Sorry, but what is that in response to? And what happened to option 3, no-one gets killed?
Considering the battle for hearts and minds, perhaps they should be encouraged to “express their creativity” in a way that won’t scare the shit out of civilians?
I will break my self-imposed thread uniqueness to offer an observation, to the opening poster and in general.
(a) Just as one can credit the American soldiers with panicking, it strikes me that one can credit untrained Iraqi civilians with panicking. Those who make confident assertions one way or the other about what someone “should have done”, thousands of miles from the conflict and thousands of miles removed from the situation are engaging in empty posturing.
(b) The same psychology that induced the OP to look to blame the Iraqi victims works in the opposite direction-- the tendency for Arabs and Iraqis to see American soldiers’ actions in an equally negative light.
I myself have no idea what happened there, and feel it most likely the fog of war intervened, without sinister motives here. Myself haven taken “services” rather like that van, knowing th driving habits of the region, having seen crises, I can easily credit a stupid decision to try to speed through in panic. One day I shall recount for you all the day I almost died in a service that decided passing between two trucks was a brilliant idea (one oncoming). However, even if not, the lesson, the take away should be the same pyschology of us versus them that appears on your side, our side if you will, appears on the other. As I have tried to convey in my thread.
I would hope some modicum of … rational analysis will somehow work its way into some of the discourse here.
If you mean this thread specifically, I disagree that there has been no rational analysis applied. Since you find it to be lacking, however, let’s apply some.
You are a soldier at a checkpoint. A couple of days ago, several of your buddies died when a suicide bomber went thru a checkpoint in the same area.
Now a vehicle is coming towards you. There is no way to tell if the occupants are soldiers or not, since many Iraqi soldiers do not wear uniforms. The vehicle ignores your warnings to stop, indeed, it responds by speeding up. You have perhaps ten seconds to react.
What are your options?
[ul][li]You could do nothing, and allow the vehicle thru. In this case, you would have done little harm, although since the vehicle would not have stopped, you would never know this. As far as you could ever tell, you could have let a truckful of Iraqi soldiers behind your lines. No way to find out. [/li]
Naturally, this would send messages to the rest of the population.
[li]To the innocent civilians, who just want to get out of a war zone, you are signalling that the best way to get thru a checkpoint is to ignore the soldiers directing traffic, accelerate, and barge right thru. The effect of this on traffic safety is easy to predict.[/li]
[li]To the non-innocent Iraqi military, you are signalling that the way has been cleared for more suicide bombers, who also can bypass checkpoints by ignoring warnings to stop, and barging thru. [/li][li]As you mention, many Iraqis are eager to blame the US for whatever goes wrong. Thus, even if the US does everything “right” to avoid civilian casualties, the Iraqis can easily blame the increased traffic fatalities resulting from civilians trying to race thru checkpoints on the evil Americans, just as they are doing now for firing on innocent women and children. Those monsters![/li][li]If all else fails, the Iraqis can easily stage some atrocities against their own people, and blame it on the Americans. They have already signalling their willingness to do so, with the fake uniforms they ordered, placing military targets as near to civilians as they can manage, etc. [/li][li]Or you could fire on the vehicle. As you say, Iraqis and others (hi, Oliver H) will blame the Americans for not knowing telepathically that this was really just a vehicle full of panicked civilians. On the other hand, you are not sending any messages that warnings to stop can safely be ignored. You are also communicating that attempts to hide suicide bombers among civilians will not work. Since the Iraqis and others are going to blame you anyway, you haven’t really lost anything. [/ul][/li]
It seems that a rational analysis doesn’t come up with any alternatives other than what was chosen on the scene.
Unless the objection is “civilians sometimes die during wartime”, which isn’t so much the result of analysis as a truism. The US is doing what it can to keep this from happening. The Iraqis, both in the military and civilians, are not necessarily always doing the same. Sometimes out of innocent motives, and sometimes not.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan: “It seems that a rational analysis doesn’t come up with any alternatives other than what was chosen on the scene.”
I suspect that what was meant is that what’s being debated here was, in all likelihood, a tragedy. One can explore its roots without losing the appearance of one’s humanity.
Well Squire, guess that serves me right for trying to be funny, hm?
I am not aware of any link between the dictatorship of Saddam’s Baath-party regime and Mussolini’s Fascism movement… Maybe you meant the term in a broader sense, synonymous to “dictatorial”?
Now, to your actual claim: that the invation of an alien power will be found “pleasant” by the locals, if the invading force are actually “attempting to liberate [them] from [a horrible regime]”.
“Liberation” is a characterization of current events that you believe in. But you are confusing the fact that you think it is “liberation” with the notion that iraqis in general think so. The groups that make up Iraqi society (Sunnis, Shias, Kurds f.e.) have all got well-founded reasons not to trust US foreign policy.
It is quite unlikely IMHO that the average Joe Iraqi will interpret the event described above in the same manner the OP does. This should be a real concern for all those who still hope the americans will be welcomed as “liberators”.
I’d feel a lot better about this being a “setup” if even a single woman or child had survived. It seems to me if you shoot a vehicle so full of holes that you kill all seven passengers then you’ve used far more force than necessary to stop the vehicle.
Nope, still unpleasant. The status quo may not be pleasant, but an unpleasant status quo doesn’t relieve the pain of being invaded.
Enjoy,
Steven
I think this is on the right track. I’ve heard reports that the Baath Party loyalists are telling the population that the coalition troops will kill all the men before raping all the women.* Maybe these poor women believed it.
I don’t think this was a conspiracy in the classic sense of the word. However, the strateties adopted by the regime for survival are all obviously designed to maximize civilian casualties.
*[Aside] That’s pretty close to what one of our own soldiers (Akbar?) said after fragging the officers. Ergo, it’s not hard to believe that Iraqis believe it.
I’d say it’s more the universal language of “we are trying to shoot at you, time to panic.”
They weren’t out for a trip to the shops you know. They were fleeing a war. Rules can and do get ignored in these situations. And who’s to say they weren’t related? Who’s to say they were Muslim?
Good question.
:rolleyes: Don’t know, it always works in the movies!
First kneejerk reaction to realisation that wars kill innocents and even the mighty American army screws up: suspect the victims.
The reports I have seen indicate several people, including one woman, survived.
Other than one poster who clearly has an agenda; I don’t think anyone has said that the “mighty American army” has screwed up anything. Given the reports of the tactics being used by Iraq, tanks in hospitals, troops out of uniform, fake surrenders etc. I would say that asking the question of whether or not this might be just the next example is perfectly rational, and not a kneejerk at all.
There were 13 passengers in total. IIRC, 7 Killed, 2 wounded, 4 unharmed.
I would on the contrary say it is an extraordinary claim, that requires extraordinary proof.
In the real word, these people had relatives. Implying that their deaths were voluntary, and meant to “frame” the US army does not show much respect for them. At least not doing so with nothing more substancial than speculation, to back it up.
**That was my point. **
The reaction here is not to acknowledge the rather more likely scenario of a screw up, (the kind that happen in wars and that Bush would rather people not think about) but to start throwing out rather far fetched conspiracy theories.
I don’t know of any preceeding case of Iraqi’s risking death on the off-chance of generating bad publicity. They usually prefer a more real payback. Nor have I heard of any suicide missions by Iraqis that involves taking the family with them. Much as people might like to demonise the opposition, they are still family men.
In short, the whole “Iraqi setup” theory is a without any evidence or probability and smells awfully like people in denial.
I don’t think it is an extraordinary claim at all. Suicide attacks are common enough, and Iraq has shown no hesitation to use civilians for their own ends. Putting the two together is not a huge leap of logic.
No one is acknowledging a screw up, because most everyone agrees that there WAS NO SCREW UP. The only debate/speculation is to the motive of the driver. Either he was confused and didn’t know what to do or he was deliberately trying to draw fire to create civilian casualties. No one has debated whether or not the Americans were justified in shooting the van. Everyone has agreed that under the circumstances there was no other choice.
Once more, with feeling: * Iraq is a secular society. *
Sigh. I think the argument has been made already that it is (infinately) more likely that the people in the bus simply did not interpret the situation in the way you think they should have, and / or panicked.
Furthermore the Washington Post reporter at the sight reports that the captain in charge shouted at the soldiers that they had killed a family by mistake by waiting to long to fire warning shots.
The only argument you have is your view of what iraqi’s may or may not do. Pray, what expertise do you have on that subject?
Sigh. Have you read the article in the Post? It makes it clear that the officer made his comment right after the van was stopped. It also makes it clear that later investigation revealed that proper warning shots probably were fired, and either ignored or misunderstood.
OK Ive seen the “panic” rationale several times since my last post. I would agree with some that stopping may not be the only reaction to the intense fear of being shot, However, if one is so deathly afraid of alien invaders shooting you and raping your women why go towards them after they already shot at your vehicle? Turn the dang thing around and run away. It is the only suspicious thing the “civilians” did.
Understandable but Why not 2 men? If they were fleeing why run into an armed checkpoint instead of going around it? If they werent Muslim that would bring up a whole lot more questions than answers.
see thats the thing. They dont even do that in the movies. Its always go for the driver or pump 200 pounds of lead in small sizes at a rapid rate.
no one would suspect the victims if the victims didnt act all screwy in a tense and dangerous situation. anyway, I think its the captains fault. He ordered firing into the van. For all we know, the soldiers close to the van already determined that the van was safe enuf to approach but the captain, who watched everything from binoculars, was anal retentive about the protocols.
Sigh. Have you read the article in the Post? It makes it clear that the officer made his comment right after the van was stopped. It also makes it clear that later investigation revealed that proper warning shots probably were fired, and either ignored or misunderstood.
What significance do you lend this investigation by the US military that are faced with the consequences of officially stating misconduct of US soldiers resulting in civilian casualties and what significance do you lend the immediate, spontanious reaction of the (responsible) officer at the site?
At least I’d expect you to sooner believe the plausibility of that scenario over your “theory” that is firmly based on speculation on the psychological traits of people you know very little about.