What has happened to my SDMB ?

[Milossarian]

Two thoughts:

**This event was obviously an incredibly tragic fuckup. Seven people are dead - killed in front of their loved ones because the people they thought were there to liberate them made a mistake.

**
Did “the people who were there to liberate them make a mistake?”

Only a day or two earlier, Iraq used a car bomb to kill soldiers.

Every news report I’ve read indicates the vehicle was ordered to halt multiple times, until the soldiers involved followed their protocols and fired upon it.

In the context of “these people weren’t Iraqi soldiers or Fedayeen, so their deaths are a tragic mistake,” yeah, I concur.

But the choice of words is - to me, anyway - a bit unfortunate.

I can’t imagine any other way the soldiers could have responded, given all of the circumstances.

and

**Yes, it is also unfortunate that people seem to cling to their position after it is clearly shown to be misinformed/wrong/premature. Particularly those in the “Iraq has just used WMD” vein.

**
As this is directed at me, as that was my thread, I’d like to make two points, and then I will speak no more of it.

1. I retracted “WMD” and said consider the new title “Iraq has just launched those banned missiles it is not allowed to have at our troops.” This was largely ignored. My point, in either case, was precisely the same.

At least Al-Samoud missiles were fired. Prior to the war, it was determined Iraq should not have Al-Samoud missiles. U.S. and Kuwaiti military officials have confirmed missiles fired on Kuwait have traveled ranges farther than Iraq was allowed to have under U.N. resolutions.

What in that is “misinformed/wrong/premature?”

2. I made the huge mistake of, while retracting the WMD in the title of the thread, continuing to provide evidence that what a WMD is is not cut-and-dried, black-and-white, to all people who consider such things. I should not have done it because some chose to focus on that instead of the larger point. For what it’s worth, I fully acknowledge that at least the United Nations Security Council considers Scud missiles as something in a separate category from WMD, which it seems to limit to chemical, biological and radiological weapons, as evidenced by the language in Security Council Resolution 1441.

Other groups, as I pointed out in that thread, do not make such distinctions.

Take this fun little exercise:

1. Go to the Monterey Institute of International Studies Website:
   http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm

2. Read the heading at the top of that web page.

3. Read items 1 through 3 that are listed there, in the table.

4. Read items 4 through 6 that are listed there, in the table.

5. Go back and read the heading at the top of the web page again.

6. Answer this question yes or no: Does the institute, on this webpage, make any distinction between items 1 through 3 on its table and items 4 through 6?

Have the last word on the matter, if you want it.

[Spiny_Norman]

• civilians dying in bursts of well-aimed direct fire tend to make me the slightest bit depressed. This wasn’t in the realm of a stray bullet or a fragment going wild, after all. Someone fired for effect and killed these people. It might have been unavoidable - I wasn’t there, and, AFAIK, neither was any other doper. Or it might have been avoidable, but understandable. Depressing, no matter what.

But seeing smart people hunt all over for a reason that it’s really OK, that our side was right in assuming the worst and really doesn’t carry the slightest bit of blame - now, that would tend to move me into the cranky zone.

First: Yes, I stand by my characterization of this event as a fuck-up. Any chain of events that lead to aimed fire killing noncombattants - that has to count as a fuck-up.

Try, if you will, moving the scenario to a stateside exercise - does anyone think that the gunner in question and his squad commander would have received a glowing post-exercise critique ? Hell no. They might have had the best reasons, but in the end the decision had the wrong outcome.

That’s when you have to start looking closely at your SOP and your overall handling of the mission. This incident did not exactly contribute to completing the mission at hand - I’d tend to say just the opposite. Sorry, but that alone makes it go into the fuck-up category.

Second: I am not looking to place personal blame, here. Once the dogs of war are loose, this sort of event unfolds all the time. Heck, I’ve been in simulated combat (where the stress factors add up to, say, perhaps one-thousandth of those in a shooting war) and more than once made the wrong decision for what I thought excellent (or at least defendable) reasons. It happens. I feel pretty sorry for the gunner - I feel sorry for anyone having to make this sort of decision and to live with the consequences.

But thirdly, and this is probably as close as I’m getting to any point at all, sorry: I FUCKING expect people to have the guts to call a balls-up a balls-up. When you call for war, you should know that you call for this sort of incident as well. It comes with the package - so at least bloody own up to your responsibility, because these people were killed in your name as well as in mine. Where’s the respect - the decency to say “We screwed up, sorry” ?

To me at least, that thread looked like a scavenger hunt for reasons it was basically OK to kill these people, when the facts turned out to be that it absolutely was not. That turned my stomach. Their deaths were tragic, but I accept that in war, sometimes the dice fall that way. It was the undignified way that people were inventing reasons as to why it was logical and - at least for some - in the final analysis, right to kill them.

Allow me a comparison: March 21st 1945, 11:15-11:19 AM, the RAF precision-bombed the Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen. Due to a chain of mishaps and bad decisions for good reasons, several of the planes ended up bombing an elementary school instead. The RAF bombed a school. 123 civilians died, 87 of them children. I take it we can agree that this was a fuck-up ? Big-time.

So what happened ? Well, one thing that didn’t happen was people coming up with a list of really good reasons to bomb schools. The RAF admitted to a severe mistake and expressed deep regret. The Copenhagen civilians bore it as the cost of liberation. And for what little good it did, at least the dead did not suffer the indignity of anyone saying that it was basically all right to kill them.

I know, historical parallels aren’t. But I had hoped we could extend the same courtesy to those we’re killing by accident now. I simply guess I’d come to expect better.

I now expect to be told that the thread was a purely academical exercise, a little mental work-out, that it had no bearing on assigning responsibility or blame in the actual scenario. I regret to admit that I would have a hard time believing that, sorry. To me, it looked like a big game of “Shift the blame”.

I do regret posting when cranky, and I admit that not linking was a bit of bad form on my part - Rhum Runner, that’s for you. I guess we won’t agree on much else.

S. Norman

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by Spiny Norman *
But seeing smart people hunt all over for a reason that it’s really OK, that our side was right in assuming the worst and really doesn’t carry the slightest bit of blame - now, that would tend to move me into the cranky zone.

So, in other words, the obvious answer is always the right one, any inquiry into the truth is just scapegoating. Sorry, I disagree.

First: Yes, I stand by my characterization of this event as a fuck-up. Any chain of events that lead to aimed fire killing noncombattants - that has to count as a fuck-up.

That’s all fine and good Norman if, in fact, the people involved were noncombattants. If they were provoking the incident on purpose, even if acting under duress, then they aren’t reallly noncombattants, are they? Surely a conscripted soldier who doesn’t want to fight, but does so anyway, is still a combattant. I see these people as possibly having been, in a sense, conscripted.

Try, if you will, moving the scenario to a stateside exercise - does anyone think that the gunner in question and his squad commander would have received a glowing post-exercise critique ? Hell no. They might have had the best reasons, but in the end the decision had the wrong outcome.

Um, yes? Let’s see, large civilian vehicle approaches checkpoint, refuses to stop, warning shots are fired, vehicle continues to approach, shots are fired into radiator, vehicle continues to approach. Finally, vehicle is stopped by opening fire. Sounds like they did exactly what they were supposed to do. So, I would say if this were a stateside exercise, they would receive a glowing report. The decision did not have the wrong outcome, the desired outcome was to stop the van. The van was stopped.

Second: I am not looking to place personal blame, here. Once the dogs of war are loose, this sort of event unfolds all the time. Heck, I’ve been in simulated combat (where the stress factors add up to, say, perhaps one-thousandth of those in a shooting war) and more than once made the wrong decision for what I thought excellent (or at least defendable) reasons. It happens. I feel pretty sorry for the gunner - I feel sorry for anyone having to make this sort of decision and to live with the consequences.

We agree here.

To me at least, that thread looked like a scavenger hunt for reasons it was basically OK to kill these people, when the facts turned out to be that it absolutely was not. That turned my stomach. Their deaths were tragic, but I accept that in war, sometimes the dice fall that way. It was the undignified way that people were inventing reasons as to why it was logical and - at least for some - in the final analysis, right to kill them.

Did you read the article I posted here quoting the cleric? Did you read about this latest attack involving the pregnant woman? It is absolutely not clear what was going on in the head of the driver at the time of the incident. There is, at least, strong circumstancial evidence that this was a ploy. For the millionth time: Saddam is the head of an an evil regime, they abuse and use civilians constantly. It is hardly a scavenger hunt to suppose that this was just the latest tragic incident of civilian abuse.

Allow me a comparison: March 21st 1945, 11:15-11:19 AM, the RAF precision-bombed the Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen. Due to a chain of mishaps and bad decisions for good reasons, several of the planes ended up bombing an elementary school instead. The RAF bombed a school. 123 civilians died, 87 of them children. I take it we can agree that this was a fuck-up ? Big-time.

So what happened ? Well, one thing that didn’t happen was people coming up with a list of really good reasons to bomb schools. The RAF admitted to a severe mistake and expressed deep regret. The Copenhagen civilians bore it as the cost of liberation. And for what little good it did, at least the dead did not suffer the indignity of anyone saying that it was basically all right to kill them.

Apples and oranges. A better analogy would be if the Gestapo had ordered the school to conduct classes in the Gestapo headquarters, which had then been bombed, killing 100 children. Would the RAF owe an apology for that?

[Amok]

*Originally posted by Spiny Norman *
**I wasn’t there, and, AFAIK, neither was any other doper. **

Very true. Which makes me wonder how you (or anyone else) can draw conclusions about who’s fault the accident was. Frankly, it doesn’t appear to me that you’re interested in sticking to the facts, but rather that you’re using that angle to push your view of what happened. The facts do not include “Any chain of events that lead to aimed fire killing noncombattants - that has to count as a fuck-up”. Also, describing the result as ending in the “wrong outcome” is not a factual statement (just as describing it as ending in the right outcome would not be).

You’re engaging in as much speculation as the posters in the thread you disliked, it’s just that your speculation leads to a different conclusion. And that conclusion might be more probable, but it is by no means proven.

[drpepper]

It might have been unavoidable - I wasn’t there, and, AFAIK, neither was any other doper. Or it might have been avoidable, but understandable.

You summarized the issue here perfectly. This is why it is debate. A perfectly valid one, at that. Not a pleasant subject, sure, but nonetheless it is a legitimate debate.