s ability to use military force, not see it destroyed.
Albion:
And how do you think the troops will get this kit?
Just today another two men were killed in Afghanistan by an IED. They were members of the RAF Regiment conducting a “routine patrol” when their vehicle was blown up. We must assume they were not in a mine protected vehicle. The government has belatedly ordered a number of these (after five years of war!) but they have not reached the troops yet. What mindset is it that can send men out in an unprotected vehicle on a “routine patrol” in a country infested with IED’s? They were just asking to be killed.
It’s not just boots and body armour. The troops need mine protected vehicles, they need helicopters, they need drones. Our forces are sorely lacking in all these areas, so they substitute squaddies in land rovers, who inevitably get killed or maimed. What is going to stop this waste of life? The goodness of the kind people at the MoD, or the threat of litigation? Soldiers are citizens of this country, and they do not forfeit their human rights when they join up.
Jesus. So your answer is if there is no mine protected vehicle available, don’t mount the patrol then. And to hell with the operational needs of the fucking war you are trying to fight? And if they do mount the patrol because, heaven forbid they want to execute their mission as best they can, then it’s okay to sue the commanding officer for sending them out in a Landrover?
Okay, I think white man speak with forked tongue. I’m sussing this is not really about equipment at all. You really don’t want the military to be able to function. Squaddies should be properly supported but having every action second guessed by people (like you) who have never been in the army or seen a real warzone is not about kit, it is about making the army ineffective because no one in their right mind will dare take any risks and fighting a war is one fucking great risk after another.
Either you have zero idea what is involved with actual operations or you know and don’t care because making ops impossible is your real objective. A unit never has what they really need in the quantities they need, so they just make do with what they’ve got to hand. Always. And the officers have questionable or crap information, but that is all they have, so they decide what to do in that basis and just hope for the best. And people get killed because of all of that. Its not negligence, its just the way it is and the way it has always been. If you can’t deal with the reality, don’t take the Queen’s Shilling
Albion:
I am afraid your prehistoric attitudes will be the end of the army and the end of Britain being able to use military force.
Please try and understand that in asymmetric warfare it does not matter how many of the enemy we, kill, if they kill too many of our troops we lose.
I do want the military to be able to function, but that will be lost if we keep your gung ho attitude. I want the generals to be able to say to the politicians that this operation will require x number of mine protected vehicles, and if they don’t get them, they just can’t do the job. I don’t want soldiers to be killed because the MoD procurment system can’t get its thumb out of its arse.
Frankly, until a CO has got the guts to tell the brass he can’t do the job without the right equipment, we will continue to expect squaddies to make do and mend with what they have, and in the process suffer casualties which might make the whole operation fail. So yes, I would question why it was necessary to send a so-called routine patrol out in a soft skinned vehicle in an area prone to IED’s. Sooner or later that will mean our soldiers will be killed. Why aren’t drones used as top cover? Is it because we don’t have the drones? If not, why not? Did someone not ask for them, and others lower down the chain of command just have to make do? I’m sorry, but most deaths from IEDs could be prevented with the proper vehicles, and for Britain still to be lacking such vehicles five years after the start of the war in Iraq is akin to corporate manslaughter in my view.
Northern Ireland, Gulf War I, Bosnia. I know what a fucking war or two looks like.
That is called “losing the war”. If you are so obsessed with force protection that you don’t conduct operations, you might as well stay the fuck in Blighty (which is what I think your real objective is).
IEDs are planted, with a SECONDARY objective of killing people. The primary objective is what is called “area denial”. To make the other side stay out of the area. And if you are too frightened of fucking lawyers to make do with the vehicles you have, the IEDs will have perfectly done their job and Osama’s boys can operate in IED protected zones without fear of interruptions.
Albion:
I’m sure you do. It is quite refreshing as a civilian to be accused of being too concerned about the lives of soldiers. Normally we armchair generals are accused of being too gung ho with the lives of others, but that seems to be your area of expertise.
I have told you often enough what my objective is, and it is getting tiresome repeating it. If you are calling me a liar then fuck you too.
You do not seem to have taken on board anything I have said about asymmetric warfare and the realities of the modern forces. The USA killed 2,000,000 Vietnamese, the Vietnamese killed 50,000 Americans. Who won? If we took even one month’s worth of casualities which America took in Vietnam, we would be out of Afghanistan. Is that what you want?
My point is that seven years after 9/11, our forces should not be having to “make do” with what they have got. The brass should have demanded, and the MoD should have supplied, mine protected vehicles, helicopters, drones, the full paraphanalia of modern equipment which means we can patrol and dominate an area without having to send soldiers out in soft skinned vehicles to patrol a zone liable to IED’s. Th more that happens, and the more men we lose, the nearer we get to losing the war. You seem quite unable to grasp this fact, so I shan’t labour it any longer.
Yeah fuck you too. Okay, now we all feel better. If you are not in fact just trying to make the military completely ineffective, then you are not evil, you are just a well meaning bloke who just don’t know what he’s talking about. I understand what you wrote, and you just don’t understand a damn thing about military operations.
To win a war, it’s not about who takes the most casualties, you’re right about that. It is about who can keep conducting operations while making it harder for the other bloke to conduct his operations. That is what a war is. And what you are arguing for will make it impossible for the British military to conduct operations. I know you don’t see that. You think it is all about kit. It isn’t. Yes, I want ten times more kit for our blokes, no argument there. But getting civil courts involved will not do that. What it WILL do it make the military unusable. Also, at any scale of issue, squaddies will naturally always want more and better. Unless each soldier has a Tornado at his personal disposal and a frigate tasked with nothing else than providing him with personal NGS, there will never ever be “enough”. There is no such thing as “enough” when some cunt is shooting at you.
Now you may say that if daft and you’d be right. But the way civil courts work is by creating a precedent and then expanding it into a whole area of involvement. Jobs for the lawyers, that is just a truism (is that a word? I think so). If I get slotted because the evil shits at MOD didn’t have the RAF doing lazy eights overhead 24/7, why should my wife not be able to sue someone? Who decides what is “enough”? What makes you think you know? Well you don’t. And what if the MOD actually wants to give me 24/7 CAS (instead of building nice new offices for themselves) but you Joh Bull Taxpayer, don’t feel like shelling out that kind of dosh? I assume you’re a taxpayer in Blighty, so can my wife sue you? And if not, why not? Yeah, I know if it stupid but that’s kind of my point. In the end we go to war funded by the government you buggers elect. Want to sue someone? Sue yourself then. Just leave the military out of it.
Albion:
Thankyou for conceding that I am not evil, that’s mighty white of you.
I’d like to know how you would defend a decision to send troops out on a “routine patrol” in a WIMIK in an area prone to IED attack. If they had been in an RG31 Cougar they would have lived, instead they are dead. Why is no-one responsible for that decision? Unless they can be held responsible, why do you think anything will ever change?
The fact is that our troops still do not have the right equipment for the assymetric warfare they are conducting. In Afghanistan they lack helicopters, but are told that they will be getting Super Lynxes in in about five years. What the fuck? You can buy Blackhawks tomorrow for about $5 million a piece. What sort of procurement system makes troops in the field wait years for vital equipment rather than buy it off the shelf?
Similarly, the top brass is obsessed with the FRES project, on which they plan to spunk away £15 billion, so they did not want to spend money on Cougars, even though they are actually built by BAE and can be had for about £250,000 each. The brass thought they could get away with using the old Landies. Well how many men died or were maimed because of that decision?
The bottom line is that unless people up the chain of command think they may be held accountable, they will continue to protect their pet projects at the expense of the men in the field. It is all very well for you to want to see the troops properly kitted out, but how do you think that is going to happen? Maybe if the Chief of the Defence Staff gets it into his head that he might have to stand up in court and explain why he preferred to fund the pie in the sky FRES project rather than provide the vehicles needed right now, then and only then these procurement fuck ups might get sorted.
Jesus Fucking Christ. That is what “mounting operations” means. If you are not going to mount operations, stay the fuck in Britain.
We get to use what the taxpayer provides. If all they provide is clapped out rovers, we use clapped out rovers. If civil courts decide that if you send blokes out with what has been provided and they get killed because they didn’t have MPVs, then patrols will not get sent out. And there is no point in deploying the army then if it is not going to conduct operations but instead sit in a fortified base for fear of fucking lawyers back home. That is the reality of what you seem to want. MOD wankers get paid if the army never leaves Aldershot, so that’s probably fine by them too.
How will it change? When people elect a government who gives a fuck about squaddies. It will NOT change because of civil courts. As you seem to be hard of thinking, I’m done with you.
I think this thread is done.