|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
News Search
|
|
13-02-2006 Scotsman Analysis: From Muhammad cartoons to video nasty By Gethin Chamberlain IT IS not, and it never will be, acceptable for British troops to beat prisoners, even less so for them to kick a dead body in the face. Those who were caught on the film published by the News of the World yesterday will doubtless be identified and thrown out of the army after serving appropriate jail time. The army can do nothing else. Reactions are equally predictable. The timing could hardly have been worse, following a week of fury over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, these pictures will play badly in the Muslim world. Those who oppose the war in Iraq will say this offers further proof that Britain should not be involved. Those who supported it, and those serving, will put their heads in their hands and groan. But the decision to publish the pictures raises difficult issues and questions. Context is important. What are the circumstances in which these events were filmed? Do they offer an insight into a more widespread culture of abuse, or are they simply an example of ill-discipline in one small unit? And will publication endanger the lives of other servicemen and women who have not behaved in such a disgraceful manner? This is the third time pictures have appeared of British soldiers apparently abusing Iraqis. The previous two - one genuine, the other the Daily Mirror's notorious fakes - prompted retribution against soldiers who were not involved. After the Mirror's fake pictures appeared in May 2004, the Ministry of Defence reported that 11 soldiers were injured in 100 engagements with Iraqi gunmen in and around Basra and al Amarah. And last year, after pictures were released of British troops abusing Iraqi prisoners, nine British soldiers were injured in a suicide bomb attack south of Basra, with an al-Qaeda-linked group claiming it was a direct response. British newspapers did not carry the cartoons of Muhammad to avoid causing offence to Muslims. Yet there has been no compunction about publishing pictures which might lead to the death of British men and women serving in Iraq. For the News of the World, which broke the story, this must have been a hard call to make. Its default position has been that the Iraq war was right, and it certainly sees itself as supportive of British troops. But it is important not to overestimate the possible backlash. While British soldiers did find themselves the subject of more attacks after previous publications, the response across the wider Muslim world was more sanguine. There appeared to be an acceptance that such incidents would take place. Iraq, and other Arab countries, have a tradition of firm policing. The violence pictured by the NoW might upset western sensibilities, but to others it may be less unexpected. It is also worth considering the circumstances. Although there was no date given for the filming, it appears they were taken in early 2004 in Basra, at a time of violent rioting. In March, pictures of British troops on fire after being attacked by a mob in Basra were seen around the world. A total of 14 soldiers were injured, all but one by improvised bombs and petrol bombs. A few days later, more soldiers were injured trying to evict a stone-throwing crowd from government buildings. A couple of months later, the first VC of the campaign was awarded as British troops came under attack in Amarah. Yet the British military response was remarkably restrained. Would US forces have responded to a grenade attack on their compound by sending out a snatch squad to arrest the culprits? A burst of gunfire and dead rioters would have been far more likely. Anyone who has spent time with British troops in Iraq knows that most behave responsibly towards the Iraqi population. They will regard those who kicked a dead Iraqi in the head with contempt. They will feel the same way about someone who filmed such incidents and kept the footage to show friends. But although they will not necessarily approve, some may understand how the soldiers concerned may have given in to a moment of indiscipline. In such situations, when fear and adrenaline take command, frustrations can spill over. Yesterday was a bad day for the British Army, but not one from which it cannot recover. Those who took the pictures and those who inflicted the violence shamed themselves and their country. But the circumstances must be understood, and the reaction must be proportionate.
|
|
||||
|
................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
