Of course, he quaintly terms the infiltrator a “whistleblower”. It is surely hard enough for soldiers to face savagery without having to check that comrades aren’t spying on how they react.
Mr Sinclair concludes his thesis with the observation that “details of the latest abuse will definitely be utilised to recruit more terrorists”. The fault, of course, lies not with the soldier who was taught brutality and was punished for exercising it, but with the people who chose to place the man on public trial. In the enemy ranks, the marine would have hero status.
Would we rather have politically correct “whistleblowers” checking that war is conducted in scrupulous accordance with the rule book, or no-nonsense tough guys like the one we have sent to prison? We know, of course, what the enemy would prefer.