Linda Norgroves' death - who's responsible?

[Emerson Crane]

Having read about this case and having listened to many radio, and TV broadcasts about this unfortunate lady, I can't make up my mind about it. Was she an unlucky victim or should she have been there in the first place because she had received warnings about her decsion to go out there.

Views?

[KidKruger]

well the fact that she chose to be there doesn't necessariy mean she is 'responsible' for her death does it ?

there was a whole chain of cause and effect and circumstance leading up to the death and i'm not convinced the allocation of blame or fault is necessary.

a debate can be held about the manner of the unsuccessful rescue mission, but basically the missions are tough to execute and there's always a struggle to reduce the 'unknowns', before going in, to an extent that the mission can accurately be deemed necessary.

[Emerson Crane]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> well the fact that she chose to be there doesn't

> necessariy mean she is 'responsible' for her death

> does it ?

>

No it doesn't and I don't think I even hinted at the fact that she, herself was responsible. I aksed if the fact that she hadn't heeded warnings may have been a factor, not the overriding reason. Perhaps I should have explained myself with greater clarity, I hope I've now done so.

[KidKruger]

OK.

I took the "should she have been there in the first place because she had received warnings.." bit as an inference of her own culpability.

I wasn't throwing darts at you, per se.

There is the factor that she hadn't heeded warnings, because if she had, and the warnings were against her going and clearly outlined the reasons why, it could be argued that she placed herself in a landscape where staying alive was less likely.

[Ridgley]

It is a tough one, aid workers going out there to help the citizens of those countries and being killed themselves

But if you did not have aid workers what will happen to those people that need help, it is a difficult thing to weigh up.

[Pearson]

For sure we rely on aid workers in these situations.

But for the aid worker the risk appear to be obvious.

As much as the risk associated wt joining the army.

I have enough respect to know thaw she would have been acutely aware of those risks.

[Tarot]

such is life.

[Sue]

The immediate responsibility would seem to lie with the US soldier who threw the grenade which killed her (if that's true).

If you're going to go beyond that, it's a bit like identifying what is the "ultimate cause" - how far back do you go?

[randombloke]

Old saying I heard in the Army whilst at Sandhurst in 1980:

When Jerry was shooting the Tommies ducked;

When the Tommies were shooting the Jerries ducked;

When the Yanks were shooting everybody ducked.

One wonders if it still holds true?

Suffice to say that all the American Forces I saw were too gung ho for words.

They may well be professional now, but having met a recently retired US Army Colonel a couple of years ago who insisted the Gherkin was a Torpedo, ("Well if you ask a taxi driver to take you to the Torpedo, he'll look at you like you are an idiot, it's called the Gherkin", "It looks like a Torpedo I'll call it that")(whispered aside to partner "Jesus I'd have had to salute you when I was in, you total fuckwit, you may be a higher rank but you would never be my superior officer"), I doubt much has changed. She told another friend her new job with the US Govt was highly classified, so much so that she didn't have an address just a grid reference for her new office. "Oh" said friend, "what do you put that under in your Sat Nav then? "Highly secret base?" She failed to see the irony.

[ratty]

Hague and Cameron. Possibly Thatcher too!

[Pearson]

Blair and Bush. Possibly Brown too!

[david_carnell]

randombloke Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Old saying I heard in the Army whilst at Sandhurst

> in 1980:

>

> When Jerry was shooting the Tommies ducked;

>

> When the Tommies were shooting the Jerries

> ducked;

>

> When the Yanks were shooting everybody ducked.

>

> One wonders if it still holds true?

>

> Suffice to say that all the American Forces I saw

> were too gung ho for words.

> They may well be professional now, but having met

> a recently retired US Army Colonel a couple of

> years ago who insisted the Gherkin was a Torpedo,

> ("Well if you ask a taxi driver to take you to the

> Torpedo, he'll look at you like you are an idiot,

> it's called the Gherkin", "It looks like a Torpedo

> I'll call it that")(whispered aside to partner

> "Jesus I'd have had to salute you when I was in,

> you total @#$%&, you may be a higher rank but you

> would never be my superior officer"), I doubt much

> has changed. She told another friend her new job

> with the US Govt was highly classified, so much so

> that she didn't have an address just a grid

> reference for her new office. "Oh" said friend,

> "what do you put that under in your Sat Nav then?

> "Highly secret base?" She failed to see the irony.

Whilst it is easy to blame the Americans for being, well, American.... it is both unfair and innaccurate to describe the US Special Forces as anything other than highly professional and exceptional at their jobs.

The behaviour and training of the US regular forces may leave something to be desired by the US Navy SEAL team (as in this rescue) or DELTA Force are very much the equal of anything Britain can offer. The constant fawning over the SAS/SBS by the tabloid press ignores their historical mishaps and failings.

It may well be the case that in this particular instance, one soldier has made an error of judgement and an innocent woman has died but to tar large numbers of professional soldiers with the brush of ineptitude because of it is innappropriate.

[Sue]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It may well be the case that in this particular

> instance, one soldier has made an error of

> judgement and an innocent woman has died but to

> tar large numbers of professional soldiers with

> the brush of ineptitude because of it is

> innappropriate.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

I agree

[Santerme]

If Afghanistan is going to emerge from the dark ages it isn't going to be dragged out by men with guns.

It is going to be led into the light by teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers and scientists who in all probability will be employed by aid agencies.

Those fighting and dying in Afghanistan, even if they don't know it, are fighting to create a space to let the aid workers do what they do.

The ISAF strategy in Afghanistan is based around clear/hold/build.

She was out there doing projects to support hold and build.

She was as much part of the "success" in Afghanistan as any troops out there at the moment.

She wasn't working for some "peace through sustainable bicycling collective" but as a sub-contractor on a very large USAID program.

Unfortunately, my personal opinion is we have reached a point now where the Govt of AFG is so corrupt and the leadership so discredited that all efforts are doomed to fail.

However, other hold a different view and see the benefits of trying.

Aid workers generally go where troops cannot go....

The trouble comes when it all goes pete tong and others have to risk their lives to make it right.

Then there is always the random, uncontrollable element in the scheme of things.

The best military plans never survive the first few minutes of actual combat

[katie1997]

Well ...

my blood pressure is still pretty high after the "rescue" attempt by those gun-toting, grenade-throwing, lying idiots from over the water.

They said originally that the aid worker, Linda Norgrove, had been killed by a grenade....although this has now been conveniently forgotten. I thought it odd at the time.

[silverfox]

Santerme said:

"...She wasn't working for some "peace through sustainable bicycling collective" but as a sub-contractor on a very large USAID program..."

Who exactly was she working for as an aid worker? The idea she was a subcontractor implies she was in it for the money rather than some humanitarian impulse.

Sorry Santerme, the notion that 'aid workers' will somehow save the world is quite frankly nonsense. "...Those fighting and dying in Afghanistan, even if they don't know it, are fighting to create a space to let the aid workers do what they do..."

Steady on Santerme.

[Huguenot]

This is cognitive dissonance again right katie1997?

I still maintain that if your observations are so blessed witty that they're indisnguishable from restrained idiocy then you'll fail to meet your objectives. Even Swift had to resort to eating babies to convey his concerns.

I appreciate that you don't give a flying f about my opinions, but hey, if you're posting on a public forum then you must give one about somebody's opinions right?

[katie1997]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is cognitive dissonance again right

> katie1997?

>

> I still maintain that if your observations are so

> blessed witty that they're indisnguishable from

> restrained idiocy then you'll fail to meet your

> objectives. Even Swift had to resort to eating

> babies to convey his concerns.

>

> I appreciate that you don't give a flying f about

> my opinions, but hey, if you're posting on a

> public forum then you must give one about

> somebody's opinions right?

So utterly wrong (again) in your assumption and breathtakingly rude with it . Good for you for using two big words, two shorter ones spring to my mind after reading that.

You certainly don't make the forum seem a pleasant place to be, that's for sure. Whoever that Axeman was, they summed you up accurately.

Thanks to admin for the super new function.

[Huguenot]

Jeez katie1997, you're quite happy to call US special forces lying idiots when they're risking their lives to save a UK citizen, but if someone suggests that might possibly make you sound a bit idiotic you completely throw your toys out of the pram.

Quite happy to dish it out aren't you? Not so happy to take it.

Cognitive dissonance was Louisiana's choice of words, suggesting that I'd misunderstood you. I was asking you if I'd misunderstood you? If I had misunderstood your irony then I was suggesting that it might be too subtle.

It was of course you who told me that you weren't interested in my opinions after rubbishing climate change science on the 10:10 thread. Once more I'd asked you if you were being ironic, but it seemed answering that was somewhat below you.

[Pearson]

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huguenot Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This is cognitive dissonance again right

> > katie1997?

> >

> > I still maintain that if your observations are

> so

> > blessed witty that they're indisnguishable from

> > restrained idiocy then you'll fail to meet your

> > objectives. Even Swift had to resort to eating

> > babies to convey his concerns.

> >

> > I appreciate that you don't give a flying f

> about

> > my opinions, but hey, if you're posting on a

> > public forum then you must give one about

> > somebody's opinions right?

>

> So utterly wrong (again) in your assumption and

> breathtakingly rude with it . Good for you for

> using two big words, two shorter ones spring to

> my mind after reading that.

>

> You certainly don't make the forum seem a pleasant

> place to be, that's for sure. Whoever that

> Axeman was, they summed you up accurately.

>

> Thanks to admin for the super new function.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

It does all seem to be getting very emotional for some people ;-)

This whole debate is quite clear to me.

She knew the risks involved with working in these conditions.

The risks were/are very high.

(As are the risks that the US & UK military deal with on a continual basis)

She was unlucky, simple as that!

Why try and point the finger from our arm chairs... Jeez.

[Santerme]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Santerme said:

>

> "...She wasn't working for some "peace through

> sustainable bicycling collective" but as a

> sub-contractor on a very large USAID program..."

>

> Who exactly was she working for as an aid worker?

> The idea she was a subcontractor implies she was

> in it for the money rather than some humanitarian

> impulse.

>

> Sorry Santerme, the notion that 'aid workers' will

> somehow save the world is quite frankly nonsense.

> "...Those fighting and dying in Afghanistan, even

> if they don't know it, are fighting to create a

> space to let the aid workers do what they do..."

>

> Steady on Santerme.

Quite frankly, I cannot see where I wrote aid workers will save the world, but I guess projection can be necessary to sustain a weak argument.

I said ISAF policy is to gain territory from the enemy, hold that territory and then provide the space for development.

The latter function is not best done by the military.

The armed forces of a nation, or a coalition are enablers.....they provide the conditions on the ground for others to come in and employ their expertise to improve the infrastructure and begin the work of redevelopment.

I think I also said that in this instance, my opinion is that we have reached a point due to domestic conditions (and indeed international stagnation) this effort is doomed to failure.

I was in AFG in 2003 when there was an opportunity to make a difference, I was there in 2005 and realised then we had missed the bus.

Aid workers do know the dangers and are carefully briefed on risk by the military and expensive risk assessment companies before they go....

So steady the Buffs Silverfox....

[louisiana]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Santerme said:

>

> "...She wasn't working for some "peace through

> sustainable bicycling collective" but as a

> sub-contractor on a very large USAID program..."

>

> Who exactly was she working for as an aid worker?

> The idea she was a subcontractor implies she was

> in it for the money rather than some humanitarian

> impulse.

>

A sub-contractor or contractor is a worker who has no employment rights (sick pay, maternity etc.) and who loses their job at the end of a particular project for which they have been contracted. It is a way for employers to control costs, and is extremely common in project-based work. I fail to see how being a sub-contractor makes her some money-loving grub, as you seem to suggest. Her education and professional life (below) hardly support that view either.

****

Norgrove was born in Altnaharra in 1974... She spent her childhood on a croft in the Isle of Lewis ...

... studied at the University of Aberdeen ... gained a first-class honours degree in tropical environmental science; her coursework involved postgraduate research at the University of Chiapas in Mexico, and a year of study at the University of Oregon (1993?94). She attended the University of London ... graduating with distinction in a masters degree in rural resources and environmental policy.

In 2002, Norgrove was awarded a PhD from the University of Manchester in development policy and management... worked for the World Wide Fund in Peru, initially supporting and later taking charge of the WWF's Forest Program in the Peruvian portion of the Northern Andes.

Norgrove worked in countries including Afghanistan (first for the U.N, in 2005?08, and later as regional director of DAI, based in Jalalabad, starting in February 2010), Laos (as an environmental specialist for the U.N. from 2008?09), Mexico, and Uganda (where she researched how national park management affected the indigenous population around Mount Elgon National Park). She was involved in projects for the United Nations. She spoke Dari and Spanish, and was in Afghanistan at the time of her death working as Regional Director for a USAID project implemented by Development Alternatives Inc., which rebuilds businesses and infrastructure in developing nations...

[silverfox]

The reason I took issue with aspects of your post Santerme, was over the idea of aid workers.

The me, Aid Workers should be apolitic, non-ideological, bodies and individuals who provide aid. Their role is to go into countries thrown into disarray and confusion by the inevitable consequences of war. So Medecin Francais, Red Cross, Red Crescent, Oxfam etc go into, the countries and provide aid, in whatever form, food, medicine, repair water pipes, power cables etc. They do this to help people regardless of race, creed or colour.

I got the impression reading your post that you see the aid agencies as some sort of fifth column, or at least an active part of the invading forces whose aid, teaching etc, will instill on these countries the superior values of the western world.

If this is the case, where aid agencies no longer distribute dispassionate aid but whose aim is to change the ravaged country, changing its socio-political structures and imposing ideology, then those aid agencies become fair game in the shooting match. In this sense, to a fighting Afghan, Linda Norgroves was part of the invading forces, as much of an enemy as any of the other soldiers.

PS - Can anybody tell me which aid body she actually worked for?

[Huguenot]

It was in the previous post Silverfox, Development Alternatives Inc.

It's not possible to draw a line between offering aid, and delivering change. It all comes down to ?Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime?

The feeding of mass populations needs organisation and infrastructure that are impossible to differentiate from 'western business values'.

[mockney piers]

Also there is the politics of aid. Food and funds inevitably get siphoned off by the men with guns and the infrastructure of aid can entrench the bad people in the positions where they're continuing to cause harm to those the organisations are trying to help.

It's a tough choice and inevitably most make the difficult decision that regardless of the long term harm that may be being caused it's important to provide the short term relief and medium term investment with the hope (usually false) that there will be long term benefit/change.

And by and large, not only do I agree, but I have huge admiration for those who get off their backsides and do something to make the world better in the face of very real dangers and grey moral choices; they contribute a fuck site more to the world than I ever have with my proverbially fat arse wedged into my judgmental armchair.

Interestingly of the nation building going on in Afghanistan, 10% of the entire country's GDP consists bribes to allow supplies to flow and housing and infrastructure to be built and for aid workers to travel, a good chunk of the rest is drugs facilitated by the loss of (relative) central authority, and pretty much the rest is the usual warlord feudalism given a veneer of legitimacy by the fact most of them comprise the current kleptocracy.

Santerme's assertion regards the boat being missed is not only masterly understatement, it seems pretty likely that the boat in question only ever existed on paper and the buyer is feeling pretty cheated about now but is having to pretend to everyone about the wonderful fishing on the lake to be had, in order to save face.

[just a thought, is there a quantity theory of anger? If so is my current distemper a result of Charlie Brooker's mellowing and subsequent retirement?]