See other War, War, War Articles
Title: On that viral video from Baghdad (Collateral Damage w/ FP responses)
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 7, 2011
Author: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010
Post Date: 2011-01-07 22:01:33 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 167
Comments: 12
On that viral video from Baghdad Posted By Stephen M. Walt Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - 3:02 PM Share According to the New York Times, that viral video of a U.S. Apache helicopter attacking a group of people in a Baghdad suburb -- an attack that killed two Reuters reporters -- has now been viewed at least two million times on YouTube. I was one of those two million viewers, and it's pretty horrifying, especially when you know as you watch that the targets were in fact innocent victims. But you should watch it anyway, if you want to understand why many Iraqis now want us out of their country and why the United States is less popular than its citizens and leaders think it ought to be. For me, the most remarkable thing about the video is the business-as-usual dialogue between the pilots and crew of the Apache and the ground controllers that are guiding their actions. Although they clearly perceive this as a combat situation -- and there were insurgents operating in their vicinity -- nothing in their exchange suggests that the situation is unusual or that they were in imminent danger themselves. The tone is calm, with occasional moments of frustration at not having a clear shot and elation after the targets are hit. It is the "banality of combat." The crew followed normal procedures, obtained authorization to shoot before firing, maneuvered to get a clean line of fire, and then unleashed a devastating fusillade. (If you're unfamiliar with the firepower of modern weaponry, the video is graphic and revealing). The self-congratulatory banter and occasional laughter following the attack -- after the violent death of fellow human beings -- is downright chilling. This tells me that this incident wasn't unusual, which is of course why no disciplinary action was taken against the personnel involved. What is different in this case is that two Reuters journalists got killed, and eventually a video got leaked and put on the internet. And if this particular episode is just one among many, there must be plenty of Iraqis who lost relatives to American firepower or at least had reason to fear and resent it. Not too hard to figure out why pressing for a rapid U.S. withdrawal now wins votes there. Notice that I am not suggesting that the personnel involved failed to observe the proper "rules of engagement," or did not genuinely think that the individuals they were attacking were in fact armed. Rather, what bothers me is that they were clearly trying to operate within the rules, and still made a tragic error. It reminds us that this sort of mistake is inevitable in this sort of war, especially when we rely on overwhelming firepower to wage it. When we intervene in other countries, this is what we should expect. One last point: one of the fundamental problems for a country with an interventionist foreign policy is that it frequently does things that others don't like and sometimes resist. If U.S. citizens do not know what their own government is doing, however, they won't understand exactly where that hostility is coming from. Instead of recognizing it as a reaction to their own policies, they will tend to assume that foreign opposition is irrational, a reflection of deep ideological antipathies, or based on some sort of weird hostility to our "values." Believing ourselves to be blameless, and motivated only by noble aims, we will misread the sources of anti-Americanism and overlook opportunities to reduce it by adjusting our own behavior. It is therefore vital for American citizens to know about the various things that are being done in the name of our national security. We need to know about drone strikes, targeted assassinations, civilians killed by mistake, support for corrupt or vicious warlords, "covert" actions against foreign regimes, etc., as well as similar activities undertaken by allies with whom we are closely identified. Whether those various policies are still justifiable and/or effective is a separate issue (i.e., the benefits may be worth the price of greater hostility, though I am personally skeptical) but at least we won't be surprised when those who have experienced the sharp end of American power are angry at us, and we won't be as likely to misinterpret it. And that means that organizations like Wikileaks are performing a public service, by exposing incidents and activities that the government would rather you didn't know about. The administration and the Pentagon are very good at telling us about the positive things that they do (and don't get me wrong, there are plenty of them), but an intelligent republic needs independent, tough-minded journalists (and bloggers) to tell us the rest. Because it is more difficult for entrenched interests to control or manipulate, the Internet and the blogosphere is a major asset in the fight for greater public awareness. For more on this latter point, I find Glenn Greenwald convincing. JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/Getty Images EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, DISASTERS, INTERNET, IRAQ, MEDIA, MILITARY, SECURITY, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Reddit You might like: * Will Israel Bomb Iran? | Stephen M. Walt (Foreign Policy - Stephen M. Walt ) * The myth of Israel's strategic genius (Foreign Policy - Stephen M. Walt ) * Russia's FSB to WikiLeaks: We could destroy you | FP Passport (Passport) * Pakistani gunman becomes Facebook folk hero (Passport) * Karzai's Not Insane, Just Irrelevant * What Will the World's Newest Country Be Called? * The Sad End of Persia's Little Prince * Why FP's Founder Loved to Go for The Jugular (61) HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE SIR_MIXXALOT 3:10 PM ET April 7, 2010 How to get out of Afghanistan How to get out of Afghanistan -- lessons for Iraq: http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2009/12/17/is-it-time-to-get-out-of-afghanistan/ Is it time to get out of Afghanistan? Thursday, December 17th, 2009 afghanHour 1 President Obama announced in a speech at West Point that that he is sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. He also set a date to begin troop withdrawal – July, 2001. According to polls, about half of Americans say they support the escalation in Afghanistan. But others believe we are fighting an unwinnable war and it is time to get out. This hour, a conversation with two critics of Obama’s Afghanistan policy. ANDREW BACEVICH is a retired colonel and a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. HILLARY MANN LEVERETT is the CEO of STRATEGA , a political risk consultancy. Listen to the mp3 GERMANICUS 3:35 PM ET April 7, 2010 The Massacre The fish rots from the head. The men in the Apache had been programed by their superiors, it seems to me, all to way up the chain of command to the White House. I think these soldiers thought that somehow they were over there on an avenging mission for 9/11. Wasn't that the implied or even the explicit premise we were fed by the neoconized White House? The average soldier takes this all in, and must follow orders anyway. It is we, all of us, who are guilty for putting our men and boys into the awful situation where they end up doing unspeakable things. The invasion of Iraq--"Wolfowitz's War" was unwarranted and unnecessary. No WMD and no link to 9/11. Another distraction, like Iran. All part of a private agenda. You figure it out. Germanicus ========= NUR AL-CUBICLE 7:17 PM ET April 8, 2010 Indeed Out of outrage, I chronicled 5 years of events in Iraq and have a list a mile long of trigger-happy avengers shooting and killing innocents, starting with the Spanish photographer Jose Couso at the Palestine Hotel, to that young al-Jazeerah journalist on a Baghdad rooftop, to that poor Kurdish family in Tal-Afar, to Giuliana Sgrena's escort and Arabic-speaking Italian intelligence asset Niccola Calipari -to mention only a handful of victims. Yes, we all bear the guilt for the atrocities, especially Congress, which gleefully gave Wolfowitz's "final solution" the free pass. Lucky for the occupied, not so final. ANON_ANON 4:18 PM ET April 7, 2010 Boy - agree and disagree Agree with - "When we intervene in other countries, this is what we should expect. ." I'd change that to, "When we fight a war with other countries..." Disagree: "various things that are being done in the name of our national security..." Would you have had Cold War (or Iranian) defections exposed for public scrutiny? C - None of the Above: Enter into debates about counterinsurgency, and whether population-centric counterinsurgency (you *weren't* at that conference where FM 3-24 was hashed out, correct) is more humanitarian, or whether it remains that all war is hell, and FM 3-24 is lipstick on a pig. OMBRAGEUX 5:00 PM ET April 7, 2010 What about shooting an unarmed van is it picks up the wounded? I don't know, does it need have a big red cross (or crescent) for it to be a war crime?! BOUGHETTO 5:48 PM ET April 7, 2010 In the Valley of Ellah Indeed, the flag needs to be hung upside down. When otherwise exceptional citizens (pilots) become sadistic, sociopathic killers just itching to burn human beings like ants with a magnifying glass, something is indeed very wrong with society in general and the military in particular. HEISEL 8:32 PM ET April 7, 2010 Shooting the Van There was absolutely nothing suspicious about the van. The people were obviously just passers-by who were doing their civic duty, helping a wounded person. There was not only no indication at all they were insurgents; on the contrary, who in his right mind could think that insurgents would act that way with the Apaches still hovering in the vicinity. The dialogue reveals that the soldiers were killing out of a desire to shoot, to score - they even misled their superiors to get the permission to shoot. They are plainly murderers, nothing less, and no rules of engagement can excuse them. And if the rules of engagement allow such behaviour, these rules are criminal, too. STEVE C 8:41 PM ET April 7, 2010 Rules of Engagement for the period Are here (PDF) http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement_appendix1.pdf MOOJ KILLER 10:07 PM ET April 7, 2010 3:41 Not sure what video you people were watching but the video I watched clearly identified several men carrying weapons. But you people are blind to what is not convenient to see. So keep telling your selfs that these people were innocents. They were not. Look at the very "edited" video at 3:41 and you will clearly see the weapons being carried. And before you ask "what is wrong with that?" Think about the back story. What happened before the video. Who is the person on the ground talking to the Pilots? Who is the guy talking about getting on the same "time"? Maybe it is the foot soldier who just got shot at by these insurgents and has air on station to help him. Maybe he is directing the pilot to the point were the insurgents fled and the pilot has observed them. Your indignation speaks of ignorance of the facts on the ground. STEVE C 10:36 PM ET April 7, 2010 Two people are carrying AK's Which is kinda like someone carrying a briefcase in DC. The two guys who really get them upset are carrying digital cameras that the pilot misidentifies as a rocket propelled grenade launcher. The latter is considerably longer than a camera, has a pointed end and could not be carried in a crouch in the way it appears on the video (which is apparently of much lower resolution than the pilot or gunner would see in the cockpit). If his weapons recognition ability is so appalling he probably has no business controlling a weapons system. Finally, there was firing in the area that morning and the unit on the ground could hear gunfire but they were not being fired upon. How do you want to absolve them of responsibility over the firing on the van? BOUGHETTO 10:41 PM ET April 7, 2010 mooj killer = cheney groupie moron jesus christ how is it possible that someone can be so utterly ignorant. why don't you take your flag blindfold off and your walkman with your hulk hogan theme song out of your ears and look at this from a humanistic standpoint rather than a trailer-park flag-waving ignoramus one. MOOJ KILLER 10:42 PM ET April 7, 2010 The pilots see the same video The pilots see the same video as what you saw. That is how they see the target. They are not using the naked eye to ID targets. They are using the thermal images that you see inthe video. If you observe from 3:39 to at least 3:56 you will see at least two men walking with clearly identifiable weapons, one looks like an AK-47 and the other looks like an RPK. The gunner keeps his gun sight on one of them. As for the bongo... giving aid and comfort to an insurgent does not mean that you are not helping the insurgency. Too many arm chair quarter-backs are looking at this with little or no training. MOOJ KILLER 10:44 PM ET April 7, 2010 Bougetto = Guy with poor argument. Really? That is all you can come up with? Why don't you go outside and play while the adults talk. J THOMAS 11:23 PM ET April 7, 2010 "The two guys who really get "The two guys who really get them upset are carrying digital cameras that the pilot misidentifies as a rocket propelled grenade launcher. The latter is considerably longer than a camera, has a pointed end and could not be carried in a crouch in the way it appears on the video (which is apparently of much lower resolution than the pilot or gunner would see in the cockpit)" As you point out, the video that our soldiers see is much better resolution than the degraded images that were released. So it's possible that the AK47s that you need a lot of imagination to see in our version are crystal clear to them. And maybe with the higher resolution the cameras look a lot more like RPG launchers. You can't be sure what they were seeing. Anyway, there were armed insurgents in the area. Consider the military logic involved. Once we kill off all the insurgents the remaining Iraqis will be peaceful. So it's more important to kill insurgents than to spare innocent civilians. If we fail to kill insurgents they will attack US forces and also they will kill innocent Iraqis. So if we let some live just because they might be innocent, the result might be that more Iraqwis get killed than if we went ahead and killed everybody who looked suspicious. The Geneva Conventions do not apply. In Fallujah some insurgents used ambulances to attack US troops. If we assume that all the insurgents are a single entity, that means we have the right to destroy any ambulances that they might be using even ones marked with red crosses. And since the insurgents do not wear uniforms so we can tell different factions apart, we have the right to destroy any ambulance in Iraq if we think it is being used by insurgents. Anyway, look carefully at MOOJ KILLER's posts. He's very good at getting across the ideas that you despise. Of course he feels like it's appropriate to kill anybody who has weapons that isn't American. Of course it's right to kill anybody who provides assistance to a wounded person they find lying on the ground. We don't want them assisting insurgents. Rules of war are obsolete. The thing that bothers me the most about all this, is that if we ever find ourselves with an insurgency in the USA, these are probably the ROE they'll be following -- whichever side they wind up on. MOOJ KILLER 11:40 PM ET April 7, 2010 Good response You write a good and intelligent response as opposed to one that reminds one of an argument in grade school. Thanks for that. However, based on what I see in the video it should not take ANY imagination at all to see the weapons. Training, yes, imagination or fabrication no. Those images are as clear to me as they obviously were to those pilots. I think there is too much back story(basically the hour before the aircraft came on scene) to rush to rash judgements. J THOMAS 1:44 AM ET April 8, 2010 "...based on what I see in "...based on what I see in the video it should not take ANY imagination at all to see the weapons. Training, yes, imagination or fabrication no. Those images are as clear to me as they obviously were to those pilots." I saw it once without any repeats or pauses. A couple of times I saw a guy who looked like he was carrying something very long and thin, so thin that usually the video didn't show it but it flashed by when it was at just the right angles. It looked too long to be an AK47. I know that people see what they expect to see. Shown quick glimpses of fuzzy pictures that did not actually show anything in particular, trained police officers saw violent images far more often than civilians, and saw weapons far more often. So I don't particularly believe in your training, though I also don't disbelieve it. I see two stories compatible with what I've heard. 1. Two reporters stopped and talked to a group of men who weren't doing anything in particular, and then they all got shot. 2. Two reporters stopped and talked to a group of insurgents who were friendly and did not mind getting photographed between intervals of combat. Then they all got shot. I'd be interested in the verification. Who were they, apart from the Reuters guys? How old were they? Were they in fact insurgents? Were their weapons collected? Which insurgency were they with? To me that is far more interesting than what happened the hour before. See, you want to justify it as reasonable in terms of military doctrine. I think that's fine as far as it goes. Of course there has to be a high priority on force protection -- you can't carry out tomorrow's mission if you get killed today. But the methods that our military has to use may not allow the kind of victory we need. It's like, if there's a drought and an important well has dried up, and your mission is to carry in enough water to fill the well ... you can be very very good at transporting water but if you have been given the job of filling the empty well you will have problems. If you're supposed to kill so many insurgents that the population peacefully settles down and does what we want them to -- I don't care how good you are at killing insurgents, if that is not a workable way to achieve the goal then we're in for trouble. So who were these guys? Why were they attacking US forces? Why did they let reporters photograph their faces? We can't get the whole story because they're dead, but.... It sounded like the numbers didn't add up. Did some of them get away? Were they perhaps caught alive later and interrogated? What the military found out about who they were and what they were doing is far more interesting than whether the picture really showed guns and whether the spotters really followed ROE. MOOJ KILLER 10:50 PM ET April 7, 2010 Steve C What my question in regard to the back story relates to is who was the pilot talking to on the ground? The soldiers on t he ground just got into a fire fight with some insurgents and directed the pilots on station to the locations that the soldier suspected the insurgent went to. People walking around in Iraq with AK-47's are not just like people in DC with brief cases. Not an accurate analogy since anyone with a weapon in walking around in Iraq qould be scrutinized by any sercutity forces in the area. Hence the people don't walk around brandishing weapons. STEVE C 1:10 AM ET April 8, 2010 Where's the evidence? There's nothing here to suggest that anyone on the ground had been involved in a firefight and I believe that was discovered in the subsequent investigation. The helicopters seem to be providing overall air cover and are hunting for targets rather than responding to a call for assistance. In many areas of Baghdad there were neighborhood watch-types carrying AK's and manning checkpoints to provide the security that both the US and ISF were failing to do. The very relaxed state of the two guys who are carrying AK's tends to support this rather than your own conjecture that there was a battle in progress. As to the confusion between an RPG and a digital camera: the pilot has plenty of time on this. He's not in a hurry - his excitement is related more to being offered the opportunity to kill rather than a present danger - and could have used his eyes and brain a little more. As J Thomas states above, the view from the cockpit is better than we see on the video and yet this pilot is still unable to discern the difference between a zoom lens and an rpg (flat end vs pointy end). At best we're talking about incompetent amateurism flying a multi-million $ piece of military equipment. At worst...... Finally, Iraq is a culture in which revenge is a point of honor. There are perhaps a dozen men killed in this few minutes work, most of whom probably have children. While I recognize that you don't care very much about the human flesh that is Iraqi, ask yourself how many Americans this pilot killed. MOOJ KILLER 1:40 AM ET April 8, 2010 Deep end Wow you kind of went off the deep end there. Actually the fact that the pilot os talking to a ground unit does in fact suggest that someone one the ground is involved. Some readios have distinct sounds when transmitting. The PRC-148 is one and that is clearly heard in the transmission if you know what you are hearing. To suggest that the pilots are just flying around looking for targets to kill is not accurate. Based on the radio traffic it is very fair to assume that what I propsed is the case. When not in a direct combat situation the desire to not hold a weapon at "high port arms" is nature and relaxed so you next paragraph is also not accurate. The pilots are trained not to be in a hurry so not sure where you are going with para 3. What he sees is several insurgents with weapons. He shot, as did others. And an RPG does not have a pointy end. The launcger has a flat bell shaped end like a Pilgrims gun. The warhead, when inserted, may or may not be pointy depending on whether it is an anti-armor round or anti personnel. Your assumption, and it is just that, that I do not care about Iraq flesh is misplaced. Nowhere did to say or imply that. I, however, do not care at all for insurgent flesh. You assume because you have not heard of a backstory that there could not possibly be one. Based on the radio traffic that is in the video the pilots are obviously reacting to a ground engagement. I wish some people could hear/see that. STEVE C 2:57 AM ET April 8, 2010 Not such a deep end. First of all, most of the radio traffic is between the helicopter and some sort of command and control unit - a Hotel callsign - to which the pilot is feeding information in an effort to extract permission to fire. An RPG launcher - when devoid of its grenade - is a straight cylinder at the front with a bell shaped rear end. It is also about 5 feet long. In 35 years as both a soldier and a journalist specializing in conflict I have never seen an R P grenade that didn't have a pointed end and all the ones I have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan are, essentially, the same mark. If you disagree show me a picture of a round that does not conform to this description, in use anywhere in the Middle East. In the video we see two individuals carrying items that I accept are not immediately identifiable as cameras but nor can they be described as RPG's. They look nothing like RPG's. Yet the pilot positively ID's them as such (see the ROE) and maintains visual contact with one of the individuals - other than for a couple of seconds - before announcing that the individual is about to open fire on a Bradley with an RPG. It seems from the video that the helicopter (one of two?) is providing air cover for that particular ground operation and has not been requested specifically by the ground forces. The radio traffic between the troops on the ground and the air cover is secondary to the action taking place and primarily used to ensure that no friendly forces are in the vicinity of the attack about to take place. I'll state my belief that the pilot knew there was no RPG in the situation but that he wanted to open fire and was feeding justification into the system in order to receive permission to engage from a higher authority - the Hotel callsign. (If I'm wrong about the Hotel callsign, someone please correct me). A good cop would crack this guy in a few minutes of interrogation and this is the crux of the matter: the failure to adequately investigate this incident and the unwillingness on the part of senior officers to take a hard line and clamp down on this kind of criminal and self-defeating behavior that has resulted in so many needless deaths - not only of thousands of Iraqis but also fellow Americans. J THOMAS 1:14 PM ET April 8, 2010 Steve C "...the failure to adequately investigate this incident and the unwillingness on the part of senior officers to take a hard line and clamp down on this kind of criminal and self-defeating behavior..." But you don't know what they did. The individuals who messed up here very likely got a great big chewing out. They may have had their pay docked. Everybody in their unit knew they were in disgrace. They might even have been relieved of all duties for week or more. It feels really bad when everybody else is working hard, and doing your jobs as well as theirs, and you aren't allowed to do your part. Just loaf around with nothing to do, because your CO doesn't trust you to do it right.... They didn't get any public punishment because it's bad for the war effort when the US military admits it has done war crimes. Also, loyalty is supposed to run both ways. Soldiers are supposed to do their best, and their commanding officers are supposed to do what they can to protect them from the enemy. In this particular case the enemy of the US Army is hostile US civilians who want to damage the war effort by spreading rumors that discredit the military. If you want to criticize the war effort without being an enemy to the US Army, then you need to find a way to criticize it that doesn't make it the military's fault. J THOMAS 5:20 PM ET April 8, 2010 It wasn't the military's fault. By the rules, they cannot complain about the stupid objectives the civilian government gives them. But those objectives are the problem. When the war was first planned, Shinseki estimated that Iraq would take more than 300,000 occupation troops. We didn't have them. One possible approach was to not invade Iraq. But instead, the Bush administration invented a story that there would be no occupation. Iraq was practically drowning in undeveloped oil. Develop the oil and it would be almost like Kuwait. Lots of high-paying jobs, lots of money. When it's raining dollars you hold out your bucket, you don't fight the Chalabi government. So the civilians ordered the US military not to make any occupation plans. And so when we got into Baghdad the only place we guarded was the Oil Ministry where our experts presumably found that -- Surprise! -- Saddam had been lying about Iraq's oil reserves. Bush announced it was going to be a long hard slog. The military started using combat troops including Marines for occupation duties. You don't do that! But we didn't have anybody else. All through the occupation we've been stuck using a squad in to do the job of a company and a company to do a regiment's job. We've managed with overwhelming firepower and mobility. Air support goes a long way to make up for lack of supporting troops, and UAVs etc help make up for a lack of eyes and ears on the ground. But those help most to deal with attacks on our forces. They don't help enough at the work an occupation force is supposed to do. An occupying army is supposed to look so overwhelming that nobody considers attacking them. They establish order. When somebody does make an attack they treat them as criminals and track them down with the passive cooperation of the public. But that's rare, they mostly direct traffic and buy things and stay out of the way. There, obviously unbeatable, and not a big burden. Even with the Surge our army was too small to establish order. Deadly enough that attackers lose, but spread too thin to actually have much control. They had to emphasize force protection because they kept getting attacked. Part of the problem was that Bush refused to say whether we'd ever leave. If an occupation army plans to never leave, then nationalists do well to make it plain that the empire will never make a profit from the occupation. Blow up anything that's good for exports. Blow up anything that can help the occupiers. Keep attacking them so they must keep a large expensive army in place that takes casualties. Maybe they'll pull out after all. On the other hand if they plan to pull out, then build up strength and wait for them to go. Then either vote out their puppet government or force it out. Minimize economic damage; anything they build or let you build is stuff you can use after they're gone. They assumed we planned to stay forever, but the weaker we got the more they thought we were going to leave. And it didn't help that they never believed the elections were honest. We tried to build a large Iraqi army to provide eyes and ears etc on the ground. For years that was ineffective. A lot of the problem was that the Iraqi soldiers saw that they would be completely ineffective at protecting their nation from invasion, that all they could do was to assist the Americans in their occupation. They got a lot better when they definitely saw that we were leaving and they would have the chance to reorganize themselves their own way. Of course none of that made them real effective at supporting our operations.... It doesn't have to be this way. We occupied Panama with minimal casualties to either side, we got the puppet government in place and pulled out in good order. The difference was that we had enough troops ready. The problem is that the Bush administration gave the Army a task they could not do. That was Bush's responsibility. And Franks accepted that task. He could have resigned instead. "Every general is culpable who undertakes the execution of a plan which he considers faulty. In short, he should give in his resignation rather than allow himself to be made the instrument of his army's ruin." Napoleon But what about Bush's fairy tale that the Iraqis would greet our forces with flowers and singing and they'd disband their secret police and set up a democratic government with no need for any occupation force? Was Franks qualified to say that was unlikely? MOOJ KILLER 1:36 AM ET April 9, 2010 Hotel Callsign The Hotel 2-6 call sign that you hear at several instances during the video seemed to be the ground controller with the forward unit on the ground. Before the Apaches began firing you hear h-26 talking about the closest friendly unit (taking abqout a "brad" short for Bradley fighting vehicle, and the speak about a 4 vehicle HMMWV patrol in the area of the engagement. Hotel 2-6 was then ordered to do a battle damage assesment at about 6:17 in the video and to "take picutres" of the site. That was not a command element at all. That was one of the units involved in the engagement. GUYVER 1:58 AM ET April 8, 2010 Dr. Walt Very wise assessment. CAL 2:11 AM ET April 8, 2010 Wrong The Apache wasn't fired on, the men requested permission to fire on the ground individuals ,were given permission by someone , we don't know who....yet. Piss poor training , piss poor discipline, piss poor judgement.,...PARTICULARY...given the military's experience in Iraq and pass fuck ups in Afghan....SUPPOSEDLY.....the troops have cautioned about just this type of incident numerous times since entering Afghan........obviously it didn't take. This is what happens when you have poorly trained kids playing solider and a piss poor command.. MOOJ KILLER 2:33 AM ET April 8, 2010 Piss porr assesment No the Apache wasn't fired on, as far as we know, but the Apache was responding to a ground engagement. So dig more before getting all worked up and being insulting to those who do what you refuse to do. KUNINO 8:45 AM ET April 8, 2010 Hard to comment without the n word There are just too many damn stories, foreign and domestic, about people slain because they came from a different racial group, and this meant any damn thing they were seen holding in their hands -- in some cases, it's been a passport -- gave licence to kill. The really chilling snatch of speech in that video was the reference to the man seen running away with a toddler in his arms. the suggestion was that he'd been a fool to bring children to a battle. What bloody battle? The man in the van seemed simply a charitable person, a Good Samaritan, and he was grievously punished for his decency. Possibly he was a fool to be a citizen in a nation where some foreigners had declared lots of free fire zones. At least five miilion Iraqis have fled their homeland in the current decade, and nine million Afghans. Thus are the blessings of democracy at gunpoint welcomed. NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY 11:18 AM ET April 8, 2010 A fragment “It is therefore vital for American citizens to know about the various things that are being done in the name of our national security.” If that is what they are really about, no price is too high to pay and there is nothing gained in publishing film such as this; in fact it could be argued to be damaging to national security and therefore a sort of treason to publish it. The shifting position of the US in the cycle of rise and fall as an empire is one of the more fascinating processes we are privileged to follow and, in that context, this bit of mosaic becomes an interesting small fragment of the whole. MORPHOYLE 11:52 AM ET April 8, 2010 Naive It's sad to see how naive everyone at this site is regarding human nature. The calm tones and business as usual attitude is not strange. Any person, put in the same situation, with the same training and exposure, would sound the same way. They are taking lives, but this is their job; No matter what job you have, it eventually becomes business as usual. It's easy for you to watch this video from thousands of miles away and judge. Most of you will never know what it feels like to be in this situation, nor would you care to. KENNETH SORENSEN 2:39 PM ET April 8, 2010 Still we musr demand the highest standards for pilots -flying state-of-the-art aircraft in war-zones. They must be top-notch and have the highest ethical standards. They fly machines paid for by the American taxpayer that costs tens of millions of dollars, and they have years of training, also payd for by the American taxpayer. Also because when thsy fail, and do not live up to our expectations, this can have the most damaging consequences for US standing in the world. This has been called as serious as Abu Graib. Update: The video has now been seen by more than 4 million people. JANBEKSTER 12:17 PM ET April 8, 2010 Rules of engagement?. "During the course of three tours", Corporal/US Marines Jason Washburn said " the higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond. Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and a nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour 'drop shovels'. we would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like insurgent". khairi janbek.paris/france JDKIRKK 1:22 PM ET April 8, 2010 WikiLeaks Please tell WikliLeaks that many US citizens use credit cards to donate money to organizations. They should provide access to these cards instead of PayPal or the other one I had never heard of. I realize this is an international organization, but I can use my MasterCard anywhere in the world (almost) and so do many others. I could not get through to WikiLeaks or Grunwald, but my senior citizen status may be an opeerational problem there. It is important to make it easy to contribute. And thank you for pointing them out as I had never heard of them before. DICKERSON3870 1:47 PM ET April 8, 2010 "the business-as-usual dialogue" RE: "the most remarkable thing about the video is the business-as-usual dialogue between the pilots and crew of the Apache and the ground controllers that are guiding their actions." - Walt MY COMMENT: I just love the idea of a “white guy” using the moniker “Crazy Horse 18" flying around Iraq in an “Apache” helicopter “gun ship” and using a machine gun and Hellfire™ missiles to “light up” Iraqi civilians (including children). It just doesn’t get any better than that! Why couldn’t I have been in the ‘Twin Towers’ on 9/11 and thereby been spared being subjected to this ‘freak show’? Todd Browning's "Freaks" (1932) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022913/ BLUE13326 2:01 PM ET April 8, 2010 'The tone is calm, with 'The tone is calm, with occasional moments of frustration at not having a clear shot and elation after the targets are hit.' I guess I just don't get this: Should they be hysterical, and would that make you feel better? But feelings are not facts. We have professionals called in to kill armed enemies acting like professionals. They are targeting people holding AKs and RPGs, which is what they are tasked to do. And under any rules of engagement the van is a valid target, as it bears no markings, and is trying to provide support for the gun-wielding enemy. The fact that the streets are empty is evidence that there was a battle already in place. The video shows troops working to identify targets and confirm they were armed before engaging. You can argue for the folly of the war (and I agree), but this video does not show what you are reading into it. J THOMAS 6:32 PM ET April 8, 2010 Laws of war. "And under any rules of engagement the van is a valid target, as it bears no markings, and is trying to provide support for the gun-wielding enemy." That does not at all fit with my interpretation of the First Geneva Convention. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/365?OpenDocument "The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence." "No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick." It sure looks to me like what the guys in the van were attempting was to spontaneously collect and care for the wounded. I didn't see them do anything else. It might quite likely be true that under all US ROE it's OK to kill civilians who try to care for the wounded, but there needs to be some kind of argument why this is not a war crime. Maybe it isn't a war crime but it sure looks like one to me. SAINTSIMON 2:14 PM ET April 8, 2010 This is an atrocious bit of This is an atrocious bit of commentary - you want to promote this video as if it communicates something profound about the nature of war, or maybe just current wars, you're not clear about that - but what is clear is that you apparently know nothing at all about the practice or history of war. You blanch at the demeanor of the crew? Are you ignorant? There's nothing they do or say that is out of keeping with a soldiers experience of combat - you find that disturbing, fine - but had you rode along with a bomber crew aboard a Lancaster or B-17 over Dresden etc you would have heard the same, if not much worse - in fact you put a camera on the front lines of any war in history and you'll see things much, much more disturbing - and that goes for wars naive sentimentalists like yourself like to think of as 'the good wars'. You don't have the stomach for such ugliness fine, but you then need to pursue that emotion to its logical conclusion and become a pacifist, reject war and violence entirely - certainly don't be giving your precious Obama a pass when a UCAV attack he's sanctioned wipes out a few shepherds in the Hindu Kush mountains. The Apache crew and their overseers should not be casually absolved for what was obviously a serious mistake - but what is also obvious is that the crew was flying reconnaissance and force protection for a ground insertion in a combat zone, that they believed the men on the ground were armed and most important of all that the situation dramatically escalated after the crew saw what they believed to be an insurgent with an RPG - what I find shocking is how many left leaning commentators conveniently neglect to mention that RPG, which suggests to me Mr Walt that you like them are not engaged in some serious discussion of the nature of war here but rather peddling propaganda. STEVE C 2:28 PM ET April 8, 2010 But there is no RPG!!! And you don't need to be an armaments specialist to see that at the first pass. KENNETH SORENSEN 2:53 PM ET April 8, 2010 The crew should be chased down Fitth ave. -wearing only a vest. When Americans celebrate they hold ticker-tape parades, and this instills a sense of pride in everyone, and this is fine. But those that makes mistakes in this way should be chased down Fifth Avenue and everybody be allowed to spit on them and harass them. This will teach them -- and others - a lesson. MOOJ KILLER 1:41 AM ET April 9, 2010 AK-47 and an RPK You don;t have to be a weapons specialist to very clearly see the AK-47 and the RPK that these guys were carrying. The reporters were with those insurgents and taking pictures down that road. After watching the video 20 times you can see that maybe it looks like a camera if you are looking for a camera, but with one pass you see a guy aimming a large long thing down the road to where some American Troops are. And he is ducking behind a wall. The pilot did the right thing ans some insurgents are now no longer able to try to kill Americans. If the reporters died while being embedded with American troops, you people would not be upset. You would say that htye assumed the risks and knew what they were getting into. Well when you "embed" with an insurgent force it is the same thing. DICKERSON3870 2:21 PM ET April 8, 2010 "go pills" I wonder if this crew was 'hopped up' on the "go pills" (amphetamines) that are distributed to our "troopers" whilst they are fighting "over there" to keep us from having to fight "over here". It is now thought that Der Führer's use of amphetamine injections might possibly have contributed to his making imprudent, disastrous decisions over the course of WW2. FROM WIKIPEDIA: Adolf Hitler's health - "...Hitler began using amphetamine occasionally after 1937 and became addicted to amphetamine after the late summer of 1942.[citation needed] Albert Speer stated he thought this was the most likely cause of the later rigidity of Hitler’s decision making (never allowing retreats). [14]" FROM WIKIPEDIA: Dextroamphetamine - ....The U.S. Air Force uses dextroamphetamine as one of its "go pills", given to pilots on long missions to help them remain focused and alert. Conversely, the Air Force also issues "no-go pills"; prescription sedatives used after the mission to calm down.[42][43][44] [1] The Tarnak Farm incident was linked by media reports to the use of this drug on long term fatigued pilots. A military tribunal did not accept this explanation, citing the lack of similar incidents. Newer stimulant medications or awakeness promoting agents with fewer side effects, such as modafinil are being investigated and sometimes issued for this reason.[42] During the Vietnam War, Special Units of the US Military, such as MACV-SOG, were issued dextroamphetamine tablets. Due to the threat of misuse, these tablets were given to the Commanding Officer of the unit, and given out when needed.[citation needed] Psychological effects Psychological effects can include euphoria, anxiety, increased libido, alertness, concentration, energy, self-esteem, self-confidence, sociability, irritability, aggression, psychosomatic disorders, psychomotor agitation, hubris, excessive feelings of power and invincibility, repetitive and obsessive behaviors, paranoia, and with chronic and/or high doses, amphetamine psychosis can occur. The long term effects of amphetamine use on the neural development of children have not been established.[9][16][17][18][19] P.S. The maker of the 1932 film "Freaks" was Tod Browning rather than "Todd" Browning. RASQUAL 9:35 PM ET April 8, 2010 I wonder if you're a I wonder if you're a bozo. It's just as hypothetical and irrelevant. JACOB BLUES 2:55 PM ET April 8, 2010 Chris Dickey has some interesting insight on this matter Here is the link to his comments: http://www.newsweek.com/id/235995 Christopher Dickey What Combat Looks Like The video of two Reuters newsmen being shot by Americans in 2007, however grim, shows business as usual in a war zone. SAINTSIMON 4:50 PM ET April 8, 2010 RE: But there is no RPG! The RE: But there is no RPG! The RPG is spotted in an alley removed from the main group - because of shadows in the video it's not possible to judge whether or not there actually was an RPG - what's important and not in doubt is that the crew believed there was an RPG, you can hear it in the flash of panic in their communications. J THOMAS 1:24 PM ET April 12, 2010 The official report claimed The official report claimed that the ground team later found 2 RPGs, 1 AKsomething-or-other, and several RPG rounds in addition to the two cameras. The video and the photos taken from the helicopter looked utterly inconclusive to me. It's probably easier if you are at war and have experience, and if somebody is making motions like they make when they carry a weapon, what else would it be? But the photo of the AK47 on the ground was completely clear. The photo of an RPG was unfortunately redacted because it was too close to a body. So if you want to argue that there were actually no weapons, you have to argue that the weapons were planted by the ground team to cover up for the guys in the helicopter. The medical guy on the ground claimed that there were 4 wounded, the two children and also two adults that he treated. His CO reported 3 wounded. So maybe one of the adults survived and could say what he thought happened, if he could be identified. RBB 5:10 PM ET April 8, 2010 The context Wikileaks hides or ignores: The photographer is kneeling to take a picture of a US HMMWV one block away -- part of a patrol that was in contact at the time -- hence the AH-64s providing support. The picture taken of the vehicle was recovered from the camera recovered from the scene. The weapons were clearly present, and were photographed and also subsequently recovered at the scene. These FACTs, as well as the "leaked" tape, were ALL disclosed to Reuters at the time by a general officer level briefing -- which is why it was not a major deal in 2007. The only mistake here was Reuters using Iraqi stringers to take combat photographs while embedded with Jaish Al Mahdi in the middle of a war zone. Would you still be weeping for "the humanity" if the Apaches weren't there, and if that militia team had hit one of the HMMWVs with their RPGs -- providing nice color shots of a burning vehicles and dead Americans? "Ma'am, I regret to inform you your son was killed in action today. But the good news is that Reuters has some nice digital prints, if you would like a memento of the occasion...." It is a war. People die. And people who fight in it every day appear callous. J THOMAS 5:59 PM ET April 8, 2010 "The photographer is kneeling "The photographer is kneeling to take a picture of a US HMMWV one block away -- part of a patrol that was in contact at the time -- hence the AH-64s providing support. The picture taken of the vehicle was recovered from the camera recovered from the scene. "The weapons were clearly present, and were photographed and also subsequently recovered at the scene." Good! Is this report available anywhere? If these guys thought of themselves as combatants, why were they so blase about being visible to a US HMMWV? Did they think they wouldn't get shot at? A neighborhood security group might think the Americans would know not to shoot at them, but combatants? And that puts an entirely different light on the van. If you're driving in Baghdad with your children and you stumble over a recent US firefight, with a US vehicle still nearby, aren't you going to sneak away as quickly and quietly as you can? Because the Americans will most certainly kill you if they notice you. Why did these people think they could get away with carrying away a wounded man? What could they have been thinking? MOOJ KILLER 1:51 AM ET April 9, 2010 Yes it is. The report is available and it took me all of about 10 seconds to find it. So dig a little deeper. But since some of you people seem to only like news from only one source at a time you may not even look at this. You may just dismiss it even though it is right in front of you. http://www.centcom.mil/en/press-releases/link-for-foia-documents-on-july-2007-new-baghdad-combat-action.html MOOJ KILLER 1:56 AM ET April 9, 2010 and again Wow and here it is again if you can't get the official site working! Wow this report is so easy to find. http://cryptome.org/ J THOMAS 5:10 AM ET April 9, 2010 Thank you! Mooj Killer, thank you! That looks like just exactly the right thing. If I find a better source I'll report it, but this one looks official and relevant. J THOMAS 1:43 PM ET April 12, 2010 Thanks for the link, Mooj Killer. http://www.centcom.mil/en/press-releases/link-for-foia-documents-on-july-2007-new-baghdad-combat-action.html This gives the Army's own evaluation. What operation was the helicopter supporting? There had been too many IED attacks close to a particular part of Baghdad. So the ground troops were going to go to a particular area and surround it on 4 sides. Shoot anybody who tried to run away. Then announce what they were doing. They would go inside that area and detain every Military Age Male they found. Destroy any weapons or munitions they found. Then leave with their detainees. When they did this they got some small-arms fire, and the helicopter was helping to suppress that. The incident happened outside the contained area on the east side. There was a group of men only one block from the units that were going to stop anybody from getting away. When the ground troops came in later to look over what had happened, none of them had any doubt that all the men were combatants. They said, "They were Military Age Males." Also they pointed out the three weapons and the RPG rounds. If I read it right, one of the dead photographers was lying on a RPG round. The clear implication from the report was that in 2007 Iraq, in this fight every Iraqi MAM was assumed to be the enemy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tom007 (#0)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
I sent a link to my church leaders. One responded.
Name just one.
Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
One responded. The rest didn't even grace you w/ an acknowledgement, did they? The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. You are correct. I am already somewhat of a phariah. (sp) I know you are shocked.
Of course, that scum sucking JOO lover Julian Assange was paid by the MOSSAD through CIA clandestine psy-ops to put that film on the Internet. Just ask Duff_Man.
"In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," ... "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it" -- Ron Paul, circa 2010-12-02
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
I don't attend any more either though that stopped before the over all change in my understanding of God. We will have to have a conversation about it sometime.
Tough women come from New York, sweet women from Texas, prissy women from Southern California, but we NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WOMEN have fire & ice in our blood. We can ride 4-wheelers, be a princess, throw a left hook, pack heat, hunt with the men, bake a cake, love with passion, and if we have an opinion, you know you're going to hear it!! deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
Bring it up at your leisure.
Tough women come from New York, sweet women from Texas, prissy women from Southern California, but we NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WOMEN have fire & ice in our blood. We can ride 4-wheelers, be a princess, throw a left hook, pack heat, hunt with the men, bake a cake, love with passion, and if we have an opinion, you know you're going to hear it!! I bet you 10,000 internets that he is either hiding under a table like a whipped dog, or that he is thinking of a way to make this seem like Wikileaks did this to cover their tracks. But he hasn't come up with anything yet. It will take a real Duff Man Special, a huge post with lots of complicated-sounding words in it, to try and make it happen. And guess who will be there when he tries? .
#2. To: Eric Stratton (#1)
That shit should have been splattered all across the network slooze!
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#3. To: tom007, 4 (#0)
The administration and the Pentagon are very good at telling us about the positive things that they do (and don't get me wrong, there are plenty of them),
#4. To: tom007 (#2)
#5. To: Eric Stratton (#4)
I sent a link to my church leaders.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
#6. To: Eric Stratton, Duff_Man, PSUSA (#1)
article: And that means that organizations like Wikileaks are performing a public service
#7. To: tom007 (#5)
#8. To: Eric Stratton (#7)
I don't even attend church anymore. Once it got to a point when I had to scramble regularly to look up why a teaching during a "sermon" was doctrinally wrong on a regular basis, I decided that I had better ways to spend my time.
#9. To: farmfriend (#8)
#10. To: Eric Stratton (#9)
Yes, give me a couple of weeks. Laden w/ work.
#11. To: buckeroo (#6)
Of course, that scum sucking JOO lover Julian Assange was paid by the MOSSAD through CIA clandestine psy-ops to put that film on the Internet. Just ask Duff_Man.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
”I say to each man and woman, you are unique and sovereign, the center of a universe. However right I may be in thinking as I do, you may be equally right in thinking otherwise. You can only accomplish your object in life by complete disregard of the opinions of other people.“ - Aleister Crowley
#12. To: PSUSA (#11)
ROTFL
And guess who will be there when he tries?
"In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," ... "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it" -- Ron Paul, circa 2010-12-02
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest