‘Marine A’

I rose very early on Saturday morning.  My mind was disturbed, I couldn’t sleep and I had a need to hold my Son, to watch him sleep, to smell his head.  As I stood by his bedside I gave thanks to a God I don’t believe in for that moment, for that opportunity to be with my Son, to experience something that may be denied to ‘Marine A’ for a very long time.

Clearly I am distressed by the personal tragedy of ‘Marine A’ and his family, but I am also concerned that our Courts will make two profound and enduring mistakes: the sentencing of ‘Marine A’ to a long minimum tariff and the release of the names of the five Marine defendants.  I believe that both of these outcomes must be avoided.

‘Marine A’ was convicted of the murder of an enemy combatant who, seconds before, had been doing everything in his power to kill him and his comrades.  We cannot know for certain what was going through the mind of ‘Marine A’ at the moment when he murdered the wounded Talib, but, in determining if there any mitigating circumstances, we should certainly consider his situation.  We must also, surely, consider the messages that the Court is sending by its judgements.

‘Marine A’ is almost certainly not a psychopath or a sociopath, people with these personality disorders make poor soldiers.  It is also safe to assume that ‘Marine A’ did not set out to murder that day – there is no evidence of premeditation – and that he knew murdering Afghans is immoral, illegal and harmful to the Mission.  So what went wrong?

If politicians decide to put heavily armed Marines in the same area as a committed enemy and a hostile population, people are going to get hurt.  As a professional soldier you accept that you are expected to fight and kill and you accept the risk of being killed or wounded, but this experience can change you permanently in ways that are not easy to perceive at the time.

As an experienced Sergeant ‘Marine A’ would have made the protection of his men from unnecessary risk his top priority.  Through the course of that tour, as he reflected on the death and wounding of his comrades, he would have become more risk averse and much less likely to gamble the lives of his men to save a mortally wounded enemy – remember, the Taliban give no quarter.

We can also assume that ‘Marine A’ had direct experience of the killing and wounding of the enemy and regrettably this has consequences.  This is because moral sensibility becomes numbed, and sometimes perverted, by the act of killing.  The point is better made by this stanza from Wilfred Owen’s Apologia Pro Poemate Meo:

Merry it was to laugh there –
Where death became absurd and life absurder.
For power was on us as we slashed bones bare
Not to feel sickness or remorse of murder.

The mind attempts to protect itself from the psychological damage arising from killing, to rationalise actions that are irrational, to justify what can’t be justified.  If these attempts are unsuccessful the outcome is madness, as Wilfred Owen’s own experience attests.

It is also possible that ‘Marine A’ had reached the conclusion that many of us reached – the war in Afghanistan was lost and all of the killing, suffering and sacrifice was pointless.  When confronted by such futility one seeks a way out, physically, mentally and morally, but this escape is denied to professional soldiers and particularly to those who lead them.  Frustration and anger can be released in a number of ways but a release there must be.

In these examples the common thread is that ‘Marine A’ was subjected to experiences and forces that arose from an extremely stressful situation that other people put him in and that he couldn’t escape.  His ability to cope, to arrest and/or mitigate his moral degeneration, was exceeded by his repeated exposure to these stressors.  His culpability for his actions is mitigated by these factors and he should be treated leniently by receiving a low tariff from the Court.

There are some who seek to make an example of ‘Marine A’.  Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP, has said that leniency is not justified because it would send the wrong message to our enemies and make it more likely that captured/wounded soldiers would be executed.  This argument is false as our enemies already engage in such conduct as an act of policy and they implement this policy with a ruthlessness that comes from religious certitude.  His message would fall on deaf ears.

What message would a long sentence send to our own soldiers and their families?  A wholly negative one, of course.  For those who escape permanent psychological damage from their war experiences it doesn’t take long for one’s moral compass and rational capacity to be restored.  These men are unlikely to concur with Julian Lewis and his ilk, and they are also unlikely to be prepared to fight for them in future.  Who could blame them?

‘Marine A’ has been convicted of murder and he awaits sentencing.  The Court, however, made a judgement that could have very far reaching consequences for the families of the convicted and accused – it has permitted the release of their identities (pending appeal).  It seems that the establishment of this country not only wants to make an example of these men, but also to make a burnt offering of their parents, siblings, partners and children.

Many hundreds of British Muslims have partaken in jihad and returned to our shores trained to kill, terrorise, and sabotage.  Why is it in the interests of justice for the identities of these Marines to be made public and thereby enable their families to be intimidated, terrorised, and perhaps killed by British jihadis?  The families of these Marines played no role whatsoever in the murder of an enemy combatant on a battlefield thousands of miles away and they should be protected from those who seek to do them harm.

I don’t know ‘Marine A’ but I suspect that the thought that his family, and the families of his men, are now at risk is keeping him up at night.  I believe that he deeply regrets his action for the life he took, for the damage done to his Unit’s reputation and for the time he will now serve in prison.  He doesn’t deserve the further punishment of harm coming to his family.

I sincerely hope that ‘Marine A’ can return to his family very soon to enjoy precious moments with his kin and that in the interim they are able to live free of malicious retribution.  I wish all of these things because, if I had been subjected to the same circumstances, ‘Marine A’ could have been me.  So, leniency, but not clemency, and let’s keep the families out of this.

A word for the wounded Talib who in all probability was neither a religious fanatic or an Islamist.  He should have received medical attention and in 99.99% of cases this is exactly what happens.  As I stood over my Son on Saturday morning my thoughts were also of his family and their grief.

In trying to make sense of it all I reached the following conclusions.  First, there would be a lot less fighting if the people who sent young men and women to war, and those who sit in judgement of them, shouldered some of the burden and experienced its mind altering horror themselves.  Secondly, most wars utterly fail to achieve the policy objectives set for them and therefore the outcomes do not justify the cost in lives, distress, and sanity.  On this Remembrance Day perhaps we should reflect on that and resolve to do everything we can to avoid wars and the thousands of individual tragedies they entail.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to ‘Marine A’

  1. Guy Taylor says:

    Sir, whilst I understand your sentiments you must appreciate that modern day, professional troops have a code of conduct, whether it be British or American, you must also realise that ‘Marine A’ has committed a crime and under the Geneva Convention and the Law of Armed Convict, he has indeed committed a war crime.

    We cannot exercise irresponcibilty but professionally at all times. Indeed, the enemy combatant had engaged him and his men before but was now injured and unarmed.

    I am sorry Sir but Marine A is guilty of a War Crime!

    • Guy, you are correct, ‘Marine A’ did commit a crime and he has correctly been convicted of murder in Court, a point I make in my post. My purpose is to make a plea for leniency and not a pardon. Sentencing will take place in early December and the Court will decide how long the minimum term will be and I believe it should be shorter rather than longer. I served in the Marines for 18 years, including in Afghanistan, and I completely agree with your point about obeying the law. However, should ‘Marine A’ go to prison for the rest of his life? I don’t think so as there are mitigating circumstances. Finally, on a point of fact, the injured Talib was not unarmed as he was carrying a weapon and a grenade. He also could have had control of an command wire IED (this is a common Taliban tactic). What makes his killing a crime, in the terms of the Rules of Engagement, is that the Marines had established that he no longer posed a threat to life and therefore there was no justification for using lethal force. If, on observing that he was armed, the Marines had immediately shot him, no crime would have been committed. On these fine judgements do lives, and liberty, depend.

  2. Tom N says:

    The reality of counter-insurgency is that one side can fight a ‘total war’, whilst the other has to limit themselves to retain moral superiority and offer a ‘better’ alternative to the population. If you add to this the challenge of retaining political support at home, whilst under the gaze of a hungry media, we can perhaps begin to see the enormity of the challenge facing our troops in Afghanistan. The resulting strain on the soldier could not be clearer than here: in one moment on the battlefield you are asking a soldier to change his mindset from killing (for survival) to rescuing (for political gain in theatre and at home), all whilst painfully aware that your enemy has not signed up to the same code of conduct. This is a great challenge to the first principle of war – selection and maintenance of the aim. That this member of our Armed Forces has failed to live up to the high standards expected of him, and trained into him, is a great shame and cannot in any way be condoned. However I cannot disagree with you and I support a call for leniency; the demands on him were greater than could be trained for. He should not be the focus; instead we should be considering whether the demands on him were justifiable and whether the support for him (and other soldiers) in that theatre was sufficient.

  3. Guy, I would love to hear/see your response if you had served, or lost a child who has served to these murdering hypocrites called the TALIBAN, enough said.

  4. Mark Harris says:

    Beautifully written and I totally agree.

  5. Angus W says:

    Harry, Like you, I am greatly perturbed by this situation – I find the decision to name Marine A as shocking but moreover, the rhetoric from senior officers is highly disturbing. I have learnt that in war, every action and every deed is judged as part of a wide influence campaign (messaging by lethal and non lethal means) against our enemies. In this case, I abhor that Marine A executed an insurgent who was hors de combat, but moreover, I revile the sanctimonious position of our commanders (and others that sit in judgement of the military (judges)) that fail to appreciate the realities of combat. It seems to me that there is a clear failure to understand the circumstances of combat and cumulative effect of operations directed by the Government. I contend that the chain of command (senior serving military) and general leadership (politicians and judges) are so out of touch that they send young men to commit themselves to service without considering the longer term effects on those at the sharp end of kinetic operations. I am angry that the leadership of this country has placed Marine A such position that he (or others) would commit such a crime in the line of duty. It seems to me that the judges and politicians have failed to understand the human nature of combat (isn’t this why we employ senior officers in MOD?) and I am surprised that the broader context of this situation has not been considered. In particular, I find that that position of senior officers with their outright condemnation of this soldier as a only a stance to further their own careers. As if the Taliban give a monkeys what a senior military officer say… This situation highlights are own weakness and our enemies are now in a position to exploit our vulnerabilities – now and in the future. But furthermore, this case has highlighted and gone some way to confirming that the chain of command have failed to protect the ordinary soldier. It is time to institute a trade union for officers and soldiers to protect them from the broader vagaries of political (and senior officer career) protectionism and to ensure better representation for our soldiers and officers in the future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s