The controversial policy was emerged at an inquest into the death of Sgt Peter Rayner, 34, a soldier who was killed in October last year by an improvised explosive device as he led a patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan
They are instead being ordered to just observe insurgents and record their position to reduce the risk of civilian casualties.
The controversial policy emerged at an inquest into the death of Sgt Peter Rayner, 34, a soldier from the 2nd Batallion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment who was killed in October last year by an improvised explosive device as he led a patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Wendy Rayner, 40, disclosed that in the days leading up to his death her husband been told that it was not his job to attack insurgents laying bombs. Mrs Rayner, who lives with their young son in Bradford, told the inquest that the insurgents were being allowed to get away with the murder of British troops.
She said: “They are not allowed to fire on these terrorists. If they can see people leaving these IEDs, why can’t they take them out? One officer even told him 'I am an army Captain and you will do your job'.
"We have lost too many men out there, they had seen people planting IEDs yet could not open fire or make contact with them. I believe strongly if people had taken on board what he was saying more he might have been here today.”
Under the Geneva Convention and the nationally administered Rules of Engagement the 9,500 British troops in Afghanistan are told they can only attack if there is an immediate threat to life.
A key part of the MoD’s counter-insurgency theory holds that it is more important to win over civilians by not killing innocent people than it is to eliminate every potential insurgent.
One officer who has recently served in Afghanistan said that if a soldier wanted to ascertain if an insurgent was an immediate threat, he would have to approach him and expose himself to greater risk.
He said: “A British soldier manning a checkpoint at night might watch a man digging a hole for an IED 100 metres away and would not try to shoot at him. It’s a ludicrous situation.
“There has to be an immediate threat to life and that’s a hard thing to prove. An IED does not count as an immediate threat. “The Americans are different – their Rules of Engagement are pretty liberal. If they even suspect someone of laying a bomb, they can shoot them.”
Afghans routinely dig holes in river banks to store meat because there is no refrigeration and farmers often dig at night because it is cooler to work. The Taliban bomb layers take advantage of this to spread confusion. They set roadside bombs where farmers work and villagers store meat, and they also pay civilians $10 a time to dig a hole.
If the civilian is shot, it is a propaganda victory for the Taliban, and if the hole is not discovered by soldiers, it can be used later for a roadside bomb. The existing policy of “courageous restraint” was led by the US General Stanley McChrystal 18 months ago and has been repeatedly criticised for leaving soldiers fighting “with one hand behind their backs”.
At yesterday’s inquest, after the acting Bradford coroner Paul Marks recorded a verdict of unlawful killing, Mrs Rayner urged the MoD to “let our soldiers be soldiers”.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: “Troops in Afghanistan are required to exercise restraint when dealing with this threat as the use of deadly force is not always appropriate when there is a risk of collateral damage.
“The aim of this policy is to avoid innocent civilians who may be in the vicinity.”
Source : The Telegraph
Under the Geneva Convention and the nationally administered Rules of Engagement the 9,500 British troops in Afghanistan are told they can only attack if there is an immediate threat to life.
A key part of the MoD’s counter-insurgency theory holds that it is more important to win over civilians by not killing innocent people than it is to eliminate every potential insurgent.
One officer who has recently served in Afghanistan said that if a soldier wanted to ascertain if an insurgent was an immediate threat, he would have to approach him and expose himself to greater risk.
He said: “A British soldier manning a checkpoint at night might watch a man digging a hole for an IED 100 metres away and would not try to shoot at him. It’s a ludicrous situation.
“There has to be an immediate threat to life and that’s a hard thing to prove. An IED does not count as an immediate threat. “The Americans are different – their Rules of Engagement are pretty liberal. If they even suspect someone of laying a bomb, they can shoot them.”
Afghans routinely dig holes in river banks to store meat because there is no refrigeration and farmers often dig at night because it is cooler to work. The Taliban bomb layers take advantage of this to spread confusion. They set roadside bombs where farmers work and villagers store meat, and they also pay civilians $10 a time to dig a hole.
If the civilian is shot, it is a propaganda victory for the Taliban, and if the hole is not discovered by soldiers, it can be used later for a roadside bomb. The existing policy of “courageous restraint” was led by the US General Stanley McChrystal 18 months ago and has been repeatedly criticised for leaving soldiers fighting “with one hand behind their backs”.
At yesterday’s inquest, after the acting Bradford coroner Paul Marks recorded a verdict of unlawful killing, Mrs Rayner urged the MoD to “let our soldiers be soldiers”.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: “Troops in Afghanistan are required to exercise restraint when dealing with this threat as the use of deadly force is not always appropriate when there is a risk of collateral damage.
“The aim of this policy is to avoid innocent civilians who may be in the vicinity.”
Source : The Telegraph
No comments:
Post a Comment