Disobeying orders?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Ord_Sgt, May 6, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    There is an interesting comment at the end of a BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3689755.stm made by Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell. The first bit is innocuous “the extra troops might find themselves serving alongside US forces whom he said had a "different culture" to their British counterparts.” Not in itself a big deal I think most will agree.

    But the second bit “My anxiety would be that if British forces were sent to Baghdad and were under the direct operational command of an American commander, then they might find themselves in the position of having to decide whether or not to accept an order or whether to rely on their own instincts and training," is a valid point.

    Not neccesarily having a dig at the septics but they do tend to be a bit OTT and open fire at almost anything and totally wreck the place. We brits have a more softly softly approach. So these Brits who are ordered by the local US comd to join in with the septic shooting the shit out of some so called target and they dissagree and then say “no sorry old boy not us”. What happens next?

    I am really not trying to stir the shit here but remember Gerneral Jackson telling SACEUR to feck off in Kosovo and there is widespread opportunity for this to happen now the Brits are apparently going to the hotspots in US sectors.
  2. One might hope that any significant deployment to Najaf et al would ensure that these areas become the complete responsibility of the British.

    The mooted deployment of circa 2000+ British troops would be a major boon for GW Bush this close to US election time: it is vital that Blair exploits the opportunities for leverage in future Anglo-American Iraq foreign policy the deployment will present to the maximum.

    The release of the fake photographs courtesy of the mirror temporarily deflected some of the sh*t off the Americans' abuses at Abu Gharib, but has left the British Army with severe issues of its own to deal with.

    Lets hope a comparable situation does not arise if more British troops are committed. This is a major foreign policy move and is not merely an opportunity for Blair to altruistically (towards the US) use the Armed Forces as the now ubiquitous 'Force for Good'.

    <Bert shakes his head*>

    *for MDN, Gunny etc - no, it didn't rattle.
  3. Ord_Sgt said:

    Can anyone remember back in 1999, when the Russians decided that reaching the Airport in Pristina was a goal for them, a US General by the name of Clark decided that he would not stand for it and then ordered the British General (who was under Clerk in the Chain of Command) by the name of Jackson to take the Airport by force if needs be.

    What did Jackson do? Did he tell his troops to get loaded for bear and kick some Russian arrse or did he tell Clerk to go poke himself?

    It was the latter methinks
  4. Some good points brought up but the British troops will still have to operate under OUR ROE, not US! Therefore if old johnny foreigner gives an order contradicting our ROEs, then we can say," Fick off!" :cry:
  5. What do you mean by that shandyswiller? Im not trying to br funny, just wondered what you were refering to? :?
  6. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    I think he means the airport at Pristina. :wink:
  7. Oh breastful one, it was 21 mins from NATO engaging Russian troops for Pristina airport!
  8. ahhh i now see :oops: ......said the blindman! :)
  9. Our people in Iraq during and after the `war' always operate under our own rules of engagement.

    The RAAF reported to an Australian Parliamentary inquiry that they refused to attack targets they were directed to attack by US controllers.

    This happened on many occasions because our F18 pilots, once on station, were not satisfied the targets they were ordered to attack satisfied their ROE.

    Aust Army units also have distinct ROE that are robust, but I understand not as `free' as the US Army or Marines.

    Our government has always insisted, since the Boer War, on Aust forces whilst coming often under `operational' command of a foreign formation etc, are issued with our own ROE and our own national chain of command always authorises operations.

    We didn't like Breaker Morant being executed for using rule `303' ....

    This system seems to have worked well for 120 years, but then again, we have always operated in fairly distinct AOs and since the first world war rarely side by side with an allie in a close quarter battle.
  10. There is little danger of our troops hosing targets Septic-style, because the MoD will have ensured that they will not have sufficient ammunition.... :evil:
  11. The amusing thing AIUI was that Clark tried to bypass Jackson and go to the US Navy Admiral, in order to achieve the same end (namely, blocking Pristina to Russian reinforcement) and the Admiral sided with Jackson's thinking. Cries of "treason" from the more right-wing US types.......how dare a USN type follow a Brit's lead?

    I think (from dim memory of a documentary where both Clark and Jackson were interviewed but didn't mention their, er, disagreement) that Clark claimed to have avoided conflict by persuading the Hungarians not to give the Russian aircraft permission to overfly Hungary on their way to Pristina........