Well, I suppose if we take either of our positions to the extreme they sound pretty silly.
We do things like blow up buildings full of terrorists (and civilians) all the time. Even though the terrorists or insurgents or whatever bad guys are inside pose no immediate threat to anyone. If you accept that, then mowing down insurgents standing around in a courtyard not bothering anyone is within our operating procedures.
All you can say is that they should have done a better job of making sure that these guys were bad guys. And perhaps that’s true, but I’m not even sure at this point that all of them weren’t. And I think it’s unreasonable to put young men into that situation and then demand that they get it right all the time. Or even that they get it right more often than not. It’s a really shitty situation to put someone in, and I won’t demonize them for screwing up.
That’s fine but as I said, if 10 people are standing around and two of them are armed, that doesn’t justify relentlessly hunting down each and every single person in the crowd.
These people weren’t put in that situation, they volunteered for it. The same can’t be said for the citizens of Baghdad. We owe them a considerably higher degree of regard for their safety than what is shown here. And while I understand that in any war there are going to be mistakes, this incident is nothing but one mistake after another.
The pilot and the gunner both look through the same sight?? While I freely admit that I don’t know that much about the visual systems of one of these helicopters, I’m going to need a cite for that, since it doesn’t seem reasonable at all. I was under the impression that there were multiple visual systems on such a craft, and that each crew member could switch between them…as well as switch modes (between thermal, night vision, day vision with various levels of zoom, etc). Are you saying that this isn’t the case?
No, but then I’m not a young person with excellent vision. I wasn’t really saying that they could use their mark-1 eyeball to see what was going on, merely that they HAD a mark-1 eyeball that they could use in addition to the gun camera (and, I presume, other visual aids, both those on the helicopter and those attached to their helmets).
Nearest I can tell, there are 2 night vision systems. This makes sense, since the pilot probably wants to be able to look at different things than the gunner. The gunner has control of the sole targeting camera, which both pilot and gunner can see. That’s the only camera that would be useful in the daytime. The pilot would be flying by sight only in the day. So they’re probably looking at the same video in this instance.
I would much prefer that our servicemembers err on the side of caution in an uncertain situation. Of course, exaggerating what one sees in order to urge permission to fire is right out.
If two of the men spotted were carrying AKs (which they may have been), and you’ve got friendly troops on the ground nearby, and you have no knowledge of journalists being in the area taking pictures, can you really say the reaction of the pilots was pure exaggeration?
If you’re a soldier in a combat zone, are you going to expose yourself and your fellow soldiers to extra risk just so you can “err on the side of caution?”
Yes. Because their mission is not simply to kill bad guys, the other part of the mission is not creating new ones. And I note your wording, they “may” have been carrying weapons. Not good enough. Flat out, not good enough. Unless I’m very much mistaken, our stated mission is to protect these people. Protect them from “bad guys”, the sort of people who don’t err on the side of caution.
If you were in charge in 2007 'luci, and assuming you couldn’t just wave your magic wand and get us out of there (i.e. you had to deal with the situation of having American troops in Iraq and in a combat situation), would you be willing to pay the price and take the responsibility in terms of American lives lost that such actions would undoubted cause?
Our mission is to protect American interests. The lives of Iraqi civilians don’t necessarily enter into the equation.
And you’re in no position to self-righteously demand that our soldiers not act unless they meet a higher standard of proof. We don’t invest in Apache helicopters just to make the crew fly in close and get shot at, or fail to act and let troops on the ground get shot at.
As far as I am concerned, our people are too valuable to risk like that. Which is why I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. But you probably already knew that before you tried to pin me to a gotcha question.
It’s a serious question. I agree with you…if you want to avoid this kind of thing, then the optimal path is not to have them over there at all. However, since the reality was that in 2007 we had it totally stuck in, the choices were to put in motion something like you propose, which is going to cost US lives and probably have a large effect on morale, but which might save some lives occasionally, when something like this happens (which isn’t the norm), or to pay the consequences for the occasional mistake. You can’t have it both ways, not if we have to be there.
A statement which amounts to an admission that we aren’t the good guys in this; that we are simply the conquerors people like me have been saying all this time. In turn, that means that the lives of those American soldiers not only have no value, but are of negative value; they are the bad guys. You are, regardless of your intentions, in essence arguing that anyone trying to shoot that helicopter down is in the right.
We can’t simultaneously go on and on about how we are the noble liberators, and then turn around and talk about how nothing but American interests matter, how the lives of the people we “liberated” are expendable. If the lives of Iraqis don’t matter, then our solders deserve to be killed.
How many thousands of civilians have been killed over there? Does that sound like the result of a military deeply concerned with the lives of civilians?
I wouldn’t say they’re “right,” but I don’t find their resistance to be confusing or upsetting. We’re occupying their country and often acting callously. That makes them want to fight us. Our soldiers are a bunch of kids that don’t want to get shot, so they’re not taking any chances. It’s not pretty.
Well, I certainly have never made that claim (not saying you were specifically talking about me).
I wasn’t really saying that they could use their mark-1 eyeball to see what was going on, merely that they HAD a mark-1 eyeball that they could use in addition to the gun camera (and, I presume, other visual aids, both those on the helicopter and those attached to their helmets).