So, you saw nothing in the video that justified the engagement, beyond the fact that they were helping a wounded man. Gotcha. You saw no guns, no evidence that they were insurgents, beyond the fact that they were helping a wounded man who was thought to be an insurgent. So unarmed civilians helping a wounded man are now fair game for military engagement, in your opinion; do I have that right?
They gave bad information. They saw what they thought were two guns. Then they said, “We have 5-6 individuals with AK-47’s”. They then mistakenly ID’ed an RPG based on little more than a passing glance. Based upon this baldfaced lie, Crazyhorse-7 gave permission to fire. Sloppy, inexcusable, and irresponsible. As for the military investigation, see my post above. No, I don’t trust that the whole thing wasn’t whitewashed. The gov’t did everything they could to keep the vid from being released at all.
And fuck the Fog of War. You screw up and kill an group of innocents, based on your own shitty information gathering, you should pay dearly. Every single time. Full stop.
NO, it’s not, really. Nobody has to explain why they shouldn’t - that contradicts all that “presumed innocent” stuff that we sometimes talk about.
And, as has been pointed out, we did, in fact, have a proceeding investigating this. And the soldiers were cleared. I assume you don’t think they should be tried again.
Look, it’s war - shit happens. Part of the idea of war is to shoot people who are carrying weapons, after you have made sure (as the gunship soldiers did) they are not on our side.
Regards,
Shodan
This is the sort of ridiculous idea that one hears from people who have no idea how these things work, and who get all of their knowledge of military operations from the TV.
Hovering a helicopter low enough to “warn” the possible insurgents is dumb on many levels. First, helicopters are really loud, and they don’t carry sound systems. Second, it makes the helicopter extremely vulnerable to ground fire. Third, it gives insurgents a good long chance to either run away or open fire. Fourth, the helicopter is going to be a mile or more away; it’s mission, which is to eliminate insurgents, is going to be a tad compromised if they fly 20 feet above the street with their loudspeakers blaring “Hey, are you an insurgent?”
Furthermore, the chopper is not going to land and arrest the guys; that would be absurd. And how are the suspected insurgents going to reply? Cup their hands and shout real loud? It’s hard to tell the difference between a guy carrying a long pointy thing who is running away going “ohshitohshitohshit” and a guy carrying a long pointy thing who is running away to get into cover so he can kill some infidels.
And regardless of your opinion on the policy of getting involved in Iraq, it is a war zone and carrying weapons in these zones makes you a combatant. Carrying things that look like weapons makes you look like a combatant. The military is not there to counsel the insurgents into behaving – they see someone with guns or bombs, they kill them, because if they don’t, those insurgents will kill someone in the military or a bunch of civilians later that afternoon or the next day. If we had some sort of phaser stun weapon, then killing a group of suspected insurgents would be ill-advised. But Iraq is not a futuristic fantasy world, nor should our troops be expected to expose themselves to mortal peril for the purpose of protecting people who are actively trying to kill them. The idea of “scattering” the insurgents is completely foolish. They aren’t going to give up the fight because a scary helicopter shouted at them on a loudspeaker.
Finally, to the people complaining about the crew’s insensitive language, yes, it is insensitive. But that’s what happens, and has happened, in all wars ever. I’m not sure it’s any more offensive than the videos showing insurgents (some about 12 years old) shooting at our troops (without warning, natch) and chanting “allahu akbar” as they line up a sniper shot. Also note that roadside bombs aren’t designed to scatter our troops, unless you mean scattering body parts all over.
Say what you will about our foreign policy, but that is the only source of rational objection to this incident. The aircrew saw people with what looked like weapons. Their mission was to eliminate people carrying weapons and the people supporting them. They did their job, and if there was a mistake made, it was a reasonable mistake, and they made it under the rules that our military has set up. Tragic, if a mistake, but it clearly lacks the sort of malice aforethought of intentionally killing civilians.
If you want to complain about the war, by all means do so. But the aircrew here is relatively blameless.
bolding mine
I would argue that, in a civilian area, our military forces (any military forces, actually) should have more evidence than “I think they are insurgents, despite no real evidence” before they radio for permission to engage.
FTR, I think the initial engagement was a cock-up, but an understandable one, sort of. I agree that I can see at least one person with what appears to possibly be a gun at around the 3:30 mark, but after that, there is no evidence, no hint of anything that might be construed as evidence that the minivan was anything other than a personal (not personnel) vehicle. The person who gave the ok to engage should prolly be questioned, as at no time did any of the radio chatter indicate that there was anything suggesting “insurgents here!” going on on the ground, other than the fact that they were attempting to remove the wounded man from the area. That in and of itself, IMO, is not enough reason to open fire a second time in a civilian area.
I think your last paragraph, btw, is well-written, well-thought out, and provides good enough reasoning to justify our getting the hell out of yet another conflict where we don’t belong at all.
Wow! How did you manage to make the leap from “we did, in fact, have a proceeding investigating this” to “I assume you don’t think they should be tried again”?
When was this trial? Where did it happen? Where did you read about it? Can you give us a link so we can all read about the trial too?
And when did the gunship crew make sure that the people on the ground weren’t on our side? Or is that part of the assumptive process at play here: “if they were on our side, they wouldn’t have been on the ground”?
A van that drives up to a battlefield with the smoke still on it, and starts picking up what is presumed to be fallen insurgents or other combatants.
You say this, but frankly I’m skeptical…
Well, if you read what I wrote (in posts directed to someone other than you, or that you selectively filtered out), I said I DID see weapons, actually. And, since I said I did see them, presumably an armed group would be, you know, not Shriners or just some folks out for a stroll with their AK’s.
Also, like the military guys, I couldn’t magically see into the van…which could have had just about anything inside. Nor could I see into the buildings…which, again, could have had anything inside.
Since you are the one asserting it, I’d have to say that the obvious answer is…of course you don’t have it right. It’s you, after all. And, looking at what you wrote here I’m militantly un-amazed that, in fact, you don’t have it right, and that’s not what I said at all.
Here, let me helpfully clear this up for you (again…I’ll probably be forced to do so through several more iterations of straw-man-age on your part): The crew believed the ‘wounded man’ was an insurgent. They believed the van was coming to help said ‘wounded man’ because they were ALSO insurgents. They believed the group they had engaged were armed (I believe this to be true too, based on what I saw). They had no reason to believe that the people in the van weren’t similarly armed. They had seconds to assess the situation (maybe 20 seconds from when they were told an unmarked van was approaching), seconds to ask for permission to engage what they clearly felt was a target, and seconds for the guy at the other end of the line to weigh and assess their request and give permission. They were given permission to engage the van and they did so.
Hindsight is a beautiful thing, and it’s really easy to second guess someone when you have all the time in the world…plus some helpful text from a friendly group to point out what you are seeing and how you should feel about it, no?
-XT
This is exactly what I kept thinking while watching the video. I can grant that the crew was probably operating within normal parameters for such situations considering allowed rules of engagement. Stuff like this probably happens all the time and we are only hearing about this case due to the level of screw-up it was.
What blows my mind is that we are fighting a war in which it is acceptable to effectively execute a group of people walking on a street merely because one or more people in a distant helicopter think they see weapons. Additionally, I noticed there was plenty of mention of waiting for the wounded guy to go for a weapon but as soon as the van arrived, that went out the window, and it became very important to take it out even though no justification was mentioned.
Hopefully this provokes a sufficient outcry that we actually make a small effort to take out people who are legitimately threatening us, not milling around, looking mildly suspicious.
I’ve watched the thing several times (and obviously so have others), and it’s kind of telling that we (who weren’t there) are all coming to different conclusions. To me, I see at least 2-3 guys armed with AK’s (and several with some kind of shoulder bags or something like that, which, only because we have been told so, we now know were camera and equipment bags), and a guy who, to me, looks to have an RPG. You don’t see that, I do, so it’s pretty clearly ambiguous. The CREW, however, says they saw it…so, unless you can prove they are lying (and do so in court…and assuming this video is the actual footage, I’m going to say that it couldn’t be definitively proved, at least based on THIS evidence), then they are going to be presumed innocent. Even with the UCMJ there is a presumption of innocence, unless there is some proof of guilt. And I don’t see it, based on this piece of video.
Given that this is the only data we seem to have on this incident, I don’t see how any reasonable person could make any kind of conclusion one way or the other here. Or assume that this was (or wasn’t) an obvious whitewash. Based on what I’m seeing IN THIS VIDEO, however, I’d have to say that it looks to me as if the crew did everything they were supposed to do, and really believed that the people they were engaging were, in fact, armed hostiles. Unless they were REALLY good actors, it’s pretty obvious to me that they, at least, were convinced that these guys were armed.
-XT
I watched the video a couple of times, and when the van pulls up to the scene, there is no smoke on the battlefield. In fact, they chopper crew had to wait for the smoke to clear before they could see the wounded man trying to crawl away.
Not exactly the word I would choose to describe you, but hey…
Again you conflate the 1st and 2nd engagements shown in the video. Did you see weapons when the minivan pulled up? Where?
And if the interior of the van, which couldn’t be seen, was a question mark, then, as you indicate, all of the buildings are also question marks, but I didn’t see or hear anything about blowing up all the surrounding buildings? So your logic isn’t holding on that point. Not knowing != must be destroyed.
First, I haven’t presented any strawman arguments. Perhaps you should go look that up again, as you don’t seem to understand the term.
Second, look at the number of times you used the word “believe” in that paragraph. If it’s wrong for the terrorists to kill us because of what they believe about us, why isn’t it wrong for our guys to kill people because of what they believe about them?
I suspect that your answer boils down to: because the guys in the chopper are on my side.
Since we still haven’t seen any answer to the question of whether there were actually weapons there, I’m going to assume the answer is “no”. Granting the helicopter crew the benefit of the doubt, we can grant that they thought there were weapons there. Which goes to show that those guys aren’t as good as they need to be at identifying weapons, and at a bare minimum they need to go back to training to be able to identify weapons, and not be allowed back at the controls of a gunship helicopter until they’ve proven that they can do so.
Of course, this is granting them the benefit of the doubt. If a court-martial were to determine that they could not reasonably have thought there were weapons present, or that they based their decision to shoot on factors other than the presence of weapons, then it could be anything up to and including murder, and they should face the appropriate consequences accordingly.
If I live to be a hundred, I won’t forget that voice urging a crawling, wounded man to get close enough to a weapon so that he could be fired upon. I hear Bill Hicks doing his Jack Palance impersonation: “Pick up the gun, go ahead, pick it up…” And another voice, chortling, “If he runs, he’s VC. If he doesn’t run, he’s a very disciplined VC.”
But it doesn’t matter all that much, except for the victims, their families, their friends, and anyone with an ounce of human decency. Our reputation will not suffer, it can’t. Not after our mercs gunned down innocent civilians in the streets of Baghdad and got nothing more than a stern talking to. After all, how much more can they despise us?
No, the real blame for this belongs to the author of this war, Saddam Hussein, who refused to turn over the weapons he didn’t have.
When I was quite young, I believed that whenever the oppressed and fearful innocents of the world heard the news that the Americans were coming, their hearts were lifted from despair, and glad cries could be heard. “The Americans are coming, the Americans are coming!” Now, I know it frequently means “Run for your lives, the Americans are coming!”
In the words of Bob Seeger, I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.
The main thing I get from this video is…
WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE???
You know what would have really prvented this Fog of War and death of children, innocent civilians annd Journos, NEVER INVADING IRAQ TO SATISFY CHENEY’S BLOODLUST in the first place. That is the lesson we should get from this video. War sucks and when you go to war you better be damn fucking sure you are doing so for the right reasons.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. However, let’s leave the smoke aside. The guys were still BLEEDING and just starting to crawl around (those still alive), yes? Do you agree with part, at least?
Assuming you have decided to be reasonable (:dubious:), then this is going to be sort of a clear indication to the driver of the van that something is amiss, right? And that it happened fairly recently (like, oh, say a minute or two before the van pulls up), yes?
Given that, it’s not unreasonable to think that a van pulling up to start clearing off the wounded would be associated with them in some way…since, IMHO, no reasonable person who has no connection to or stake in the event is going to be foolish enough to drive into what is pretty obviously a war zone.
Well, that kind of shows you your level of judgment…
No, I’m not conflating anything…you simply aren’t reading what I’m writing. Did I see any weapons in the film when the van pulls up? It’s impossible to tell, but, to be honest, no. That’s because the the camera is in close up mode on the VAN, mainly (and the only people are either inside (driver) and the two guys outside (who are picking up a body, so wouldn’t be able to hold a weapon anyway, unless they were John Wayne), as they were obviously trying (and failing) to see what was inside. So, again, the film is ambiguous, IMHO…you can’t tell what all is happening.
I don’t believe that the van being armed or not armed really had much to do with the permission they were given to engage it, however, though clearly you seem to think this is of critical importance. Watching the video, the crew in the helicopter never said the van was armed…they reported that the van was attempting to remove the injured from the field. This is probably a gray area, since I don’t know what the rules are for engaging presumed insurgent vehicles that are merely attempting to remove wounded from the battlefield.
Not knowing does not equal must NOT be destroyed, either. Again, the crew requested permission to engage, and watching the video (again), they clearly were not telling higher authority that the van was armed, only indicating that the van was picking up survivors. So, we’d really need to see just what the ROE were that they were flying under, but if anyone is at fault here it would be the officer that gave them permission to engage the van.
Since this was investigated by the military, we have to either assume it was a whitewash or that they had more than just this film to base their decisions on. The key word there, however, is ‘assume’…since, thus far, all I’ve seen on this is the film and other stuff on this website.
Yeah…you did. Here is what you said:
I’ve said (many times in this thread) that it’s clear the crew did NOT think these guys were ‘unarmed civilians’, that, in fact, they believed these guys were armed insurgents…so, by putting this in these terms, you are attempting to alter my position to enhance your own. Strawman. Had you asked me ‘So, the crew felt that attacking presumed wounded insurgents are fair game for a military engagement’, then I would have responded to this argument. Instead, you chose the strawman route…and then questioned whether or not I understand the term. 
This may come as a shock to you, but that crew? They weren’t gods. They were…hold onto your hat…humans. And they didn’t have perfect knowledge! I know…it’s hard to grasp, but it’s true.
I’m just going to ignore your question about terrorists and belief, since I don’t see either that I’ve commented on this one way or the other, or that it really has anything to do with the questions in this thread. We’ll just pretend you didn’t write that, ok?
Should I equally suspect that your own answer boils down to ‘they have to be guilty because they are the US MILITARY! RAAWWRRR…and…and…it’s all Bush’s fault!’? But since it seems straw is on sale, feel free to suspect whatever you want, bo.
-XT
Couldn’t agree more. Don’t want this kind of fuckup to happen? Then we shouldn’t have ever gone there in the first place. This kind of thing is bound to happen when you go on foreign adventures into places where everyone is shooting at you or attempting to blow you up where ever you go. And this event happened in 2006, the height of the badness.
I can’t wait for Obama to pull the last troop out of there.
-XT
What information did the soldiers have going into this? Did they have reason to believe that that particular group of people were insurgents?
Is it standard policy to shoot large vehicle mounted weapons at anything carrying an AK-47? Are civilians in that area permitted to carry weapons?
How certain do the soldiers have to be on visual identification before they can open fire? While I did see something that may have been an AK-47, it could also have been a camera. I certainly did not see anything that looked like an RPG.
The soldiers in the video were chomping at the bit to fire before they had identified any threat. They were looking for any excuse. How did one or two AK-47s become 5 or 6?
xtisme, why is what they believed so important? What they believed didn’t seem to be affected by what evidence was available. They went into the encounter with the belief that all of those people were insurgents, and then looked for any excuse to fire. Does what they believed excuse them from the responsibility of their actions? Should there be no consequences for making a mistake that involves the deaths of a dozen people?
That was my first though, too.
I can see the reasons why the first shootings happened. I watched the video once, didn’t spot any weapons (I kept waiting for the Targets :smack:), but that those two guys were carrying cameras was obvious to me from the position etc. - but I know a lot of people with cameras and no one with assault rifles. Anyway, I wouldn’t have engaged them, but I can see why the crew would. Fair enough.
But the van was kinda… unnecessary. What was going to happen? Even if that’s an insurgent, he’s wounded, he will cost them resources and time, and he’ll be pretty shaken by the whole thing. Do they have a quota to fill?
I believe this “kill 'em all” attitude is one reason the US is so hated down there. If you hear again and again that people are killed from miles away because they might be armed, might be a Taliban, might be in the wrong building, just to be safe… With all that collateral damage and casualties, I’d be pretty upset about the US forces, to be honest.
I mean, the USA chose to enter this war. This is not WWII. The connection between Iraq and 9/11 is dubious at best. So if you enter a war and want to be the good guy, don’t bring yourself into a position where you have to kill some guys just because they might be armed. It’s still your decision to be there in the first place, if you can’t do this any other way - well, don’t!
And don’t train you soldiers to act like they’re frakking playing COD4.
Gha. Can you tell this video shook me? 
The first two guys described as carrying rifles simply had bulky objects on shoulder slings. I didn’t think there was enough protrusion (ie - of a barrel) to feel confident in labeling them weapons, but then I personally wouldn’t feel confident in making any sort of serious call based on an image of that low resolution. The ‘weapons’ in question are dark blobs on white blobs. The CP/G doesn’t get the luxury of shrugging it off, and presumably has enough experience to make that call on a regular basis. Whatever the third guy was carrying certainly did look like a rifle though.
The “RPG” guy mentioned was clearly engaged in suspicious behavior though. He was crouched at the corner of a building, peering around it down the road that radio traffic said US soldiers were heading down, while holding his elongated dark object at the ready. While the helicopter was already moving to engage by that point, seeing that sort of thing in the TADS is certainly not going to plant seeds of doubt. It looks very much like an ambush in wait.
I can’t call foul on the initial engagement nor the chatter. As far as they knew, they just saved the guys in the lead humvee, possibly guys they’ve been talking to all day, from getting attacked, of course they’re going to be fairly unsympathetic to their victims.
But I can’t imagine what rules of engagement would make that van a valid target. Nobody that came out of the van was carrying anything, or made any move to salvage anything from the area but the one wounded man. Why is it that they needed the wounded survivor to reach for a weapon, after they’d already gotten to all clear to take him out in the first place, but the van’s occupants don’t need to do anything overtly hostile at all? That part is strange.
Aside from the van, if there’s anything to condemn here, it’s that this is why you don’t use standoff weapons when discrimination is needed. Gunning those people down wasn’t the helicopter crew’s fault and it wasn’t the fault of ground control, it was the fault of the people who decided that attack helicopters should be used in dense urban combat in the first place. That there were Reuters people involved makes this exceptional, but by no means unusual.
Why do the group of men not even react to the presence of the helicopters until they shoot at them? If they were insurgents, would they be walking in the open with the choppers clearly visible in the sky or maybe the choppers where using new stealth technology?
Anybody have an opinion on why the men don’t react until shot at?