More than 1,000 desert UK forces

Last Updated: Sunday, 28 May 2006, 04:00 GMT 05:00 UK

More than 1,000 desert UK forces

By Jonathan Charles
BBC world affairs correspondent

More than 1,000 members of the British military have deserted the armed forces since the start of the 2003 Iraq war, the BBC has discovered.

It comes as Parliament debates a law that will forbid military personnel refusing to participate in the occupation of a foreign country.

During 2005 alone, 377 people deserted and are still missing. So far this year another 189 are on the run.

Some 900 have evaded capture since the Iraq war started, official figures say.

The Ministry of Defence is very secretive about the number of men and women who desert from the armed forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5024104.stm

invade, and occupy Iraq.

Ben Griffin was a member of the elite SAS. He told his commanding officer, earlier this year, that he was not prepared to return to Iraq because he said he saw American forces carrying out what he thought were illegal acts.

He was allowed to leave the military and he now says: "I was disturbed by the general day-to-day attitude of the American troops. They treated Iraqis with contempt, not like human beings. They had a complete disregard for Iraqi lives and property."

<snip>

He says Iraq is different to other conflicts because, in other operations, the main aim is to improve life for the local population and he believes that is not what has happened in Iraq.

Mr Griffin says: "There's contempt for the locals. We don't even know how many have been killed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5024104.stm

for Iraqis. The little Iraqi boy who had his arms shot off will haunt me until I die. We should have stopped W.

and the Brits were less brutal in Basra than the US was elsewhere. Still, SAS is a very tough outfit with a bloody record of their own in Northern Ireland, so to have a SAS veteran accuse US troops of brutality is quite an eye opener.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/03/MN98747.DTL

Washington -- The world will never know how many Iraqis died in the war to oust Saddam Hussein, in part because the United States adamantly refuses to estimate the number of people it kills in combat and because gathering accurate numbers is all but impossible after the Iraqi government's chaotic collapse.

What Bush administration officials do say is that the U.S. operation in Iraq included unprecedented efforts to minimize civilian casualties. That humanitarian stance has increased pressure on the Pentagon to abandon its long- held refusal to publicly offer numbers of civilians or enemy military personnel killed, as a way of showing if the use of precision-guided bombs and missiles and rules designed to avoid civilian targets have reduced so-called collateral damage.

"We don't do body counts," Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the Iraq invasion, has said.

<snip>

The numbers of Iraqis killed is a politically charged figure. Before the war, an estimate that originated with U.N. officials said that 500,000 Iraqis could be killed in the war, and was widely quoted by the war's opponents.

...more...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

in the war on terra.

Lancet Report on Iraqi Mortality

Read the report>>> http://www.epic-usa.org/Portals/1/Lancet_report_on_iraqi_mortality_before_and_after_2003.pdf

Detailed Summary

Background

In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it.

Methods

A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6-month period preceding it.

Findings

The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war.

Interpretation

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=424

included in that "interview" :eyes:

They call them "dirt bags" and say they "can't be trusted" and use all sorts of other racial slurs when the mood hits them.

Instead of blaming the real criminal here - Bush - they are blaming the Iraqis. Bush is SO evil, it's just not funny any more :(

Mr McDonnell told MPs there had been "an increase in the number of soldiers questioning government policy about that invasion, an increase in the number of soldiers questioning the morality and legality of the occupation and an increase in the number of serving personnel speaking out".


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19288601-1702,00.html

8,000 desert during Iraq war
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
3/7/2006
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-deserters_x.htm

WASHINGTON — At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although the overall desertion rate has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

Since fall 2003, 4,387 Army soldiers, 3,454 Navy sailors and 82 Air Force personnel have deserted. The Marine Corps does not track the number of desertions each year but listed 1,455 Marines in desertion status last September, the end of fiscal 2005, says Capt. Jay Delarosa, a Marine Corps spokesman.

<more>

relevant.

The number of people going absent's varied, but there's no way to know if 2003 was an exceptional blip or not: we'd need to know the number of recruits to the British Army and a longer track record.

Which is precisely the problem with the deserter numbers (using the distinction drawn in the article): fine, 1000 or so since 2003, over a 3-year period. So, do we assume there were 2000 desertions for 2000-2003, or 0? Clearly, the usual implicature is that the numbers have increased dramatically; but given the lack of compliance with conversational implicature usually shown by politicians, and many reporters, we can't assume the implicature is accurate. (And, as usual, even if an implicature were to hold, there'd still be no valid implication that can be drawn.)

increasing the maximum sentence for desertion suggests that it is a very real problem.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=742682006

The British armed forces are increasingly reliant on reservists and territorials (the nearest UK equivalent to the National guard) to make up the numbers. The UK military have probably told Blair in no uncertain terms that another war at this stage will probably break the army. This is probably why the there are so many contradictory signals emanating from British government over Iran. Everyone except for Blair and his lickspittles knows that a conflict with the government in Teharan would be an unmitigated disaster so they are all desperately trying to spike the Prime Ministers guns.

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

.. The numbers evading capture by the Royal Military Police have risen sharply since the invasion of Iraq, giving rise to allegations that an increasing number of soldiers might be trying to avoid further tours to the conflict zone.

The MoD denied there was any evidence that soldiers were deserting because of the war. A spokeswoman said most of the “anecdotal” evidence indicated that soldiers went Awol for personal, domestic reasons. However, according to the latest MoD figures, although the number of soldiers going Awol has stayed relatively steady at about 2,800 each year, those still remaining absent since the war started nearly tripled last year compared with 2003.

Don Touhig, who until the recent reshuffle was Veterans Minister, told BBC Radio 5 Live yesterday that there were “no hard facts” to suggest that the Iraq conflict was prompting increasing numbers to go Awol.

However, Justin Hugheston-Roberts, the solicitor acting for Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, who was sentenced to eight months in prison for disobeying orders to train for deployment to Iraq, said that he was approached regularly “by people who are seeking to absent themselves from service”. He claimed that there had “definitely been an increase” ..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2201471,00.html

Personally, I suspect that it's more to do with the prospect of fisticuffs outside of kebab shops in Colchester! :rofl: Ah well, busy times ahead for the glasshouse then.