Ben Griffin, an SAS soldier recently refused to fight in Iraq alongside US troops and requested seperation from the UK military after serving 3 months in Baghdad.

He cited that that he could no longer fight alongside US troops who in his words were performing "dozens of illegal acts" in regards to fighting insurgents and conducting the war. He also referred to US soldier's as being and possessing a "gung-ho and trigger happy mentality" and stated he felt the war was "illegal".


Link to story

Taken by itself one may not find it suprising that a soldier disagreed with the war and wanted out. The reason this instance deserves special attention is because he was a highly esteemed Special Forces soldier and because of the reaction of the Military, which granted him an honourable (intentional spelling) discharge, citing testimonials that he was a "balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions".

This is for a soldier who openly stated that Parliament and PM Blair had "lied" about the war and he also stated "I did not join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy,"

Questions for debate:

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?

2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?

I don't think so. As long as I can remember, UK and US had been very close allies. I don't think the opinion of one soldier will change anythink. But, if his opinions are shared by the rest of the British public, maybe then.



Of course I do.

But I don't think supporters of US actions in Iraq are going to take this very seriously.



I don't know and I hope our British AD members can put more light into this.

Well, I'm just going to have to jump into this one feet first, but imagine that ONE soldier that happens to be in a special forces unit doesn't comprise the opinion of the entire British Military.

I have to say that I work for a company that has offices in York as well as London, and I'm also a Marine Reservist who spent time in Afghanistan. As a general rule, the British sentiment mirrors that of popular American sentiment. Some agree, some don't... but for the most part it's funny to see that a debate is started over the actions of ONE SOLDIER...

There is a certain percentage of American "brass" that is also not so enthralled with our current position in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that the entire US military and the whole nation shares this ideology...

I think this quote from the man sums it up...


Does that sound familiar??? I think that I've heard a liberal or two utter similar words on this very board...maybe the UK Soldier should've also added "untrained, undisciplined, etc".... that would've made him sound much more like an American democrat!!!

Conscientious objectors have been part of war since it's inception. Please don't think that one man, regardless of place in the military food-chain, is any different because he happens to be British...

I suppose its not unsurprising (some might say expected) for the right to try and dismiss the man because he is one man. And in this case I actually cannot say for certain that they are wrong. After all it IS just one man, and one cannot assume the agreement of the mass from the voice of the individual.

However, there is also some argument to the case that while it is one man, it is not just some guy. This is a decorated member of the SAS, one of the best special forces in the world. He has served in both Northern Ireland and Bosnia, meaning we know he is not squeamish, and has a strong record in combat. He has never been a rabble rouser at all. If a long term , respected member of a SEAL team spoke up about something similar, that does not mean it represents the view of all SEALs, but perhaps given the status, reputation and background of the person speaking, his comments deserve a second look.






I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that because his expert opinion is something which sounds vaguely similar to something a centre-leftist American might say, therefore he is automatically wrong?

Or did you not have a point and you were just taking this as another chance to make fun of Democrats without foundation?



This man is hardly a Conscientious objector. He is a decorated member of one of the planets elite soldiering units who has served in some horrendous and dangrous places. His credentials and his ability to speak with expertise on the topic are plan from his CV. So while I agree we cannot take it as representative of the whole (It may well be, but we cannot asume that) we also cannot dismiss it because it is 'one man'.

In fact, the more I think about it, were I to look for one man whose opinion about the situation I would be most likely to trust, this would be pretty close:
-Elite experienced soldier, so he knows what happens and what is necessary in war, and is thus singularily well placed to judge what is NOT necessary and acceptable:
-Served in Bosnia and Ireland, two places where civilians could be and were the enemy, so knows the danger of an insurgency and how it is dealt with:
-Is not American, but is an ally, so is not as likely to be motivated by US political alleigances:
-Served with and alongside US troops in Iraq for extended periods, so knows exactly what they did and how and why...

He may be just one voice, but its a pretty convincing one...

Well, let's start with the last question for debate:


Does anyone notice something funny about the article?? It doesn't even mention his RANK!!! It does mention the rank of a doctor being court martialled, but not his?? Hmm...

Read here:


Basically what I'm getting at here is that one man, apparently not a part of military leadership (as if he was a highly regarded officer, it would've included his rank as it did for the Doctor), who happened to be a part of an SAS parachute regiment (much like an Airborne Ranger I'd suppose), shouldn't be considered to be the voice of the UK Military as a whole.

Did anyone notice that the article didn't state:
UK General quits Army in disgust at 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq??????

I am not attempting to discount his military record, his performance, or his dedication.

However, it must be noted that his qualifications in the article are vague and don't include his position or rank.



While I agree that this man probably does have a verifiable perspective on this matter, like I said before, this is very similar to the US sentiment...

I'd imagine that, like some dissenting US soldiers, he speaks for himself and the minority in the British Military.

I think his class is summed up in this statement:


Funny thing is... that in a war where cameras and the Red Cross are everywhere, how come some of these actions are being documented??? One enlisted MP makes Iraqi prisoners pose Nude and it is circulated world wide. Why on earth, if this is the truth, has nothing else of this nature presented itself????

We all are STILL seeing pictures from Abu Ghraib, but surely aren't seeing "Nazi-esque" actions on CNN Nightly news daily. I suppose it's because journalists are so fond of US military!!!!

So *kudos* to Ben Griffin...insulting the most powerful fighting force on the planet by equating them to Nazis... while most likely being an enlisted soldier in the SAS who was jump qualified. His opinion is just that, the opinion of one man unhappy with his country's actions.

It should be treated as just that...

[quote=kalabus,Mar 14 2006, 07:09 AM]

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?
No, it symbolizes the problem of using military forces, who are trained to "kill people and break things" in extended deployments.

2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?
Not that I hear. My son who served with the 2MEB during the liberation and other units in subsequent tours was working alongside the Royal Marines, and was always talking about how well they got along and he still stays in touch with several of them. I remember when I told him to ask if they needed anything sent, he said the Brits were nearly in tears they thought it was so nice that I'd ask.

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?
No. I think the extended deployments are taking their toll.

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?
I think the Brits probably believe they know how to handle it with the minimum impact on morale.

I'm not sure whay thats 'funny', or even odd. The Flt Lt being court-martialed was listed by her current military rank. The article is about a man who was given an homourable discharge from the British military, and thus has no rank. He is in fact not even allowed to refer to himself by his old rank. So, how again is that odd?



Well firstly, thay did not give his rank because he does not have one. As for the rest of your assumptions they are presumptuous at best, derogatory at worst. I also assume hiven his 'time-in' and service record he was not a high raking member of the SAS, captain at abolute best and that would be pushing it, but... so what? How does that in any way alter my points about the validity of his comments?

You are correct, he clearly was no a general, or senior staff, After all it escribes him fighting alongside US troops, not a lot of General Staff do that on the ground...




Unlike you I cannot speak with authority on the motivations and opinions of the Royal Army. Certainly if they are ANYTHING like the sentiment of the British people as a whole, they are pretty solidly against the war.

But as I said, the fact that we cannot assume he represents the popular view in no way detracts from the valaity of his very informed opinions.



Firstly, because cameras and the Red Cross are most certainly not everywhere.

Secondly, it is a bit absurd to cry out 'Why has the red cross not noticed?' When in fact the Red Cros has noticed and complained to the US military cuntless times on countles isues, and been generally disregarded, and that they have complained repeately about being DENIED access to areas and prisons by the US military...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...-redcross_x.htm

http://www1.voanews.com/article.cfm?object...B53F4E2A945EBBC

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/internat...artner=USERLAND


The Issue is not that the Red Cross has not seen anything, the issue is that the red cross has seen a lot, and has complained, but the right just isn't listening.



This man was a decorated member of one of the best fighting forces on the planet with background, experience and presence enough to be able to tell what was necessary and what was excessive. Your dismissing (and demeaning) of his arguments amounts to nothing more than not wanting to agree with them, or even consider them.

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?

While some may pooh-pooh this soldier’s actions as just those of “one man”, this one man reflects a general feeling of unease on the part of British people over the US’ actions in Iraq. This article in the UK Guardian lays out the truth about how the top British brass feels and has felt for some time about the US handling of Iraq.

Blair’s approval rating is at 28% (even lower than Bush!), indicating that the British public has also had enough of the debacle in the Middle East.

(I’m starting to wonder if Blair and Bush are twin sons of different mothers. Spooky how alike they are. )

There are a lot of articles hinting that Blair may step down sooner than planned (some say this week); his education plan being voted on this week is just as unpopular with his own party as NCLB was here. Also, many jobs have been lost in his own district; I’d say he’s on shaky ground.

2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?

With the likelihood of US involvement in Iraq dragging on interminably, and the certainly of new British leadership soon, it almost certainly will create future problems. The British have withdrawn 10% of their forces, leaving only 7,000 British troops in Iraq. Hardly a large number, but the symbolic loss of our “main ally” in Iraq is huge.

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?

No. Truth hurts.

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?

I’d say it shows the British are far more civilized than we are, and know when to disassociate themselves from a gawdawful mess.

Let's start with the facts... the reality is that officers do retain rank after discharge.

Consider some easily understood coorelations such as, Gen Wesley Clark, Col Oliver North, etc. These men are still referred to by rank. Officers in the US military actually can be called out of retirement to come back to service.

Where do you get the: not even allowed to refer to himself by his old rank???



This is one man whose leadership qualifications were either intentionally or unintentionally left off the article. I'm not being demeaning to his service, but rather realistic about his perspective. Notice, it does mention that he was a part of the SAS, and does mention that he was even in the Parachute unit.

Here is a GREAT example of how the press should and did discuss rank:
From BBC news article found here:


You're choosing to buy into his ideals are nothing more than wanting to agree with him...

I wonder if Ben Griffin's International Peace Conference (sponsored by the World Socialist Party) sways anyone's opinion?

link

Griffin made this statement:


link

The fact that he is ex-SAS is no more relevant than the fact that he is associated with socialists.

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosophically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?

No. This man's opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine. It certainly does not represent the feelings of Downing Street.

2) Do instances like these foreshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?

No. Anecdotal evidence rarely substantiates a trend.

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?

No. See above.

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?

Griffin served three months in Iraq. If that is enough time to see "dozens" of crimes, I'd think he would have tried to report them. Is there any evidence that he reported any crimes? Or is he just as guilty as those who committed them (his words)?

I think the military simply wanted a problem gone from their midst.

Again, this man's opinion does not represent the UK military any more than aevans176's does the US military. It is an individual opinion and we cannot draw broad conclusions from it.

Ben Griffin was quoted as saying:


Guess that we should stand up and allow a British Soldier to equate our soldiers to Nazi's??

I don't suppose that the truth hurts on that one.... that's just a load of rhetoric if you ask me...

His leadership skills and rank does not matter. Is the word of a general more credible than that of a private?

The heart of the matter is; this man has been in Iraq as a part of the occupation forces. He was disgusted by the things he saw. He was deployed in Bosnia and Ireland bu he made no such remarks about them.

I think you are trying to discredit him simply because you don't like what he said.

After seeing how people react to the war in Iraq, I am not suprised.



Just like Abu Graib was a rhetoric? Or Fallujah? Or the air raids of Bagdat?

Just because someone says things you don't like does not mean what he say is wrong or rhetoric.

This man has been in Iraq and without doubt, knows more about what is happening there than all of us put together. In my opinion, his views about Iraq are much more credible than yours.

The use of a German word for sub-human doesn't equate comparing troops to Nazis. Granted, not the most politically correct term, but whatever. Do you really think that American troops don't look down on Iraqis? With the problems of racism in this country? Please. Do the prejorative terms camel jockey, rag head, sand 'n', etc. ring any bells? The truth does hurt. And yeah, we should "allow" a British soldier to say whatever the heck he wants. We both live in free countries...or do we?

Amlord, the International Peace Conference is not a Socialist event or organization. Just because a Socialist paper covered the conference doesn't make it Socialist. Jeez, if Pravda covered the State of the Union address, does that make Bush a communist?

All of whom retired from active service. Follwing a complete discharge, honourable or dishonourable from the military, you no longer have any association with it. You no longer have your old rank, you cannot be recalled, and so on.

I admit I am assuming a bit here. Judging by the description, he had a hearing and was given what appears to be a punitive discharge under honourable conditions. The most lenient kind of punitive discharge possible. In the States this would be called a general discharge. It is not an unresonable assumption, as how else would he have left the service? It was not an administrative discharge, and he was not punished in situ. Given that his dicharge was likely punitive, he can no longer be called by his rank.

The article does not say any of this explicitly, so as I said I am assuming, but since I cannot see any other circumstance where this situation is possible, its not an unreasonable one.

You on the other hand seem to be saying, because the newspaper did not give his rank, for no reason you can explain, therefore its all a pack of lies. That does not even make sense.



No, you are not being realistic at all, you are ascribing the worst possible scenario for the man without a shred of evidence. You are doing that because it makes it esier for you to wholely dismiss whatever he has to say without actually adressing it.



Please, thats beneath you. I'm not buying into his ideals, I have said numerous times in this thread that we cannot assume any generalities from the statements of one man. I am simply not instantly stating that he is LYING, which is what you seem to be doing, just because I don't agree with him.

He is a decorated soldier who would know the situation he speaks of better than any of us, and also knows what is and is not acceptable in an insurgency. That gives him a valuable perspective, and while we cannot draw vast generalisations from his opinions, we should still listen. Your position seems to be 'We don't know his rank, therefore he is lying'.

Thats kindof funny. I'd like to see you go up to some NCO in ANY military and tell him to his face "I don't personally agree with your statements, even though how the heck would I know, and you don't have stars on your arms, so you are a liar."

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?

Drifting? No. Britain, for all the talk of a special relationship with the USA, has long been a stronghold of anti US resentment. Philosphically, the UK has never been as close to the USA as many would like to pretend.

I personally do not know of any Brits who support the war in Iraq. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single one.

My experience of the British has always been aware of an animosity amongst the general public to many aspects of the USA. Many of my own misgivings regarding the USA are rooted in my English upbringing. My time on the internet has shown me these feelings are mutual though and often play little role in the reality of geo-politics.



2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?

No. The British army is very proffessional and the individual political differences of the soldiers play no part in the over all command structure.

To be frank, I've heard and read British military personnel criticize almost every nation they've ever had dealings with but when all is considered, it means nothing. These are the sorts of complaints one often gets from any group of human beings.



3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?

No, because this is just one man.

His membership of the SAS means nothing in this regard. Even a commando can have political views that conflict with those of his superiors. The only difference here is this one man felt he could no longer take part.
Whats tellings is that he appears to be a lone voice of dissent.



4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?

No and no.

The British army is suffering from cutbacks and moral problems due to the ordinary wear and tear of combat under democratic conditions and the watchful eye of a distrusting media and populace but considering the tasks it is undertaking opposed to its meager size, the British army is in far better shape (IMHO) then the US military.

Without wanting to tke this off topic, thats interesting because it differs almost entirely with my experience. From what I have seen most kids in the UK and British citizens love the States. Kids always want to go there on vacation, they eat up American products, they speak glowingly of American actors, music, movies...

They may loathe Bush Jr., but thats very different from disliking the US. In fact, in direct opposition to your point, polls done in the UK regarding opinions of US when Clinton was in office were all very positive. Same with the rest of Europe and, for that matter, a lot of the first world.

That seems to indicate pretty solidly that most (not all, but most) of the current animosity is directed at the regime and Bush Jr. himself, not the nation at all.

See for yourself:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

Not at all...
I actually am simply using precedent from previous articles. Did you read the post where I mentioned THIS article???

It explicitly mentions 8 soldiers, all discharged, and discussed by rank...

Funny... his never came up. I suppose it was an accident?



I won't even argue the difference between commissions and non-commissioned soldiers...however, I never said he was lying, but moreover have mentioned on numerous occasions that this man's opinion is just that... the opinion of one man....



AGAIN... I didn't call anyone a liar... but really am just stating that the opinion of this man isn't necessarily true for the whole British Military.

(*Side Note--> I would gladly challenge any NCO in the US military on tape, camera, or in front of the world if they were to make such statements about US soldiers acting like Nazi's. I guess you've forgotten, and if necessary will gladly present credentials.. ugh, as I've had to do before on AD... but I am a commissioned officer in the USMC, even if it is the reserves. I've seen our military in action, and the vast majority are professionals doing a job like anyone else. Trigger Happy?... No way. Many men are quite the opposite and worried about being jailed for shooting someone in error or losing their careers due to uncertainty... Vermillion, I'd challenge you to spend some time with the men in the desert and come back to discuss the same topic...I'd venture to state that your views would change...there is a HUGE amount of fear and trepidation in a combat zone, and US Soldiers bear the burden of fighting and securing the worst parts of Iraq. Walk a mile... heck, a block, in their boots and let's see if you agree with a British Soldier that only spent 3 months in Iraq...)

...which is why I wrote 'an animosity amongst the general public to many aspects of the USA'

Haven't we been through this already? They were courtmartialed as soldiers, the article was writing about their courtmartial. This gentleman was interviewed after he left the service. He probably never even told them his rank, and seeing as it is in no way relevant...

Look, we can argue this all day, but in the end as I and others have said, SO WHAT? Maybe he was a captain, maybe he was a corporal. Does one's honesty increase with rank? One's reliability?




See, thats funny, because thats not at all what you have been doing. If it had been, then we would have never been arguing, as I have repeated in pretty much every single one of my posts that we cannot draw generalisations about the opinions of the majority based on one man. I agree entirely.

I have not been arguing about wheither the majority disagrees with the war, I have been arguing wheither his statements have merit. You have tried to demean him (probably not even a member of the parachute regiment) you have tried to imply he has something to hide because the article does not divulge his former rank. You have stated his statements dont agree with the red cross (though when pointed out that they DO, you emained quite silent)

The man made some strong accusations, I have said I know of nobody better to know the truth on the ground than such a man. I have stated simply, and no more, that maybe we should listen to what the man has to say.

Yet apparently, its easier for you to try and discredit his experience, his position and his rank, all without any base at all, than it is to admit that possibility.



This also has been dealt with, yet not only have you ignored the rebuttal, but every time you repeat the accusation it gets worse and worse. He never said the US soldiers were acting like Nazis. He said the US troops see the arabs as untermenshen, less than people. As Daffygirl said, a politically loaded term, but to now pretend you think he was saying the US is gassing arabs by the million, or some such, is just silly.




Interestingly, Brig. Gen Mark Kimmitt disagrees with you, he stated quite openly that the US went into the post-war situation with the wrong mentality, that firepower would overcome any enemy. They have been adapting that strategy since.

I have not been to wartime Iraq. I am not a soldier. But this man was, a member of one of the best fighting forces on the planet, with an indepth knowledge of both Iraq, and counter-insurgency tactics as a whole. So why is his testemony so utterly impossible for you to consider? He's a liar because the article did not mention his former rank?

Please post the quotes from Gen Kimmitt in reference to believing that US soldiers are trigger happy. In my opinion, he was referencing the notion that our military uses a "blanket" and "no fair fight" mentality. Even Marines approach missions with large numbers of well armed men. This has nothing to do with the idea that US soldiers shoot with wanton abandonment... and have no regard for life in Iraq.



Again, sir, I never called him a liar. I just don't believe that the credentials of this gentleman allow him to speak for all British Soldiers...

OK, lets make this simple since you keep dancing away from my points.

I say again, as I have in every post and for the record, we agree that this person does not necessarily speak for the British military. Done.

Do you think his statements have any weight? Should they be investigated? Should Americans be concerned about the conduct of their troops?

You keep saying you have not called him a liar, but that is a half truth. You never used those words no, but you have repeatedly tried to call into question what he had to say, you stated he must be 'in error' since the red cross didnt sgree with him, then abandoned that line of argumentation when it turns out the Red Cross actually DOES agree with him. His 'credentials' as you put it seem to me to be beyond reproach, despite your attempts to allude otherise. That

he cannot speak for all brits has nothing to do with his 'credentials', and more to do with the fact that one simply cannot assume unanimity from a single comment, There may ell BE unanimity, but we cannot decide with any authority either way based on one comment, Again, we agree on that.

Here is a man in a position to speak with an enormous degree of authority about what constitutes abuse. He is no peacenick who does not understand that a CERTAIN amount of ruthlessness is required in counter-insurgency, he knows all about that and has lived it in two different previous wars. he is neither a coward nor afraid of spilling blood, and he has worked likely (given his unit) in some pretty heavy operations right alongside the US forces in Iraq.

Why do you dismiss his comments on FACT? Why do you not consider the possibility that he might be right? Is there any tangible reason why you will not consider his essentially expert testemony, apart from the fact that you just don't want to?


Again to be clear, I'm not saying I know for a fact he is right, obviously I do not. I'm not saying he speaks for all Brits or all of the SAS, he may not. None of that is the debate. Why do you seem to instantly ASSUME he is lying, even if you do not call him one outright?

Because lets face it, if he is not lying, then he is telling the truth.

If we look at how he used the term untermenshen, we can discern his intentions:


Source: UK Telegraph

It's pretty obvious that "dislike" is not a strong enough word's for Mr. Griffin's attitude towards Americans.

If we look at his views:
-Britain's involvement in the Iraq war is simply an extension of American foreign policy
-Blair lied
-he claims to have seen many "crimes" while in Iraq, but did not report them to anyone
-he believes American soldiers view Iraqis as sub-human
-he believes the Iraqi war is illegal, immoral, and an "act of aggression"
-he believes the Iraqi authorities are torturing detainees
-he believes American soldiers either wanted to kill Iraqis or wanted college money
-he feels American's have a well-deserved reputation for being "trigger happy"



So Mr. Griffin never "shot anybody" even though he was in Baghdad the month that the governor of Baghdad's province was assassinated, 15 British serviceman die in a plane crash, 17 people died in car bombs, rockets were fired on the US Embassy, 9 members of the RAF and one British soldier died in a plane crash NW of Baghdad. That was all in January 2005, in the span of a week (Jan. 26 - 31 source). I guess he was lucky not to encounter the enemy.

Summarizing, Mr. Griffin was a member of the SAS for slightly over a year (from the story--early 2004 until March 2005). He was a trooper (I'm going to assume this is the lowest rank, although frankly I don't know and don't care much). There was no mention of his being "decorated" although he certainly had service medals. He holds views very common in the anti-war movement. When his anti-war views clashed with his assignment, he chose to resign.

Is a one year enough time to earn the full reputation of the SAS? Is failing to report "crimes" honorable? Is refusing to serve over political reasons justifiable?

The man's words and deeds speak for themselves.

And so the name calling begins. Anybody who does not like the Iraq war must be anti-American. Anybody who criticises the conduct of troops or actions regarding Iraq must hate America.

At least the rhetoric is consistent...


But, dealing with specifics, lets look at his views, I agree.



Yes, he states both these things. The fact that he claims them, by the way, does not make them wrong...



I liked the litte quotation marks, as if anyone thinking the Americans could commit crimes is off their rocker, very cute. In fact he did report these crimes, he waited until he was home to report them to his CO there. He describes it as loyalty.

It's obvious you are truing to insinuate something bac about his character here in the hope that this will instantly remove and credibility from his words, but its not working. I can;t even tell what vile motive you are trying to insinuate he had for lying. Could you be a bit more explicit in your insulting the man?



Well, he believes SOME american soldiers have this vire, but close enough.



Yes, all those are true according to his statements. And? You say it as if the very fact that he could possibly think these things instantly means he is wrong. It doesn't work that way...



Now that does not even make sense. I mean seriously, look at the things you listed there, not ONE of them would involve a soldier discharging his weapon, unles they happened to find the man who fired the rockets (which they did not). I mean, how much gunfire did you expect him to perform during a car crash or a plane crash?

His point is not he did not encounter difficult situations, his point is he and his comrades found ways to deal with them that did not involve gunfire. Yes, to a certain extent maybe that means he was fortunate. It also does nothing to negate his point.



Thats quite the biased summary, substituting your opinion for facts. Lets do it properly, shall we?

"Mr. Griffin was a member of the SAS for slightly over a year (from the story--early 2004 until March 2005). He was a trooper, meaning an NCO, though his rank is unknown. There was no mention of his being "decorated" although he certainly had service medals. He holds some views very common in the anti-Iraq-war movement."

Trying to paint a military man who volunteered for the SAS, was accepted and served in the elite parachute regiment in both Northern Ireland and Bosnia as 'Anti-War' is a bad joke. However yes, some of his views do coincide with the views of some people who are against the Iraq war. So? To me, that lends far more credence to the views of the anti-Iraq-war people.

Interestingly, this article differs completely from the other article (above) when it comes to his motives for leaving. This telegraph says he left because he was against the Iraq war. The previous one said he left because he was not willing to fight alongside US troops. A significant difference.



OK, go serve a year in the SAS, or a year as a SEAL as you are American, get operationaly deployed to three areas, and then tell me if you have any 'cred'. Until then, thats a pretty weak attack.

He did not fail to report crimes, he waited to report crimes. I'm not exactly sure what insult you are getting at with all this, as I said.

And as for refusing to serve for political resons, firstly the exact reason he would not continue is as of yet unknown, and secondly in EITHER case the resons were moral, not political. And forgive me, but as far as I know, that is the BEST reason to take a decision, not the worst one.

So you too claim he is lying, but rather than even consider the possibility that there might be some truth to what he is saying, you find it easier to invent slander about the man, create motives for him, label him aa 'anti-war' and dismiss the whole thing. As I said at the top, at least the rhetoric is consistent...

I think that's a typo by Amlord. In the quote he referenced, Mr Griffin states that he never saw any soldier shoot anyone. Seems a bit contrary to his "US soldiers are trigger-happy" allegation, so yes it's relevant.

Per the questions to be debated, I'll just say this. The nonexistent punishment in his case will likely lead to more of this conduct. Very few soldiers yearn to go into the hell hole that is Iraq. If the worst they have to fear is honorable discharge in the event of desertion, there will likely be more of this to come.

Bad show. Griffin himself says American soldiers on in one of two groups: crusaders or GI Bill college students. The fact that he used the word "crusader" should tell you something about his views. Of course, he has used crusader and untermuschen, which together should tell us something additional about his views. It seems to be more likely that his use of these terms is not merely a passing use of a "politically loaded" term.



The quotes around crimes are there because that is his word for what he saw. He called them crimes and did not report them. Funny thing, coming from an elite soldier who later resigned because he disagreed with his mission.



If summarizing a man's viewpoint (and you agree with my summary points) is insulting him then I don't know where to start. If quoting a man directly is insulting, I guess we can't question anything about him...

By the way, I never called him a liar. Again, as you did with aevans176, you attribute to me things I never said. I have always maintained that this is one man's opinion. Having an opinion does not make one a liar. What I am doing is putting some perspective on his actions by quoting his words. How very presumptuous of me.



Actually, his words were "As far as the Americans were concerned, the Iraqi people were sub-human, untermuschen." Not some Americans, THE Americans. He is the one painting with a broad brush.



Again, I never called him a liar. I am merely pointing out his opinions to add context.

And excuse me if I feel free to criticize a man's opinion. Being a member of the SAS gives absolutely no additional weight to a man's opinion. None. Zero. Nada. Especially given the fact that he never saw anyone shoot anyone in his three months in Iraq and feels free to call the Americans "trigger happy". An opinion (which he seems to lend credibility to, since one might assume that an elite trooper would have seen combat) which is based on hearsay and not personal experience. This despite being a member of the British SAS's elite "counter-terrorist team".

I highly doubt that Mr. Griffin is the first soldier who came home and wondered why the military did some of the things it did. Watch the old TV show *M*A*S*H* and see how many times idiotic actions were performed by the military. It isn't anything new and it seems to form the basis of his complaint: I disagree with the war (this war) on philosophical grounds, I think stupid things are being done (stupid tactics, stupid strategy, stupid execution), I think my allies have bad attitudes or are incompetent. It reads like Captain Hawkeye Pierce from *M*A*S*H*. The storyline isn't new. Mr. Griffin simply got away with it and was somehow honourably discharged despite de facto desertion.

Well, for 'Crusader', perhaps he just looked to the President of the United States for inspiration. "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. " (GWB)

You are reading way too much into descriptive terms he used, and notably not even adressing the substance of the comments he made.




Hello, we already went through this, repitition does not make for accuracy. He did report the crimes, to his CO in the UK, and the articles are contradictory about why he resigned. And as I said, even if it was the 'worst case' you are so eager to paint, I still am not sure how a moral reason to make a decision is such a contemptable one in your eyes.



You are correct, this is exactly like with Aevans. Both of you are consistently insinuating you do not believe him, that he is untrustworthy, that his character is questionable, and so on. Explain to me the difference between that and calling him a liar please. You say that this is one man's opinion, but both of you go much further than that and then present an assortment of resons why it is legitimate to totally ignore this one man's comments as incorrect or biased or incompetent. Of course you are calling him a liar. Or are you accepting that what he says is true?




But neither you nor Aevans have even ONCE criticised his opinion. Not once have you presented evidence to oppose it, not once have you justified disregarding his statements on their merit. You have between the two of you insulted his character, his honour, his bravery, his reputation, his rank, his motives, you have essentially done everything possible to attack the man so that you do not have to bother listening to the message. That is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.


Look, I never said I assumed his statements represented an absolutely accurate account of all American actions in Iraq. I never pretended here was a great figure preaching gospel from on high. What I have said is here is a man with the training, experience and skills to have a better understanding of what did and did not happen, what is and is not acceptable, than any of us.

My whole point was, this guy has some strong things to say, we should look at them. But you and Aevans have come up with a hundred reasons why this man is immoral, untrustworthy, borderline incompetent and traitorous rather than CONSIDER that what the man has to say MIGHT be in part true.




That is NOT what he said. He said the men he worked with, IE the Brits and the SAS, did not need to fire on people. Thats plainly obvious from the context.




No indeed you are correct, he is not the first and he will not be the last. What I find so baffling is why those who support the war will go to such extraordinary mental calesthenics rather than listen to anyone criticse the conduct of the war or the actions of US troops in Iraq.

I wanted this debate to be about the validity of his statements, I expected evidence on both sides on how the US has behaved, I reasonably assumed there would be some give and take about what can be expected from US troops on the ground, and what is unacceptable. Instead, all I have received rom you an Aevans is an astonishing and largely invented personal attack on the character of the man making the comments, and not word 1 about what he has to say.

And your not by pulling GW Bush's use of that word?



How many times did Bush call the WOT a 'crusade'?

I've heard him say it once as he groped for a term to describe a military action against terrorism. He got flak when he said it, when it was justified, but its a bit rich that people still hold it against him!

Especially in the light of the words Jihad and Mujahideed which no one seems to bothered about.




edited to add (and because I pressed the wrong button...)

Well, I think I can see things from both directions actually and I have no problem with dissenting, anti war views.

A lot of the time I support them.

But in this thread, right here, the only extraordinary mental calesthenics I see appear to be your own Vermillion.


Well if that is the case then give us examples of how the US has behaved badly and we can debate them.

Simply pointing to the dubious opinions of one former British soldier don't amount to anything worth debating though. Even if he was a member of the SAS.

Again, if quoting the man is a personal attack I don't see how we can constructively address his views.

This man is certainly entitled to his opinion, but it remains just that -- his opinion.

He contradicts himself and undermines his credibility when he affirms that Americans deserve the moniker "trigger happy" and yet "the soldiers I served with never shot anybody". Perhaps he makes a distinction between British soldiers he served with an American soldiers. Not being a soldier myself I'm not sure how one addresses allies. I think Americans would fall under the category of "the soldiers I served with" but perhaps not.

You apparently believe the terms he used (crusader and untermuschen) are commonplace and innocent of invective. I disagree. However, I will not assume that because you disagree with my opinion that you are insulting me or attacking my character. I'd suggest you give me the same benefit of the doubt when I disagree with Mr. Griffin's opinion.

All I have done is flesh out his views, using his own words. They bring context to the discussion, not insults.

If you want to delve deeper into the legalities of the war, or whether or not the UK's involvement is simply a furtherance of American foreign policy I think those topics are beyond the scope of this debate.

The questions here revolve around whether or not this one man's opinion is an indication of a falling out between the US and the UK. I believe we have both stated that such an anecdote is not indicative of a trend or indeed of UK policy.

On the matter of whether this man's opinion of US soldiers with these terms (crusader, untermuschen, gung ho, trigger happy) is alarming or not, I have simply provided context for my opinion of why these are not alarming nor should they be surprising, considering his other statements.

I am not attacking the man, I simply think he is wrong and have offered evidence that despite his deployment in the SAS, his experiences do not give him the proper credibility to make such statements with any authority.

Like Amlord, I was under the impression that the "soldiers he worked with" included American soldiers. If not, what on earth is he basing his opinion on? Heresay? He hasn't cited any personal accounts of "triggerhappy" conduct, as would be defined in a combat zone as shooting incidences.

Now, I'm sure he has disagreed with the policies and saw things he didn't like. In which case, I would think staying in would benefit others more than his desertion (can't change a system for the better if all the good people get out), if that is in fact his reason for leaving after three months time. It bares mentioning that, though the Brits are doing a tremendous job, and pulling more than their fair share, and I appreciate the fact that they haven't pulled out since this is a bad deal...there are 18 times more US forces in Iraq than UK troops. It's something like a 160,000 to 9,000 ratio. Who will be more likely to make a wrong move, encounter more questionable and dangerous situations, or make stupid choices? The US forces have 18 times the opportunity.

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?
After reading through the various arguments posted so far, this is the only question I feel like addressing because I think it's the bottom line aspect of this debate.
I can't vouch for the British military as a whole, since I'm not a member, though I have worked extensively with Commonwealth Forces. Just because a man joins an elite unit, doesn't mean that he locks onto the current mission at hand like a guided missile. Many Special operators in the US Army have reservations and doubts about our involvement in Iraq. Most, in my experience, take issue with the way we are allowed/directed to conduct operations, rather than the political aspects, but they exist also.
In my experience, those at the lower levels of rank who speak out in a public manner usually have had other events occur which drives their actions. Meaning that we don't entirely know the full story behind Mr. Griffin's service, but on the surface, we don't have any information that would lead us to think otherwise.
I don't really see the importance of this story, except as ammunition against the Bush/Blair policies.
An SAS trooper spoke out against the war and left military service......so what. The only real issue that I take with him, is that if he witnessed illegal acts in Iraq and waited until he returned to Britain to report them, then he is an accessory to the violations he claimed to witness. Some here are calling for evidence to discredit Griffins statements, but the same people are not providing any evidence to support his claims either. And from what I can tell, Griffin's statements are vague and generalized to begin with.

As the only Brit here (so far in this thread, anyway), I think I'll start with a few pints of clarification:

• Rank The Telegraph article does state Griffin's rank - he is (or was) a "Trooper", which in the British Army denotes a private soldier (it depends on his or her regiment precisely what this lowest grade is titled). It it no kind of officer, and is not even an NCO. However, this doesn't mean much in the context of the SAS.
• The SAS Along with the SBS (the special boat service), the Special Air Service is the highest elite found anywhere in the British Army. In the type of "Top Ten..." columns so beloved of male interest magazines the world over, they are consistently ranked in the top two elite special forces units in the world, alongside the Israeli special forces (who usually pip the SAS to Number 1), ahead of any US unit, even the US Navy SEALS. Traditionally, serving and ex-SAS servicemen (very few women have ever served) work hard to preserve their anonymity to protect themselves and their families from reprisals, since undercover work among enemies (the IRA in the 70s and 80s, other groups now) is a primary part of their function. While it is now possible to enter directly from civilian life, this is very new, and was not the case for Griffin, because until last year it was not possible to join without an exemplary 2 year plus record, including the parachute training commonest in, but not exclusive to, the Parachute Regiment, which is more like the 'commando' regiments soemone referred to.

Ok, lecture over.

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?
No. Like moif (who lived here for many years), I think this symbolises the (mutual) lack of understanding between most Americans and most Britons, who all tend to assume that a shared language and superficially similar cultures are evidence of some kind of philosphical confluence. We have less in common than either side really understands (though I think the Brits, who proportionately travel to the USA far more than happens in reverse, have begun to get a clue in the past 20 years or so).
On the specific issue of the Iraq War, only a bare majority (54% at its height I think) supported the War immediately prior to the invasion, largely based on the persuasive powers of Tony Blair. More even than President Bush, Blair's appeal to the British people to support the invasion was based on the threat of immediate/imminent use of WMD against British interest. So Blair has been politically damaged domestically far more than Bush, because, in short, he told more lies.
The British government has been careful to stand four square alongside the US oer Iraq and the War on Terror generally. It would be a mistake to think that this relfects any widespread support for these things among the British people. Perhaps 20 or 25% still uncritically support the actions - far more just don't understand or believe why Iraq was ever invaded. A majority stil does believe that British forces should stay as long as it takes to clean up the mess - a legacy, perhaps, of our colonial history.
While I agree that this is just one man, and I think that the average squaddie in the British Army looks on American counterparts as generally slopper soldiers that have rather more money spent on them - a mixture of envy and contempt. This attitude is not remotely new, stretching back as it does to at least WW2.

2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?
Not particularly. Much of current British military spending is predicated on being able to work alongside the US military on a more or less equal technical footing, on the assumption that no major deployments are likely for the foreseeable future on a stand-alone basis. Pragmatic this may be, however strategically questionable - it is Americans, after all, who are most likely to parrot back at the British a line made famous by one of our greatest war leaders - 'There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests'.

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?
In all honesty, no. Surprising, perhaps. But not alarming. It would be more alarming if, in a society that prizes free speech almost as much as America does, there were no voices coming from anywhere that criticised the established ways of doing things, including those practised by an ally. Britons do not set much store by the doctrine of "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". They may be polite when they make their criticisms, but in my (limited) experience they are more likely to make them.

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?
It's an outright rejection of one military deployment policy of the government by one man in the British military.

In summary, I think there are few generalisations to be drawn from anything Trooper Griffin has said, except maybe that he seems to fit into the grand British military traditional of turning into something of a snob when things don't go quite your own way.

Questions for debate:

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?

2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?

[/quote]

1) No I believe that this particular soldier merely revealed his cowardice and lack of convictions. He enjoyed the training and pay and benefits, but when it came to doing the real job, the tough job, he melted like hot butter on a Georgia July day.

2) No,professional soldiers in the command structure of both militaries could care less about one or two cowardly ,disgruntled soldiers. The military exists to wage war, defend nations, and whatever else the politicians tell it to do. Personal opinons and political grandstanding have no place in militaries of democratic governments.
3) I seem to find a correlation between this story and that of another disingenous military man, John Kerry. Like this man, Kerry served a curiously short stint in actual combat, then came home to make the same claims as this British soldier. Kerry was called out by John O'Neill and never substantiated his claims of illegal acts by Americans, he was selfaggrandizing and jockeying for position as a liberal politician with his anti-war, treasonous lies.

4) If this man Griffin represents the British military, then I see why Britain is no longer a power. THis self doubt on the part of one man could mirror the malaise and impotence of current day Britain, if so, they need to get the heck out of Iraq before they get Americans killed. A military man has no business letting his politics affect his job, which is to kill the enemy, and protect his fellow soldiers. It is good that Griffin is gone, he was a danger to his unit.

I don't understand why everybody has been dragged to a debate over this SAS soldiers political beliefs. The heart of the matter is (and will be, despite any digressions):

- Griffin is an elite soldier that has fought in Iraq,

- Seeing Iraq personally, he knows more about Iraq than all of us put together,

- He was disgusted at what he saw so he resigned.

- He served in Bosnia and Ireland bu did not make such comments there.

When all this is taken into consideration, I think this is just one more evidence (pro-war people choose to ingore) that point out the barbarity of the situation in Iraq.

I really don't see how the Griffin's political views come into this. If he had political views against US interventionism, why did he say nothing about Bosnia?

---

Ignorance is the best way to keep ones conscience clear.

I don't need to read Trooper Griffin's remarks because I already read Generation Kill and know that there are illegal actions occurring in Iraq on a regular basis, as any thoughtful person would expect in any war. Men bred in peacetime cannot be compelled to shoot his fellow man unless he has been trained to think of the enemy as not a fellow man. This is the pattern of conflict since the dawn of replicators. Every replicator since the first ones that had some type of control over their behavior has had to define the rest of the world as part of the in-group or the out-group. If you are in the in-group, you're cool. If you're in the out-group, you could become history, or you could become dinner. But membership in the out-group necessarily implies that you are not me, in the immediate or the extended sense.

Hitler didn't label Jews and Poles and gays sub-human because of a deep philosophical epiphany he had. He did it for simple political expediency, because he wanted to have a war, and he needed his soldiers to know who was 'us' and who was 'them'. Americans needed a similar de-humanizing in Vietnam, so you weren't shooting at other humans. You were just shooting at "Charlie" or "VC". Anything goes, and if your enemy will not observe any rules in his will to kill you, then he is not fit to survive. We act with righteous indignity that American soldiers committed atrocities against "civilians" in Vietnam, yet few to none of us were in the environment where VC infiltrators made every person in country a suspected enemy. If you were in a foreign country and had no reliable way to know which people are innocent villagers and which ones are trying to bomb you out of existence, I dare say it wouldn't take long for paranoia to set in. Not only that, but the stress of being in a situation that is effectively outside your control will eventually wear down on your better judgment, predisposing you to do things you otherwise wouldn't. The idea that there are "rules" to war that we must respect is just a polite fiction for all the people who have never had to pick up a gun and dodge bullets. There is no 'honor' in war, ever. There is no "righteous" way to kill a man, enemy or not. War may be inevitable, even "necessary", but it is never honorable. Humans are stupidly arrogant to think that such a concept even makes sense.

To say that war is without honor is to say that actions performed during war are without honor. Some of those actions offend our conscience more than others, but in my mind, it's like saying there's "good rape" and "bad rape", and getting indignant over the "bad rapists". If you put a gun in a man's hands and tell him to kill, what do you expect? An academic? A pacifist? An intellectual? When was the last time you met a college professor who volunteered for the infantry? That's what I thought. We get exactly what we pay for, so to cry "foul" is really to express a profound level of naivete regarding the nature of conflict. There are no "rules" to survival except survival itself. You kill or you be killed. There are no "innocents". No "morality". No "ethics". Just life and death. Anyone who thinks you can impose a moral system onto a war zone is living in a fantasy world and should be immediately conscripted.

Is the war "moral" to begin with? Is it "moral" for a lion to eat a lamb? For a parasite to eat a host? For a human to eat a hot dog? A head of lettuce? War is nothing more than one meta-organism "eating" another. Some parts get chewed more than others. The fact that the SAS soldier was in Bosnia and did not object to that conflict tells me he was either there at the end, was completely blind, or has no moral conscience at all. The Yugoslavian conflict of the 90's was the biggest Western whitewash ever concocted. It was held in so much secrecy that even the war crimes trials that followed were mostly obscured from the media. It's funny that people don't mind pointing at Muslims when bombs go off in London, Madrid, Indonesia, and New York; but when bombs go off in Yugoslavia, it must be the Serbs at fault. Are there no Muslim extremists in Bosnia? Kosovo? If you believe that, I've got a shiny new bridge to sell you.

In past, if a soldier wanted out, the whole business would be taken care of quietly. What we see today is that every little action is amplified a million times by the media because communications technology is so much more powerful. Were there no soldiers who wanted out of Korea? WW II? WW I? The Civil War? There have been deserters for as long as there has been conflict. It's just exaggerated now because of technology. We are able to see things that just weren't practical to observe in the past. History whitewashes everything. Our "just wars" are written to appear like everyone supported them. But I'm one of the few that actually remembers Gulf War I and remembering everyone not wanting to go into Kuwait. The rest of us remember us as wanting to do the right thing, but that's a polite fiction we create to justify our actions ex post facto. We cannot today conceive that something like Desert Storm could have been unpopular, but it was.

The fact that an "elite" SAS soldier objects is not at all surprising. Rather, it's quite predictable. Most likely, he is more cultured and more educated than the average grunt, and has more "moral conscience", if a man can be said to have such a thing in a war zone. It would be far more surprising if a Junior High dropout from Louisiana were to level the same charges. Then you should be really concerned. Basically, Trooper Griffin has had enough of war and no longer has the stomach for it. I don't begrudge him his desire to leave. But I also place no stock in his unfounded idealism and belief that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to wage war any more than there is a "right" and "wrong" way to commit rape, or for a lion to eat a lamb.

With that summary statement you managed to destroy any credibility in the preceding paragraphs of what were reasonable expressions.

It demonstrates "More cultured an more educated" obviously means it fits your liberal, oh, excuse me, "moderate" model. I'm reminded of the liberal guru who thinks Pol Pot was a swell guy, what's his name, oh, Chomsky. What a shining example of the best that our elite education institutions can produce.

On the contrary, you managed to destroy your own credibility with this message.

As far as I know, Chomsky never supported what Pol Pol did. He however has compared him with the US actions in the same area and has stated that US "created" Pol Pot. I see nothing wrong in that.

Here is a Chomsky Quote:



Link: http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomcambodforum.htm

But, as always, if one wants to discredit the ideas of another; it is easier to attack the man rather than his ideas. It always works.

With that statement you managed to destroy any credibility you may have had remaining.

Yes, Chomsky said Pol Pot was a swell guy, nice, lovable, fun at dinner parties...

I mean come on Yogurt, what exactly did you expect to gain with that insane twisting of the man's views? And in the same breath as challenging somebody else's credibility?

He challenged the 2 million dead figure, saying as direct action the KNOWN numbers are closer to about 700,000 (yeah, you can tell he's a real fan) while admitting it may be a lot higher as the exact total is still unknown. He also pointed out that the rise of Pol Pot has a great deal to do with US foreign policy at the time.

Disagree with him if you like, but thinking Pol Pot was a swell guy? Way to shoot your own limited credibility in the foot at the same time you make fun of somebody elses...


Edit to add: apparently I should have waited and just tagged FMA into the ring...

I assumed, wrongfully, that it was nearly stare decisis that Chomsky was finally wrote off as just another 70s wacko. To paraphrase Lord Byron and Oscar Levant, 'There is a fine line between genius and insanity', and Chomsky crossed it about 1976, never to return. You see, it was all current events to me, I lived the ongoing debates (and actually was quite liberal then!), not just what is read in history books.

Chapin

Chomsky also expressed how the extermination of what has been widely disputed anywhere from 10-25% of the populace as a small price to pay for the positive outcomes of the Pol Pot regime. Policy

By 1977 everyone else was running from Pol Pot, but Chomsky was either too full of himself or to blind to see what was unfolding...