Collateral Murder

[Apex]

I WAS however offended by a certain RF member's assertion that she wishes death on US soldiers. I take that personally since I have three children serving in the US military.

Well, it is comforting to know that someone here wishes me dead...

 

[Kathryn]

Apex - yes, I thought that sentiment was particularly offensive.

Just goes to prove that "free speech" isn't a guarantee that someone won't say something extremely stupid, divisive, and intentionally inflammatory. Funny how the tolerance level for some absolutely horrid statements is high if the statement comes from the left, and miniscule if it comes from the right.

By the way, thank you for your service.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First: Really? You can shoot unarmed enemy assisting their unarmed wounded? I hate to ask three times, but I'm surprised.

Whether a particular soldier can or can't do this depends on their specific orders and rules of engagement, but in general, yes, I think it can be justified. Soldiers are justified in shooting the enemy as long as that particular enemy has the capacity to fight. This means that you can't shoot prisoners or execute the wounded, but it does mean you can shoot an able-bodied enemy even if he isn't shooting at you right now.

There's more to war than just shooting guns. Even people not directly engaged in combat can be part of a force's warfighting ability. An enemy soldier or combatant represents a portion of the strength of the force you're fighting. His vehicle represents a portion of the logistical capability of your enemy. This may sound cold, but once you establish that the person is a member of the enemy force, it's legitimate to deprive the enemy of either the vehicle or the combatant whenever you have the opportunity.

Second: But there was no reason to view the van as part of the team. There was reason to view it as a van with two unarmed men assisting an injured man. They could be civilians, the reason he opened fire on the first group was because he thought they had weapons, but now you're saying they don't need weapons to be identified as insurgents instead of civilians, they just need to be arbitrarily judged "part of the team". So the first group could have been shot even if they didn't have weapons OR cameras that looked like weapons? Because they too could have been part of the team?

Let's look at the facts:

- the helicopter crew judged that the first group of men were enemy combatants.

- as mentioned in the CNN interview, the insurgents that the soldiers were trying to locate had been using similar vans while engaging with American soldiers earlier in the day. IOW, the helicopter crew specifically believed that the first group of men belonged to an insurgent group who used vans for transportation as part of their M.O.

- the group in the van sure looked to be associated with the first group, and were in close enough communication that they responded immediately after the first shooting.

- the helicopter crew didn't know that the group in the van was unarmed. The men that got out of the vehicle may not have been carrying weapons themselves, but the contents of the van were unknown.

Given all this, I don't think you can call it "arbitrary" to conclude that the people in the van were probably also insurgents.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey 9-10ths Penguin,

Sorry for not directly responding to some of your posts, but often your points are so well-made and comprehensive you leave no room for reply. I'll see if your last post was more considerate.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can't believe that I posted that poem written by my son, which I think so eloquently portrays the mindset of an infantry soldier, one who was in the same situation many times - and there was not one response to his perspective.

What kind of response do you expect? Either criticism, which would be profoundly personal and perhaps rude to you, or compliments. I gave no response because I have no compliments to pay. You've amply filled that void.

I think it's tragic the situation so many "young kids" -- as you accurately described them -- find themselves in as soldiers. However, I think it's even more tragic that sympathy for our young kids is transformed into a kind of mythology of soldiery and tacit assent to military policy, instead of using that sympathy to change policy so that our young kids, and inevitably their many civilian victims, aren't put into these situations in the first place.

I guess I was 15 years old on 9/11, I would have enlisted in the Marines as soon as I was of age but I was unable to do so due to a medical condition. Deep down, in the lower and more primitive part of my brain, fueled by testosterone and youth, there was a part of me that wanted to kill. The outward expression of this is a lust to "see combat", "defend our nation" or sometimes more frankly it is called a desire to "kill the enemy". At bottom, it was, partly, a wish to be part of a physical struggle, to shoot a gun, to watch awesome explosions. It seems to me that adults and young kids themselves find it convenient to pretend these contributing motivations don't exist. But nothing in my experience has convinced me that I was the only 18-year-old boy to want to enlist who had these feelings.

I know some of the young kids who enlisted. I've talked to young kids returning from multiple tours of duty, I'm afraid at 20, 22, and similar ages they still struck me as young kids, only now they had assault rifles and more authority over a civilian population than the NYPD chief of police.

Due to my conversations with them, I have been reluctantly forced to admit that the mythology of the "young kid" who goes to war and returns a man is mostly a myth.

A friend of a friend, who was 20, told me how much he loved the kidnapping missions. Some Iraqi was designated a bad guy, so they would storm his house in the middle of the night and take him. He laughed about how everyone would pretend not to speak English, but immediately spoke English when you stuck a gun in their face. He was the kind of guy who probably made an excellent football player or fraternity brother, but giving him this kind of power in a foreign country could only lead to eventual disaster, I thought.

Another guy laughed about how an Iraqi car was driving too close to their convoy, so they slammed the breaks. The car crashed into the Humvee and the driver was pinned inside. Hours later, returning along the road they had come, the driver was still there, pinned. He didn't have money to bribe the ambulance that would be necessary to rescue him. This was supposed to be a funny story. It made my blood curl.

Two friends of mine recently joined the military. Another friend of a friend told me about his experiences in Iraq. At some point, as dearly as I care for my friends, the fact of the matter has to be faced: prestige, accomplishment, and a fascination with combat and weapons and a lust to "kill the enemy" are prime motivations. We could be fighting Canada or occupying Paris, it wouldn't matter, as long as it's combat and it has the stamp of legitimacy.

I spoke to a "young kid", about 22 years old (two years younger than me) on a plane, he was with the 101st Airborne. He had been on multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Frankly, he was still just a young kid, albeit one with a lot of technical skills in weapons and tactics. He was so drunk and rowdy the pilot almost prevented him from boarding, and I helped him get control of himself. He told me he knew he would go to hell for what he had done, because their policy was to open fire if they received fire from any direction, and as a result he had killed a lot of innocent people. I asked him why he thought he would go to hell if he was on orders and they were receiving fire, he could barely speak, but he managed to say "Because, man, we slaughtered these people."

Like I said, I think it's tragic the situations soldiers find themselves in. But I also think it's tragic the situations civilians find themselves in. I also think it's tragic that we can't face the fact that, ultimately, a lot of our soldiers are boys with guns, because that reality is the only thing that will help us avoid these situations in the first place.

 

[Kathryn]

What kind of response do you expect? Either criticism, which would be profoundly personal and perhaps rude to you, or compliments. I gave no response because I have no compliments to pay. You've amply filled that void.

I didn't expect everyone to respond - so you're off the hook on that one. However, it did seem odd to me that there was absolutely NO response. Considering that the perspective given was one so similar to the perspective of the soldiers in the video, I was just surprised that there wasn't even an acknowledgment of that perspective - on a debate forum.

Like I said, I wasn't offended - but I did wonder why there was such a deafening silence.

So thank you for your explanation of your POV.

I think it's tragic the situation so many "young kids" -- as you accurately described them -- find themselves in as soldiers. However, I think it's even more tragic that sympathy for our young kids is transformed into a kind of mythology of soldiery and tacit assent to military policy, instead of using that sympathy to change policy so that our young kids, and inevitably their many civilian victims, aren't put into these situations in the first place.

What you are calling sympathy and mythology of soldiery is often (if not usually) also known as RESPECT for skills, discipline, self sacrifice, bravery, and often heroism - traits that are encouraged, taught, and acquired with most military service. Sure - there are jerks in the military, just as there are jerks in the police force, or jerks who are paramedics, or firemen - any career that requires a certain level of boldness, prowess, or toughness is going to have some members who are abuse their position. Actually, that can be in any field, but that's another topic.

As for changing policy so that our young kids (for that matter, anyone) aren't put into these situations...that's a noble goal, but war has been with us since the beginning of human history. I don't see that changing - therefore there will always be a need for a strong military.

Deep down, in the lower and more primitive part of my brain, fueled by testosterone and youth, there was a part of me that wanted to kill. The outward expression of this is a lust to "see combat", "defend our nation" or sometimes more frankly it is called a desire to "kill the enemy". At bottom, it was, partly, a wish to be part of a physical struggle, to shoot a gun, to watch awesome explosions.

But you're projecting YOUR feelings and desires onto others who join the military. Of course there are those who feel as you do - we call them Marines. (Bad joke.) But seriously - no, you weren't the only young guy to feel that way - nor will you be the last.

But I grew up in a military family, on military installations. Every generation of my family has served in the military since the Revolutionary War in the US. Three of my children are now serving in the military. Your emotions that you described in the above quote are absolutely ALIEN to me - not one time, not one single time in my entire life have I heard ANY soldier or family member give such a reason for joining the military. Now - once in combat situations - under intense pressure, or just having survived an IED attack - have I heard people express those feelings? Yes - but consider their position then. But a reason for joining? I'm sure there are some very immature people out there who may feel as you felt, but I wouldn't say it was a common reason for enlisting.

I know some of the young kids who enlisted. I've talked to young kids returning from multiple tours of duty, I'm afraid at 20, 22, and similar ages they still struck me as young kids, only now they had assault rifles and more authority over a civilian population than the NYPD chief of police.

Due to my conversations with them, I have been reluctantly forced to admit that the mythology of the "young kid" who goes to war and returns a man is mostly a myth.

Hmmm, our life experiences differ a LOT. My brother enlisted at 17, served in Beirut, and upon leaving the military 4 years later, was much more mature than most 21 year olds who had not served. My son comes home now at age 23 and when he gets together with his civilian buddies from high school, invariably he is struck by their adolescent attitudes and immaturity - and I have to agree with him. The disparity between his maturity level and theirs is striking.

My daughter enlisted at age 17 - during an extremely rebellious period in her life (she graduated from high school early). She is now a SSGT in the Air Force, and is 25 years old. She is amazing - and will readily tell you that her military service has transformed her life, her goals, and her attitude overwhelmingly for the better. Even after a tour in Iraq that took her away from her infant daughter for months on end, she plans to make the Air Force a career.

A friend of a friend, who was 20, told me how much he loved the kidnapping missions. Some Iraqi was designated a bad guy, so they would storm his house in the middle of the night and take him. He laughed about how everyone would pretend not to speak English, but immediately spoke English when you stuck a gun in their face. He was the kind of guy who probably made an excellent football player or fraternity brother, but giving him this kind of power in a foreign country could only lead to eventual disaster, I thought.

Aren't you familiar with the psychology of bravado? Kinda like when you jump into a really cold lake too early in the season, and you know it's going to be freezing, so you close your eyes and yell at the top of your lungs as you jump off the pier? This is a very small taste of how these guys have to approach each day during a tour in a combat zone. They have to put on the bad *** face to make it through the fear of each day. Your buddy isn't leveling with you about the level of fear he had to deal with every minute of every day. But why should he tell you how afraid he was? He doesn't owe you an explanation. He probably shares that facet of his experiences with very few people.

I spoke to a "young kid", about 22 years old (two years younger than me) on a plane, he was with the 101st Airborne. He had been on multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Frankly, he was still just a young kid, albeit one with a lot of technical skills in weapons and tactics. He was so drunk and rowdy the pilot almost prevented him from boarding, and I helped him get control of himself. He told me he knew he would go to hell for what he had done, because their policy was to open fire if they received fire from any direction, and as a result he had killed a lot of innocent people. I asked him why he thought he would go to hell if he was on orders and they were receiving fire, he could barely speak, but he managed to say "Because, man, we slaughtered these people."

War is hell.

For every story you can tell me that some virtual stranger told you, I can tell you a story of heroism, sacrifice, and service. For example, my son's platoon leader - his head was blown off as he was delivering crayons to an Iraqi school. We could trade anecdotes back and forth all night long, and it might be interesting, but it wouldn't prove anything.

I also think it's tragic that we can't face the fact that, ultimately, a lot of our soldiers are boys with guns, because that reality is the only thing that will help us avoid these situations in the first place.

No - the acknowledgment that some soldiers are very young - probably too young to hold life and death in their hands is NOT the only thing that will help us avoid these situations. These situations will exist as long as mankind exists - because man insists on war. And considering the fact that mankind is determined to wage war, we had better be prepared for it, and continue to support policy that keeps our military strong and ready to fight when necessary.

 

[sandandfoam]

Hi Kathryn,

Again, just to be sure I don't wish to be insulting.
Like Spinkles I agree that there is a cult of the soldier/warrior hero. I think it's bull.
Like you I come from a family with a long military history, I have relations currently in the military. But I don't see heroes. I see broken people who don't sleep at night and drink too much. I see worried parents and the risk of early death. For what? It's a monstrous waste of youth and life.

I am not against soldiers, but I am very strongly against war and violence. There is a better way.
Wilfred Owen was right - 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' is a lie. That lie should not be foisted upon the youth of any country.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Kathryn,

I'm hearing a lot of "we will always have war ... war is hell ... courage, sacrifice ..." etc. Yes, yes. Those are truisms and they are entirely unhelpful here. The fact is we are choosing to have a war in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, we could choose to withdraw. There's no truism you can name that shows 18-year-old American boys must be stationed in Baghdad. In fact I would argue it is a truism that occupation by foreign troops is evil without the support of the local population, no matter how disciplined or brave the troops are, the fact is they are 18-year-old boys with guns and foreign occupation is a tyrannical system that will inevitably favor the foreign country and its troops over the local people.

As for changing policy so that our young kids (for that matter, anyone) aren't put into these situations...that's a noble goal, but war has been with us since the beginning of human history.

The Iraq and Afghan wars were not with us since the beginning of human history. They started in 2001 and 2003, respectively, and they could be ended today with one stroke of Obama's pen. I think you have to agree, in an ideal situation, NO ONE wants to live for decades under the control of college-age kids with weapons, who came from the other side of the planet, don't speak the language, etc. As much as I appreciate the military's capacity to defend our country, a chill would run down my spine if any of my military friends had the authority to open fire on Americans in the street according to their judgment, or abduct American citizens in the middle of the night, enforce curfews, carry out armored patrols around town with guns at the ready, etc. It would be a bad situation for both civilians and soldiers.

You say there are jerks in every line of work .... sure, but that's not an acceptable excuse for the family of the innocent victims caught in the crossfire of a trigger-happy jerk. Let's preserve the strength of our military and protect the rights of foreign people by saving our soldiers for an actual war with an actual enemy who is actually threatening us. Then it won't matter so much if there happen to be jerks in the unit, fine be a jerk, take it out on the enemy that actually exists and is identifiable and is threatening our borders.

 

[croak]

The Iraq and Afghan wars were not with us since the beginning of human history. They started in 2001 and 2003, respectively, and they could be ended today with one stroke of Obama's pen.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but it would be the Afghan and Iraq wars, respectively.

Otherwise, I agree entirely with what you are saying, Mr Spinkles.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course, thanks for the correction.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

An AK-47 is powerful enough to do real damage to a helicopter, and as the video indicates, there were other soldiers in the area.

I was under the impression that civilians are allowed to carry small arms in Iraq. Maybe someones knows the answer.

 

[croak]

I was under the impression that civilians are allowed to carry small arms in Iraq. Maybe someones knows the answer.

I'm not sure, but I do know that in Lebanon, whether it's allowed or not, most households will have an AK-47 or the like. At the very least guns for hunting. So far as it being legal... wouldn't know. I don't imagine Iraq's that much different.

I found an old article, though: John Lott on Iraqi guns. Can't say if it's still the case.

 

[Kathryn]

Hi Kathryn,

Like you I come from a family with a long military history, I have relations currently in the military. But I don't see heroes. I see broken people who don't sleep at night and drink too much. I see worried parents and the risk of early death. For what? It's a monstrous waste of youth and life.

I am not against soldiers, but I am very strongly against war and violence. There is a better way.
Wilfred Owen was right - 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' is a lie. That lie should not be foisted upon the youth of any country.

Thanks, as usual, for your thoughtful post.

You don't see heroes - you see broken people.

I see both.

I also see both in all walks of life - not just the military.

All of my children, my father, my brother, and every one of my uncles has served in combat. Out of that number, I have one child and one relative who seems to have had problems associated with military service. But what we will never know is this - Would they have had substance abuse problems even WITHOUT their military service? Knowing them, I would say yes - they were substance abusers before their military service so the continuation of that habit doesn't surprise me.

Having lived on military installations for most of the first thirty years of my life, and now having lived a civilian life for the past 18 years - in the US, Asia, and Europe, I've gotten to know a lot of different types of people. I honestly can't say that the military population has more problems or issues than the civilian population. In fact, I'd have to say they have less.

One point of evidence for that assertion is that USAA Insurance, which serves only veterans and their families (offering home, life, auto and health insurance as well as banking) has rates that are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than "civilian" insurance companies. USAA is a private company and is not subsidized in any way by the government. Their rates are lower because their risks are lower - because the military personnel they serve are a lower risk than the general population.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Mathematician]

The worst part for me was the soldier urging the injured guy to pick up a weapon so that he could be killed.

 

[kai]

Kathryn,

I'm hearing a lot of "we will always have war ... war is hell ... courage, sacrifice ..." etc. Yes, yes. Those are truisms and they are entirely unhelpful here. The fact is we are choosing to have a war in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, we could choose to withdraw. There's no truism you can name that shows 18-year-old American boys must be stationed in Baghdad. In fact I would argue it is a truism that occupation by foreign troops is evil without the support of the local population, no matter how disciplined or brave the troops are, the fact is they are 18-year-old boys with guns and foreign occupation is a tyrannical system that will inevitably favor the foreign country and its troops over the local people.
The Iraq and Afghan wars were not with us since the beginning of human history. They started in 2001 and 2003, respectively, and they could be ended today with one stroke of Obama's pen. I think you have to agree, in an ideal situation, NO ONE wants to live for decades under the control of college-age kids with weapons, who came from the other side of the planet, don't speak the language, etc. As much as I appreciate the military's capacity to defend our country, a chill would run down my spine if any of my military friends had the authority to open fire on Americans in the street according to their judgment, or abduct American citizens in the middle of the night, enforce curfews, carry out armored patrols around town with guns at the ready, etc. It would be a bad situation for both civilians and soldiers.

You say there are jerks in every line of work .... sure, but that's not an acceptable excuse for the family of the innocent victims caught in the crossfire of a trigger-happy jerk. Let's preserve the strength of our military and protect the rights of foreign people by saving our soldiers for an actual war with an actual enemy who is actually threatening us. Then it won't matter so much if there happen to be jerks in the unit, fine be a jerk, take it out on the enemy that actually exists and is identifiable and is threatening our borders.

You see that's your point of view Spinks,not everyone's, Some people think its right to be in Iraq and Afghanistan and a soldier does his duty. I never cared a flying fig about the politics of any of my postings even in NI which is very near to home,I was doing my job, the job i chose to do. and yes i have met some jerks and some people that cracked under the strain, i myself self prescribed alcohol for a while. But i have friends who never joined the Army who are just as flawed.And personally if i didnt join up i am sure i would be dead or in Jail.

Now the cold war is over we don't have and i think never will have clear cut enemies such as Nazis,or Soviets, and in the rare instance we do have it wont be for long. Our military will be increasingly asked to carry out peacekeeping and security and i hope rapid reaction to genocidal maniacs all over the world.

 

[kai]

The worst part for me was the soldier urging the injured guy to pick up a weapon so that he could be killed.

The worst part for me was seeing the kids come out of the van, my heart sank.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Better stay inside, war zone.

I mean, seriously, if Texas were declared a war zone, would you just stay inside all day until the invaders leave? After all, the street isn't your home. Better keep away from anybody who is carrying anything though, because some guy in a helicopter a mile away might think it's a gun and replace your bones with bullets.

Thats how it works Kat. That is the reality of the situation. If you are a civilian in a war zone, it would be best to stay out of sight at all times.

 

[Caladan]

Thats how it works Kat. That is the reality of the situation. If you are a civilian in a war zone, it would be best to stay out of sight at all times.

Its not that simple. being trigger happy is something that should be rooted out of professional soldiers. I'd expect higher standards from AH-64 pilots. pilots who fly multi million dollar machines should show much better attitude for engagement than the one displayed in this video.

 

[tumbleweed41]

War leads to violent death, not only for those who sign up for it, but for those who just happen to be in the way. Unfortunately, collateral deaths are an accepted part of war.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm tired of reading the ignorant posts about American soldiers. It is quite obvious that the majority of the posters here have no clue about what it is like to be in the military or to fight in a war.

First thing, you are brain washed in basic training to not think, but to act as trained in any given situation. Until you understand that soldiers don't get together and decide what would be the best thing to do in a certain situation.

Very few people understand that war is not about yourself and what you think. You become a machine and do what your told or default to your training when engaging a situation. There is no thinking involved. That is a luxuary you cannot afford. Your life is not paramount in any situation. If you where to decide to take the time to think about something and decide for yourself what you would think would be the best action to take, it could be the wrong decision and cost many soldiers lives. War is hell.

I doubt anyone would understand how many soldiers have to live with their actions that they did not agree with or had any control of but still saw the results of their actions that haunted them the rest of their lives.

Just be thankful we do not have the draft any more. That is a luxuary I did not have in my youth.