[IRAQ] US Forces with an example of "Collateral Damage"

It was not an ambulance. It was not marked as an aid vehicle. They could have been there to carry off a high level insurgent leader.

War is hell. We need to fight harder to keep them from starting before the fact.

 

These soldiers did follow the ROE. They saw what they identified as a threat, got approval, and did what they felt they had to do. Tragic, but not criminal or "wrong" in the context of a war zone.

 

Not only that, it looks like some were actually carrying AK's, not just cameras. Look at the 3:40 mark in the video.

 

The children were hardly visible in the van, which was not marked as an aid vehicle. The wounded man could have been a high level insurgent leader, could have had explosives on him, the chopper gunner had no way of knowing, but in order to keep the troops on patrol safe, he ran it up the chain of command, got approval, and fired a second time to be sure.

War is hell and should be our true opponent here. The soldiers were just doing their jobs.

 

Afghanistan was never a good idea. All the terrorist were Saudi.They probably even trained some in Pakistan are you going o bomb Pakistan?

You have three or 4 people with knives vs 100 plus people. 9/11 happen because people were scared and didn't want to take action. I guess after a few planes crashed that all changed. I think in the future an attack like this will be hard to pull off.

 

I'm sorry. I don't agree. There is more to our current quagmire in Iraq than simply "kill the enemy". Ironically, it's dangerous to suggest that given our pathetically shaky grounds for being there in the first place and the image issue it represents.

Fundamentally here, the problem is that we are using the wrong tool for the job. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The frightening part is that certain powers that be don't want you or I or Joe Q. Public to realize just how true that statement is. And that should give you pause in how you rationalize the atrocities that occasionally seep through the filter.

 

I will admit that I have a soft spot in my heart for Afghanistan because of the way we abandoned them in the '80s. If we had simply done what we said we were going to back then, 9/11 would never have happened.

 

I completely agree that we SHOULD not be there, we are using the wrong tool for the job, but it is the use of the wrong tool that creates the situation portrayed in this video. I agree with you that we should get the troops out of there, they don't belong there, and they never should have been there.

All that being said, I don't blame the soldiers for protecting the patrol they were supporting. The choices were to leave the group of men alone and hope they weren't insurgents or follow their training and the limited knowledge of the situation on the ground and take out what they had identified as a group of insurgents.

The soldiers are not to blame here, the war is to blame.

 

I just want to understand, which facts here allowed the commanders to give clearance to open fire? was it the fact a unmarked black van was approaching? was it the fact that they picked up the body? or was it the fact that the soldier as 3 times if they can shoot?

9:03 We have a van that's approaching and picking up the bodies
9:15 We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly picking up bodies and weapons
9:21 Let me engage
9:25 Can I shoot?
(two men clearly carrying only a dead body)
9:39 Come on, let us shoot!
10:10 Engage. Clear. Come on

 

As I have said twice now, the van was not marked, the man could have been a high level insurgent commander, could have had explosives or other weapons, and had already been identified as an insurgent. The enemy is war, not the solders. The soldiers did what they were trained to do in the context of a wartime engagement, so blame the wartime engagement, not the guys who put their butts on the line.

 

I have tried not to blame them either - even taking into account the rather nasty aspect their desire to kill represents.

Aside: they were not scared at all; they were apparently having a good time based on the radio chatter. The crew statements really change the game to me - it's willfull killing - a phrase you will find mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. He is waiting for the guy (the reporter) to pick up a weapon so he can shoot him, and then begs to open fire when the van shows up...

Moving on....

What you gloss over is the coverup. How are we, as a nation, supposed to understand just how poorly this operation is going without an understanding such as this video gives? What motivation belies the coverup to begin with? If we can agree that the soldiers are just "doing their job", don't you think that the only alternative motive left for censoring this is concern that support might wane? And if we go down that path, one must begin to question if the support aspect is the only justification for this fight we have left - and that points out a rather horrid cyclical nature, and one that I'd argue is parodied in our MIC every year.

To really drive this point home, Wikileaks also recently released CIA "Red Cell" files on how they will manipulate public opinion to keep countries around the world supporting the Afghanistan war this summer, a time when casualties are expected to rise and they say "public apathy will no longer be enough" to guarantee support for the war.

Put these two events together and tell me that there's not something grossly wrong here.

 

so you're saying as early as 9:03 when a van approached and going to pick up the bodies the soldiers can legally open fire as long as they clearance.

 

Its amazing how full of $#!+ people are. A rocket could have fired at the helicopter and there would still be people saying the shooting was unjustified and criminal.

I don't agree with the firing on the van, but at the same time the editing makes it seem like the kids were obvious. Who saw them until it was zoomed in and slowed down? Also the guy early in the video does look like he has an RPG. How do some of you not see that?

If you don't agree with the war, fine. Just please keep your dignity and call it as it is.

Is everything in this video a great thing? No, without question its not pleasant, but look at it objectively.

 

Unpleasant?

Sad, but then again I don't expect much.

 

Easy there, not everyone sees it like you do, it was a judgement call, so everyones going to have their own opinoin about it. Even after the initial attack you can tell there is nothing on the ground that resembles a RPG, the only time it did look like one was when one of the guys was peering through the corner (not enough to fire at them in my opinion considering they had something around their neck which would look like a RPG in that particular stance). In regards the children, I agree that would have been impossible to determine or see, but they didn't really look at the circumstances in an appropriate fashion after the first firing. Also, the language used didn't exactly show a critical analysis of the situation.

 

I'm glad to see that the blame-the-victim mentality is still alive and well in the D&D

 

The point is that the soldiers don't get to choose their battlefield. The US Army would love to not be in a position to mistake the enemy. But it isn't up to the US Army.

Obviously the insurgents hide in among the population to maximize their advantage. And obviously the US Army then has to do its best to try and fight the insurgents in that environment, which will often include misidentification of combatants.

One other option is to quit and go home. I appreciate that many people want that, but for these guys, that isn't even an option - they don't get to say, "I think I'll sit this war out." They are told their mission, and they have to do it whether it is easy or hard. So really they then have one other option available to them - they can let the insurgents kill them. Is that the answer? Would you suggest that as the appropriate course of action for the US Army? Roll over and die?

So they are told to go find insurgents and kill them. The insurgents aren't interested in helping Americans find them. Blending in with the population is one of their weapons. If you are really upset - if you think this is the greatest travesty in the history of mankind - you have to place at least some of the blame on insurgents for making it possible to mistake reporters for soldiers. When they do that, it is done specifically with the hope that this misidentification will occur.

Personally, I see no blame. It is the inevitable outcome of a series of chess moves, which should be predicted in advance to all parties. This is the optimal strategy for both sides, given the conditions and the opponent. Its like blaming someone for a hurricane (beyond the politicians ordering the soldiers to war). It's just a fact of nature, once its unleashed the whirlwind runs to its conclusion wherever that may go.

And again, I get that many people are just flat out against all war. Fine. I'm good with that view. But say that, instead of pretending like this video is some unique aberrant thing that you specifically disapprove of in a war that you'd otherwise be standing there waving your flag for. In that case, it isn't the video you are upset by, but just war in general.

This comment pretty much sums up the misguided nature of all the angry comments in this thread to me. It speaks to a fundamental lack of understanding with the way things work. You can't call "time out" and have a meeting at the fifty yard-line and get the insurgents to put on armbands before fighting. If we tried that, there would be a whole lot of dead US soldiers, and not very many dead insurgents. From the point of view of the US Army, this outcome is less than optimal.

The air support was called in in the first place because someone was taking potshots at ground troops in the general area of the reporters. They didn't bother to call timeout and notify the US army of their intentions before firing. The air support made a misidentification. Human beings are imperfect, and that will inevitably happen. Should they instead just let snipers kill American soldiers, out of fear that eventually someone might make a mistake? Or is it appropriate for them to use their advantage (superior technology) the same way the insurgents use their advantage (blending with the population)?

I remember hearing someone on NPR complain that we weren't "fighting fair" using all the air support we use. You don't fight fair. It isn't a football game. The idea is to kill all of them, and not let them kill any of yours. You gouge, kick, poke eyes, and kick in the nuts. Because if you don't they will.

It is war. You are trying to kill them. They are trying to kill you.

 

Man just imagine if your son or your daughter or wife or mom or just any relative was strolling around in a park or out on the street playing/hanging out and they were killed my some soldiers for no reason at all...especially when those soldiers have no reason to be there....NO REASON.

I mean look at what America did when so many innocent people were killed during 9/11...everyone wanted revenge....all of America unified with hatred and wanted to kill and destroy the people who were responsible...well in Iraq's case the people responsible are AMERICANS. This is just sad....I can't blame these people for becoming suicide bombers. If my son/daughter or wife were killed for no F****IN reason at all I would devote my life to get revenge on the people responsible.

 

And yet... no one has attacked us in 10 years. The people of the middle east are peaceful and forgiving, these wars are all by design to destroy an indigenous and sovereign population who refuse to play by the Western system of fiat monopoly money and democracy. The fact that people still believe that there is NO WAY the US Govt. had no participation in the attacks on 9/11 is mind boggling, the amount of surveillance the CIA has would squash any attack way in advance unless it was intended to happen. This nation really is dumbed down beyond belief.

 

Ottomaton,

Anyone can say "no" to an order, even if they are in the military. We are not robotic automatons, everyone is responsible for their decisions.