Questioners risk court martial

By DEBORAH ORR

For three more British soldiers, this war is over.

But these men did not die in accidents, or in combat, or in friendly fire. They have instead been sent home to their base in Colchester after raising objections to the conduct of the war.

They specifically questioned the killing of innocent civilians, more of whom are reported to have died in the invasion of Iraq than soldiers.

The Ministry of Defence says there is "no evidence" to suggest that the men refused to fight. Nevertheless, they may face court martial and up to two years in prison.

The soldiers, who include a private and a technician, are from 16 Air Assault Brigade, which is protecting oil fields in southern Iraq.

Although their protests are obviously embarrassing to the Government, some reports suggest that its discomfort will be all the greater, since military chiefs are already deeply concerned about "growing evidence" of civilians being killed in fighting by US soldiers in urban areas of the south.

We are not privy to this "growing evidence". In a war about which we seem to know so much, we actually know surprisingly little.

But rumour has it that the British are coping much better with the pressure of the kind of warfare that is being demanded of them in Iraq.

Occasional reports suggest that US soldiers are panicky, unsure of who the enemy is and feeling they have to shoot first and ask questions later.

We have a graphic account from a journalist in southern Iraq with the Household Cavalry of the events that led to the "friendly-fire" death of Lance-Corporal Matty Hull, 25, on Saturday and the injury of four others.

Joe Woodgate, 19, the only soldier in the convoy to survive unhurt when two armoured reconnaissance vehicles were destroyed by a US tankbuster plane, described how they were attacked not once but twice as they let off red flares to signal that they were British.

- INDEPENDENT

Herald Feature: Iraq war