You should read “The Savage Wars of Peace” by Max Boot. Not only has the US military often been used as a police force (though usually the Marines, not the Army), it has been succesful at it. Excellent read and although it doesn’t cover GWII, the lessons are there.
One could still say that it was an honest mistake, but the troops omitting women and children in their reports? It seems to me that the commanders in the field have a lot of questions to answer.
And I do wonder now how much time was between the shots to the air and the attack.
Hi, just wanted to straighten this out.
First, this was warfare. The self defense you’re talking about is from American civil law (and varies between jurisdictions even in America). I assure you that Iraq is well beyond the borders of American jurisdiction. And what’s going on in Iraq is still governed by the rules of war.
Second, , these individuals were allegedly shooting at American soldiers. If that’s the case, then it’s safe to assume they weren’t shooting to wound them; they were shooting to kill. There’s nothing disproportionate about shooting to kill someone that’s trying to kill you.
Third, you’re confusing “self defense” with conduct during war. The Americans may have returned fire, but this wasn’t self defense. It was a matter of identifying your enemies by who’s shooting at you. The Americans need not resort to the rules of self defense present in American civil law. And even if they did need to resort to the American law of self defense, there appears to have been every reason to think that killing the people on the ground was a proportionate response.
With regard to this:
Wrong. The ICRC was not set out by the Geneva Conventions to do anything. But you don’t have to take my humble word for it. According to the ICRC’s website, they’re “a private association formed under the Swiss Civil Code.” Their purpose is to “to provide protection and assistance to victims of conflict.” The ICRC says that such protection and assistance is mandated by international law and the Geneva Conventions, but the aid does not need to come from the ICRC specifically. Further, the Geneva Conventions don’t mandate the existence of the ICRC specifically.
More importantly, the ICRC make no claim to have any special knowledge about international law or the rules of war or proportional response. They’re doctors, not lawyers. Instead, the ICRC just intend to enforce their purpose, which is to protect civilians caught in the crossfire of armed conflict. So is it any surprise that an organization whose purpose is to protect against civilian casualties of war would condemn civilian casualties of war?
. . . Uhh, no.
And now let’s look at what they did say.
First, you appear to have cut off the rest of what the spokesperson said:
So even the ICRC acknowledged that the US was allowed to retaliate (although it’s important to note that the US doesn’t indicate that it “retaliated,” but rather specifically targetted a safehouse used by the bad guys).
Second, I defy you to provide me with any Geneva Convention or other binding international law document that suggests that responding to machine gun attacks with helicopter gunships is disproportionate. I also defy you to cite to any document referring to an “absolute need to prevent civilian casualties.” In short, I think the speaker you’ve quoted has overstated her case.
According to the Just War Theory:
This provision is not talking about using bazookas in response to machine guns. It’s talking about the idea of laying waste to entire cities in response to some perceived slight. Thus, the provision prohibits excessive collateral damage.
Was that provision violated here? I have no idea, because I have no idea what the numbers of civilians were that were killed, and I have no idea what the threat was. We’ve got competing stories. So there’s a possibility that the force was excessive, but we don’t know yet.
Incidentally, the Army would never intentionally release any video of the attack taken from inside the helicopter. The reason is that it’s disrespectful to the dead, and it’s quite possibly a violation of the Genevan Conventions. So I wouldn’t hold my breath for a video, unless it’s somehow leaked by someone inside the military (who could be thrown in jail for that).
Hopefully we do now.
Harmless eh? Tell that to your martyrs that decided to fire shots in the air and got killed. Or, maybe you could tell that to the people that get hit by descending bullets.
The slaughter of the fucking children happened because of the actions of the fucking idiotic adults in their midst that chose to fire weapons into the air. Are you saying that misus this "harmless"discharging of automatic weapons, that these children would have been gunned down by US troops anyway? The Iraqis did absolutely nothing wrong, right? The US soldiers were just hungry for blood?
Let’s “blame the innocents”, shall we? I’m pretty damn sure it was in fact the children’s fault. The celebrating retards brandishing weapons of war had absolutely nothing to do with this situation right?
I’d tell you to blow me already as well, but it seems you’re too preoccupied with blowing yourself. Douchebag. Once you’re done writing the manual for appropriate behavior, make sure you pass it by the “reality” desk.
I’ll overlook your namecalling while trying to make a reasonalbe, respectfully dissenting point. Not only for your argument but for all those that came before, mind. Not picking on you, IOTW.
(Now watch me kill this thread deader than a dodo. It’s a rare knack. Sigh.)
Seems to me that wars come in gradations, not only in immediate risks to troops but how they’re fought, i.e. long term objectives dictating how ground soldiers approach their ground. Soldiers aren’t stupid, or honorless. Far from it. They’re the canaries in the mine, in fact, most actutely attuned to survival and actual conditions than anyone–and with the most to lose.
I daresay that most of the US soldiers went into Iraq firmly believing that they were liberating oppressed people. They trusted that they were being used as military forces, butressed by solid over-reaching plans. Soldiers can’t solve political, cultural and religious problems. They can just wade in, trusting that their lives and skills have backing sufficient to their sacrifices. Hearts and minds, anyone?
They’re just people–trained, dedicated–but just people. Tossing them into a chaotic guerilla war where everybody looks like an enemy is destructive to all. I’m quite sure the last thing most of them wanted was to slaughter a wedding party.
This dirty, stupid war was started by arrogant big cats–on both sides–determined to stare each other down. Too bad ordinary people die for it. The soldiers weren’t monsters and the villagers weren’t fools. They were all caught in a sick situation not of their making.
Veb
And that is the heart of it. Brilliant Veb.
Well, I suppose that this whole argument comes down to a simple question of whether or not the US military was acting in self defense. If this was the case, then the response should have been proportional in both level and duration, and the end effect has to be to reduce the risk of the situation to the person being attacked. In other words, I’m not questioning the right of the Apache crew or whoever to return fire, but the goal of the fire should be to suppress or kill someone that just fired on you. Bombing and destroying the entire village certainly doesn’t fit this role. No, responding to AK-47 rounds with missiles or high explosives certainly doesn’t equal a proportional response. When this story first came out, it was represented as an act of self defense. Perhaps it was me misreading things, perhaps it was a misrepresentation on the part of the media, perhaps it was the US military changing its story. If, on the other hand, it was an assault, I’ll grant that the US is permitted to use any means available to it to carry out this assault within the Laws of Armed Conflict.
Unfortunately, if this is the manner and means in which they chose to carry out an assault, they have still royaly fucked up.
Unless we all want to throw on some tin-foil hats and say that AP reporters are biased enough to fabricate lies we have to deal with this:
Perhaps I was mistaken that the ICRC is specifically mandated to carry out this role, but tell me if I’m wrong that the ICRC is an internationally respected organization that generally carries out the mission it has set out for itself well and apolitically.
I don’t think that we have an, “absolute need,” to prevent civilian casualties. No war is completely without collateral damage, but the Geneva Conventions certainly do state the need to take serious means to prevent collateral damage. I doubt that you’re going to question that, but if you do, I’ll be happy to provide a cite.
At any rate, since the US is estimating that close to 50 were killed and other sources are estimating that close to half that number were women and children, I cannot come to any conclusion that this was nothing but a fuckup of the highest order on behalf of the US military. Just because the US says something is an insurgent safehouse doesn’t mean it is. Most everything I have seen suggests to me that the reality of the situation was that this was a wedding party rather than a terrorist safe-house, and I cannot for the life of me discover why the US military would choose to destroy what appears to be an entire village when they had ground troops nearby and the choice of when and how to attack the village to destroy the safe-house. Unfortuantely, we still don’t know why the US military belives that anything in that village was indeed a safe house, and nothing we’ve seen since strongly suggests it either.
It now appears that video from the aftermath of the attack exists from AP Television, although I have been unable to actually locate the footage itself.
Here is an article I found from Google News:
Whether or not there was gunfire is a matter of debate:
Take that as you will, but gunfire or no gunfire, I’m pretty sure the US fucked up pretty bad in this case and did, in fact, hit a wedding party, not a band of insurgents. And they’re doing a piss-poor job of damage control.
Looks like they didn’t fire in the air after all. Still want to blame the victims, asshole?
I think we should leave this thread to the “blame the victims” artists.
Really. The US heros clearly can do no harm and all Iraqis (even the dead ones) are
- Terrorists (= they defend their nation against invaders which Should Not Be Done because these invaders as US Heros!).
- Liars (the US heros say they didn’t kill them so that must be the truth!) .
- Stupid idiots because they don’t inform the US heros when there is a wedding… So who can have something against it when the US heros flatten the village in retaliation for not being invited at the party?
Salaam. A
And who are the “we” you’re referring to now, Aldebaran?
Far as I can tell, you’re the only bigoted idiot painting with a mile-wide brush. The rest of the people are debating.
Get lost.
Chastain,
You claimed in a previous post that I am a troll.
Now I am a “bigoted idiot”.
Can’t you make up your mind about this because the tension is building up at my side of the globe…And I am waiting in suspense for the final ordeal. Get on with it. (I prefer the sword above the lethal injection).
Salaam. A
For what it’s worth (i.e., very little) I think Aldeberan has actually done pretty well here. Pretty much everyone in this pit “debate” (myself included) has taken swipes with the mile-wide brush.
There’s a certain amount of irony involved in telling someone to get lost because he’s a bigotted idiot in a thread where everyone else is debating. 
I think that Aldebran has made some pretty valid points in this thread. I didn’t agree with all of them, but a fair deal of them.
Certainly enough to say that he isn’t a troll or total moron and that he contributed to the debate.
I agree. We’ve even managed to come to agreement on several issues, and, I think, understand each other’s viewpoints a little better. Isn’t that what this place is all about?
Kumbaya, My Lord, Kumbaya… :rolleyes:
What’s so frustrating is that NEITHER side can seem to get their stories straight. In your link we have witnesses swearing there was no gunfire. From this link, “Iraqis interviewed on the videotape said revelers had fired volleys of gunfire into the air in a traditional wedding celebration before the attack took place… Al-Ani, the doctor, said American troops came to investigate the gunfire and left.” Either way, there’s a lot of covering up going on here on both sides. I wish we’d just get the hell out of their country already. This is such a tragedy.
And milroyj, I thought I’d asked you once already to shutthefuck up. You aren’t adding anything of value or substance to this discussion, so piss off.
As if understanding or agreeing with Aldebaran is valuable or substantive.
:wally
Cultural thing or not, shooting guns in the air around children is stupid and dangerous. BTW, why are so many people quick to condemn the “gun culture” of the “cowboy” US, but are willing to overlook the gun-toting Iraquis, Palestinians, etc.?
Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. I think it’s very valuable that he switched from red-faced screaming to agreeing that the Iraqis would indeed be wise if they temporarily refrained from shooting celebratory gunfire, even though it’s their right to do so. I think it’s valuable that he agreed that it’s a dangerous activity, even if he still supports their right to do it anyway. I think it’s valuable that he came to realize that not all Americans are completely unfamiliar with desert Arab life. I think it’s valuable that he tries to drive home the point, and makes us stop and really absorb the fact, that desert-living Arabs don’t think the way we do in the West, and that doesn’t make them stupid or evil.
I think there’s a lot of middle ground here, but you seem to be having more fun playing one-upsmanship and taking drive-by pot shots. Talk about a putz.