Collateral Murder

[kai]

I disagree, it's impossible to tell from the video if there are people in the buildings or traffic in the surrounding areas.

But let's suppose for the sake of argument we think it's deserted. A van pulls up. This piece of evidence does not prove that the people in the van are armed insurgents. It proves the area was not deserted.

That is a point brought up in the Military enquiry that the air crew had access to a wider view than seen on the Apache recording.

Look Spinkles you have looked at all the evidence and come to your own conclusions that's fine by me , i just dont agree.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Look Spinkles you have looked at all the evidence and come to your own conclusions that's fine by me , i just dont agree.

I believe his mind was made up before ever viewing any evidence.

 

[Kathryn]

Kathryn, I have not read every single reply in this thread, but yours was one of the many I did read, and I wanted to say I wish your son well. I deeply appreciate his service and am so sorry he had to experience what he did.

Regarding the video, the world isn't perfect, and neither are our armed forces. I'm very sad for what happened, and my sympathy is extended to everyone involved, our soliders included, who will wrestle with this for the rest of their lives. I'm confident most soldiers do not want to make mistakes and hurt innocent people. I'm not in the military, nor have I ever found myself in a war zone, so I don't feel qualified to judge them.

I can't imagine having to live with it all. May this war be over soon.

Thank, you, Anne, for your very sane and realistic response.

I had to take a break from this thread for awhile, because with three children in the military, it was a bit too emotional for me to read things like, "Death to American soldiers!" over and over again.

Once again, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Kathryn]

You and Kathryn and others are fond of pointing out that out that "war is hell" when it is innocent foreigners bearing the cost of our military's mistakes and misjudgment. But the maxim could equally well be used to justify the measures I'm suggesting, and put the burden of preventing civilian deaths firmly on the shoulders of the military, even at the cost of letting a few insurgents get away sometimes.

War is hell for all parties involved. DON'T FORGET while you're slinging my name around that I have three kids who are serving in the military, and one who, after nearly two years of service in the Triangle of Death south of Baghdad, is suffering from PTSD.

Among the many things he experienced that triggered this are:

1. His platoon leader's head getting literally blown off as he was delivering crayons to an Iraqi school. My son had to clean his brains out of the front seat of the Humvee.

2. One of his best friend's losing both legs in an IED explosion, and another being so severely burned that he lost most of the fingers on both hands.

3. The ordered shooting of a 9 year old Iraqi boy whose FATHER had drugged him, strapped a bomb to him, and sent him stumbling toward the military gate, as Iraqi civilians screamed and dove for cover.

4. An attack on their convoy in which several soldiers were seriously wounded, and in the turmoil, my son's Humvee ran over the body of a woman insurgent (she was already dead from crossfire). My son said that in the confusion, on a very narrow road at about 2 am, they had no time or space to avoid running over the body, and just as they came up on it, he saw her veil and realized that it was a woman. The sound of running over the body is one thing that wakes him up at night two years later. One of the many things, that is.

5. The devastating loss of FORTY FOUR men in their battalion during their tour - the highest casualty rate within a battalion in that amount of time during the war.

6. My son's eardrums were ruptured three different times by being in such close proximity to an exploding IED that he was knocked out by the explosion. I thank God every day that he was not more seriously injured. Many of the young men I sent care packages to or talked with on the phone, including his roommate, were far more seriously injured.

These young men and women cannot afford to "let a few insurgents go" when it literally could be that very guy tomorrow who blows their 26 year old platoon leader's head off while he's pulling up to a group of smiling and waving school children.

 

[*Anne*]

I had to take a break from this thread for awhile, because with three children in the military, it was a bit too emotional for me to read things like, "Death to American soldiers!" over and over again.

I don't blame you.

I used to share personal information via forums. Not identifiable stuff, but personal details to people I thought were decent enough. I learned it's not a good idea. Some people on the net lack basic respect for others and won't hesitate to really hit you where it hurts. Forums bring out the bully in certain people because, after all, they are nameless, faceless, and safe from the consequences of their words.

That said, not all of us are that way. My next donation to the Fisher House will be in honor of your kids' service. ((hug))

 

[angellous_evangellous]

War is hell for all parties involved...

Yes. If the sons of goats who started wars actually faught in them (and I don't mean 30 years ago...), we'd be a bit more careful...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I believe his mind was made up before ever viewing any evidence.

:no: That's totally untrue, and unfair. I suspect you haven't read all my posts in this thread.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Look Spinkles you have looked at all the evidence and come to your own conclusions that's fine by me , i just dont agree.

Sure, agree to disagree, we've both had our say.

War is hell for all parties involved. DON'T FORGET while you're slinging my name around that I have three kids who are serving in the military, and one who, after nearly two years of service in the Triangle of Death south of Baghdad, is suffering from PTSD.

I won't forget that Kathryn and I'm sorry for everything your family has been through, I certainly didn't mean to sling your name around except in the context that you are participating in this thread, like many other threads on this forum. But I understand this thread has great significance to you personally.

These young men and women cannot afford to "let a few insurgents go" when it literally could be that very guy tomorrow who blows their 26 year old platoon leader's head off while he's pulling up to a group of smiling and waving school children.

Like the children in the van, who were wounded and watched their father and two other men get shot to pieces? Clearly you're not suggesting soldiers stay away from children and withhold school supplies. They should keep delivering those crayons, despite the risk, after all that's their job and part of the job of being a soldier entails risk. Right?

So I'm saying basically the same thing. We should have policies that encourage soldiers in a dense urban environment to not open fire in cases like the van in this video. The policy should be, that if some unarmed person happens to show up and assist a wounded person after an engagement, and they are posing no threat to you, you can't assume they are insurgents. Such a policy is arguably even more important for the well-being of local children than delivering school supplies. And it seems to me like a very reasonable, sane policy. Admittedly, this entails some risk. But there will always be risk of insurgents getting away unless you are prepared to exterminate the entire local population. Furthermore, in the long run I think such a policy will make it less likely that people in the local population will have a desire to attack the soldiers in the first place. And finally, as we all agree, risk is part of the job of being a soldier.

Part of a soldier's mission is to protect innocent lives, right? That job entails risk. Their mission is not to be safe all the time, if that was their mission then the platoon leader you mentioned would never venture outside the Green Zone. Sometimes the best way to accomplish the mission is to hold fire, rather than open fire. Wouldn't you agree?

I bet Caladan agrees with me, and he served in the IDF.

 

[kai]

Sorry Spinks but again you are drawing your own conclusions from your own safe place , so in future in any engagement with non uniform combatants in an urban environment unmarked vehicles that interact with the insurgents should not be fired upon?

The air crew were acting in support of the ground operation and were active in such an engagement an ongoing one.one that had been going on for several hours. Thats what the photographers were there for, that's what they were taking pictures of.

It was the Air crews job to curtail the small arms fire that The ground troops were taking, small arms fire before the van got there and after. Yes sometimes its best to not open fire but that's a decision made on the ground at the time weighing up the circumstances and sometimes in seconds. This decision making happens all the time at checkpoints when vehicles fail to slow down or even stop.


in short i fail to see how anyone can say it was right or wrong to fire on the van without all the facts. The video was released as part of an agenda thats why its edited and annotated.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well as you said kai, we disagree. The people who are truly not drawing their own conclusions from their own safe place are the survivors from that van, and all the other Iraqis caught in the crossfire with no body armor or air support to protect them. What do Iraqis think the rules of engagement should be? It seems like the most important voice is missing from this discussion.

 

[kai]

Well as you said kai, we disagree. The people who are truly not drawing their own conclusions from their own safe place are the survivors from that van, and all the other Iraqis caught in the crossfire with no body armor or air support to protect them. What do Iraqis think the rules of engagement should be? It seems like the most important voice is missing from this discussion.

I am pretty sure most Iraqis would rather have no crossfires no bombings in fact no engagements at all.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is worth considering:
Iraqis Call U.S. Troops Trigger-happy - ABC News

And this: Patrick Cockburn: Everyone is at risk from trigger-happy US troops - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent

The problem turned out to be that in militant areas like Abu Ghraib, US troops suspected that anybody they saw with a satellite or mobile phone was intending to detonate a bomb. If I and the two Iraqis in the car had not immediately grasped that the soldiers were shouting at us, and had gone on driving, there was a fair chance they would have shot us.


This has happened to many Iraqis, after all - one senior, very pro-American minister in Baghdad warned his driver that the greatest danger was not being assassinated by insurgents, but being accidentally shot by US troops.


It is often difficult to know what has caused an American soldier to open fire. An Iraqi police general stopped his car to drop off some friends by the side of the road, and was badly wounded in the head. An Iraqi journalist friend was shot dead when driving to a swimming pool. In Baiji, north of Baghdad, a man sent his son to adjust the satellite TV dish on the roof of the house and the boy was killed by a US patrol.


US commanders never seem to understand the rage among Iraqis at these killings. If any official information is released, it often vaguely claims that "a terrorist" was shot after behaving suspiciously. And as general security in Iraq has deteriorated since the summer of 2004, killings of civilians by US troops have been reported less and less. Not only are journalists, foreign and Iraqi, being murdered or killed in fighting, but the Iraqi government has told its own Health Ministry to stop revealing how many Iraqis were being killed and by whom.


Dr Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Iraqi politician, said that it would be in the Americans' interests to end or modify the legal protection under which their troops operate. But the priority of the US army in Iraq is always the protection of its own soldiers regardless.
...
The devastating roadside bombs, which have killed so many American soldiers, often appear to be detonated by one man. But equally often the reaction of US troops is to fire in all directions, and innocent Iraqis are the victims.
​

That last part, by the way, was explained to me as standard operating procedure by a guy I talked to who was in the Airborne division and served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a friend-of-a-friend who served one tour in Iraq in the army.

Was the pro-American minister in Baghdad drawing conclusions from his "own safe place"? What about Dr. Othman?

 

[kai]

This is worth considering:
Iraqis Call U.S. Troops Trigger-happy - ABC News

And this: Patrick Cockburn: Everyone is at risk from trigger-happy US troops - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent

The problem turned out to be that in militant areas like Abu Ghraib, US troops suspected that anybody they saw with a satellite or mobile phone was intending to detonate a bomb. If I and the two Iraqis in the car had not immediately grasped that the soldiers were shouting at us, and had gone on driving, there was a fair chance they would have shot us.


This has happened to many Iraqis, after all - one senior, very pro-American minister in Baghdad warned his driver that the greatest danger was not being assassinated by insurgents, but being accidentally shot by US troops.


It is often difficult to know what has caused an American soldier to open fire. An Iraqi police general stopped his car to drop off some friends by the side of the road, and was badly wounded in the head. An Iraqi journalist friend was shot dead when driving to a swimming pool. In Baiji, north of Baghdad, a man sent his son to adjust the satellite TV dish on the roof of the house and the boy was killed by a US patrol.


US commanders never seem to understand the rage among Iraqis at these killings. If any official information is released, it often vaguely claims that "a terrorist" was shot after behaving suspiciously. And as general security in Iraq has deteriorated since the summer of 2004, killings of civilians by US troops have been reported less and less. Not only are journalists, foreign and Iraqi, being murdered or killed in fighting, but the Iraqi government has told its own Health Ministry to stop revealing how many Iraqis were being killed and by whom.


Dr Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Iraqi politician, said that it would be in the Americans' interests to end or modify the legal protection under which their troops operate. But the priority of the US army in Iraq is always the protection of its own soldiers regardless.
...

The devastating roadside bombs, which have killed so many American soldiers,

often appear to be detonated by one man. But equally often the reaction of US troops is to fire in all directions, and innocent Iraqis are the victims.
​

That last part, by the way, was explained to me as standard operating procedure by a guy I talked to who was in the Airborne division and served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a friend-of-a-friend who served one tour in Iraq in the army.

Was the pro-American minister in Baghdad drawing conclusions from his "own safe place"? What about Dr. Othman?

Some soldiers and i mean some do panic especially if they have seen comrades blown to smithereens.Its unbelievably gut wrenchingly terrifying. I know what goes on in a war zone Spinks, i am just saying don't judge soldiers on a clearly edited and annotated short clip published with an agenda.

For every US horror story there's a home-grown one too. Men women and children blown to smithereens or just gunned down in the street. Its a hell hole over there and the sooner the Iraqis can take over security the better if they don't, it will stay a hell hole for ever.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I know what goes on in a war zone Spinks, i am just saying don't judge soldiers on a clearly edited and annotated short clip published with an agenda.

I agree with you there.

 

[Kathryn]

The problem turned out to be that in militant areas like Abu Ghraib, US troops suspected that anybody they saw with a satellite or mobile phone was intending to detonate a bomb. If I and the two Iraqis in the car had not immediately grasped that the soldiers were shouting at us, and had gone on driving, there was a fair chance they would have shot us.

This reporter speaks English, right? He didn't understand what the US troops were "shouting" at them? How does he know there "was a fair chance they would have shot us?" I wouldn't call this unbiased reporting.

This has happened to many Iraqis, after all - one senior, very pro-American minister in Baghdad warned his driver that the greatest danger was not being assassinated by insurgents, but being accidentally shot by US troops.

No name? Hmmmm. More "unbiased reporting?"

It is often difficult to know what has caused an American soldier to open fire. An Iraqi police general stopped his car to drop off some friends by the side of the road, and was badly wounded in the head. An Iraqi journalist friend was shot dead when driving to a swimming pool. In Baiji, north of Baghdad, a man sent his son to adjust the satellite TV dish on the roof of the house and the boy was killed by a US patrol.

For every story you can tell us like this, I have one about the pure barbarism of an Iraqi or group of Iraqis - from eyewitnesses.

And as general security in Iraq has deteriorated since the summer of 2004, killings of civilians by US troops have been reported less and less. Not only are journalists, foreign and Iraqi, being murdered or killed in fighting, but the Iraqi government has told its own Health Ministry to stop revealing how many Iraqis were being killed and by whom.

Hmmm, I know a lot of people who have served in Iraq SINCE 2004. The situation security-wise is better. The country is calmer. Maybe THAT'S why fewer civilian deaths are being reported - because there ARE fewer civilian deaths.

And while we're talking about civilian deaths, I would guess that more civilians have been killed by suicide bombers in crowded markets than by US soldiers. Militants within the Iraqi population seem to have no qualms about killing their fellow citizens randomly.

Kinda the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

Dr Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Iraqi politician, said that it would be in the Americans' interests to end or modify the legal protection under which their troops operate. But the priority of the US army in Iraq is always the protection of its own soldiers regardless.

The US military's first priority SHOULD be the protection of US citizens.

The devastating roadside bombs, which have killed so many American soldiers, often appear to be detonated by one man. But equally often the reaction of US troops is to fire in all directions, and innocent Iraqis are the victims.

The devastating roadside bombs - oh, you must mean IEDs. IEDs are nearly always set to be detonated by a rolling vehicle - not by someone standing close by in a crowd. In fact, most IEDs are not detonated in crowded city areas, they are placed on lonely stretches of road outside villages.

If we are to believe your scenario though, that roadside bombs are detonated by someone in an area filled with civilians - that seems to show a blatant lack of regard for the lives of their fellow Iraqis. Wouldn't this be just as or more dangerous to innocent Iraqi bystanders than the supposed response of wounded troops under attack?

​

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think you missed the point entirely. For example, you say: "For every story you can tell us like this, I have one about the pure barbarism of an Iraqi or group of Iraqis - from eyewitnesses." But the point of those examples wasn't to prove the insurgents are saints or American troops are barbarians. The point was to address your initial concern, which why this journalist living in Iraq believes there "was a fair chance they would have shot us".

Kathryn, simple question: do you think occupation forces -- in general, not just U.S. forces -- should be encouraged to shoot down unarmed people, in broad daylight, who arrive on the scene after a shooting/bombing and are helping a wounded man?

What do you think of General McChrystal's comments and policies? Is he an evil left-wing hippie chanting "death to U.S. soldiers"? Is he a biased reporter, too?

KABUL, Afghanistan — American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul.
“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties.
Though fewer in number than deaths from airstrikes and Special Forces operations, such shootings have not dropped off, despite new rules from General McChrystal seeking to reduce the killing of innocents. The persistence of deadly convoy and checkpoint shootings has led to growing resentment among Afghans fearful of Western troops and angry at what they see as the impunity with which the troops operate — a friction that has turned villages firmly against the occupation.
Failure to reduce checkpoint and convoy shootings, known in the military as “escalation of force” episodes, has emerged as a major frustration for military commanders who believe that civilian casualties deeply undermine the American and NATO campaign in Afghanistan.
Many of the detainees at the military prison at Bagram Air Base joined the insurgency after the shootings of people they knew, said the senior NATO enlisted man in Afghanistan, Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall.
“There are stories after stories about how these people are turned into insurgents,” Sergeant Major Hall told troops during the videoconference. “Every time there is an escalation of force we are finding that innocents are being killed.”
One such case was the death of Mohammed Yonus, a 36-year-old imam and a respected religious authority, who was killed two months ago in eastern Kabul while commuting to a madrasa where he taught 150 students.
A passing military convoy raked his car with bullets, ripping open his chest as his two sons sat in the car. The shooting inflamed residents and turned his neighborhood against the occupation, elders there say.
“The people are tired of all these cruel actions by the foreigners, and we can’t suffer it anymore,” said Naqibullah Samim, a village elder from Hodkail, where Mr. Yonus lived. “The people do not have any other choice, they will rise against the government and fight them and the foreigners. There are a lot of cases of killing of innocent people.”
After assuming command last summer, General McChrystal moved to reduce the killing of civilians through directives that, according to United Nations human rights researchers, have led to a 28 percent reduction in such casualties last year by American, NATO and Afghan forces. The biggest impact was reducing deaths from aerial attacks, which fell by more than a third in 2009, the United Nations found.
​

Tighter Rules Fail to Stem Deaths of Innocent Afghans at Checkpoints - NYTimes.com

 

[Kathryn]

Kathryn, simple question: do you think occupation forces -- in general, not just U.S. forces -- should be encouraged to shoot down unarmed people, in broad daylight, who arrive on the scene after a shooting/bombing and are helping a wounded man?

You are talking about the video in question - which is a highly edited video taken entirely out of it's context. So this is not an "in general" question - it's a question based on a biased version of an event which happened in a war zone.

But GENERALLY SPEAKING - no, I don't think any troops should be "encouraged to shoot down unarmed people, in broad daylight." That would be a ridiculous position to take. And that's not my position. Nor is it a US military training standard.

From your article quoted above:

After assuming command last summer, General McChrystal moved to reduce the killing of civilians through directives that, according to United Nations human rights researchers, have led to a 28 percent reduction in such casualties last year by American, NATO and Afghan forces. The biggest impact was reducing deaths from aerial attacks, which fell by more than a third in 2009, the United Nations found.

Fantastic news. Any reduction in civilian deaths is great. Most soldiers would prefer not to have "innocent blood" on their hands and appreciate policies that protect, not only civilians, but their own peace of mind. That's the stuff that keeps one awake at night for decades.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I suspect you haven't read all my posts in this thread.

The reason you suspect I have not read them is because I have not commented on many of them. There is a reason for this, but it is not because I did not read them.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

War is hell for all parties involved. DON'T FORGET while you're slinging my name around that I have three kids who are serving in the military, and one who, after nearly two years of service in the Triangle of Death south of Baghdad, is suffering from PTSD.

Among the many things he experienced that triggered this are:

1. His platoon leader's head getting literally blown off as he was delivering crayons to an Iraqi school. My son had to clean his brains out of the front seat of the Humvee.

2. One of his best friend's losing both legs in an IED explosion, and another being so severely burned that he lost most of the fingers on both hands.

3. The ordered shooting of a 9 year old Iraqi boy whose FATHER had drugged him, strapped a bomb to him, and sent him stumbling toward the military gate, as Iraqi civilians screamed and dove for cover.

4. An attack on their convoy in which several soldiers were seriously wounded, and in the turmoil, my son's Humvee ran over the body of a woman insurgent (she was already dead from crossfire). My son said that in the confusion, on a very narrow road at about 2 am, they had no time or space to avoid running over the body, and just as they came up on it, he saw her veil and realized that it was a woman. The sound of running over the body is one thing that wakes him up at night two years later. One of the many things, that is.

5. The devastating loss of FORTY FOUR men in their battalion during their tour - the highest casualty rate within a battalion in that amount of time during the war.

6. My son's eardrums were ruptured three different times by being in such close proximity to an exploding IED that he was knocked out by the explosion. I thank God every day that he was not more seriously injured. Many of the young men I sent care packages to or talked with on the phone, including his roommate, were far more seriously injured.

I wish your children all the best. This is why America needs to relook at intervening in other countries. Lets be honest about this. If oil was not an issue we would not be sending our kids out to die. We would not be in Iraq. If there was no oil, Iraq would be just one more poor country. This is the first war in history that both sides are being payed for by the American people. The world needs to find a way out. The green way is the only way.

This is the nature of War. And frankly I have always thought that our American kids control them selves well under the circumstances.

These young men and women cannot afford to "let a few insurgents go" when it literally could be that very guy tomorrow who blows their 26 year old platoon leader's head off while he's pulling up to a group of smiling and waving school children.

Every one needs to see the movie the The Battle of Algiers. This shows how not to fight an insurgency. I have read thar this movie is very populor with the military brass.

I believe that to destroy the insurgency (they do need to be killed to keep our american children safe )not by killing insurgences but by winning over the population. What was the turning point in Iraq. When did we stop losing this war? When the Iraqi sunni village leaders saw our american kids running out under fire to grab small Iraqi children to protect them. The insegences would just fire through groups of kids. Over time the americans showed that we cared about the people.

I knew with out a shadow of a dought that this war was going to lead to great suffering for Americans and to a Greater Extent Iraqi's.

I did take to the streets but I should have done more to stop this war before it started. For this I am sorry. I feel a little guilt that I did not work harder for this cause. It also makes me sad to see all the Tea Baggers protesting medical care for the poor. May be they should have joined us on the war protest. Future generations will see these people as morally bankrupt. So little care for the poor and their support for an unjust war.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You are talking about the video in question - which is a highly edited video taken entirely out of it's context. So this is not an "in general" question - it's a question based on a biased version of an event which happened in a war zone.

No, sorry, my question is based on the unfortunate facts of what actually happened as documented by both the gun camera footage and CentCom's own declassified investigation, which you can read here: http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf

According to their report, the people in and around the van were indeed unarmed and the incident occurred in broad daylight, as stipulated in my question. You can see that it's broad daylight in the photos. You can read the sworn statements of the pilot being questioned after the incident, published by the military, here: http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/... Reuters Journalists/2--Sworn Statements .pdf

I will now quote from the CentCom report of the sworn statements of the pilots:

Questioner: Did you see anything inside the van?

Pilot: I couldn't see inside the van, but they ran around right after I had seen them extract weapons and individuals.

Q: As you saw on the tape, they didn't have any weapons. So, what drove you then? What threat made you want to engage the van?

P: Well the friendlies were 300 meters away and from an initial report that a black car, sedan had been coming in and dropping off insurgents, taking them out, moving them to different locations. That was my whole thought process.
​

So, again, my question is based on the actual facts of what happened.

By the way, the pilots report in their debriefing that after they shot the van, they observed another group of people with weapons but held their fire because there were children and noncombatants in the area. Also, they observed a red SUV which they suspected of belonging to insurgents, but could not positively identify any weapons, and therefore they did not engage. So should they have engaged the black van, since there were no weapons?

But GENERALLY SPEAKING - no, I don't think any troops should be "encouraged to shoot down unarmed people, in broad daylight." That would be a ridiculous position to take. And that's not my position. Nor is it a US military training standard.

Okay great, so we agree on that. Unfortunately, that is what happened.

Fantastic news. Any reduction in civilian deaths is great. Most soldiers would prefer not to have "innocent blood" on their hands and appreciate policies that protect, not only civilians, but their own peace of mind. That's the stuff that keeps one awake at night for decades.

The children and civilians as well as the soldiers, yes. I'm glad we agree although I would argue that easing the consciences of soldiers should be the happy by-product of first and foremost respecting the lives of innocent people, not the other way around.