Collateral Murder

[Mr Spinkles]

The guy didnt shoot "everything in sight".

I didn't say they did this nor did I say anyone ducked in cowardice, these were just examples to illustrate my point.

What the Military "understands" is the decision making process in the heat of contact. It is extraordinary circumstances.

I still hold the view this was a tragic mistake several in fact, made by several different people that put themselves and others in harms way and yes with the benefit of hindsight the air weapons teams decision had a regrettable outcome.

.

Suppose comparable mistakes were made in the heat of battle which resulted in the killing/wounding of American civilians and children. (Realistically, this would be improbable, but just use your imagination for the sake of argument.) Would the pilots have been disciplined differently?

 

[kai]

I didn't say they did this nor did I say anyone ducked in cowardice, these were just examples to illustrate my point.OK
Suppose comparable mistakes were made in the heat of battle which resulted in the killing/wounding of American civilians and children. (Realistically, this would be improbable, but just use your imagination for the sake of argument.) Would the pilots have been disciplined differently?

If the van was found to contain US citizens ?

No i honestly dont think so! do you?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Take my word it for However you hard you try ,you wont come close but at least your trying

I believe you. I do try to put myself in the shoes of all parties involved.

The same amount of leniency is shown with Blue on blue deaths. I would feel much safer with a British helicopter air weapons team than a US one but i would also feel safer with a US one than an iraqi one.

Okay well if the same amount of leniency is shown with blue-on-blue deaths then that makes me feel a *little* better.

and your solution is at hand they are withdrawing. A real solution would be non deployment anywhere any time because wherever there's a war this kind of thing will inevitably occur.

Of course you are right, and as I recall the Iraqis are in charge of military operations and ROE now (correct me if I'm wrong). That's a good thing. But dereliction of duty and guys going AWOL will inevitably occur whenever there's a war too, we don't simply tolerate this, that's where military discipline comes in.

 

[kai]

I believe you. I do try to put myself in the shoes of all parties involved.
Okay well if the same amount of leniency is shown with blue-on-blue deaths then that makes me feel a *little* better.
Of course you are right, and as I recall the Iraqis are in charge of military operations and ROE now (correct me if I'm wrong). That's a good thing. But dereliction of duty and guys going AWOL will inevitably occur whenever there's a war too, we don't simply tolerate this, that's where military discipline comes in.

we dont simply tolerate mistakes thats why theres enquiries into them .

Dereliction of duty and going AWOL are rarely "mistakes" but it all depends on the circumstances i have known guys go AWOL for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If the van was found to contain US citizens ?

No i honestly dont think so! do you?

No not "found to contain US citizens", obviously they couldn't know what was inside the van. I'm saying the value of civilian Iraqi life should be treated the same as the value of American life. For example, suppose there were insurgents holed up somewhere in the American part of the Green Zone where it is known that Americans, including civilians, live and work. For the sake of argument, suppose also we know that American families including children live every day in this dense area of the Green Zone. Anyway, the helicopter ID's some of the insurgents who infiltrated the Green Zone and shoots. A car, which looks not unlike many cars in the Green Zone, arrives on the scene along with two unarmed people, and they help a wounded insurgent. Now, it seems very elementary to me that these people are as likely to be civilians as insurgents. After all, most of the people on the ground are civilians. Furthermore, the civilians don't necessarily know what happened, for all they know the Apache's exploding rounds was a suicide bomber and the wounded guy is an innocent victim. Nevertheless, imagine the chopper pilots see these two unarmed people in the Green Zone assisting the wounded insurgent, and the pilots say incorrectly they are "collecting weapons" and they open fire on them and their vehicle.

So in other words, the situation is exactly the same as before, except in this hypothetical situation, the civilian population at risk are Americans, instead of Iraqis. My question is: would the pilots have been disciplined differently? I think there would have been a media firestorm and a lot of apologies and compensation from the military, at the very least.

 

[kai]

No not "found to contain US citizens", obviously they couldn't know what was inside the van. I'm saying the value of civilian Iraqi life should be treated the same as the value of American life. For example, suppose there were insurgents holed up somewhere in the American part of the Green Zone where it is known that Americans, including civilians, live and work. For the sake of argument, suppose also we know that American families live in this part of the Green Zone. Anyway, the helicopter ID's some of the insurgents who infiltrated the Green Zone and shoots. A car, which looks not unlike many cars in the Green Zone, arrives on the scene along with two unarmed people, and they help a wounded insurgent. Now, it seems very elementary to me that these people are as likely to be civilians as insurgents. After all, most of the people on the ground are civilians. Furthermore, the civilians don't necessarily know what happened, for all they know the Apache's exploding rounds was a suicide bomber and the wounded guy is an innocent victim. Nevertheless, imagine the chopper pilots see these two unarmed people in the Green Zone assisting the wounded insurgent, and the pilots say incorrectly they are "collecting weapons" and they open fire on them and their vehicle.

So in other words, the situation is exactly the same as before, except in this hypothetical situation, the civilian population at risk are Americans, instead of Iraqis. My question is: would the pilots have been disciplined differently? I think there would have been a media firestorm and a lot of apologies and compensation from the military, at the very least.

i dont understand Americans at the best of times Spinks, i mean look at that Waco thing lots of people died in that and many of them were children.

I mean Cops shoot people who run away, they electrocute people, they revel in owning assault weapons, etc etc etc.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

i dont understand Americans at the best of times Spinks, i mean look at that Waco thing lots of people died in that and many of them were children.

I mean Cops shoot people who run away, they electrocute people, they revel in owning assault weapons, etc etc etc.

Okay now we're on the same wavelength and this is a very interesting point. Do you think American soldiers are more trigger-happy than others (say, British soldiers) and that this might be an extension of the violence in American culture? My not very well informed impression is that this is true. What do you think?

 

[kai]

Okay now we're on the same wavelength and this is a very interesting point. Do you think American soldiers are more trigger-happy than others (say, British soldiers) and that this might be an extension of the violence in American culture? My not very well informed impression is that this is true. What do you think?

Personally yes i do.

First off we have to account for everything we have and use to an almost rediculous degree. There are times when we even have to buy our own kit from surplus stores.

The US troops just seem to have copious amounts of everything including Ammo. nothing inherently wrong in that, fair play to their government for giving them the tools to do the job something our government lacks. but they seem to fire ten times to our once?.

And for want of a better expression the "Cowboy" attitude, the "whooping and hollering" the almost adolescent behaviour of some Americans is astonishing.

Having said that i am a far from being anti US.

 

[Kathryn]

I have two well worn phrases to add to this running commentary:

Arm Chair Quarterbacks

Hindsight is 20/20

 

[Kathryn]

Oh wait - one more.

War is hell.

 

[dallas1125]

Oh wait - one more.

War is hell.

Church is hell.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have two well worn phrases to add to this running commentary:

Arm Chair Quarterbacks

Hindsight is 20/20

"Well worn" is apt. Respectfully, you've added nothing.

 

[Kathryn]

"Well worn" is apt. Respectfully, you've added nothing.

Oh, come on - you know you didn't mean that respectfully.

I didn't mean my comments respectfully either, but at least I didn't pretend to, either.

I meant for my three comments ("Arm Chair Quarterback," "Hindsight is 20/20," and "War is hell") to be reminders - nudges, if you may - that there IS a lot of truth to those WELL WORN sentiments - and it's worth reminding ourselves of that at times.

My son, who is Army Airborne Infantry, spent 20 months in Iraq during the surge in 2007/2008. Forty four men in his battalion were killed, and hundreds maimed. His two main jobs were patrolling, and guarding the gate to the base. Since he picks up on languages so easily, and quickly became fluent in conversational Arabic, he was often used as an interpreter in the field as well.

He is tough as nails, but also tenderhearted.

He suffered from PTSD which required medication till recently - he seems to have gotten a handle on things now, and being stationed in Korea for the past two years has helped him put things in perspective.

He filmed hours and hours of videotape and though I really didn't care to watch much of it, he seemed to really need for his family to watch it - as if he had to assimilate it in his home environment, and as if we wouldn't really be able to understand him until we entered his world over there.

He had mounted a camera on his helmet and he wore it as he and his buddy patrolled the streets of Iskandiriyah for hours on end. Those were some of the most painful videos to watch, because the never ending tension was palpable - it filled the room as we watched. The eyes in the doorways and windows, the IEDs found in trash, just laying there ready to kill and maim anyone - Iraqi or Allied Forces - it apparently didn't matter to those who put it there whether a soldier or a child stumbled upon it. The conversation between the two soldiers was also interesting. And occassionally people would run up to the soldiers, loudly talking, gesturing, obviously asking for help - or were they? It was a terrible thing to watch - and to know that death literally lurked behind every door or cart.

What kept my son awake for years after he returned was not his own fear, though he shared a lot of those fears with me, especially about the night patrols. What kept him awake was the memories of civilian deaths - two in particular.

One was an IED that went off while they were in a convoy, but it went off oddly, and a civilian woman who had been running toward them was killed, while no vehicles were damaged. They all had to put the pedal to the metal and get out of there, and as they floored it, the humvee he was in ran over her body in the road. This memory can still jolt him awake.

The other horror that he can't seem to shake is the image of a child with explosives strapped to him, obviously drugged, being pushed out into the middle of a market place, clearly to be detonated by some adult who was hidden. The soldiers and civilians were all scrambling for cover, and many Americans and Iraqis were trying desperately to find whoever was manipulating this child and going to trip the bomb. This person could not be found, in the chaos. The child continued to stumble toward them - he couldn't have been more than about 8. He was dazed and incoherent and would not stop. Finally, the order was given to fire - and bullets flew from every direction, and the child fell. No one knows who shot him exactly and if it was even a US soldier - but every soldier there believes he did. The uncle of the child was found to be the one who had strapped the bomb to him. It had faulty wiring and that was the only reason it didn't go off.

My son told me of getting orders to shoot stray dogs in the street, because they were feral, carried rabies, were obviously starving and it was the kindest thing to do - and then having nightmares that he walked up on the dog and realized it was our family pet - or a child.

And then one day realizing that he hated the dogs and enjoyed shooting them - and wondering how he could have even gotten to that point. And then realizing - there's a huge difference between these dogs and my dog at home who won't stay off the sofa. Or is there? The point is - genetically no, but society had shaped the Iraqi dogs into something very different from Scout or Muffy - and much more dangerous.

He told me about restoring order to the streets, the towns, opening schools back up, and helping the local people vote - and then he told me about cleaning his platoon leader's brains out of the front seat of the jeep - he was shot by a sniper as he delivered school supplies to Iraqi children.

My son now feels that yes, they did accomplish some good, but he also feels that when we pull out, things will deginerate right back into chaos in that region - so, both Iraqi and American blood has been wasted if we don't restore lasting change to that region of the world.

Here's my son in Iraq - and just for the record, it was over 100 degrees that day:



You may not realize this, but the "smack talk" heard on the video is a common pyschological defense mechanism. ER doctors use it too - calling burn victims "crispy critters" and that sort of thing. It's a way to vent, blow off steam, distance yourself from the horror of the situation, preserve your sanity. It doesn't make them callous, horrible, inhuman people - it's a normal response in an abnormal environment.

My son was so close to three different IED explosions that his eardrums were ruptured twice, and once he was blown so far from the blast and landed so hard that his body armor "pinched" the skin on his back between the plates and bruised him so badly that to this day he has a long dark mark across his back. His hearing is permanently damaged, but I thank God that's the worst of it. One of his best friends lost both legs, his roommate was shot (but recovered), and like I said, his platoon leader was killed. In addition to having to clean the jeep that afternoon, my son also picked up part of his skull and put it in the helicoptor on the stretcher with his body - he really didn't know what else to do with it.

Is it easy for you to say whether or not it's OK for my son to enjoy killing the feral dogs? What about shooting at an 8 year old boy? What about not stopping the convoy to see if a woman was dead or not?

Hope you appreciate my expansion of the three phrases "Armchair quarterback," "Hindsight is 20/20," and "War is hell." Maybe now you'll feel I've added something to the conversation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Kathryn, I assure you my comment was not intended to disrespect your son or the difficulties you've faced as his mother. I was talking about the case at hand and in particular, the shooting of the van. I admit I was a bit exasperated because I felt like I have been working very hard to establish facts against a current of easy phrases -- first from Alceste, then from dallas, and then from you. However, your son's experiences do add context and I appreciate that you've shared them.

I would be interested to know if your son believes unarmed people who come out to assist a wounded insurgent should be shot. But I understand if my inquiry is too personal.

 

[Kathryn]

Thanks for clarifying.

I haven't asked him about this particular incident. But I do know that he and his fellow soldiers had to make life and death decisions, often with very limited and/or confusing "facts."

I have researched the OP scenario in depth, and I believe it is obvious that, regardless of whether or not the soldiers' actions were sensitive, wise, cautious, diplomatic, politically correct, or prudent, one thing is very clear - they did NOT know that the people in question were unarmed civilians.

Whether or not it's "right" to shoot unarmed people assisting the wounded really is not the question. The question should be - did the soldiers make the best decision possible with the information they had at the time?

 

[kai]

Thanks for clarifying.

I haven't asked him about this particular incident. But I do know that he and his fellow soldiers had to make life and death decisions, often with very limited and/or confusing "facts."

I have researched the OP scenario in depth, and I believe it is obvious that, regardless of whether or not the soldiers' actions were sensitive, wise, cautious, diplomatic, politically correct, or prudent, one thing is very clear - they did NOT know that the people in question were unarmed civilians.

Whether or not it's "right" to shoot unarmed people assisting the wounded really is not the question. The question should be -

did the soldiers make the best decision possible with the information they had at the time?

I think so yes.

To be honest i dont think i can add much more to kathryns post she has hit the nail on the head really.

I would just like to make one observation;


i have travelled all over this world and it is a stunningly beautiful place and in some of the most remarkable places people turn it into hell.

we send young men into hell and expect them to be paragons of virtue while their enduring the flames.

They are people and a lot of them are very young. Its extraordinary circumstances they find them selves in and thats why its very difficult to enter the decision making process and imagine what you would have done if you were in hell.

and i can tell you a part of that hell never leaves you .watching that video doesnt even scratch the surface.

You may not realize this, but the "smack talk" heard on the video is a common pyschological defense mechanism. ER doctors use it too - calling burn victims "crispy critters" and that sort of thing. It's a way to vent, blow off steam, distance yourself from the horror of the situation, preserve your sanity. It doesn't make them callous, horrible, inhuman people - it's a normal response in an abnormal environment.

I understand that! and i agree it doesn't make them callous, horrible, inhuman people but it really does make them sound like it to non Americans after all in this day and age its broadcast all over the world. ( maybe Americans don't take any notice of it ?)but its something generally we don't do. although i have noticed it creeping in over the years.

 

[dust1n]

very emotive dust1n , but Saeed Chmagh wasnt in the van? he was a driver with the journos.and thats not the van either.

Oi!http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast I was confused between which 'driver' he was. Thanks for clarifying.

And, yes, wasn't the ethos posited in a compelling manner?

 

[dallas1125]

"Well worn" is apt. Respectfully, you've added nothing.

Am I missing something here? Why address this if you feel it doesnt do anything? Or were there deeper meanings to the phrases that im not catching?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Whether or not it's "right" to shoot unarmed people assisting the wounded really is not the question. The question should be - did the soldiers make the best decision possible with the information they had at the time?

I agree, this is the question and the answer is clearly "no" i.m.o. with respect to the van. Why did they hold their fire on a second vehicle later in the same mission? Because they could not ID any weapons.

 

[kai]

I agree, this is the question and the answer is clearly "no" i.m.o. with respect to the van. Why did they hold their fire on a second vehicle later in the same mission? Because they could not ID any weapons.

Because it wasnt the same mission!, at the time of the shooting they were in fire support for the on going operation.

The second incident is unrelated to that operation and i am assuming would be in different circumstances.I am sure that That particular Apache saw lots of vehicles thnt day and every other day .