• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

SAS Angry That Their Code of Silence was Broken

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
63
Points
530
Bad form by GEN McChrystal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...exposed-1962552.html

SAS comes out fighting as details of top-secret missions are exposed

Senior officer banned from elite unit's HQ over tell-all book, while its commander takes aim at US general for breaking code of silence on operations

By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent


Britain's elite fighting force, the SAS, has become enmeshed in controversy and recriminations, with one of its most successful former senior officers being banned from headquarters and its current chief engaged in a dispute with the US commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan.


The Independent has learned that General Stanley McChrystal, leading Western troops in the war against the Taliban, has received a complaint from the UK's Director of Special Forces (DSF) after he broke the SAS's code of silence and spoke about the missions mounted by the SAS and their Royal Marines equivalent, the SBS, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At the same time, Lieutenant-Colonel Richard Williams, who led the SAS during the Iraq war in undercover operations run by General McChrystal, has been told to stay away from the regiment's headquarters in Hereford.


The controversy comes at a time when General Sir David Richards, the head of the British Army, has asked the DSF, a Major-General who cannot be named for security reasons, to consider whether there should be greater transparency about the actions of his troops now carrying out vital missions in Afghanistan.

The regiment, however, is engaged in an internal inquest about past and current members who helped in writing a book about the Iraq mission. In a fallout from this, Colonel Williams, credited with playing a key role in the special forces operations in Iraq that led to the deaths or capture of around 3,500 insurgents, has been told to stay away from headquarters.

Colonel Williams, a highly decorated soldier, had enthusiastically backed General McChrystal's stance during the Iraq war, that rather than hunt for Saddam Hussein's mythical WMD arsenal and track down ageing Ba'athists, the Coalition special forces should concentrate on al-Qa'ida, whose members had come into the country in the wake of the US-led invasion.

The SAS has, in the past, proved to be unforgiving towards those who it considers to have broken the code of "omerta" (vow of silence) about its activities. General Sir Peter de la Billiere, the commander of British forces in the first Gulf War, and a former DSF, also became persona non grata in Hereford after including a chapter in his memoirs about special forces operations.

Colonel Williams, who unexpectedly left the Army when, it was felt, he was heading for the very top, has refused to comment about his banishment. But he is believed to have strenuously denied that he was a source for the Iraq book, written by Mark Urban, the defence and diplomatic editor of the BBC.

Prior to publication, lawyers representing Urban and the Ministry of Defence had been in negotiations for months over what can appear in the book without compromising national security.

The DSF and some of his senior colleagues are said to have been adamant that information about operations contained in the manuscript would be damaging for future missions, and fought a long rearguard action to keep out as many of the details as possible.

The book, which was published last February, reveals the identities of some special forces' personnel while protecting those of others.

Friends of Colonel Williams point out that his name was among those the MoD chose not to ask to be changed in the published version, thus leaving him and others open to unfair accusations of collusion with the author.

But it is the rift with General McChrystal, the high-profile commander tasked by US President Barack Obama to turn the tide of the Taliban insurgency, which is causing the most concern in the defence field on both sides of the Atlantic. The American commander incurred the displeasure of the DSF by giving a newspaper interview in which he was effusive in his praise of the UK special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The British Major-General apparently felt that General McChrystal had no business talking about the activities of British troops.

The DSF's complaint, according to American sources, had "surprised and bemused" General McChrystal, who stood up for British forces against criticism by some US officers in Baghdad during the Iraq conflict. Such was the esteem in which he was held that General McChrystal was asked to address a gathering of British special forces following a service of thanksgiving at Hereford at the end of the Iraq mission – which he insisted in doing, during a particularly busy time in Afghanistan.

General McChrystal has also sought out and appointed Major-General Sir Graeme Lamb, a former director of special forces himself, who he had worked with in Baghdad, to head the programme to win over insurgent fighters in Afghanistan – a key part of the West's exit strategy from the war.

It was a role that General Lamb had fulfilled in the Iraq campaign, leading to the so-called "Sunni awakening" in which Iraqi nationalist fighters turned their guns against al-Qa'ida. General Lamb's name also appears in Urban's book although he does not, it is believed, face sanctions from the DSF.

The thanksgiving service that General McChrystal attended was a poignant and evocative occasion, with the rendition of two pieces of John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, adopted by the SAS, who call themselves "pilgrims", as their battle hymn.

The hymn, which ends, "He will not fear what men say, he will labour night and day, to be a pilgrim", was roared out by the special forces veterans at Hereford Cathedral.

One senior officer present there said yesterday: "In fact, they do care an awful lot about 'what men say'. For men so tough the SAS seem to be remarkably sensitive. One questions the wisdom of telling off Stan McChrystal, who has been a good friend of the British; and banning Richard Williams on unproven suspicion is pretty harsh."


Hymn of the SAS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbNbXxQwFws&feature
 
I get the impression from the way the article is written that this is 'the first time its happened', when other SAS members have already broken the silence previously...
 
I think it has more to do with how high up the code is being broken at. Certainly a foreign general should not be speaking out of turn about someone elses SOF Ops. That is of course "IF" McChrystal is fully to blame though it does seem to me like the British Gen is being hung out for it.
 
BulletMagnet said:
That is of course "IF" McChrystal is fully to blame though it does seem to me like the British Gen is being hung out for it.
I think it's two separate events.
LtCol Williams is linked to Mark Urban's book on Iraq, Task Force Black, while Gen McChrystal's comments (while mentioning Iraq) were in newspaper reports about SBS ops in Helmand.
 
BulletMagnet said:
I think it has more to do with how high up the code is being broken at. Certainly a foreign general should not be speaking out of turn about someone elses SOF Ops. That is of course "IF" McChrystal is fully to blame though it does seem to me like the British Gen is being hung out for it.

That would make sense.

Would that include books where SAS members contributed material or did interviews?  There was one book (cant recall the title) I read recently which was a rebuttal of McNab's and another SAS member's portrayals of the B2Zero incident, and in that book he listed several senior NCOs and Officers of the SAS who he interviewed for the book.
 
GM

The book is called "The Real Bravo Two Zero" by Michael Asher a former member of 23 SAS (TA) he has some other good books which are very good reads. I believe several years ago there was a rule put in place that any and all members of 22 SAS who wrote a book were to be treated as persona non grata at Hereford I remember reading an article about it on this very forum. I think that in this case those persons being interviewed were long out of The SAS and were also commenting and an already publically known about operation and as such were not breaking the silence code.

Plus I also think that (and this is my speculation) that higher members of the Regiments executive wanting certain persons who wrote books *cough* McNab/Ryan *cough* to be outed for grossly exaggerating their own personal exploits and there by making a profit.
 
There are many cases throughout history of something being done for positive strategic purposes that had detrimental tactical results.

For example, a General allowing embed reporters to show tanks storming across the border into a foreign land in order to show how powerful the country is...well the poor tank commander is now saying "Why the hell would he want the bad guys to know that we're crossing _____ bridge right now?".
 
BulletMagnet said:
And that pertains to what now  ???

It pertains to this thread.  Purely speculation (but it is relatively common), but bhat Gen M may have been talking about are things that he saw as successes at the strategic level that may not have translated well at the tactical level (with the SAS/SBS claiming tactical/operational OpSec breaches).
 
Ok I thought you were talking about Bravo Two Zero hence my confusion. The British MoD has a strict policy of silence in regards to any SOF operation and I am pretty sure that the pers in SOF have a Non discloser agreement they sign upon joining. I believe this is why they would be so upset about anyone commenting about their operations period.
 
Oh for sure, don't get me wrong I am in no way saying that OpSec is something to be tossed aside.

My bridge example was just a quick example how different levels of people think different ways and wasn't meant to say that's what was happening here.

It was more to bring up that the exact same event can be seen as a tactical success and strategic failure, and the opposite.

I can't see someone as smart as Gen M doing this on purpose or out of carelessness, which is what made me think of something perhaps being said looking through a strategic lens and not a tactical (re: OpSec violating) one.
 
BulletMagnet said:
Ok I thought you were talking about Bravo Two Zero hence my confusion. The British MoD has a strict policy of silence in regards to any SOF operation and I am pretty sure that the pers in SOF have a Non discloser agreement they sign upon joining. I believe this is why they would be so upset about anyone commenting about their operations period.

They dont need to sign any 'non-discloser' agreement like you see in business - there are enough national security regs out there to tangle anyone who speaks too much.

Regarding the code of silence, its my understanding that it has always been in place, not recently instituted.   

And yes, that was the book I was thinking of...

But just because a person is out for a while shouldnt exclude them from an opsec/code of silence directive, neither should whether the operation has been discussed before or not - you should either have a policy that everybody follows and everybody gets punished for disobeying or you dont have one. 

 
Back
Top