Three suicide bombers, three cafes - many dead. That was the warning given by
an informant to his MI6 handler in Baghdad in the summer of 2005 as a group
of insurgents planned devastating attacks.
The bombers, swaddled in explosives under loose shirts, were preparing to hit
the cafes with simultaneous explosions to cause maximum panic. Scores of
people might die.
In the bloody chaos of Iraq, sifting hard fact from rumour and traps is never
easy. But this intelligence seemed detailed and well sourced: the informant
identified the targets, the date and the safe house from which the bombers
would make their attack.
It sparked swift activity among the SAS, which in Iraq is facing its most
severe challenge since it was set up during the second world war.
Senior officers from the SAS, MI6 and the intelligence gathering Special
Reconnaissance Regiment gathered in an inconspicuous warehouse in the green
zone, the heavily fortified coalition base in Baghdad. The Station House, as
it is known, is the nerve centre of Britain’s special forces and MI6
operations in Iraq.
Three large computer screens on the wall are linked to the US military’s
secure internet. One shows what is happening with the wider coalition forces
across Iraq; another provides details of all current special operations; and
a third displays as text everything that is being said on the special
missions’ radio networks on the ground.
A plan to neutralise the suicide bombers was swiftly formulated. First, an
observation team equipped with monitoring equipment slipped into position
around the safe house. The SAS wanted to be sure the intelligence was
correct. It soon became clear that the bombers’ plans were all too real.
A 16-man assault team moved in, including four SAS snipers whose usual weapon
is an AWS rifle with telescopic sights. Smaller than a standard sniper rifle
and with a range of only 300 yards, its shot sounds like an air gun.
Three snipers would each target one bomber; the fourth was to take out any
bomber who did not go down immediately. Behind the SAS a quick reaction
force of paratroopers and bomb disposal experts waited.
In the rising heat of a July morning, the team lay hidden around the safe
house. An Arabic-speaking intelligence officer, monitoring the voices
inside, warned: “Targets preparing to exit.” The snipers readied themselves.
When all three bombers were in clear sight, the commander gave the order to
fire. The sniper rifles were barely heard as the bombers jerked and hit the
ground.
Clad in explosive vests, the bombers had represented an immediate threat to
all around them; it meant that the SAS had legal authority to open fire.
They had shot to kill with justification. But the operation reveals how brutal
the war in Iraq is and how fine are the lines of engagement - especially for
special forces. Iraq, one special forces officer said, is proving the most
intense fighting that the SAS has experienced since the second world war.
British special forces are sometimes conducting five or six operations a
day.
“It is warfare where the enemy is prepared to die to achieve his objective,”
he said. “That is hard to counter and the insurgent approach has forced us
to think not just out of the box, but around the corner. We were involved in
the hunt for some of the HVTs [high-value targets, including Sad-dam
Hussein’s former hench-men and leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq] and that often
resulted in firefights of a kind we had not seen before.
“The sheer velocity of the insurgents’ determination to kill us had to be
gripped quickly. There was no room for error. It was kill or be killed.”
A senior SAS officer told a recent mess dinner that operations alongside the
Americans in Baghdad are probably “the most challenging task” the regiment
has ever carried out and that the environment “is perhaps the most hostile
of current operations across the world”.
One source said: “Don’t be under any illusions: Baghdad is full-on, a daily
diet of extreme insurgent violence combined with poverty and propaganda. We
slotted [killed] a lot of insurgents, but I have to admit that we took a lot
of casualties and we continue to take them.” Another source put it bluntly:
“They’ve killed several thousand people.”
The vast majority were killed in airstrikes called in support of SAS
operations, but a substantial number were shot dead by UK special forces on
the ground. It is their standard practice not to keep a “score card” of
deaths on such missions, but a source estimates that the total number killed by shooting is in the hundreds.
British generals are uneasy about what happens next. As UK troops wind down in
the south of Iraq, the special forces remaining in Baghdad may find
themselves drawn deeper into US operations. And the US approach to special
ops - particularly when to shoot to kill - is very different from that of
the British.
THE usual number of UK special forces in Baghdad is close to 400 men: a single
60-man SAS “sabre” squadron; a company of paratroopers, Royal Marine
commandos and RAF Regiment personnel from the Special Forces Support Group;
a squadron from the Special Reconnaissance Regiment; and a squadron of radio
monitoring experts from 18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment. They also have specialist
signallers from 264 (SAS) Signal Squadron, specially fitted-out RAF Chinook
helicopters from 7 Squadron and C-130 Hercules transport aircraft from 47
Squadron.
The US has about 47,000 “special forces”; but only about 1,200, including
Delta Force and Seal Team Six, are comparable to British special forces
units.
The differences between the way US and British special forces operate became
clear early in the war on terror. In Afghanistan in December 2001 a four-man
Special Boat Service (SBS) team was 20 minutes behind the fleeing Osama Bin
Laden when it was ordered to let the Americans take over. By the time the US
special operations troops arrived several hours later, Bin Laden had
escaped.
Similar tensions arose in Mosul in northern Iraq in July 2003. Coalition
forces were tipped off that Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay were hiding in a
villa. A 12-man SAS team went in to recce the building. The commander of the
32-man SAS detachment in the city believed his men could quickly capture the
brothers so they could be brought to trial.
US commanders disagreed. Not only did they doubt such a small unit could
capture Uday and Qusay, they were also reluctant to cede a high-profile
operation to nonUS forces. The result was mayhem: helicopters attacked with
antitank missiles while a Delta unit stormed the building and support troops
looked on. It was not the British idea of special operations.
The SAS and SBS - who often fight on land despite their naval connections -
have been involved in America’s secret worldwide special forces activities
since the start of the war on terror, operating alongside Delta, Seal Team
Six and an ultra-secret US unit known as Task Force Orange. But Iraq has
brought the differences between the two military cultures into sharp focus.
“The problem from the start was that operational training and procedures for
the top UK and US special operations forces are vastly different,” one
British source said.
In Iraq, British special forces aim to merge into the background, driving
battered local cars and wearing cheap clothes bought in markets. They looked
on aghast at their US colleagues who initially drove around in new Dodge
pickups.
“We used to laugh when we saw the Americans around the green zone,” one source
said. “They would be wearing designer jeans, heavy boots and T-shirts - that
was their idea of local dress. To a man they would all have pistols strapped
to each leg with black plastic holster and webbing, and of course they would
be wearing the latest shades. We called it ‘living the dream’.”
But it was far from a joke. If the Americans were spotted for what they were,
then any British forces operating alongside them would be at risk as well.
Even more seriously, if US forces applied their doctrine of shooting first
and asking questions later, the British risked being dragged into the same
dangerous territory.
When seizing an insurgent - a “hard arrest” - British special forces are not
allowed to kill unless they encounter resistance. By contrast, the US
special forces call such operations “kill or capture” missions.
Annoyed by their lack of progress in hunting down America’s enemies, Donald
Rumsfeld, the then US defence secretary, in 2002 directed them to “find, fix
and finish” terrorists. This order was secretly backed up by President
George W Bush. Lethal force was declared legal, with or without resistance –
although in some eyes this contravenes international law.
The more nuanced British approach to special operations does have its own
risks. In the early hours of September 5, special forces surrounded a house
in Baghdad where intelligence had located a senior Al-Qaeda leader. The SAS
deployed 30 men, a bigger force than normal.
Teams targeted the front and rear. Sergeant Eddie Collins, described by the
commanding officer of 22 SAS as “a champion soldier, a proud and loving
family man and a great friend”, was among those tackling the front. The
order came to storm the house.
“You go in with people at the front and at the rear, and the ones who are at
the front are the first to get in,” said a source. “[Collins] was at the
front and he was shot in the head.” He died instantly.
Collins was the seventh member of UK special forces to die in Iraq. The high
tempo of operations has also inflicted a heavy toll of injuries. Four SAS
squadrons, rotating on six-month tours, have suffered 47 seriously wounded.
More than 30 men have suffered critical head injuries or damage to limbs
sometimes necessitating amputation. The toll of killed or seriously wounded
is more than a fifth of the regiment’s fighting strength.
Many of the injured have been been forced to leave the regiment or take desk
jobs, either at the SAS base at Credenhill, near Hereford, or at the
Directorate of Special Forces in Regent’s Park, central London.
“Baghdad has seen the regiment at its best, doing what we are trained for, but
the cost has been high,” said one officer. “We are suffering from a manning
shortage as a result of our casualties and it will be some time before we
can get back to full strength.”
To fill the gap, members of the SAS and SBS who have finished their 22 years’
service and would normally have to retire are being offered short-term
contracts to stay on.
“They’re mainly senior NCOs and warrant officers whose experience is frankly
invaluable,” said the source.
Questions are being asked as to how long the SAS can continue operating at
such a high tempo. “There is concern in the regiment that it is only a
matter of time before they suffer a big loss,” one source said. So far there
has been little but praise for special forces in Iraq. Barry McCaffrey, a
retired US general who went to Iraq last year to compile a report for the
West Point military academy, described special forces operations as “simply
magic”.
Referring to Delta and Seal Team Six, and by extension the SAS, he said: “They
are deadly in getting their target with minimal friendly losses or injuries.
Some of these assault elements have done 200-300 takedown operations at
platoon level.”
There is now concern among senior British officers that the SAS has become so
tied into US special operations in central Iraq that it will continue to
fight an American war long after British troops are gone from the south.
“In the early days they were happy to join the fight and felt comfortable
acting as the tip of the spear for the UK,” one source said. “But the
thought now is that they have just become an extension of Delta.”
Some serving and former members of the British special forces worry that under
US control the rules of engagement could become even more blurred. Among
them is Ben Griffin, who left the army in 2005 with a good recommendation
from his commanding officer.
“I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong,” he said.
“The Americans had a well deserved reputation for being trigger-happy.”
There was also serious concern over the way in which the US special operations
forces were prepared to send Iraqis to detention facilities for what
subsequently proved to be illegal interrogations.
“I knew, so others must have known, that this was not the way to conduct
operations if you wanted to win the hearts and minds of the local
population,” Griffin said.
“And if you don’t win the hearts and minds of the people, you can’t win the
war.”
Michael Smith is the author of Killer Elite: The Inside Story of America’s
Most Secret Special Operations Team
How the SAS operates under US command
The SAS is fully integrated into a US-led “combined joint special operations
taskforce” based in Baghdad. It is known as Task Force 88 and is headed by
the commander of Delta, the US army’s SAS equivalent.
When operating on the ground, the US and British special operations troops use
colours to identify each other. Delta is Task Force Green - because it is
the main US army special operations team; Seal Team Six is known as Task
Force Blue - for navy - and the SAS as Task Force Black, which stems from
its renowned counterterrorist expertise. A US special operations
intelligence gathering unit is known as Task Force Orange.
The SAS normally has a single squadron of 60 men in Iraq - based largely in
Baghdad with a detachment in Basra - but in recent weeks it has sent a
second squadron to prevent Iranian interference in the south.
British concerns over the way in which US special operations teams operate
stem in part from a secret memo issued in July 2002 by Donald Rumsfeld, then
US defence secretary, in which he demanded that commanders work out a plan
“to find and deal with” terrorists. The intention was to capture the
terrorists for interrogation or kill them, “not simply to arrest them in a
law enforcement exercise”, wrote Rumsfeld. The policy was backed by George W
Bush in a secret 2004 directive authorising US special operators to “find
and finish” terrorists regardless of whether they presented an immediate
threat. Many legal experts believe that this amounts to extrajudicial
killing and is consequently banned under international, and therefore
British, law.
Any British serviceman shooting someone who did not represent an immediate
threat would be likely to face a court martial. At least one SAS soldier has
already been investigated over allegations that he shot dead an Iraqi
civilian. He was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing.
Read more on Mick Smith's
defence blog
It really isn't a question of who is 'better'. It is more a question of what each is 'better' at and this has to do with military doctrine which is determined by the resources available. Up to Brigrade level nobody (with the possible exception of the Israelis) is better than the Brits. But to fight a total combined forces war nobody is better than the Amercans. As they have the numbers and technology the Americans have, quite rightly, focused their military doctrine on overwhelming force. The Brits as they don't have the number or technology have always focused more on getting the most from what they have - they don't have the numbers or technology to have an overwhelming force doctrine.
Britain has always been a small army with a small army doctrine.
This doctrine has fed through to the area of special forces. The secret to success is to harness the best of both.
John, Reading, uk
What is the difference between covert armed soldiers killing undesirables in Iraq and Saddam Hussein doing the same ?
Answer, Saddam Hussein had Iraq under control.
What is the difference between Nazis in WW2 killing undesirables in German occupied land and covert soldiers in Iraq doing the same?
Answer, Absolutely nothing.
This is not a 'War on Terror' it is a 'War of Terror'.
Paul Gibbons, Milton Keynes, UK
I don't know anything amount military matters, but isn't it just a given that the British (culturally, and in a general sense, individually) tend to behave with more subtlety and understatement than Americans?
Americans, on the other hand, are famously inclined toward precipitate action and a kind of 'cowboy' mentality, which of course president Bush epitomizes. I find it completely reasonable to believe that such national or cultural qualities would be evident in the military as well.
Lindsay George Gray, Owen Sound, Canada
The US troops tend to be creative, dedicated, even when doing a job that many did not wish to do (they aren't stupid; they realize that Afghanistan and Iran are different, and 40% or more are reservists who shouldn't be there). Their methods are not necessarily of their design--they are given the tactics. You also forget that British troops have the advantage of 30-40 years fighting urban warfere with bombers in Ireland. It is a war of different tempo, equipment, and methods--yes, the US does resort too easily to airstrikes. England has usually been better at training its troops in local usages, though as many books and analyses testify, the British have been as prone to racism and overreaction as has America--vide. the British
experience in Iraq in the twenties. it is not something innate in the troops --it is the leadership, from the level of Colonel to
the President.
Letscleanhouse, Detroit, Michigan USA
It's sad that I have to read this in a British source. I doubt that any news source in the US would dare to tell the real stories of how our soldiers are breaking international law. I understand the use of force, but shooting first and asking questions later is no good.
I completely agree with the idea that we can not win the war if we do not win over the people.
And I am sorry for the ego-driven america-centric compatriots that I live with here in USA.
Blake B, LA, CA
Eric Johnson, as a serving soldier i will be more than happy to show you several thousand pages of statistics that give credence to our "anecdotal evidence".
Good article.
Crow, Windsor, England
Good read.
Eric Johnson,
Having spent 26 years as a soldier, your narrow minded view is exactly why the Brits are so much better, we do not have the money, equipment or numbers as the US of A, we like the Canadian’s make do. By the time your sort has used his one eye to assess, we have completed the Task. Have a nice day.
T Jones Vancouver.
TJones, Vancouver, Canada
I just love how brits believe their military is superior to America's The people who make this claim are always British!! It's always anecdotal and never based on any objective criteria or analysis. The nasty characters on the world stage i.e. North Korea, Iran have nothing to fear from Britain's "superior Military" It's American's military which keeps them awake at night. I believe Brits push this "superior" non-sense because it is something they cannot verify, and they have never gotten over the fact that a former colony has blown right past them in every measurable standard of power and wealth and influence worldwide.Can't say your stronger so claim to be "better"Like a man claiming he is a "better lover" than some other man. A meaningless claim. EJ North Carolina U.S.A.
ERIC JOHNSON, ra, USA
Peter J. Stewart, New York, NY, I Think you will find that your simplistic approach to history is very childish. While you claim that "We bailed you out of WWI and WWII", it would appear that at most your knowledge of the World Wars is at best limited to either the History Channel or just simply a very narrow teaching of history. I think that maybe you should go read a little more into the nature of the two wars in order to get an appreciation for how long they lasted and the sacrifices that all nations involved made. This is not to deny that American millitary support was not needed. Vietnam......well that is a different story. What need did we have to get involved when the American Government couldnt decide if more or less troops were needed.
I myself am a Catholic living in England and have yet to experiance any of the Racism that you mention......but then i dont think people in glass houses should throw stones.
Carl, Nottingham, UK
Re: Tom So just because USA helped Europe in WW1-2 and the cold war the USA is free to behave anyway it see fit? Just because you win doesn't mean you're right. It's ignorant and an insult to those who fought WW1-2 and cold war to say that the USA solely were responisble for the outcome of these conflicts. I am very sure most people you read your comment are sick of you.
Carl, Göteborg, Sweden
Clearly this is a jaded European view. I am pretty sure you all enjoyed our support during the World Wars and the Cold War. I never saw any anti-American rhetoric spewed by you ungrateful Europeans. Now that you have to ante up you are a bunch of cry babies. I am sick of you all.
Tom W., Brick, USA
Peter J. Stewart, New York; Good response to the Pom, and ffair given her claim that "yet again, the British Soldier is forced to fight an American War". Everyone in the business knows that Americans are fighting the hard fight, regardless of who started it and whether or not it was a good idea. However, you must have different reference books on the civil war. The French supported the Confederates and the Brits were fighting the French. That put them on the Union's side I think. 1812; subjective!!! And a visit to the Somme will give you a reality check on relative influence the US had on WW1. In any case, the future is what counts and it might be best for the US to hang on to the few staunch allies it still has; of which, the closest and strongest is the UK. On that, you must agree.
Derek , Perth , Western Australia
I feel that the Brit approach to special operations is right on the money. US special operations ( with the exception of Army SF) are direct action oriented... Driving around in armored Suburbans (high-profile) is making yourself a target. The US is forgetting the lessons of Central America in the late 1980's and the teachings of Theodore Roosevelt- "Walk softly but carry a big stick." Don't be the quinessential "ugly American." Driving around in a run-down Fiat sedan (that's mechanically sound!) and staying low-profile is, I feel (from past experience) is much safer AND less offensive than the current practice. Once the US special operations and intel community remember this, we'll have more effective operations with less loss of life.
Pete Mahanes, Dam Neck, VA , USA
Dear Peter J. Stewart, New York, NY,
The British were the, "aggressors in The Revolution and the War of 1812."?? Somehow I don't think that any version of history supports either contention. Both Wars were fought for the same reason, both were engineered by first the "Colonists" and latterly the Americans in order to negate Treaties made with the Native Indian population in 1754. Unlike successive US Governments the British actually honoured its Treaty commitments. The "White" colonists and Americans of European origin sought expansion westwards through the Wabash and Ohio Basins. Nothing whatsoever to do with Taxation or Representation. In 1812 America invaded Canada, the initial attacks being defeated by Canadian troops under Brock allied with Native American Indians led by the great war Chief Tecumsah. The US attempt to liberate Canada failed in 1812 just as the later attempt in the late 1860's failed, on that occasion the invading US forces were too drunk to find Canada
W.E.W, Stavanger, Norway
Our Troopers are doing a sterling job, as is the entire British Armed Forces and deserve far more than our Establishment selfishly gives them.
Yes this is an illegal war fought for natural resources and to prevent stability in a region too close to home, and sold to us under the threat of terrorism.
Admittedly 9/11 was bad, i know people who died in it, but that is still only 3000 people, most americans don't like to think that 300,000 CHILDREN died directly as a result of US inspired UN-Imbargoes on Iraq, and then they happily give the regime money for Oil. pat your selves on the backs yanks, your children will be so proud. but only because it is the 'popular teaching' in your schools.
America does have a policy for 'A New American Century' and they want Empire, unfortunately they do not have the moral experience comming from tens of hundreds of years of civilisation. I don't know a nation that is either.
May all our Soldiers, our sons and brothers, come home to us.
Toby Snell, Stevenage,
Dear Maggie (From Stoke on Trent):
"yet again, the British Soldier is forced to fight an American War"? What planet are you on. What other "American" wars have the British soldiers been forced to fight in? You were absent from Vietnam. You were the aggressors in The Revolution and the War of 1812. You supported the Confederates in our Civil War. We bailed you out of WWI and WWII. Korea was a UN action. Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back. My Grandfather is from Glasgow and I thank him everyday for immigrating. Oh by the way his reason to immigrate being Catholic and born to an Irish Mother. As I say time and time again the only acceptable form of racism/discrimination allowed in the UK is anti-Irish Catholic. As for the SAS I have a lot of respect for them and I can objectivly state that they are better than our special forces. All that practice harassing my Grandmother in County Tyrone I guess.
Peter J. Stewart, New York, NY
yet again, the British Soldier is forced to fight an American War. The rreason they use our Special Forces in Iraq, is because they are the best, and woe betide a smaller force of men bettering the Americans at their own game. The real reason of integrating our troops into an American 'controlled' force, is to make sure that the Americans, who love to be seen as saviours of the 'Free World' get all the credit when someone goes right, but can blame the NATO Allies , meaning the Brits, the French, the Germans, Aussies etc, when something goes wrong.
Iraq was an illegal war, but we were forced into it against the wishes of the majority of people in this country because our so called 'leaders' were spineless wimps who preferred top cowtow to the Great American President, than say NO, and risk a childish temper tantrum from an Ignorant, pompous war monger.
And before anyone critisises me as being a radical, I am I am the Mother of 2 son's fighting this illegal war.
Maggie, Stoke-on-Trent, England
I do hope these people do not become the Vietnam joke , like the US special forces are presented to all the world in RAMBO movies.
It would be such a shame if the Iraq war was shown in this way in 10 years time
Imagine series of hollywood RAMBO moves about Iraq...
I do hope not..
Nicholas Iles, Oswestry, United Kingdom
Go SAS .. I,m an ex-pat brit living in the US and for many years have had the opinion that the only way to win such a war is exactly as described by the SAS method, unfortunately our American cousins have lead a spoilt life with ( in my opinion ) with too much technology and whilst it must be said our American friends are tough well trained soldiers there is a great tendency to micro-manage from senior officers and an inherent dependency on luxury rather than getting down and dirty .. wearing old local clothes etc, etc,. There bravery is still OUTSTANDING , and I do not think there is an army in the world capable of beating the USA with its current fire power .. but a civilian war is very different..
Richard Summers, Hilton Head Island , SOUTH CAROLINA . USA.
Pure British pride! The fact is both British and American forces work well togher. Look at Royal and US Marines. Yes, American pride cost us Ben. The rest of your article is reflects the British need to be "In-charge".
Izen, Miami, FL
The American army continues to show itself up as a joke. All equipment, no brains. Regardless of whether or not i support the war, British troops tend to make me proud because of good conduct.
Matthew, London,
the yanks from WW2 to Vietnam have always been 2nd rate to the Brits. Still better than most - but for sure 2nd to the Brits....
Graham, Washington DC,
The 2nd Battalion-Royal Anglian Regiment in it's tour of
Afghanistan so far has taken killed and wounded 20%
casualties. Our peacetime army is engaged in a second
world war type intensity on two fronts. The Europeans are not
fighting this war, so why are we in the European Union? It is
down to America and Britain. To continue we will need a bigger army, we must raise the level of commonwealth recruits
from 10% to 25% and raise more Gurkha battalions if we want
to stay in the fight and remain a free people. We must pay our
soldiers more to keep up their morale.
Roderick, Hampshire, England
It seems that as everyone is aware, the Brits just want to get in and get the job done, the Americans need the PR that goes with it. Although I feel that in saying that I do most of our American cousins a dis-service, as the people I have spoken to on my recent visits are embarrassed and mystified by the actions of good old GW. If I, as a normal civilian, know that the way to win a war is to win the 'hearts and minds' than why can the most powerful nation on earth not grasp this simple concept as they stomp all over the middle east ramming their designer proclivities down everyone's throat. Get rid of dictators? Hello? Castro's lot are only 50 miles away, for God's sake! Oops, forgot - no oil there...
Alasdair, Southampton, England
The people being targetted do not give any quarter, and arresting someone who may be a human bomb is not a pleasant prospect even on a sunny day in Esher.
These things are not easily justified, nor is the decision to take a life, the reality is that in a split second you are the law, and your training kicks in, we have the best troops in the world, we should give them our unconditional support.
If they fail, its because we failed, not the other way around.
I am not nor ever have been in the armed forces, in case your'e wondering.
steve, baghdad, iraq