A Force for Good? War, Crime and Legitimacy: The British Army in Iraq

Kerr, Rachel

doi:10.1080/14751790802569200

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others have accused the Army of being institutionally responsible for the abuse of civilians, suggesting that the Army has obscured the magnitude of the problem. 46 It is the latter view that the British television film, "The Mark of Cain", sought to portray. 47 According to the writer, the film had been inspired by reports of British soldiers committing atrocities in Iraq in 2003.…”

Section: Soldier As Villainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hero, Victimor Villain? The Public Image of the British Soldier and its Implications for Defense Policy

McCartney

2011

Defense & Security Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Soldier As Villainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hero, Victimor Villain? The Public Image of the British Soldier and its Implications for Defense Policy

McCartney

2011

Defense & Security Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The army is currently reviewing the report with a view to prosecuting or taking disciplinary measures against those who have thus far escaped punishment (Fox 2011). Sir William Gage noted the restrictive nature of his terms, and did not try to expand them by examining other units, despite wider allegations existing (Kerr 2008). Over the coming years, investigations by the Al-Sweady public inquiry will shed light on possible army misconduct in Iraq (Al-Sweady Public Inquiry 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Baha Mousa Tragedy: British Army Detention and Interrogation from Iraq to Afghanistan

Bennett¹

2012

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Describes the conduct and findings of a public inquiry into the death of an Iraqi civilian in British Army custody in 2003. Assesses the development of British military detention and interrogation policy in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since 2003. Argues that serious failings in policy, doctrine and training led to the death of Baha Mousa in 2003. Finds that judicial intervention has been necessary to push reform and ensure military compliance with international law. Baha Mousa died in September 2003 in British Army custody in Basra. A public inquiry reported in September 2011, and allows for the first assessment of British military detention and interrogation policy in the War on Terror. This article explains the Inquiry's remit and findings, showing how the failure to institutionalise a ban on interrogation methods in 1972 led to them re‐appearing in 2003. Poor policy, doctrine and training meant soldiers were ill prepared for dealing with detainees when Iraq was invaded in 2003. The article assesses the army's efforts to learn from the mistakes of Iraq, including reforms to policy, doctrine and training on interrogation and detention. The article's final part assesses the limitations to these reforms in practice in Afghanistan, arguing that there are still important areas demanding improvement to prevent future abuses.

show abstract

“…While public outcry has been induced by histrionic media coverage that invented or exaggerated cases of public disrespect ([24]: 26), it is in cases where 'bad apples' have been processed through the courts that the strength of public sympathy for the 'hero-victim' is most notable. These cases have been presented by the media as a witch hunt, a detriment to British Army morale and a waste of time and money that could have been better spent supporting the war effort and rehabilitating veterans [51]. This is particularly strong where the 'bad apple' is suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or depression, or has already been brought before the criminal justice system [30].…”

Section: Misrecognising the Victim Of State Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

Misrecognising the victim of state violence: denial, ‘deep’ imperialism and defending ‘our boys’

Hearty

2019

Crime Law Soc Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article critically examines public responses to attempts at holding former British soldiers accountable for historic human rights violations committed during conflicts fought overseas. Using the case of British Army veterans who served in the North of Ireland and Iraq as an empirical basis, it posits that such responses are defined by a moral myopia that distinguishes between state violence 'here ' and 'there' and 'now' and 'then'. This moral myopia, it is submitted, is a form of identity politics forged through a marriage between deep imperialism and the strategies of denial used by the state. This essentially misrecognises the victim of state violence and ultimately leads to public sympathy favouring those who stand accused of human rights abuse over and above those actually subjected to it. Ultimately, the article concludes, this means that public opinion is channelled in a way that calls for such violations not to be punished rather than for them to be punished. treatment of those who had served in Iraq. Far from needing convinced by the letter, May had herself espoused a similar sentiment at the 2016 Conservative Party conference when she proclaimed that 'we will never againin any future conflictlet those activist, left-wing human rights lawyers harangue and harass the bravest of the bravethe men and women of Britain's Armed Forces' [86].The emerging discourse evidences a 'shoot the messenger' strategy of questioning the timing and motivation ([16]: 534), rather than the actual accuracy, of allegations of wrongdoing by 'the bravest of the brave'. Deflecting blame like this has been a discursive strategy of denial consistently used by states complicit in human rights violations [15][16][17], hence there is little peculiarly British about it. However, in framing British soldiers as 'the bravest of the brave', denial is now articulated in terms of Britain's 'warrior nation' past [24,70]. The discourse exposes what Johan Galtung [33, 34] labels a culture of 'deep imperialism' still common in Western states. The injection of 'deep imperialism' into discourses of denial has allowed identity politics to frame how the British 'imagined community' [4,10] views its military. The British 'imagined community' have been conditioned through such a discourse to view the British Army as a transhistorical force for good [18], reflecting how official discourse shapes narrative identities subscribed to by the public [83]. Granted, one may question to what degree a hegemonic discourse successfully embeds itself into the public mind. However, with most people in the UK relying on media, cultural and popular portrayals of, rather than personal interaction with or connection to, 'our boys', their understanding is shaped by what these portrayals want to show and what they want to hide [101]. Unsurprisingly, then, a significant body of research drawing on public views of 'our boys' has shown that they are sufficiently influenced by official discourse [18,24,42]. When confronted with allegations of wrongdoing by 'the bravest of...

show abstract

A Force for Good? War, Crime and Legitimacy: The British Army in Iraq

Cited by 12 publications

References 3 publications

Hero, Victimor Villain? The Public Image of the British Soldier and its Implications for Defense Policy

Hero, Victimor Villain? The Public Image of the British Soldier and its Implications for Defense Policy

The Baha Mousa Tragedy: British Army Detention and Interrogation from Iraq to Afghanistan

Misrecognising the victim of state violence: denial, ‘deep’ imperialism and defending ‘our boys’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About