Gurkha ordered back to UK after beheading dead Taliban fighter

[Castiel]

I didn't meant to imply that we were wearing kid gloves, I was just stating that it seems a combination of talks and force have greater success than just talking, or just force.

Also the minimisation of civilian casualties has to be a priority, I'd agree.

From your personal point of view where do you see the balance of responsibility being? Primarily towards protecting your soldiers, at the higher risk of casualties in the populace, or primarily towards the populace but increased risk to your soldiers? I realise there is a balance to be made, and the McChrystal approach seemed to be pushing towards risk minimisation to civilians.

It would seem intuitive that having the local populace 'on side' would be of great benefit, but I suppose you risk your own troops morale too?

It is a difficult question, but ultimately you are there to protect the civilian population and so their safety is paramount. If the balance is correct then reducing civilian loses incurred by allied troops should reduce allied loses in turn.

There has been a lot of criticism of the RofE that McChrystal instituted, but my personal opinon is that the media have made assumptions on it's implementation are are not true or at least exaggerated and so it is difficult to judge. All the RofE I have been subject to allow you to protect yourself and those under your command or within your responsibility first and foremost.

From what I gather Patraeus has not changed those RofE only issued better instructions on their implementation to the troops.


And agreed. Military Force is simply a tool to be used to garner a political objective, as I have said before it will be the politicians who decide this war one way or the other.

 

[milkinc13]

it's the Daily Fail blowing things out of preportion (watches for flames after this post)
what better proof is there than what this soldier did?
what's so wrong about this, at least the person was dead before cutting off his head, how many video's have been put online from the taliban showing them beheading an innocent person?

 

[KNiVES]

it's the Daily Fail blowing things out of preportion (watches for flames after this post)
what better proof is there than what this soldier did?
what's so wrong about this, at least the person was dead before cutting off his head, how many video's have been put online from the taliban showing them beheading an innocent person?

I know they are completely different circumstances and I totally agree with you that this was blown totally out of proportion but we cannot be seen to be having an eye for an eye in war. The fact that the Taliban has beheaded countless innocents can never be used as a justification for the coalition forces to commit dubious acts. I certainly wouldn't say 'well they did it too' as a good reason for the Gurkha soldier's act - I would justify what the soldier did by saying that he did the best he could, in the circumstances he was in. I think everyone agrees here that he did not do it as an eye for an eye, but as a practical and pragmatic decision to aid his superiors in identifying targets seen and taken out.

The justification that we use for carrying out our actions must be based on sound reason. I wouldn't want to punch a girl because 'I liked it'. I'd want to say I punched a girl because she was about to push my mother off a cliff.

 

[Vonhelmet]

what better proof is there than what this soldier did?

Read the article. The head was useless for identification and they had to use DNA testing.

So, in answer to your question "What better proof is there?" I'm going to have to go with "A photo, or anything from which you could get some DNA."