The Wikileaks collection [Archive]

stanleywinthrop

04-06-2010, 01:27 AM

WikiLeaks has posted a 17-minute clip shot from an Apache helicopter in July 2007. I just watched it and, frankly, was amazed. I cannot rationalize any justification for the actions of this Apache crew.

The link is here: http://collateralmurder.com/

If anybody can figure out a way to explain this, please weigh in. It appears, to me, that some guys with a 30mm wanted to shoot something so badly that they were able to convince themselves that no more than three individuals with items that kind of, maybe, resembled weapons somehow justified firing into a group of people with 30mm. As for their justification for shooting the unarmed individuals who arrived on scene to evacuate a wounded individual who clearly posed no threat to anybody - wow. If this is as bad as it looks, I hope these guys don't get away with this.

Added: fast forward to about the 2-minute mark to go directly to the video shot from the Apache.

If you look closely you will see some guys who LOOK like they have AK-47s. Specifically look at 3:44 to 3:50 in the video. The two guys standing next to the pole in the upper/middle part of the screen. I'm about 95% sure that the objects they are holding are not cameras. Too long. The two people identified in the video as journalists both have something slung over their shoulders....probably cameras. However the aircrew believe that they have weapons slung over a shoulder. A critical point is where the guy is peering around the corner with what might be a camera; the aircrew identify it as a RPG. They also claim that he is shooting...it is possible that they saw muzzle flashes with the naked eye that were blocked in the sensor. To be honest, things like this are going to happen when aircraft are allowed to make the PID of hostile forces. You just can't see enough detail in the air to make extremely close distinctions between big ass cameras and RPGs. So to me the biggest culprit if one must be identified is the decision maker who gave PID power to aircraft over dense urban terrain. Things like this were bound to happen to be frank.

The most damning thing about the video was the decision to engage the van picking up bodies and wounded. The JTAC Bushmaster 7 shares full responsiblity for that; the aircrew saw no weapons associated with the van nor did they relay to Bushmaster 7 that any weapons were present. Couple that with the fact that ground troops were apparently moments away and I question very strongly the decision to engage the van.

Three more points:
1. Dont read the subtitles alot of them are wrong, just listen to the radio.
2. There are obviously some missing portions of the video: I want to know what was cut, there could be some critical dialouge missing.
3. I also want to know whether the patrol that arrived on scene actually found weapons.

I want to know those last two points before fully making up my mind whether anything criminal took place.

Schmedlap

04-06-2010, 01:40 AM

To be honest, things like this are going to happen when aircraft are allowed to make the PID of hostile forces. You just can't see enough detail in the air to make extremely close distinctions between big ass cameras and RPGs. So to me the biggest culprit if one must be identified is the decision maker who gave PID power to aircraft over dense urban terrain. Things like this were bound to happen to be frank.
For the most part, I agree. But I would just add that if I'm given the power to PID and engage, then I'm not going to blame the guy who gave me that authority when I don't PID. But, yes, that certainly is a problem. I learned it the hard way a few years ago when an Apache pilot asked permission to 30mm a "suspected VBIED" after he had just fired hellfires for us at a target that we directed him to. The "suspected VBIED" that he spotted was not within our view but when he asked to shoot at something that he said he thought was a VBIED when we're under fire - yeah, kill it. I later saw the video and was furious. The vehicle was clearly not a VBIED (though it thankfully had nobody inside - so no civilian casualties). To make matters worse, the 30mm badly damaged a newly paved road that we had spent months trying to get repaired. It's tough to step back in the heat of the moment and say, "wait a minute - I have no idea what this pilot is looking at" but, as you observed, it is problematic if you don't.

Agree with all other points, too.

Added: Good comments here: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

Added: 15-6 and supporting documents: http://bit.ly/bLlCEi

Added: Not great comments, but handy still photos here: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

efraker

04-06-2010, 01:44 AM

2. There are obviously some missing portions of the video: I want to know what was cut, there could be some critical dialouge missing.Good eye! I'm not sure I would have noticed without reading Wikileak's documentation.

This video is about 14 minutes @ YouTube resolution of a 38 minute high-resolution video. Wikileaks created a Torrent for the full 616 megabyte (purportedly) unedited file. If you are set up to download Torrent files, click here (http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder_full.mp4.torrent).

To get a program to let you download Torrent files, click here (http://www.bittorrent.com/btusers/download/). Note: many corporate/institutional firewalls block the use of this file type.

efraker

04-06-2010, 02:05 AM

I don't have a lot to say about this video; I don't have the background to contribute.

It turned my stomach to see it, and I'm kind of ashamed by that. I didn't feel the same way when I've watched similar videos on LiveLeak and other sites, wherein I 'knew' that the targets were legitimate. Statistically speaking, this probably wasn't the first time I watched an American gunship fire on a civilian.

braun

04-06-2010, 02:58 AM

The (reasonably) complete video is available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&aia=true

It cuts to the "triangular building" towards the end.

Starbuck

04-06-2010, 03:15 AM

I put my thoughts up at my blog (http://wingsoveriraq.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-coin-for-aviators-is-so-important.html), but there's so much in here that's completely wrong. Do the Apache pilots not even acknowledge the figures walking in front of the triangle-shaped building that are clearly unarmed? Why do they shoot a second missile into the building, especially when they see more unarmed figures running into the burning building? Did they pose a threat?

pjmunson

04-06-2010, 03:19 AM

Wargames Mark

04-06-2010, 04:29 AM

The 5-16 investigation (http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf)and the pictures enclosed in it give the most complete picture, providing context you can't see in the video.
First, the ground unit had declared TIC and the Apaches were on station to support them. The guy peering around the corner was actually one of the journalists taking pictures of a HMMWV just 100 meters down the alley. Given the TIC, his actions, and the close proximity to the TIC unit, you can see why the pilots were spring loaded to attack. They felt they were defending the ground unit that was already taking fire.

I won't get into the engagement of the van, but would be interested to hear from people who actually know the legal aspect as to whether that was a bad shoot or not.

Thanks for that additional information. I don't know what to make of this incident yet (and I have no legal knowledge to speak of) but I sure don't trust the video by itself.

Regardless of what was happening on the ground, the effects of this video on public perceptions in the west and on the perceptions held by Muslim populations targeted as audiences by radicals will be detrimental. Information like this is a weapon.

LOW violations in COIN are obviously extremely harmful. Video and photography magnify the effects and often lack complete context. As a result, leaking something like this is not a trivial act and should not dealt with as such. This leak is essentially an attack. It might or might not have been intended as such, but that's what it ends up being.

Cavguy

04-06-2010, 04:47 AM

Was giving benefit of the doubt on the initial engagement, given the TIC and info coming from the ground, and the inability to distinguish weapons from cameras clearly. The second half is what bothers me and others. Couldn't see how to justify engaging the van providing CASEVAC and the Hellfire strike.

On the mitigation side, if a journalist decides to embed w/an insurgent group during an attack, he is placing himself in jeopardy, so some of the outrage is overstated. Also noteworthy is the lack of anyone else on the streets - clearly a fight was going on and the locals knew it. I also haven't figured out why a van with kids in it would be picking up wounded insurgents given the fight nearby. Still doesn't justify the latter half of the video, but is curious.

Schmedlap

04-06-2010, 06:53 AM

My cynical side says that these pilots know that their conversations are recorded, thus the verbal observations that clearly establish an issue of fact as to whether they thought they were shooting at individuals who were armed and continuing, by some means, to resist.

Starbuck

04-06-2010, 10:43 AM

Is anyone else having difficulty downloading the 15-6 from the CENTCOM site?

CloseDanger

04-06-2010, 11:38 AM

It may be found here. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything)

Seabee

04-06-2010, 02:33 PM

Ignoring all facts, photos and runups....

IMHO the excited tone of the gunner says it all... he had tasted blood and would have fired on the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders if they had been there...

I observed this in soldiers (myself included) when they had attacks of frustration and fury when someone else "got one" and they did not... insane jeasousy of those who did not, "I'mtheman-I'mthe man-I'mtheman" playing in the back of the head of the guy who did....

This guy probably high fived himself menatally.

I suspect when he is older, married and has kids of his own he will see the light, especially as far as the kids are concerned....

Fuchs

04-06-2010, 04:21 PM

Discipline is supposed to keep such phenomena sufficiently in check.

Polarbear1605

04-06-2010, 05:08 PM

I am a little surprised by the general comments on this one. I think most of you should go back and read the Rules of War (FM27-10) and then the ROEs. (You might also want to get jmm99 involved in this one.) If I am a civilian and pickup a weapon on the battle field I become a combatant and btw, if I drop the weapon, I do not become a non-combatant again. This group of Iraqi "civilians" engaged our troops with AK-47s and RPGs. They were then treated like insurgents. They were tracked down and they were killed. If they are not tracked down and killed, they will reture to kill you (or Iraqi civilians, usually the ones on our side) later. The war crime was not US soldiers killing civilians but the war crime was insurgents using civilians as shields.

Fuchs

04-06-2010, 05:26 PM

The war crime was not US soldiers killing civilians but the war crime was insurgents using civilians as shields.

Maybe you should go read the GC IV and the additional protocol I.

You better not argue that the GC is applicable, for article 51 and 57 of the additional protocol I pretty much declare the Apache gunners to be war criminals while articles 28, 34 and 35 of GC IV and article 51 GC IV additional protocol I could teach you what illegal human shields are in reality (and there were none in the video).

The popular understanding of "human shields" is badly blurred because the topic has been used too often for (often wrong) accusations in IO/propaganda since Desert Storm.

So better leave out the international law; it damns only the uniformed side of that video.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
(http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5)
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument

Finally the GC III text for completeness' sake (only relevant to POW "human shields")
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

(I happened to have a closer look at the topic last year, that's why I have these links and articles that readily.)

walrus

04-06-2010, 05:54 PM

First let me commend Small Wars Journal for having the guts to post a thread about this.

Glen Greenwald at Salon.com has made the obvious deduction; this is how America makes war; all the time. Each time an incident of this nature makes it into the media, we are first asked to believe that what happened was unfortunate but completely justified and when that excuse is shredded, we are told that the event was an "isolated incident".

It is quite obvious that these incidents are not "isolated"; there have been too many of them for that. They are a direct result of policy, training and culture. The suppression of the video by the military, the refusal of the Obama Administration to release photographs of torture victims, the deliberate targeting of journalists, the "whitewash" investigations and trials that always seem to lead to acquittal, all point to the same thing; this is standard operating procedure.

I know at some stage someone will explain the rigorous rules of engagement and controls in place that are supposed to prevent these incidents, however it is quite obvious that they are honoured in the breach. The military don't give a damn about brown people getting killed, they just don't want it to get into the media, and if it does, they want a defence to limit career damage. There is no technical (in the widest sense) solution to this problem. To put it another way, the military would not have suppressed this video if it did not show a shameful act.

The heart of the American problem is the basic hypocrisy at it's core; when challenged over an incident like this, the ultimate fall back position is; "Well, these are little brown people, and we don't live here, so we do what we have to do." This is the same attitude that gave all of us the banking crisis and numerous other disasters; "Yeah, I know we said we were trustworthy, but we gotta make a buck". "Yeah, I know we have a Constitution, but waterboarding works".

Let me ask the obvious question. What is the point of "Hearts and Minds" campaigning at all when you also do this? How much goodwill has just been lost? How many recruits to jihad has this and similar incidents created?

To borrow a quote; ""Aiding the enemy? If the truth aids the enemy then we are in the wrong war."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

Polarbear1605

04-06-2010, 05:55 PM

I love the military mind, it automatically fires before it is aimed by turning doctrine into dogma. ;)
Hey Fuchs, FM 27-10 is a US Army Field Manual that applies to all US Militray personnel and I agree you need to stay away from the GC because it is basically setup for state-on-state affairs and therefore rewards treachery. Like it or not combat is always governed by rules of war and they are clear on insurgents and combatants. If you want to debate GC and treachery go back and read the Lieber Code...no reward for treachery there..and you might want to read up on "strategic legalism".

Fuchs

04-06-2010, 06:24 PM

Who cares about a field manual? It's been approved by soldiers (at most "by order of the secretary of the army"), not by a parliament.
The GC ranks much higher than any FM. It's been signed by the POTUS and ratified by congress. It has the force of a law.

FM 27-10 is pretty much an interpretation guidance booklet, not the rule book itself.

We can stay away from the (usually highly unpleasant, for various reasons) GC in this discussion.
It's not legal to ignore it in a war zone, though.

By the way; the GC III is relevant to the Iraq War 2003-201x:

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(...)

(Iraq ratified. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P))

Ken White

04-06-2010, 07:54 PM

Which is okay, you're both certainly entitled to it but aside from US bashing, you gloss over the fact that war is evil. all war, it begets evil and anyone who thinks you can do it nicely is a bit remiss.

You both also gloss over the excesses and illegalities of the "little brown people" (Walruses words, not mine) to concentrate on whipping the party to the war that, imperfectly and human foible prone for sure, at least tries to do the 'right' thing most of the time as opposed to the opponents blatant disregard for the western norms you both seem to hold dear.

Your opinions are fine as is expressing them and fairness is admittedly a schoolboy concept but I suggest if you wish to speak of hypocrisy, you might give the above a bit of thought.

The Apache crews, as Seabee pointed out, got overexuberant. It happens. The US is not perfect, we make a lot of misteaks (see?) and we do dumb stuff. People do get overexuberant and Nations -- all of them -- foul up on occasion. Get over it, it's a war, it isn't nice and isn't going to be. :cool:

Nor should it be. As the guys fighting it on all sides know. Others are offering their opinion and without ever having been in a position of having to determine whether to fire or not, whether to celebrate or cry looking at their first kill and indeed, certainly not being involved directly in an incident under discussion. So I'm not inclined to grant much credence to that noise. I can hear the opinion, accept it, record it as such and move on -- but I wouldn't expend much effort trying to correct a or the 'problem' based on such opinions. :rolleyes:

Fuchs also said:
Discipline is supposed to keep such phenomena sufficiently in check.A true statement -- if there was in fact 'wrongdoing' in this particular phenomenon -- but applied to all phenomena the key words are "supposed to" as is often the case. What is 'supposed to be' and is often differ -- particularly when humans are involved. Can either of you offer the statement that other nations have never transgressed in the area of 'war crimes' (silly phrase, war itself is a crime...) and thus the 'hypocrisy' cited is solely an American attribute?

Polarbear1605 got it right:
If they are not tracked down and killed, they will reture to kill you (or Iraqi civilians, usually the ones on our side) later.That's reality. Harsh but reality. Most else is academic -- in the pejorative sense of the word.

jmm99

04-06-2010, 08:27 PM

from Fuchs
Maybe you should go read the GC IV and the additional protocol I.

and you will find that neither API (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=470&ps=P) nor APII (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=475&ps=P) have been ratified by the US or by Iraq. You and others can insist all you want that the Euro-centric construct of "international humanitarian law" be imposed on the US; but to date that has not happened.

GC III and IV have been ratified by both the US and Iraq and apply to situtations covered by them. Not all situations fall into those covered catagories (e.g., armed conflicts not of an international character are not covered by all GCIII and GCIV provisions).

Danny

04-06-2010, 08:37 PM

Ken White. To be sure some of this looks like over-exuberance, but I am also assuming that this didn't come out of the blue. As Cavguy said, there was likely TIC earlier leading to this exchange. It's easy to yank things out of context and lose the backdrop for events. So much easier when it has to do with something like this.

That said, it has long been a pet peeve of mine that the CJCS Standing ROE (which I have read) and the Iraq-specific ROE (which I have read) and the RUF (which I have read) do not countenance offensive operations, at least as regards GP forces not otherwise under mission specific ROE. This lead General McKearney to want to charge two Army snipers with murder when they killed a Taliban commander in Afghanistan who didn't happen to be brandishing a weapon at the time. Silly, but true.

Whether they were a specific threat at the time or not is irrelevant to me. The question redounds to this: were they insurgents? The answer is yes. I have no problem with the targeting of insurgents who are not a threat at the specific moment in time.

As for the two Reuters photo-journalists, they were embedded with the insurgents. I feel the same way about this as I did about Nir Rosen embedded with the Taliban.

As for the van and those in it who came to pick up the wounded, I would have to know more about the rules under which they were operating. The children shouldn't have been there. I am also persuaded that the standing or Iraq-specific ROE don't apply to CAS and combat aviation. If it did they couldn't do their job. Someone who knows more than I about the rules for CAS could weigh in.

More thoughts at my blog.

Schmedlap

04-06-2010, 08:58 PM

More thoughts at my blog.

URL???:confused:

davidbfpo

04-06-2010, 09:04 PM

T'is:http://www.captainsjournal.com/

Danny

04-06-2010, 09:09 PM

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/04/06/wikileaks-posts-video-of-u-s-army-killings-in-iraq-collateral-murder/

Wings Over Iraq has some interesting viewpoints:

http://wingsoveriraq.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-coin-for-aviators-is-so-important.html

Blackfive:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/04/open-letter-to-centcom-pao.html

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/04/the-wikileaks-video.html

The inevitable tantrums over at Firedoglake and the HP.

I think that this isn't going to go away for some time. I have received some very emotional letters from my post. Some calling me all manner of names, some supportive and even dismissive concerning the incident, but there is much interest and emotion over this issue.

Meinertzhagen

04-06-2010, 09:24 PM

NPR's Talk of the Nation featured a segment this afternoon featuring David Finkel whose book, The Good Soldiers (which I have not read), recounts his time embedded with the unit (2-16 IN) involved in the incident. The book apparently has an extensive section on the specific event and the coverage on Talk of the Nation provides some excellent context to the overall events. You can listen to the 11 minute segment here: http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5

On another issue, does the failure by the government to release this video constitute a "coverup" as is one of the key claims of Wikileaks in this case? This particular event was extensively reported upon in 2007 and our complicity in the death of the Reuters employees is acknowledged by the DoD. I've been involved in or witnessed dozens of similar engagements of armed individuals during two deployments, none of which have since seen their UAV/gun camera footage available for public viewing available on the internet. Are these events being covered up and where is the line?

walrus

04-06-2010, 09:55 PM

Ken White:

Which is okay, you're both certainly entitled to it but aside from US bashing, you gloss over the fact that war is evil. all war, it begets evil and anyone who thinks you can do it nicely is a bit remiss.

You both also gloss over the excesses and illegalities of the "little brown people" (Walruses words, not mine) to concentrate on whipping the party to the war that, imperfectly and human foible prone for sure, at least tries to do the 'right' thing most of the time as opposed to the opponents blatant disregard for the western norms you both seem to hold dear.

Your opinions are fine as is expressing them and fairness is admittedly a schoolboy concept but I suggest if you wish to speak of hypocrisy, you might give the above a bit of thought.

The Apache crews, as Seabee pointed out, got overexuberant. It happens. The US is not perfect, we make a lot of misteaks (see?) and we do dumb stuff. People do get overexuberant and Nations -- all of them -- foul up on occasion. Get over it, it's a war, it isn't nice and isn't going to be.

Nor should it be. As the guys fighting it on all sides know. Others are offering their opinion and without ever having been in a position of having to determine whether to fire or not, whether to celebrate or cry looking at their first kill and indeed, certainly not being involved directly in an incident under discussion. So I'm not inclined to grant much credence to that noise. I can hear the opinion, accept it, record it as such and move on -- but I wouldn't expend much effort trying to correct a or the 'problem' based on such opinions.

Thank you for your comment.

1. It is sufficient to note that the Military suppressed this video, which confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that this episode was regarded by serving officers as deeply shameful.

2. My understanding is that many Iraqis are armed. I did not notice any signs of furtive activity that might indicate an intention to shoot at troops with the exception of a photographer taking a photo around a corner. I did not notice any concern that they were in range of an Apache gunship either. I am prepared to take advice whether this is a realistic appreciation or not.

3. The attack on the vehicle was premeditated murder in my opinion. Soldiers in other wars have faced a court martial and been shot for less.

4. The content and tone of the voice communication from pilot and gunner suggest a complete lack of any human values at all.

5. As for the "contempt for Western Norms" shown by Jihadists, agreed, however that does NOT excuse us for not upholding them ourselves. Neither does the "War is hell" meme. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have had enough experience in business of hearing lofty idealistic statements from American management about their commitment to safety, ethics, the value of their employees, the environment, etc., etc. followed by disappointment, to believe that there is an innate propensity for hypocrisy embedded somewhere in the America psyche. The "torture" debate illustrated it rather well.

I am aware of only one successful set of prosecutions for mistreatment of Iraqis - and that was after incontrovertible evidence of abuse, and the abusers, was captured on film at Al Ghraib, and even then it was passed off as "operator error" instead of official policy. Given that the attitudes of the Apache crew are common, and expressed every day on various websites, it is incontrovertible that similar unreported incidents occur and are always condoned.

The official whitewash that occurs each time on of these incidents is independently reported (God forbid that an official report would be made) followed by the hurried retraction when damning evidence is presented, as has just happened again in Afghanistan, suggests that we have a systematic truthiness problem here.

The conclusion must be that the ROE are not there to protect civilian lives, but merely to cover backsides in the dreaded event that the media might find out about bad behaviour.

The second conclusion is that suppressing this video was a mistake, as the incident has been magnified from an "unfortunate incident" into a deliberately suppressed war crime.

Firn

04-06-2010, 09:56 PM

Some thoughts about the first scene after watching the video.

The perspective of the pilots:

a) The Apache seems to have been called in to support TIC, which have been fired at from a certain position a some time ago. ( Only a relative position, I doubt that the pilot knew from which direction the attack occured)

b) A group of persons with knowledge of the general location of the TIC is spotted by the Apache in search of insurgents. They seem to be close enough to make them cautious, as one of the cameramen peaks around the corner.

c) The pilots of the Apache who want to support their unit on the ground takes a closer look at the groups of people, searching for insurgents and guns and at once interprets the slung cameras as "guns".

d) These quick "positive" interpretations get confirmed by two real weapons handled by two members of said "group".

e) The handling of the camera gets interpreted thus as a preparation to fire the "RPG". This creates urgency, as the pilots may think that the troops are in his sights and forces a quick reaction.

f) The pilots communicate their interpretations, get confirmations and quickly try to destroy the threat.

If you observe the video sitting in front of your computer while knowing the identity of the "RPG gunners" and the background a lot of things jumb right into your eyes.

a) You know for sure that the people with the slings carry cameras which makes you wonder all the more why the pilots comes up with "guns"

b) You see also that the persons seen as insurgents are rather calm and point the reporters where a fight happened. They could be insurgents just as they could be the self-defence forces of that block or quarter which heard the noise of the fight and want to help the reporters to get a story ( and some money for this information).

c) Nobody of the said person shows any hostile intent or will to engage the US troops. Why should they be insurgents?

d) You see a group of people with two obvious innocents discussing rather calmly something and getting mowed down.

e) The pilots use gibby and macabre language to deride said people and the two innocents.

Most people on the net saw version 2 and screamed murder.

Firn

Schmedlap

04-07-2010, 12:06 AM

1. It is sufficient to note that the Military suppressed this video, which confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that this episode was regarded by serving officers as deeply shameful.

Wow. You have a very low threshold for proof. It seems equally - perhaps even more - plausible that it was not released because it is difficult to explain everything that is happening.

4. The content and tone of the voice communication from pilot and gunner suggest a complete lack of any human values at all.

To be fair, the highly judgmental tone of your post, coupled with such little evidence, doesn't speak very well of you either.

Rex Brynen

04-07-2010, 12:44 AM

Some thoughts about the first scene after watching the video.

Well said.

While regrettable, it is hardly surprising that the helicopters fired on what appeared to be a group of armed men immediately following a report of TIC, especially when one of them appeared to be sighting an RPG (actually a camera) down the street. The pilots, after all, hardly had the luxury of playing and replaying the video to be certain.

However, firing on the vehicle recovering the wounded journalist--which, for all we know, could have simply been a Good Samaritan, or a relative--was certainly a serious mistake. There was clearly no evidence of weapons or hostile intent.

The language used by the helicopter crew? You'll find something similar, I would wager, in every war zone, with every army.

The "cover up" ? More bad PR by the DoD. While I can understand not wanting to release footage of every civilian accidentally killed, it ought to have been clear that the deaths of two journalists required special handling.

Chris jM

04-07-2010, 12:49 AM

The Apache crews, as Seabee pointed out, got overexuberant. It happens. The US is not perfect, we make a lot of misteaks (see?) and we do dumb stuff. People do get overexuberant and Nations -- all of them -- foul up on occasion. Get over it, it's a war, it isn't nice and isn't going to be. :cool:

Nor should it be. As the guys fighting it on all sides know.

I can understand the perspective of the majority of posts on this issue.

The act itself aside (and I doubt whether this will ever come to light) but it would be illuminating to see whether the troops in whose AO this was benefitted by or came to be worse off from the strike. Local populations are not simplistic in outlook by any degree, and I'm sure that there is an understanding that if you start shielding insurgents within your population the inevitable will occur, with the population starting to become casualties - if indeed that is what happened.

Ignoring the 'political fall-out' of the video, which I doubt will impact on the current Iraqi situation in any meaningful way, knowing the historical short-term/ mid-term tactical fall-out of the action would be more interesting.

FM3-24 discourages air power to avoid incidents like this, where firepower in an urban environment will often lead to more harm than good. If this is the case, and a lack of appropriate decision making on behalf of the pilots set back the COIN mission for their infantry brethren on the ground, a great wrong was committed. If to the contrary they were doing their job in a difficult environment and, in an attempt to support the COIN elements patrolling, they caused civilian casualties... then ethically it's all very ugly, confusing and murky - which sounds awfully like every other battlefield in recent memory.

The worst that could happen from this is that the wrong lessons are learned. COIN will still see violence delivered, often in close proximity to a civilian population, and people will get hurt and killed. If it occurs through negligence or incompetence then those responsible should be held accountable - but if innocent casualties occur during the legitimate conduct of an operation, holding the trigger-puller at the very sharp end is both unfair and counter-productive.

glaterza

04-07-2010, 01:21 AM

Ken White

04-07-2010, 02:45 AM

1. It is sufficient to note that the Military suppressed this video, which confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that this episode was regarded by serving officers as deeply shameful.I do not know that it was suppressed (not publicly released is not suppression, it is simply non release). It may have been, may not have been. What I do know is that logically, even if it was suppression, that does not prove your 'deeply shameful' assertion.
2. My understanding is that many Iraqis are armed. I did not notice any signs of furtive activity that might indicate an intention to shoot at troops with the exception of a photographer taking a photo around a corner. I did not notice any concern that they were in range of an Apache gunship either. I am prepared to take advice whether this is a realistic appreciation or not.I cannot advise you on any of that as I was not there and as I'm reasonably sure there is more footage on that tape that we have not seen and which might add considerable context. What I can tell you is that it is unlikely the Iraqis were aware of the Apaches observation of them and that the magnification of the night sensors make those on the ground appear much closer than the probably between 500 and 1,000 meters the birds were away from the target area. Also, their track lock capability keeps the picture fairly steady while the aircraft may be constantly maneuvering in all axes.

I also suggest that even if many Iraqis are / were armed, being armed near a body of other armed folks, particularly a bunch of notoriously trigger happy Americans is likely to attract unwanted attention. As it did in this case.

3. The attack on the vehicle was premeditated murder in my opinion. Soldiers in other wars have faced a court martial and been shot for less.We can disagree on that. Without being there, we cannot know with certainty.
4. The content and tone of the voice communication from pilot and gunner suggest a complete lack of any human values at all.Well, of course it does, they're Aviators ;). Yes, I too am possessed of few human values. FWIW, I recall as much exuberance from an Oz (1/RAR) M-60 gunner outside a little village in Phouc Tuy Province in the summer of 1966. Guys in combat get exuberant at a 'win' because a loss is always rather, er, sobering. Macabre and gallows humor abounds.
5. As for the "contempt for Western Norms" shown by Jihadists, agreed, however that does NOT excuse us for not upholding them ourselves. Neither does the "War is hell" meme. Two wrongs don't make a right.Sorry, again we can disagree. In my view war is so terribly wrong that there is little sense in talking of right and wrong on individual acts because the potential for those to occur is so great. The overall tenor is the determinant and I'll stack Australia and the US up on the 'they really try to not do wrong' side of that equation (acknowledging that the US due to sheer size is going to have more aberrant acts). Everyone in a war will do some wrong. Everyone (Yes, even moi). It's endemic. The key is to hold it to a minimum, never easy but we and you and most of the west try most of the time. While I agree with you in principle, in practice it is far more difficult than many can envision.
...to believe that there is an innate propensity for hypocrisy embedded somewhere in the America psyche. The "torture" debate illustrated it rather well.Could be. No question we have a very different approach to many things. Also no question that many nations have reputations they probably don't deserve. For example, I know all Strynes are not Bogans. :D

The 'torture debate' showed me little other than how people on both sides can twist an issue for political reasons into an unrecognizable and ludicrous interchange that solves nothing. As did the torture debate solve nothing.
I am aware of only one successful set of prosecutions for mistreatment of Iraqis - and that was after incontrovertible evidence of abuse, and the abusers, was captured on film at Al Ghraib, and even then it was passed off as "operator error" instead of official policy. Given that the attitudes of the Apache crew are common, and expressed every day on various websites, it is incontrovertible that similar unreported incidents occur and are always condoned.Such incidents emphatically do always occur -- and they occur in all Armies at war. All. As to '"always condoned," having seen too many court martialed for offenses even you might call minor, I very much disagree with that. Just because those minor aberrations are not given wide publicity does not mean that nothing is done. There are more out there, I'm sure you could Google up a few -- here's one (LINK) (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/03/haditha-marine-squad-leader-set-for.php). Notice the number charged and the number of dismissals -- for lack of evidence, mostly. The US military justice system has a higher standard of proof than does US civilian law but even so there have been a bunch of charges brought and convictions gained.
...suggests that we have a systematic truthiness problem here.Again we disagree but I'm not about to waste time on search for punishments and / or the lack thereof. I will acknowledge that the US Army, like any bureaucracy, tries to protect itself and cover up things it should not (think Mohamed Haneef or Utegate ;) ). Unlike you, my experience and observation is that it always comes out eventually. Truthiness in my observation is human proclivity that is pretty much universal (see any Australian politician...).
The conclusion must be that the ROE are not there to protect civilian lives, but merely to cover backsides in the dreaded event that the media might find out about bad behaviour.I'm not sure I follow that logic. Again you reach a conclusion that does not logically follow the basic assertion. What I am sure of is that you have decided there is evil in the US and its Army and nothing I say is likely to change that -- and that is, as I said, your prerogative...
The second conclusion is that suppressing this video was a mistake, as the incident has been magnified from an "unfortunate incident" into a deliberately suppressed war crime.Well, I don't think it was suppressed but I do think that whether an "unfortunate incident" or a deliberately suppressed war crime, it will fade from public view as an issue in about two weeks, plus or minus 17%.

Except for the Anti American and / or Anti War crowds, they'll hang onto it long past its shelf date...:rolleyes:

braun

04-07-2010, 04:03 AM

Obviously, I wasn't there. But I think this incident boils down to this:

The helos were operating in an area of Baghdad which was at the time, a hotspot of AIF activity - an insurgent safe haven is how it has been described to me by folks who were there.

Allegedly US forces had gotten into a contact earlier near the same area, and the Apaches were there for overwatch.

The Apache IDs a group of military-aged males with what appear to be weapons. Indeed, along with the camera equipment carried by the journos, I spotted at least two AKs carried by other men in the group. One of the military-aged males trains a "weapon" in the direction of US ground troops a couple of hundred metres away (and out of frame).

Apache crews ask for permission to engage. Permission is granted. The group of men is engaged.

That is how it started and up to this point IMO it was a righteous decision based on information the Apache crew had at the time. As for the excitable nature of the helo crews... they were doing their job, taking out what they thought were insurgents. They were doing exactly what they should have been doing in order to protect the groundpounders.

I'm not going to comment on the van incident where the children were wounded - that would involve looking at OPSEC material and commenting on it - a no-no regardless of whether the ROE is "historical" or not. I will ask this question - Is it worth destroying a civilian vehicle which is clearly being used to evac a wounded man simply because they MIGHT" be recovering a shot-up AK or two?

I don't like the cut in the video before the hellfire strike on the building - From the comms chatter it appears that a group of insurgents had been tracked to that building. If that's so, then who were the men who were lit up in the first part of the video? 3 missiles to take out a building in a residential area? That whole segment is out of context and proves nothing to me except that the Apache crew had no qualms about incurring collateral damage (civilians near the building).

I believe the video was suppressed by the US DoD and it is going to bite them back - big time.

Yesterday's mad scramble to post the docs up on the Centcom FOI page is clear evidence of either a culture of cover up or total bureaucratic incompetence. Once the initial investigations were over, they could have released this material along with an apology to Reuters and the families of it's employees who were killed, and avoided some of the unpleasantness.

I swear, sometimes the US (and Australian) mil headshed act like freakin' naughty children. Each time there is a backbone failure like this, the more locals get off the fence and pick up a weapon.

Danny

04-07-2010, 04:49 AM

Braun makes interesting comments. I am intrigued by them. I guess I have refined my position a bit after studying this more. If it can be shown that this incident violates the ROE, I am at a loss to know why.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/04/06/collateral-murder-did-u-s-apache-pilots-actions-violate-the-rules-of-engagement/

In order to avoid the charge of driving visits to my site, I will post my position below. For links, you will have to go to my site - sorry.

Following up from the Wikileaks release of the so-called Collateral Murder video there has been a firestorm of activity over both the internet and television. One self-proclaimed intelligence expert claims that the actions of the Apache pilots violated the rules of engagement.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer … said that based on what he saw in the video, it appeared to be a violation of the military’s Rules of Engagement.

“First rule is, you may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent by minimum force necessary,” he said. “Minimum force is necessary. If you see eight armed men, the first thing I would think as an intelligence officer is, ‘How can we take these guys and capture them?’ We don’t want to kill people arbitrarily; we want the intel take.

“Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded, do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds. So, the wound part of that I find disturbing, being that you clearly have people down, you have people on the way there. Speaking as an intelligence officer, my intent is to capture people, to recover them. That is the idea here. If you’re not really doing that, you’re not really doing precise combat.”

This is a misdirection play. The former intelligence officer was first addressing the issue of violation of the ROE, then switched to the issue of what he would like to see in order to categorize this as precise combat, i.e., capture and intelligence recovery. He offers us no evidence that the actions violated the ROE. He says it and moves on to his pet issues.

There is ample evidence that the actions did not violate the ROE. There are three categories under which these insurgents could have been targeted: (1) TIC (troops in contact) / self defense, (2) deliberate targeting, and finally (3) TST (time sensitive targets).

The AR 15-6 investigation into this incident points out that:

The cameraman raises the camera to sight through the viewfinder and his action appears prompts (sic) one of the pilots to remark “He’s getting ready to fire.” Photos later recovered from the camera show a U.S. Army HMMWV sitting at an intersection, less than 100 meters away from the camera. The digital time/date stamp on the photo indicates that these photos were the ones taken as the cameraman peered from behind the wall. Due to the furtive nature of his movements, the cameraman gave every appearance of preparing to fire an RPG on U.S. Soldiers.

So the actions meet the definition of self defense in the ROE. Next, there is an earlier version of the rules of engagement which has a larger list of potential targets in the deliberate targeting category.

There are six types of preplanned target sets: (1) Non-military elements of former regime command and control and associated facilities, (2) WMD storage facilities, (3) Iraqi infrastructure and Iraqi economic objects, (4) Terrorists, (5) Iraqi lines of communication, and (6) Facilities (associated with Designated Terrorists or Declared Hostile Forces).

But the 2007 revision of the ROE had at least the following list: members of designated terrorist organizations and facilities associated with DTOs. It goes on to list certain DTOs, and as a side bar comment, it isn’t clear to me why Ansar al Sunna isn’t specifically called out. But that has nothing per se to do with this incident, and “other groups or terrorist organizations” covers this operation.

Finally, time sensitive targets (for which there is insufficient time to gain formal authorization) covers the kills at the location of the van which showed up to recover the bodies.

To be sure, this video can be disturbing to those who do not understand that war means enacting and enforcing violence, and can be equally disturbing to those who have had to do so either in Iraq or Afghanistan. Memories can be difficult things. It’s always better in retrospect to learn that the targets you acquired and killed were indeed threats against U.S. forces. This is true in this instance except for two very stupid Reuters journalists embedded with insurgents, and two unfortunate children (who, by the way, lived) who should never have been brought into combat by some very stupid – and dead – insurgents.

Fuchs

04-07-2010, 08:50 AM

and you will find that neither API (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=470&ps=P) nor APII (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=475&ps=P) have been ratified by the US or by Iraq. You and others can insist all you want that the Euro-centric construct of "international humanitarian law" be imposed on the US; but to date that has not happened.

GC III and IV have been ratified by both the US and Iraq and apply to situtations covered by them. Not all situations fall into those covered catagories (e.g., armed conflicts not of an international character are not covered by all GCIII and GCIV provisions).

We're actually not in disagreement here. I referred to the AP I in regard to what's human shielding or not.

I already quoted the part of GC III that is relevant to this conflict (GC III was ratified by both US and Iraq).

In short: It's in this matter irrelevant whether the US has ratified AP I or not.

Uboat509

04-07-2010, 09:45 AM

Here's my two cents on the issue, a bunch of guys commenting on the actions of an operator on the ground from the safety of cyberspace is, at best, in poor taste. This is the reason that the military often does not release this kind of footage, not some grand conspiracy to conceal wrong-doing. It's simply that many people will look at footage like this and will jump to whatever conclusion best fits their preconceived notions and bias. Has anyone here talked to the aircrew or anyone that was on the ground there? For that matter, I know that some of the members here are combat veterans but I also know that some of those who are most vocal about the way things should be in combat have never been in combat. The title of the thread should tell you everything that you need to know.

braun

04-07-2010, 10:05 AM

MSM interviews a panel of experts including the founder of Wikileaks

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-FvRngn81Y 10min

Wikileaks founder states that this is only one of several tapes to be released in the near future. Further tapes include an A'stan airstrike which resulted in approx 90 civvies KIA. This is just the start of a major hearts and minds campaign. You have to remember too, that Wikileaks is having some major funding problems at the moment, so I expect this campaign is related to that. Perhaps a closer relationship with the mainstream media will result in some cash for scoops arrangements. Nice f*ckers.

I am all for government accountability, and I often read wikileaks and have admired their stance on internet censorship vis: Australia, but we are at war and this will not only result in more jihadis taking up arms, thereby costing US/Coalition lives (as well as indig lives in the process). The AQI and Taliban are already pretty much on top of the Information operations aspect of this conflict, and this type of material will only enhance the enemy's efforts. Traitorous and irresponsible and the wikileaks folks will end up with blood on their hands because of it. I'm getting visions of that famous photo of Jane Fonda visiting North Vietnam...

braun

04-07-2010, 10:07 AM

Here's my two cents on the issue, a bunch of guys commenting on the actions of an operator on the ground from the safety of cyberspace is, at best, in poor taste...

And that is exactly how historians such as myself will be viewing incidents such as these in 20 or 30 years time. I'm just getting a head start.

JMA

04-07-2010, 12:21 PM

These rules of engagement can really complicate matters.

We never had them in Rhodesia to any extent but it was never considered 'professional' to down a bunch of civvies in the crossfire.

What to the TB do, stand on the roof with a bunch of women and kids and take shots at you?

Seabee

04-07-2010, 12:48 PM

(From Uboat509)Here's my two cents on the issue, a bunch of guys commenting on the actions of an operator on the ground from the safety of cyberspace is, at best, in poor taste.

Can that thought be stretched to "if you were not there, you have no right to comment"?

The logical extension would then be, only people who were involved, can write histories....

best
Chris

Fuchs

04-07-2010, 01:03 PM

It's worse.
The same argument can be used to attack the legitimacy of judges, civilian control of the military and much else.

We don't require our judges to have both a criminal record and have been a victim before we allow them to judge, right?

The argument that only insiders are entitled to an opinion furthermore doesn't stand the most basic plausibility tests.
Think of Wall St, for example. Would you want to hear from a Wall St banker that you should shut up because you've got no clue, and only long-time Wall St bankers should be allowed to exercise oversight over Wall St?

I have no respect for the "only insiders' opinions count" defence. It has a terrible track record, is implausible and impractical.

There's honour among thieves, that's why the "insiders only" defence is so popular - and crappy.

braun

04-07-2010, 01:22 PM

Can that thought be stretched to "if you were not there, you have no right to comment"?

The logical extension would then be, only people who were involved, can write histories....

This is probably veering off topic a little, but I've spent the past 12 months interviewing and compiling oral histories of WWII Services Reconnaissance Department ("Z Force" :rolleyes: ) operatives. Some of these guys, especially a certain retired Brigadier, have memories as sharp as tacks, right down to being able to recount various contacts blow by blow as if they happened yesterday. This stuff was only declassified in 1995, so they waited a long time to tell their stories. Even though I am talking directly to the participants themselves, I'm not even getting half of the full picture. What someone on the ground sees is limited to his field of vision. This is especially true of a particular project I am working on at the moment - trying to determine the fate of several SRD operatives who are still MIA.

It's only when I begin to gather information from all available sources and analyse the situation from the safety and comfort of my office here in sunny New South Wales, can I even begin to piece together what happened in a filthy mangrove swamp in New Guinea 65 years ago.

Same principles apply with this New Baghdad incident. The sworn statements are limited to the witness' field of view. TADS imagery is a limited field of view. Comms chatter is limited to what the participants can see. Official investigation reports are not only limited, but may also be biased - arse-coverers abound in all bureaucracies and always have - sad but true.

With all this stuff, you've gotta apply tests of truth and work with what you can verify and then hope your assumptions/extrapolations/conclusions are correct. It's important that people, both serving, former serving and never served look into incidents such as this one if only for the differing perspectives. Best to do it now while the memory is fresh so we can get the most complete picture we can. This incident WILL be in the history books. Some academic somewhere WILL be researching and writing about it and passing judgement on it in 100 years time. This is why even though I'm not actively researching current operations, I am gathering as much research material (from all sides and nations involved) as I can for my successors. Government archives are bureaucracies too... plus, the 30-year rule is a bitch.

Rant off. Now back to your scheduled programming :o

Schmedlap

04-07-2010, 01:32 PM

Actually, I think the vast majority of responses fall along the lines of "geez, this looks bad" but stop far short of making a clear judgment. Obviously a few weirdos showed up and started making judgments. Most haven't.

The title of the thread should tell you everything that you need to know.

I deliberately chose the word "appears" rather than "is" - this is in contrast to others who chose to characterize it "cold blooded murder (http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=1251)" or worse.

Uboat509

04-07-2010, 02:06 PM

Can that thought be stretched to "if you were not there, you have no right to comment"?

The logical extension would then be, only people who were involved, can write histories....

best
Chris

There is a difference between writing a history of what happened and trying someone in the press, which has become a favored pastime in this country. In any case, any historian who would write the history of this event based on what the video footage appears to show, is a poor historian indeed.

I have a real problem with people criticizing operators on the ground based on whatever scant evidence is available in the press. Far more often than not, they are very wrong and in any case personal bias lends far more to many people's opinions in cases like these than facts. Haditha is a pretty good example of just that. There were plenty of people who knew that the Marines were guilty, just knew it. It was obvious, based on all the media reports, that they were blood thirsty murdering psychopaths, except that they were not. How many of those Marines that we knew were guilty were actually found guilty in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion? As far as I know only one is still in custody awaiting trial for negligent homicide which is a much different thing than the brutal cold-blooded murder for which they were originally publically condemned. The conspiracy theorists like to complain that the reason that the military allows the embedding of media is so that they can control them. It's the same theory behind accusing the military of "suppressing the truth" because they don't often release footage like this. In fact, the military is not suppressing the truth they simply understand that many people lack the knowledge and experience to understand what they are even looking at. Context free footage like this begs for people to either jump to whatever conclusion fits their personal bias or to become vulnerable to influence by anyone with a credible sounding theory of what happened, regardless of whether or not that person is in any better a position to know and understand what really happened and why. On the board, there is a wealth of military knowledge and experience going back, in some cases to Korea, and still there is no agreement of what really happened there based on this video. What is John Q. "Never Served" Public supposed to make of it?

Uboat509

04-07-2010, 02:11 PM

We don't require our judges to have both a criminal record and have been a victim before we allow them to judge, right?

No but we do require them to be in full possession of the facts, or at least as close to that as possible. Judging someone's actions based on a context free video does not strike me as the pinnacle of justice.

Fuchs

04-07-2010, 02:27 PM

Many people have been sent to jail based on nothing but a video.

Again; do you accept that you should shut up about Wall St affairs because you never traded derivatives and voicing your opinion would thus be of "bad taste"?
Is that your understanding of the value of opinions in a democracy?

It may be very, very unpleasant to you, but the 39 minute video leaves very little (if any) room for good excuses. You don't need to reach 100% information if the first 30% are already very damning.

Again; judge and jury at court are not expected to have in-depth knowledge of the job of the defendant, or his history or how things usually turn out. No society on earth has ever had required such a high standard before it values opinion.

Any attempt to set the bar that high and to reject less well-informed opinions is futile. It's an insiders vs. the rest-of-the-world effort and destined to fail. Eventually, the insider's reservations are irrelevant if the insiders are a marginal minority - the Western world chose to prefer majorities over insiders long ago.

Firn

04-07-2010, 02:47 PM

@braun: Than this (http://www.feedbooks.com/book/4205) makes for an interesting read or that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9ZhLka6cM) for a good watch. There is good reason why I used often that "seemed" in my post.

I did a little sweep in the net and at least in many European newspapers and the NYT the reactions have been overwhelmingly negative, especially regarding the language of the pilots during this event. I doubt that the reaction is warmer in Southamerica or in the Arab countries, don't know about Asia. The limited context (the military tried to hide it, ...) in and the limited knowledge (innocents were killed and derided, ...)with which almost all watch this video seems almost to force the interpretation "giddy murder".

This one-sided view of the greater part of the public in many countries only confirms once again that it is very difficult to handle potential, likely and possible incidents which impact goals and lifes.

Firn

Seabee

04-07-2010, 03:03 PM

To take this waaaay of track... I have taken part in a few operations as a lowly other rank where only years later, with the help of google, have I had anything near a clear picture of what we did, the reasons behind it and the "bigger picture".

In one case at least it was objectively nothing like we thought it was when we were boots on the ground....

Polarbear1605

04-07-2010, 03:44 PM

For glaterze:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polarbear1605
I am a little surprised by the general comments on this one. I think most of you should go back and read the Rules of War (FM27-10) and then the ROEs. (You might also want to get jmm99 involved in this one.) If I am a civilian and pickup a weapon on the battle field I become a combatant and btw, if I drop the weapon, I do not become a non-combatant again. This group of Iraqi "civilians" engaged our troops with AK-47s and RPGs. They were then treated like insurgents. They were tracked down and they were killed. If they are not tracked down and killed, they will reture to kill you (or Iraqi civilians, usually the ones on our side) later. The war crime was not US soldiers killing civilians but the war crime was insurgents using civilians as shields.

Imagine this is in Afghanistan today and go tell McChrystal...

For Fuchs:
Fuchs, I am still not sure where you are going here. Let me ask this question: In your opinion, what would have made this legal and acceptable to the laws of war? If the answer is the attack helo team should have not fired at all then you are basically going with the General McCrystal policy path and here is the problem with the NATO Afghan solution; for the sake of preventing civilian deaths we have grounded our air force ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/opinion/18dadkhah.html ) and we are putting our soldiers and Marines at risk ( http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0310/Afghanistan-war-New-rules-of-engagement-don-t-pit-civilians-vs.-soldiers ).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/27/world/main6338832.shtml
Based on these policies you would expect that civilian casualties in Afghanistan would be going down, however, civilian Afghan casualties between 2008 and 2009 went up substantially, in fact, civilian deaths due to insurgent activity when up over 40%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(200 1%E2%80%93present)
The question then becomes if we are not hunting down and killing insurgents are we causing more civilian deaths then compared to civilian deaths committed out of military necessity?

Ken White

04-07-2010, 04:12 PM

It may be very, very unpleasant to you, but the 39 minute video leaves very little (if any) room for good excuses. You don't need to reach 100% information if the first 30% are already very damning.We can also disagree that one can, much less should, arrive at conviction based on only 30% of the information. Particularly in any war where confusion will generally be rampant.

I realize in the perfect world some seem to envision, there will be few errors by practically perfect people and even slight digressions will be prohibited while serious errors will be harshly punished. Wake me when we get there...

In fact, wake me before we get there so I can meet the judges; infallibility is always impressive. :rolleyes:

Gotta agree with UBoat 509. You and others are correct that anyone can have an opinion and that in many things we should all have opinions. Must have them, in fact. The key is to realize that they are just that, opinions -- and to start clamoring for criminal charges based on those opinions does lead to so-called trials by media. Those are seldom beneficial.

Though I will note, as an aside and a compliment, that Reuters, the media outlet most involved and who apparently saw elements of the video back during the initial investigation has been quite circumspect in its reporting on this.

You and others are also correct that:
The argument that only insiders are entitled to an opinion furthermore doesn't stand the most basic plausibility tests.I agree. However, that elides the fact that those opinions by others with no relevant experience may have varying credibility with that majority you cite elsewhere. All are entitled to opinions. All are also entitled to accord varying credibility to the opinions of others. That's why there are 'experts' -- and Judges -- and on the opposite end of the spectrum those whose opinions are acknowledged totally inconsequential by almost everyone.

Most opinions will fall between those poles; all opinions will be given varying credibility based on assessment by most receivers of the sender's general knowledge and experience, apparent truthfulness, apparent objectivity, and pertinent knowledge and experience. Receivers will also weight those attributes in accordance with their own experience, opinions and biases. :cool:

On this particular item, I submit the majority doesn't really care. All this was cussed and discussed in detail back in 2007 to include the glint on a camera lens being mistaken for a weapon's flash. It will attract the interest and enthusiasm of anti war and anti American types, it may generate a little heat and then it will disappear from view only to be resurrected (as it has been on this appearance) at a later date by those who have the aforementioned predilections -- probably to make an arcane point and it will likely miss its intended target as do most such transparent ploys.

That majority is not stupid...

Ken White

04-07-2010, 04:29 PM

Firn:
This one-sided view of the greater part of the public in many countries only confirms once again that it is very difficult to handle potential, likely and possible incidents which impact goals and lifes.Very true, though I suggest this is an excellent example of the 'trial by media' that UBoat 509 properly objected to...

It is the media take or acceptance of the Wikileaks message and it will influence some readers or viewers. I still contend the majority of people in the areas you mention will not really care.

Sebee
I have taken part in a few operations as a lowly other rank where only years later, with the help of google, have I had anything near a clear picture of what we did, the reasons behind it and the "bigger picture"I've had the same experience but I've also discovered that in some cases, the "bigger picture" as later reported was itself incorrect. I guess I'd say "Yep but be careful, some 'history' is flawed..." Generally to make a political or ideological point.

PolarBear1605:
The question then becomes if we are not hunting down and killing insurgents are we causing more civilian deaths then compared to civilian deaths committed out of military necessity?Yes, almost certainly. That allows me to use my favorite quote:

"War means fighting. The business of the soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country, and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts; but such a war will of necessity be of brief continuance, and so would be an economy of life and property in the end."

Thomas J. Jackson quoted by G. F. R. Henderson

Uboat509

04-07-2010, 04:43 PM

Many people have been sent to jail based on nothing but a video.

And I would be willing to bet that it was much more clear that a crime had been committed. There is a world of difference between a video that shows a civilian walking up and shooting someone and a video that shows part of the actions taken by the crew of a military aircraft during a fire fight.

Again; do you accept that you should shut up about Wall St affairs because you never traded derivatives and voicing your opinion would thus be of "bad taste"?

Since dirivatives are rarely life and death matters, I'm not sure that bad taste is the appropriate term but if you don't know anything about derivatives keeping your mouth closed around experts might save you some embarrassment.

Is that your understanding of the value of opinions in a democracy?

Ah, so now I am anti-democracy because I don't believe that you should attempt to speak authoritively about a subject that you have little to no direct knowledge or experience with. I get it. My mistake.

It may be very, very unpleasant to you, but the 39 minute video leaves very little (if any) room for good excuses. You don't need to reach 100% information if the first 30% are already very damning.

And it may be very unpleasant to you but why don't you try reading the results of the 15-6 investigation.

Again; judge and jury at court are not expected to have in-depth knowledge of the job of the defendant, or his history or how things usually turn out. No society on earth has ever had required such a high standard before it values opinion.

Any attempt to set the bar that high and to reject less well-informed opinions is futile. It's an insiders vs. the rest-of-the-world effort and destined to fail. Eventually, the insider's reservations are irrelevant if the insiders are a marginal minority - the Western world chose to prefer majorities over insiders long ago.

I never once said that a judge or jury should be required to have "in-depth knowledge of the job of the defendant, or his history or how things usually turn out." What I said was they should be making their judgements while in full possession of the pertinent facts. That is why we have trials, so that both sides are afforded the chance to present the pertinent facts to the jury. If it is pertinent to the case, you can be sure that witnesses with knowledge of the job or history etc. will be called at trial, so that the jury has that information in order to render judgement.

My comment about those who have and have not served in combat was not aimed at the legal system. It was aimed at the arm chair commandos who, despite having never personally experienced combat, are fully prepared to provide their expert opinion and criticize the actions of those who are or were in combat.

Greyhawk

04-07-2010, 05:09 PM

...I was with a different one in Baghdad in 2007. For perspective, David Finkel's book (I've read it - his "objectivity" is debatable, but the book is decidedly not "pro war") mentioned previously in this thread offers some detail on what was going on that day.

Sample quote for "flavor."

On July 12, Kauzlarich ate a Pop-Tart at 4:55 a.m., guzzled a can of Rip It Energy Fuel, belched loudly, and announced to his soldiers, "All right, boys. It's time to get some." On a day when in Washington, D.C., President Bush would be talking about "helping the Iraqis take back their neighborhoods from the extremists," Kauzlarich was about to do exactly that.
That's from the morning of the day of the now-infamous video. Obviously (to most here), he was with the ground troops, the Apaches with the overwatch mission that day were from elsewhere.

When his book (The Good Soldiers) was published last September the Washington Post (his paper) ran a story headlined Military's Killing of 2 Journalists in Iraq Detailed in New Book (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403262.html), a sales pitch that just couldn't draw buyers. The video itself clearly succeeds where that failed.

The detailed description of events in the book ("One minute and fifty-five seconds before the first burst... one minute and forty seconds before they fired their first burst... one second before the first burst...") indicates the author had seen the video (he dodges that issue). Having seen it now myself I can say it's just as I pictured it from reading his work (and the "benefit" of having seen more than enough examples of the genre in real or near real time, never on-scene but often enough with real explosions as background noise).

All that by way of introducing his more recent effort - an online Q&A session at the Post's site (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/04/06/DI2010040600750.html) done after the video became an internet sensation. It's probably the closest thing to an "uninvolved eyewitness" account anyone's likely ever to see on this event.

Finally, before anyone rushes out to get a copy of Good Soldiers, read this excerpt detailing another day at war for that unit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091102405.html). (I wonder how many people would want to view the video version of this, and how they'd respond.)

Steve the Planner

04-07-2010, 05:36 PM

Wow. Aside from the prurient war-porn aspects, and the frightening realization by many of us on this board that some circumstance could arise under which any one of us could have been that trigger puller, the fact remains that this admittedly extreme instance is within the Bell Curve of what happens in war--violence, night raids, collateral civilian damage.

But the mitigating circumstances that drive this unique example are not on the screens and sound tracks.

We have committed the US military to a series of complex internal political/civil/police engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan where the enemy was not always clear, the mission not adequately defined, planned and resourced, and with a military which, in most of the periods, was not trained, equipped or supported for this very complex political/social conflict environment.

I started out opposed to the war in Iraq, and remained so when, as a civilian adviser, I worked as part the the surge to end it. The Surge was a defined mission to get the military out (which it succeeded at), and not to defeat an enemy. Neither country could sustain a continuation.

The arm chair quarterback answer to that tape is that if we had gone into Iraq with adequate resources, intel, system and cultural understanding, and a greatly multiplied force, stability could have been gained more rapidly, and our exit would have been more likely earlier.

More important, if greater research, strategy and resources could have been brought more effectively for civilian control and administration, we would not, four years after occupation, be having Apaches and military ground patrols as our "last defense" for civilian stability.

Does anybody miss the point that soldiers on combat patrols create as much danger to a civilian population as, in some instances, the instability they seek to cure? What big military enemy necessitated that patrol on that day? Answer: The US military was the civilian administrator of last resort.

Look at Marjah. US military brought in to drive off the results of years of corrupt local police and government administrators. They are not there to fight the Taliban, but the political/governance problems that led to the Taliban. So 25,000 wise Marjans fled, and have yet to return.

Handing out $250,000 a week in CERP cash might give the appearance of economic life, but unless highly focused, the long-term result will probably follow the same pattern---war economy, war profiteers, instability.

As for the humanitarian component of CERP, it is a very inefficient, and often ineffective way to provide relief and stability. Again, the military is doing it because there is no other effective humanitarian mechanism.

As long as we continue to pursue these essentially civilian/political problems in these ways, and with these tools, we have the same results.

Afghanistan, in my opinion, poses no real obstacle to accomplishing realistic US objectives. The obstacles come from (1) a long track record of not doing things well, (2) the inability to conceptualize the problems and, then, apply the right solutions--before military engagement is the only option. The military can not fix the civilian/political problems as deployed, resources and supported.

Good soldiers, bad soldiers misses the point. In war this stuff will happen, and the more soldiers on military patrols, the more it will happen.

If, as Gen Casey says, we have another decade of these kinds of wars, we better start rethinking how to do them.

Rex Brynen

04-07-2010, 06:53 PM

The AR 15-6 investigation into this incident points out that:

The cameraman raises the camera to sight through the viewfinder and his action appears prompts (sic) one of the pilots to remark “He’s getting ready to fire.” Photos later recovered from the camera show a U.S. Army HMMWV sitting at an intersection, less than 100 meters away from the camera. The digital time/date stamp on the photo indicates that these photos were the ones taken as the cameraman peered from behind the wall. Due to the furtive nature of his movements, the cameraman gave every appearance of preparing to fire an RPG on U.S. Soldiers.

Danny is absolutely right to highlight this--it is the crux of any assessment of the initial decision to engage.

The helicopters had a TIC report. They had IDed weapons on the scene (in this, they were correct--although they also mistook cameras for weapons), and IDed an RPG at the scene (and again, although they misidentified the cameraman as having one, there was an RPG found on scene).

This is the photo that the cameraman was taking when the helicopter requested permission to fire:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/us_murder_reuters_humvee.jpg
(h/t, The Jawa Report (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php))

Given that at the time the helicopters believed this to be an RPG, it is hard to see why they wouldn't have engaged the target--because if it had been, that could have been one dead Humvee.

As I mentioned earlier, it is the later decision to enagage the van that was problematic (IMHO)--not the initial decision to shoot.

Steve the Planner

04-07-2010, 07:08 PM

In Spring 2008 in Bayji, north of Tikrit, the Salah ad Din governor's teenage son went on a sleepover with some of his frat buddies from school.

A noise was heard outside at night, so the boys grabbed the family AK and went outside---fired up and dead. Very sad.

Nobody was wrong. Everybody was right. But you mix military with civilians, and stuff is going to happen.

I was heartened by Bing West's recent NYT piece. Drop the COIN thing. Go in, clear, hold, turn over to Afghan military/police as rapidly as possible. Let Afghans build if they want to (later).

In the meantime, redirect all US aid around the central government to the places where we determine it will do good. Creating a new and better Afghanistan not part of the mission.

No mystery, no games, no nation-building. Less likelihood of soldiers doing civilian police patrols, and IEDed while doing public works projects. That's where this bad stuff can be trimmed back. WHAM-Bang (or Bing).

I was glad he got a chance to put fresh, independent eyes on Marjah.

Fuchs

04-07-2010, 08:25 PM

And it may be very unpleasant to you but why don't you try reading the results of the 15-6 investigation.

As a rule, I never trust voluntarily published internal investigation/evaluation reports and no internal reports in general that have a pleasant or neutral conclusion.

I've been on the writing side of such reports and have zero respect for such reports. I eventually got removed from such a project because I couldn't stand what I saw without raising my voice and superiors weren't able to stand what I uncovered and wrote.
The final reports had no meaningful familiarity with reality and I generalize this because I saw certain mechanics at work that seem to be quite universal. Internal reports are as unreliable as is the yellow press.

So no, I won't waste my time on a non-independent report.

By the way; taking a photo of a military truck is no capital crime. Do you want to tell all journalists that holding a camera in a war zone turns them into fair game? Do you want to tell millions of Iraqis (whom you're supposed to give security) that holding large dark objects turns them into fair game if somewhere has shot or photographed a soldier in a radius of one mile?

There was still a reason NOT to fire; the simple fact that there was no justification for firing.
And don't get me started on the later parts of the video, such as the obvious war crime of shooting at the de facto medevac by civilians.

I understand that this kind of crap is bound to happen when many thousands of soldiers patrol a foreign country for years. It certainly happened quite often, probably weekly or monthly on average.
The problem is that this is no excuse for those who did it. To excuse their behaviour would create excuses that would be applicable to cases where you don't want to excuse the behaviour.
The border between wrong or not wrong is drawn, and it says that you must not kill civilians if it's avoidable. In case of uncertainty - don't fire.

I know, uncertainty is part of life, but the last years should have taught the lesson that you aren't really successful the way that the job was done. That should be food for thought.

This isn't an isolated incident. There were many actions from foreigners (troops and PMCs) that added up and gave many Iraqis the impression that those forces aren't exactly forces of good. That was certainly not helpful for the overall mission - adding to the problem was thus unprofessional and in violation of the theatre commander's intent.
What would you think of a police department in your city that regularly kills civilians because policemen felt threatened by a firefight at the next block? I'm sure you'd stop to buy their slogan of "To protect and serve" pretty quickly and be outraged, demand a criminal prosecution of the homicides. You wouldn't be impressed by any "you've never been a policeman in a firefight, don't know how it is" responses, right?

The Iraq occupation wasn't enough of a war to justify a wartime attitude that tolerates the shown behaviour. The attrition rate was a joke in comparison to real wars. The U.S. had more KIA on certain single days of both WWI and WWI than during whole years of the Iraq occupation.

The ratio of civilians to insurgents was hundreds to one. The assumption in case of doubt should have been "suspect", not "insurgent who needs to die".

You can call me a German without combat experience.
I can call myself a man who has grown up with the acceptance of the idea that his nation's military force is not necessarily a force of good and not all military actions are justifiable, not all orders must be followed and military attacks on civilians are simply murder.
Maybe some people are missing some cultural background facets more badly than I'm missing combat experience.

Ken White

04-07-2010, 08:43 PM

Maybe not...

You're still entitled to your opinion regardless. :wry:

Dayuhan

04-08-2010, 03:24 AM

Do you want to tell all journalists that holding a camera in a war zone turns them into fair game?

Not exactly fair game, but every war zone journalist knows that when you walk into that zone you are at risk (and yes, I have been there and done that). You may be intentionally targeted by people who don't want journalists around. You may be accidentally targeted by an adrenaline-soaked combatant who expects to see an enemy and decides that you are what he expects to see (the degree to which expectation governs perception has to be experienced to be appreciated). You may simply be standing in the same space where a projectile happens to be passing. It's not a safe environment, and being a journalist is no protection at all. Maybe it should be in theory, but in reality it's not.

From the perspective of a civilian who's been around a little bit of it: anyone who thinks you can send young men into combat and get politically correct dialogue, accurate and dispassionate interpretation of observed circumstances, and calm, rational, effective decision making all the time is living in the land of fantasy. War is hell; that hasn't changed and I don't expect that it will. We may feel it necessary to punish those who remind us that war is hell and who fail to conform to the illusion of a precise, clean, surgical war in which every action can stand up to hindsight... but there's probably just a bit of hypocrisy in that need.

Seabee

04-08-2010, 01:23 PM

Maybe some people are missing some cultural background facets more badly than I'm missing combat experience.

I like to think I have a bit of both, but there is a thing that bothers me with most of the arguments here...

This was not ONE action, this was a series of actions. It may be fairer for the men involved to see it that way.

If you approach me swinging a stick and I think you are a danger to myself and family and I tazer you and handcuff you... then go into the kitchen and drink a beer... while looking for the bottle opener I find a pair of scissors and come out and cut of your pinkie fingers, give you a kick in the crotch then go back in for another beer...then go into my garage and get a bat and come out and break your ankles

When the cops come, they will buy it that the tazer and cuffs may have been legitimate self defense. over and above that they are probably going to view everything that happened after that as a seperate case.

if it turns out the guy swinging the stick was actually blind, and did not even know you where there... he was just trying to find his way... you can argue that

1) It was an honest and tragic mistake that led to a tazer, cuffs... then went totally pear shaped...

or

2) you did not have the time (or TAKE the time) to access the situation... acted rashly... and then went into overdrive....

Lets give the benifit of the doubt here....

The crew made a decision based on all possible information they had. What happened in the first part of the movie with the journalist was an honest and tragic mistake...

That takes us up to the Tazing and handcuffs....

And at that point they went into the kitchen to have a beer...

everything that happened afterwards... IM(as always)HO was a different story altogether....

glaterza

04-08-2010, 02:21 PM

[...]. You may be accidentally targeted by an adrenaline-soaked combatant who expects to see an enemy and decides that you are what he expects to see (the degree to which expectation governs perception has to be experienced to be appreciated). You may simply be standing in the same space where a projectile happens to be passing. It's not a safe environment, and being a journalist is no protection at all. Maybe it should be in theory, but in reality it's not.

From the perspective of a civilian who's been around a little bit of it: anyone who thinks you can send young men into combat and get politically correct dialogue, accurate and dispassionate interpretation of observed circumstances, and calm, rational, effective decision making all the time is living in the land of fantasy. War is hell; that hasn't changed and I don't expect that it will. We may feel it necessary to punish those who remind us that war is hell and who fail to conform to the illusion of a precise, clean, surgical war in which every action can stand up to hindsight... but there's probably just a bit of hypocrisy in that need.

Even if the two journalists had been enemy combatants with RPG´s, they were surrounded by unarmed people. And you can´t kill those. If you do, you are feasible to be charged according to the Laws of War. And that´s exactly what it´s happening. If there were "2 enemy combatants with RPGs, lawful or unlawful", the apache killed around 12 or 15 unarmed.

I understand your position, but, like it or not, we can all kick and cry all we want, but you won´t convince a court. the law is written in cold, clean letters. It´s the game we play now, we have to understand it prior of our deployments.

"War is hell" is a poor defense.

William F. Owen

04-08-2010, 02:44 PM

If you do, you are feasible to be charged according to the Laws of War. And that´s exactly what it´s happening. If there were "2 enemy combatants with RPGs, lawful or unlawful", the apache killed around 12 or 15 unarmed.

I understand your position, but, like it or not, we can all kick and cry all we want, but you won´t convince a court. the law is written in cold, clean letters.
Laws of War? What Laws? What Court? I am aware of National and Theatre ROE, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions. What "Laws of War" are you referring to.

Schmedlap

04-08-2010, 02:47 PM

Even if the two journalists had been enemy combatants with RPG´s, they were surrounded by unarmed people. And you can´t kill those.

Wrong. You can be both armed and a combatant (spotters, for example).

And that´s exactly what it´s happening. If there were "2 enemy combatants with RPGs, lawful or unlawful", the apache killed around 12 or 15 unarmed.

You don't have enough information to draw that conclusion.

I understand your position, but, like it or not, we can all kick and cry all we want, but you won´t convince a court. the law is written in cold, clean letters.

So what you're saying is, you have no idea what you're talking about.

braun

04-08-2010, 02:49 PM

I understand from reading AAR material on the Centcom site that an RPG launcher was located among the KIAs by the ground troops that responded.

There were at least two AK series weapons and an RPG launcher within the group as they were walking across the road. These are clearly visible in the 38 minute youtube footage if you watch it in full screen mode. The reporter's camera equipment is visible as well.

If you go to the Centcom FOI site there are still images from the same TADS imagery which clearly show these weapons. That makes a minimum of five (including the two stringers and their misidentified bazooka DSLRs) "armed" men out of the group of eight who were engaged by the initial bursts.

Where do you draw the line? Three men appeared to be unarmed but the rest of the group appeared to be armed. At that time, a US vehicle patrol was around 100m away from that location. From the helos it would have looked like a bunch of JAM organising an ambush.

There is quite a bit of speculation that the armed men might have been some sort of security detail for the Reuters employees, but why would local security have an RPG launcher?

There are also reports that the two stringers were in the area on an unrelated job and heard sounds of a contact nearby and went to investigate, which is why they were milling around with the group out in the open with their cameras slung.

Uboat509

04-08-2010, 02:53 PM

Even if the two journalists had been enemy combatants with RPG´s, they were surrounded by unarmed people. And you can´t kill those.

That's not true. Nothing out weighs the right to self defense. You can absolutely take what actions you reasonably believe are necessary to protect yourself or, as in this case, fellow US or coalition soldiers. If hiding amongst unarmed people was a viable defense then the human shield concept would be a lot more effective.

Polarbear1605

04-08-2010, 03:00 PM

Law vs Law! says Polarbear as he pulls out his soap box and takes a step up. Analogue’s using cops and judges and rules of law drive me nuts, because we (and especially general officers) seem to confuse them all the time. The opposition party (at least in the US and it can be either the donkeys or the elephants) does it on purpose to undermine the folks in power. Example: Congressman Murtha calling the Haditha Marines “cold blooded murders”; before the investigation is complete btw. This is WAR and war is governed by the Laws of War and not by the Rules of Law. The difference is monumental at least in my mind.
The Rule of Law “is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed law adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process”. For example, killing citizen is considered murder or manslaughter and the concepts of legal equality, presumption of innocence, Habeas Corpus, etc. are in play. The Rule of Law is also supported by a complete system of police, lawyers, prosecutors and judges. The US Rules of Law do not extend outside its borders. In addition, they do not exist in the county we are fighting in because the insurgents usually have killed the judges, police and other various government representatives.
The Laws of War defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral nations and individuals engaged in warfare, in relation to each other and to protected persons, usually meaning civilians, wounded and POWs. The principles of distinction, military necessity and proportionality are in play. For example: Under the laws of armed conflict killing civilians is to be avoided (not forbidden) but can occur because of the need of “military necessity”. I have a hard time listening to anyone you says the US military does not go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties.
Glaterza: Your correct, under the Rules of Law this is manslaughter, however, under the Laws of War it is civilians being killed out of military necessity(if they are truly civilians and not combatants; remember if your dressed as a civilian and you pick up a weapon your now a combatant). I bet this one pegs everyone’s moral meter way over to one side.

Cecil Turner

04-08-2010, 03:05 PM

The guys with the RPG and AKM are obviously combatants, as are the guys supporting them. The Apache guy mistook the camera for another RPG, which is both understandable and doesn't materially change the legal or moral aspect of the situation (though it added to their perceived urgency). They were in easy range of US troops with offensive weapons and demonstrating hostile intent. Firing them up was perfectly legit.

As to engaging the van, it's a bit less definitive, but I think still allowed. If it were in fact an ambulance (and properly marked), it'd be protected. But as it is, it's simply another couple combatants attempting to aid their comrade, and hence not protected. Fuchs went to the trouble of finding the treaty, but then failed to read the pertinent notes (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/1ed52e8de42bed21c12563cd0043335f!OpenDocument)sect ion, which includes in part: "An escape, or an attempt at escape, by a prisoner or any other person considered to be ' hors de combat, ' justifies the use of arms for the purpose of stopping him."

The ROE on pursuit also appears to me to allow the shot . . . and though I might not've taken it in a similar situation, it's clearly not a war crime.

stanleywinthrop

04-08-2010, 03:08 PM

Law vs Law! says Polarbear as he pulls out his soap box and takes a step up. Analogue’s using cops and judges and rules of law drive me nuts, because we (and especially general officers) seem to confuse them all the time. The opposition party (at least in the US and it can be either the donkeys or the elephants) does it on purpose to undermine the folks in power. Example: Congressman Murtha calling the Haditha Marines “cold blooded murders”; before the investigation is complete btw. This is WAR and war is governed by the Laws of War and not by the Rules of Law. The difference is monumental at least in my mind.
The Rule of Law “is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed law adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process”. For example, killing citizen is considered murder or manslaughter and the concepts of legal equality, presumption of innocence, Habeas Corpus, etc. are in play. The Rule of Law is also supported by a complete system of police, lawyers, prosecutors and judges. The US Rules of Law do not extend outside its borders. In addition, they do not exist in the county we are fighting in because the insurgents usually have killed the judges, police and other various government representatives.
The Laws of War defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral nations and individuals engaged in warfare, in relation to each other and to protected persons, usually meaning civilians, wounded and POWs. The principles of distinction, military necessity and proportionality are in play. For example: Under the laws of armed conflict killing civilians is to be avoided (not forbidden) but can occur because of the need of “military necessity”. I have a hard time listening to anyone you says the US military does not go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties.
Glaterza: Your correct, under the Rules of War this is manslaughter, however, under the Laws of War it is civilians being killed out of military necessity(if they are truly civilians and not combatants; remember if your dressed as a civilian and you pick up a weapon your now a combatant). I bet this one pegs everyone’s moral meter way over to one side.

Polarbear I agree with your sentiment. You are absolutly correct when you state that the U.S. military goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties. I have lived and breathed that effort personally.

However, your technical points about the law are somewhat incorrect. Various Congressional acts HAVE applied U.S. law outside U.S. territory. Specifically I am talking about 18 U.S.C. 7 "The Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States" and 18 U.S.C. 3261 the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Both of these acts HAVE been applied specifically to combat related events in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fuchs

04-08-2010, 03:16 PM

The definition of "combatant" is a completely different one than of "armed".

I agree with Seabee on the "taser" example.

@Wilf:
International treaties gain the power of law with ratification, so it's not inappropriate to call GC III and IV the laws of war.

@Uboat509:
American forces have stretched claims of "self defence " so far that I've become allergic to this excuse.
Think of Mach 2 fighter pilots bombing wedding festivities in response to AK muzzle flashes, claiming to have acted in "self defence".

There was no line of sight between ground forces and the suspected RPG at the time when the AH opened fire, so there was no self defence at all. Self defence ceases to be possible once the aggression is over.
Here wasn't even an aggression.

Polarbear1605

04-08-2010, 03:24 PM

Polarbear I agree with your sentiment. You are absolutly correct when you state that the U.S. military goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties. I have lived and breathed that effort personally.

However, your technical points about the law are somewhat incorrect. Various Congressional acts HAVE applied U.S. law outside U.S. territory. Specifically I am talking about 18 U.S.C. 7 "The Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States" and 18 U.S.C. 3261 the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Both of these acts HAVE been applied specifically to combat related events in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hi Staleywinthrop, Your correct in both cases (and I am sure your now waiting for this shoe to drop); BUT the Special Maritime thingy is for pirates; and MEJA does not apply to active duty military. Sorry but we are back to Laws of War and combat scenarios.

William F. Owen

04-08-2010, 03:30 PM

@Wilf:
International treaties gain the power of law with ratification, so it's not inappropriate to call GC III and IV the laws of war.

I disagree. There are simply no "Laws of War" in the way the term suggests, and especially in reference to the specific circumstances under discussion.

Cecil Turner

04-08-2010, 03:40 PM

There was no line of sight between ground forces and the suspected RPG at the time when the AH opened fire, so there was no self defence at all. Self defence ceases to be possible once the aggression is over.
Here wasn't even an aggression.

Nonsense. The recovered photo shows the US convoy in easy range of the RPG. The Apache crew thought the camera was an RPG, but the actual RPG could've looked around the corner and fired in a matter of seconds (which was probably the next step in their plan). You're suggesting they have to wait until the insurgents actually fire, which is ridiculous.

Fuchs

04-08-2010, 05:11 PM

You are wrong. I did in NO WAY suggest that they have to wait till one fired.
I wrote "Self defence ceases to be possible once the aggression is over.
Here wasn't even an aggression." Aiming a weapon is already an aggression in such a context. They would not need to wait for a shot.

The definition of self defence is not up for debate, though. You cannot assert that something was done in self-defence if no aggression was ongoing.

You cannot shoot your neighbour next door just because you suspect he's got a weapon. You gotta wait till he threatens you with it.

You cannot shoot your neighbour next door just because he threatened you with his gun a while back and then returned to his apartment. The time for self defence has passed in this case.

The inflationary use of the excuse "self defense" by U.S. forces has gone too far. This was no self defence, raiding compounds is no self defence, bombing weddings is no self defence.
The term is defined (differently in different countries, with afaik no definition matching your interpretation) and has a very narrow application. You cannot occupy it as an excuse for offensive action. (This applies even to foreign policy, where the term has experienced inflationary use as well.)

To provide excuses and to argue in favour of the pilots who obviously killed innocents and committed war crimes (there's no way to argue around that in regard to the medevac van scene!) fosters an environment in which additional soldiers will feel justified to commit war crimes.

stanleywinthrop

04-08-2010, 05:11 PM

Hi Staleywinthrop, Your correct in both cases (and I am sure your now waiting for this shoe to drop); BUT the Special Maritime thingy is for pirates; and MEJA does not apply to active duty military. Sorry but we are back to Laws of War and combat scenarios.

Polar Bear on your two points you are

1. Wrong.
2. Half Wrong.

As to your first point 18 USC 7 crimes ARE NOT limited to crimes committed by pirates. See United States v. Passaro, 577 F.3d 207.

As to your second point it is true that a single accused miltary member cannot be tried in Federal court for crimes committed on active duty while he is still subject to the UCMJ. However see 18 USC 3261(d)(2). Active duty military members CAN be charged under MEJA when it is alleged they commited crimes in concert with one or more persons not subject to the UCMJ.

My overall point, however, is that under these laws federal criminal law CAN be used to regulate the behavior of the armed forces while overseas in combat zones. There is simply a delayed effect. See United States v. Jose Nazario and United States v. Steven Green. Should it be that way? I would argue that it shouldn't.

As it stands now, there is no legal barrier preventing an overzealous AUSA from presenting this video to a grand jury sometime in the future after one or both of these pilots seperate from the service.

Polarbear1605

04-08-2010, 05:44 PM

and this question is for my own information: but I thought Title 18 excludes any war crime that can be charged under Title 10??? Understand there are a couple holes there but most military lawyers will tell ya don't move the UCMJ stuff under Title 18....Capt Roger Hill is an exception but he never went to court martial.

As it stands now, there is no legal barrier preventing an overzealous AUSA from presenting this video to a grand jury sometime in the future after one or both of these pilots seperate from the service.

Should it be that way? I would argue that it shouldn't.

I hear ya brother, I hear ya!

jmm99

04-08-2010, 05:51 PM

If you (a generic "you" aimed at no one particular) feel that this incident should be prosecuted - I would not prosecute as to any of it, including the van segment - then you prosecute under 18 USC 2441 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) (War Cirmes), which spells out its extraterritorial jurisdiction:

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). ... (the act goes on to define "war crimes" in part (c) with special emphasis on Common Article 3 in part (d) which should be read carefully).

This is treated as though it can be incorporated by reference into the UCMJ.

Regards

Mike

Danny

04-08-2010, 05:53 PM

We have a successful history of treating participants in the fight the same way regardless of whether they are carrying a weapon.

See:

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48166

To curb insurgents’ ability to communicate, Costa decided on a revolutionary move: He and his unit would dismantle the enemy’s communication lines by neutralizing the threat from signalers. Sparing no time, he set a tone in Ramadi that signalers would be dealt with no differently from their weapon-wielding insurgent comrades.

By successful, I obviously mean "it worked."

HPS

Cecil Turner

04-08-2010, 06:57 PM

You cannot shoot your neighbour next door just because you suspect he's got a weapon. You gotta wait till he threatens you with it.

Totally inapt. This isn't a backyard outing, it's a wartime engagement in which the convoy in question had already been fired upon. This group of insurgents had offensive weapons, were obviously part of the larger attack, and were pointing optics on the convoy. They were obviously combatants with hostile intent. The ROE in effect (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf) defined it as: "evidence of hostile intent is considered to exist when a foreign force or terrorist(s): is detected to maneuver into a weapon launch position; is preparing to fire, launch or release weapons . . ." There was no requirement to wait until they aimed, or whatever split-second point before firing you believe is when they "threaten."

And on the van thing, you're also wrong. It was not marked (red cross or crescent), and hence not an ambulance. The presumption of them being civilians is not plausible as they run into a fire zone to rescue combatants, and the law of war does not obligate shooters to allow combatants (even wounded ones) to escape.

Fuchs

04-08-2010, 07:37 PM

Totally inapt. This isn't a backyard outing, it's a wartime engagement in which the convoy in question had already been fired upon.

Thanks, that's what I waited for.

This is the core of the problem. Any attitude like "we are soldiers in a war zone, thus we are above the law and our lives are more worth than civilian lives, we can kill civilians for the smallest of reasons" is simply wrong.
It may have become institutional culture in some places, but that doesn't change the fact that it's just wrong. It merely casts a damning light on the institution.
Soldiers are not above the law, they cannot re-define terms, they are not allowed to shoot civilians trying to evac wounded.

In addition to that, you seem to purposefully ignore the Geneva Convention quoted earlier in this thread.

GC III was ratified by the U.S. and Iraq and forbids the attack on the van without doubt. It needs no red-white paint job at all.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(...)

You guys should really have a milieu change and get out of the "war and soldiers are special" group think. Murder is murder, crime is crime and the van scene was beyond doubt a war crime.
The only thing that's so special about war in this regard is that a murder has been turned into a war crime. Killing unarmed people who merely want to move a wounded man into a hospital with aimed fire is a crime, no matter war or peace.

The whole affair will simply add to the reputation, national security and foreign policy problems of the U.S..
Pro war crime excuses on an internationally accessible forum only add to the unappreciated effect. Every excuse of the attack on unarmed medevac effort by civilians simply tells the world: "This is what we do and we think it's right. Expect more."

This extreme unreadiness to correct own faults is a recurrent theme in U.S . policy and the GWOT. Take the Guantanamo example. First this extralegal extradition (much of it outright illegal, such as abduction of people in Europe) and then the unreadiness to correct it by accepting these abducted persons either in a domestic prison for criminals or in a POW camp.

Guess what? This kind of #### is the reason why you have so many troubles with foreigners in the first place (and it certainly sabotaged the military mission in both Iraq & AFG).

Polarbear1605

04-08-2010, 08:13 PM

To Cecil Turner: Hear, Hear Sir!
To Fuchs:
our lives are more worth than civilian lives

"Ours" meaning US Soldiers and Marines, YES! if the choice is America parents and wives welcoming their sons and daughters home at the airports after a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan and watching Iraqi parents and wives cry, I will always vote and work for seeing happy americans. Like I said before:

I have a hard time listening to anyone you says the US military does not go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties

stanleywinthrop

04-08-2010, 08:21 PM

If you (a generic "you" aimed at no one particular) feel that this incident should be prosecuted - I would not prosecute as to any of it, including the van segment - then you prosecute under 18 USC 2441 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) (War Cirmes), which spells out its extraterritorial jurisdiction:

This is treated as though it can be incorporated by reference into the UCMJ.

Regards

Mike

JMM brings up the other piece of the puzzle under which war crimes can be tried. As it stands an active duty member who commits a war crime can be tried under the UCMJ or in federal court under 2441. Additionally after he seperates from active duty, he can be tried under 3261.

The first portion of the engagement is not chargeable under 2441, however. See 18 USC 2441(3). It can be likely argued that the journalists and other unarmed persons were killed as a result of "collateral damage." However as 3261 contains no collateral damage exception, and anyone charged under it faces traditional non-combat definitions of murder, manslaughter etc.

For example Jose Nazario was accused of killing an insurgent who had surrendured or was in the act of surrendering. This is a classic war crime under the geneva conventions and therefore 2441. However he was charged under 3261 and faced manslaughter charges. This is likely because it is much easier to prosecute and prove manslaughter than war crimes. As long as they have a choice, most prosecutors will choose 3261.

Rex Brynen

04-08-2010, 08:21 PM

"Ours" meaning US Soldiers and Marines, YES! if the choice is America parents and wives welcoming their sons and daughters home at the airports after a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan and watching Iraqi parents and wives cry, I will always vote and work for seeing happy americans.

While I fundamentally disagree with Fuchs on what the helicopter footage shows, it is worth remembering that coalition forces are now in Iraq and Afghanistan with the permission of the local government, in part for the purpose of securing the local population. Any attitude which suggests that protecting host nation nationals is secondary to preserving the lives of coalition troops deployed there runs counter, in my view, to the very purpose of the mission.

Cecil Turner

04-08-2010, 08:22 PM

Thanks, that's what I waited for.

Soldiers are not above the law, they cannot re-define terms, they are not allowed to shoot civilians trying to evac wounded.

You seem to think there is some universal definition of self-defense that applies equally in a war zone during a firefight or in a civilian situation. There isn't. The insurgents were not civilians, and they weren't entitled to maneuver in peace until they got into a favorable firing position.

In addition to that, you seem to purposefully ignore the Geneva Convention quoted earlier in this thread.

GC III was ratified by the U.S. and Iraq and forbids the attack on the van without doubt. It needs no red-white paint job at all.

No, you ignored my response (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/member.php?u=4445).
Fuchs went to the trouble of finding the treaty, but then failed to read the pertinent notes section (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/1ed52e8de42bed21c12563cd0043335f!OpenDocument), which includes in part: "An escape, or an attempt at escape, by a prisoner or any other person considered to be ' hors de combat, ' justifies the use of arms for the purpose of stopping him."

Wargames Mark

04-08-2010, 09:20 PM

I don't think the video tells the whole story. I don't know what to make of it yet, because of precisely that. However, I am extremely leery of the agenda of the persons who leaked this video. I think that whoever leaked it should be slammed hard.

As Joe-Citizen-Taxpayer, I'm all for having aggressive Soldiers that have to reined in. I'll take those kinds of Soldiers over ones that have to be pushed forward any day of the week.

Do I want guys going around taking out zip-codes? No, of course not. I'm not a COINista, but I get the "accidental guerrilla" thing. I'm also a human being. I don't eat babies. Same goes for the Army. This was investigated previously. Could there have been problems with that investigation? Yes, there could have been, but we don't yet know that there were. Covering up a violation of the Law of War carries heavy price and conspiracies require multiple members. I tend not to expect them.

As an example of the difference between investigating versus speculating, after TWA Flight 800 went down over the Atlantic, I remember a press conference at which James Kalstrom of the FBI was speaking and he said something along the lines of "We're not the Federal Bureau of Speculation, we're the Federal Bureau of Investigation." I think he was being asked to guess by members of the press when he said that. It stuck in my head as a really good point. I think it can be applied to lots of other things, stories like this among them.

Similarly, there just isn't a complete enough picture of this situation available to make a reliable assessment of what happened and why it happened.

However, I know for damn sure that this video isn't supposed to be making the rounds on the Internet. THAT also needs to be investigated.

Ken White

04-08-2010, 11:33 PM

While I fundamentally disagree with Fuchs on what the helicopter footage shows...Not that. We're in total agreement on that aspect. :cool:

This:
...Any attitude which suggests that protecting host nation nationals is secondary to preserving the lives of coalition troops deployed there runs counter, in my view, to the very purpose of the mission.I strongly agree with that and would hope that in a combat situation I'd remember it always. I'm fortunate in being able to say that so far, I've done that. I was lucky and everyone cannot say that.

That's due to the fact that in similar circumstances but other places, I've several times seen Soldiers and Marines from several nations as well as the US, mostly good people who meant well, allow their fondness for their friends and allies as opposed to concern for real or potential antagonists to cause a certain loss of objectivity or rearrangement of priorities in favor of the former and with some disregard of mission parameters. Under some circumstances, even those who should be enforcing the mission goals and discipline in general have got caught up in the excitement... :wry:

People are pesky critters, they just won't behave as they're supposed to -- or as we wish... :o

Fuchs

04-08-2010, 11:46 PM

No, you ignored my response (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/member.php?u=4445).

I ignored it because it's irrelevant in this case. The wounded person to be recovered by the civilians with the van was not attempting anything but possibly breathing.

Furthermore, the recovering people (with the van) were fired at at the same time and they were protected persons according to GC III Article 3.
To recover a wounded person is not = "taking part in active hostilities".
Besides, they were unarmed and thus at the very least equal to combatants who laid down their weapons, another category of protected persons according to GC III Article 3, an international treaty with the force of law in Iraq and the U.S. which you insist to ignore.

Cecil Turner

04-09-2010, 12:35 AM

I ignored it because it's irrelevant in this case. The wounded person to be recovered by the civilians with the van was not attempting anything but possibly breathing.

How about "escaping"? And your persistence in assuming the people in the van are civilians is hardly convincing. The speed with which they arrived on the scene, despite generally deserted streets, and their actions in taking a combatant away from a firefight with US ground forces in close proximity strongly suggests they were fellow combatants. (And hence a legitimate target.)

If the goal was medical attention for the wounded, the best thing they could've done was stay put. But of course they'd have been captured.

patmc

04-09-2010, 12:38 AM

Just watched the video after reading the other posts and some of the linked sites.

From my viewing, I think there are legitimate questions about both the video and the events shown. WikiLeaks has a slant and an agenda and the material is presented as such. Cameras and journalists are identified, but rifles and RPG are not. The full back story of the TIC and AO are not presented fully. As pointed out elsewhere, the majority of civilians are inside, away from the action, likely because they knew something was going on. This area of Baghdad in 2007 was not a nice place and groups of civilians with weapons were usually not picking up garbage.

The two journalists unfortunately seemed to have embedded with insurgents. They don't appear to be wearing hunting vests or safety vests (or something more appropriate) to identify as non-combatants, they're in civilian attire with cameras. It is easy to point out they are just cameras after the fact, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were viewed as suspicious. I remember from reading "Thunder Run" that several journalists were mistakenly identified as spotters or scouts for the enemy during OIF I and were targeted in the Palestine Hotel (?). The unit was receiving fire and saw someone with a lens that looked like optics or a range finder and they engaged. In retrospect, it is easy to say they were journalists, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were engaged. Someone pointed out that spotters were treated as combatants in Ramadi and targeted as such. During my tour in OIF IV, we conducted convoy security and a indicator of enemy action was cameramen. Under our understanding of the ROE, it was conceivable a cameraman was a legitimate target under specific circumstances (ie: filming the site of an IED ambush at the moment of ambush). Thankfully, we never tested that one.

US forces see several armed men amongst a larger group of men, around the corner from a US patrol and assume they are hostile. Has anyone discovered if the armed men were not in fact insurgents? If they were not, they should have tried to reasonably identify themselves as not-hostile. If you walk around an active combat area with weapons, you are increasing your chances of being engaged. The group of men moved to the corner down from the US and started observing the Americans. The pilots thought they saw a RPG being aimed and they engaged. The photo found in the camera confirms how close they were to the US patrol. If it had in fact been a RPG and it killed American Soldiers, were the pilots overly cautious and negligent in their mission of overwatching? Not easy questions or answers. I think they acted in good faith in engaging the first target.

The van, I'm still not definite either way. If your unit engaged the enemy in a firefight and a van pulled up to take away bodies or wounded, would you engage? What if your unit fought a battle, then put some scouts or overwatch to kill the follow ons, would that van be legitimate? It was very easy to point out the children inside after the fact, but under the circumstances, it is understandable why they engaged. They requested permission and received it.

What should also be pointed out, once the infantry arrived on scene and realized there were wounded children, they ran them off for medical aid. They didn't put more rounds in them or leave them to die. If higher then diverted them to an Iraqi hospital, there may be other reasons not presented. The running over the body appeared to be an accident. The commentary from the aircrews, a little over the top, but I was expecting worse. Anyone who has been under fire has heard worse and it didn't mean anyone was callous or inhuman.

The Army withheld the video for obvious reasons, watched without context or background, it does appear overly aggressive, and as demonstrated, those with an agenda could highlight portions to their liking. Wikileaks asks others to leak secret information. My INFOSEC is rusty, but isn't requesting or encouraging the leaking of classified information a crime?

The video is not as bad as I expected, but again, it is unfortunate that journalists, children, and possibly innocent civilians may have been killed. The intent was not coldblooded, unprovoked murder. Operations in civilian areas are worse in every way, because of the unknowns and increased chance for incidents like this.

In early 2006, I was leading a convoy that received sniper fire in a village outside Balad. I spotted the sniper on a rooftop and my gunners aimed at him, but I saw people moving inside the building behind him, so I told my Soldiers to hold their fire. We moved on a few minutes later and received small arms fire in the village. My gunners returned controlled fire at their targets. It still bothers me whether I should have given the fire order to kill the sniper. He may have killed Americans the next day. I don't know. The pilots were in the same boat. If they just watched and a RPG destroyed a humvee, they'd have to live with that. War is terrible and it's easy to distort incidents based on one's politics or background. Wikileaks went one way, the Army the opposite, the reality was probably somewhere in between.

A few missions, we received air coverage from some Kiowas. They scouted the route ahead of us or covered us while we were halted. One time we received fire and they called me to say I was shot at. I thanked them for the update. I asked if they got the shooter, they said, no, he ran away. Now, had they spotted a group of men forming up and watching the route ahead of me, I think I would have been supportive of them engaging a target. I think our technology and communication allow a level of checks that are much better than other militaries, but it also allows instant action. A lot can happen in a split second and that is why leaders have to make the best decisions they can. The Army could use this video for Discussions or Professional Development, and let Soldiers decide what the right action would be. Like many incidents, I don't think this one is clear cut either way.

Entropy

04-09-2010, 01:19 AM

Fuchs,

Whether you are right or not ultimately boils down to a judgment call on what constitutes a combatant when combatants are visually indistinguishable from civilians. For this incident, such calls are not always cut-and-dry in the time allowed to make a decision. Your judgments have the benefit of hindsight, the benefit of not having any skin in the game, the benefit of time, the benefit of reviewing the video multiple times in multiple formats (as well as annotation by wikileaks) at your own leisure, the benefit of viewing the video on a large screen on a stable platform among other factors. The people who actually made the decisions had none of those benefits that you enjoyed. As Ken says, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you might want to consider those factors in your analysis before determining those involved are criminals beyond a any shadow of a doubt. Just a suggestion.

For the council, Iraq is not my theater of expertise and my memory is suspect, but I seem to remember that some of the armed insurgent groups used vans similar to what's shown in the video to transport/medevac fighters. Can anyone confirm/deny?

Schmedlap

04-09-2010, 02:54 AM

Anybody who thinks that they can judge whether this was justified by watching the video is too ignorant to even engage with.

The discussion that this video should prompt would ideally focus on the reaction of the DoD to its release, the manner in which it was investigated, and the procedures that were used on this day for granting authorization to engage and/or PID the target.

In order...

Has the DoD been nearly silent on this, or have they just been drowned out by other chatter?

Was the 15-6 on this just another finger drill or was it done seriously to gather as much information as possible and draw as clear of a picture as possible just in case something like this video leak were to occur? My Soldiers always interpreted 15-6 investigations as witch hunts. It took a long time to convince them that we do the investigations in case there are any future questions... like this situation we are seeing unfold now.

Was there any examination of the procedures by which the AWT got authorization to fire and/or was delegated that authority? If so, did any procedures change thereafter?

Steve the Planner

04-09-2010, 02:57 AM

Entropy:

In March 2008, I went on a drive from Tikrit down to Baghdad, in part, to look at VBED damage to bridges. Round holes, square holes, big holes, small holes. Easy to tell what did the damage---the vehicle carcass (or what was left of it) was usually close by. There was nothing that was not used.

Crossing so many AO's on that trip, the threat briefing alone took an hour---what vehicles/weapons/threats had been reported in each of some 20 locations. Nothing so serious/chilling as the 101st Chaplain giving the war prayer at the end of a meaty threat briefing. Damned scary stuff.

The problem, as many have pointed out, is the context, and not just of the event. Not that if a crime was committed, prosecution isn't warranted)

On a movement in an MRAP, sometimes the crew would be well-rested, happy, and joking all the way. Other times, the crew had been out on patrol all night, sometimes having been hit (or someone in their unit), and those were the folks popping caps at every intersection, buffaloing down the wrong side of the road (like that Tale of Two Convoys).

I have a button that says "Will Fight For Peace." Whether fighting for war, stability or peace, the stuff is dangerous, necessary (we hope) and, sometimes, just awful.

Pity the person who thinks they can say: Give us a clean war, make us proud.

War is brutal, scary, and violent. And bad stuff can happen.

Entropy

04-09-2010, 03:22 AM

Steve,

All well said and I don't think I can put it any better than Dayuan:

From the perspective of a civilian who's been around a little bit of it: anyone who thinks you can send young men into combat and get politically correct dialogue, accurate and dispassionate interpretation of observed circumstances, and calm, rational, effective decision making all the time is living in the land of fantasy. War is hell; that hasn't changed and I don't expect that it will. We may feel it necessary to punish those who remind us that war is hell and who fail to conform to the illusion of a precise, clean, surgical war in which every action can stand up to hindsight... but there's probably just a bit of hypocrisy in that need.

And just to be clear my "combat" experience, or lack thereof, consists of getting mortared on a fob, deploying to many "combat" zones without incident and riding on a helo that took a few (missed) potshots. In other words, my experience ain't much, but I've been around enough to know that second-guessing decisions made in combat usually isn't a good idea unless one has incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing.

Steve the Planner

04-09-2010, 03:40 AM

Entropy:

Last month, I was at a local school board meeting in Maryland. Afterwards, one of the former board members was chatting about the fun he has going out on a track to race his Audi. Turned out it was the same track I took "Crash and Bang" (anti-terrorist driving), which he had heard about.

He asked me about the most exciting driving I every did. I told him it was just as a passenger in a Blackhawk at night over Sadr City with the flares (countermeasures) popping. Hard to convey that kind of experience, but it stays in my mind with that video.

I would recommend that anyone who doesn't understand that video should watch Blackhawk Down, then try to put themselves in the pilot's headspace.

motorfirebox

04-09-2010, 09:10 AM

In addition to that, you seem to purposefully ignore the Geneva Convention quoted earlier in this thread.

GC III was ratified by the U.S. and Iraq and forbids the attack on the van without doubt. It needs no red-white paint job at all.
Hilariously, when you quoted GCIII, you actually bolded the part that invalidates this argument. GCIII, Art 3: "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character..." The action in Iraq is most definitely of an international character, so Article 3 does not apply. Therefore, we must look to GCI, Art 39-40, which clearly state that medical personnel must mark themselves as such in order to receive special protection under the Conventions. The van, nor the personnel, were not marked, ergo they had no special protection under the Conventions.

Fuchs

04-09-2010, 10:59 AM

@ Entropy:
You mentioned mostly extenuating circumstances that don't influence the question of "guilty or not?".

@motorfirebox:
Actually, it's a civil war with foreign participation. That's not an international conflict.

"They can involve third States or multinational forces fighting side by side with the government. The situations that come to mind include, for example, the Darfur region in Sudan, Colombia, Eastern DRC or today’s Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. The Geneva Conventions cover all of these situations. Indeed, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions deals with any armed conflict not of an international character. That is to say that any armed conflict that it is not an inter-State conflict falls within the scope of common Article 3 of the Conventions."
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/geneva-conventions-statement-120809

Point me at a single printed GC commentary or at a single neutral (non-U.S.) scholar on IL who agrees with you that article 3 of GC III and IV is not applicable in this case.

- - - - -

Medical personnel is obliged to mark itself as such in order to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. This does not rule out that civilians can spontaneously recover wounded and still be protected.

Cecil Turner

04-09-2010, 11:27 AM

Medical personnel is obliged to mark itself as such in order to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. This does not rule out that civilians can spontaneously recover wounded and still be protected.

Yes, but if fellow combatants recover their wounded, they are legitimate targets. That is precisely what the witness statements in the investigation (http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf) claimed here, and the most reasonable interpretation of what was going on.

The actions of the photo team may have been misinterpreted, but there is simply no innocent explanation for the two RPGs found on the scene.

Firn

04-09-2010, 11:41 AM

Entropy

04-09-2010, 12:46 PM

@ Entropy:
You mentioned mostly extenuating circumstances that don't influence the question of "guilty or not?".

Well, that is your opinion, but in general circumstance matter greatly whether you are talking about war or criminal acts.

motorfirebox

04-09-2010, 07:31 PM

@ Entropy:
You mentioned mostly extenuating circumstances that don't influence the question of "guilty or not?".

@motorfirebox:
Actually, it's a civil war with foreign participation. That's not an international conflict.
Foreign "participation"? Foreign instigation, foreign control and direction of the conflict. To characterize the fight in 2007 as an internal Iraqi matter augmented by foreign forces is ridiculous.

Medical personnel is obliged to mark itself as such in order to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. This does not rule out that civilians can spontaneously recover wounded and still be protected.
That's not what happened. The van's arrival and their attempt to aid the wounded were not at all spontaneous. That much is obvious from the video: just as the van drives up, two other men appear from an adjacent courtyard. Without even stopping to discuss it, the driver of the van gets out, opens the cargo door, and gets back into the driver's seat. Meanwhile, the two pedestrians immediately help the wounded guy to his feet and start moving him towards the van's cargo door. Their behavior doesn't indicate spontaneity, it indicates coordination and cooperation with the first group.

Fuchs

04-09-2010, 08:52 PM

To characterize the fight in 2007 as an internal Iraqi matter augmented by foreign forces is ridiculous.

Tell that to the State Department, because this "ridiculous" interpretation is the official and on the national level legally binding version.

jmm99

04-09-2010, 10:04 PM

Re: stanleywinthrop's post #83 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=96419&postcount=83), the Aug 2009 Depaul Rule of Law Journal, MEJA for Street Crimes, Not War Crimes (http://www.law.depaul.edu/students/organizations_journals/student_orgs/lawrol/0908-issue-pdf/drolj-0908-article-lee-meja.pdf), by Tara Lee ("Tara Lee is a partner in the Litigation group of DLA Piper LLP. She is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a former member of the U.S. Navy JAG Corps.").

The article makes the following point about the shift in DoJ use of MEJA to cover cases not within its original "gap-filling" purpose:

From 2000 to 2008, only twelve MEJA prosecutions were brought, and none of them were war crimes cases. In the first seven months of 2009, however, the pace of MEJA prosecutions has increased tenfold, in large part because prosecutors have forgotten MEJA’s purpose and therefore are misapplying the statute as a means to prosecute headline-grabbing war crimes. A few examples of recent MEJA-based prosecutions illustrate this trend. ...
....
In 2007, Jose Nazario, a former sergeant from Camp Pendleton's Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment was indicted via MEJA, like Green, after leaving the service. He was charged with killing two of the detainees his squad encountered in a home they searched during the 2004 Battle of Fallujah and with directing junior Marines to kill two others. Prosecutors had statements from the other soldiers involved admitting that none of the detainees posed a threat when shot. Nazario was acquitted however, and one of the San Diego jurors in the Nazario case told the media afterwards that he did not feel he “had any business” judging combat conduct.[15] Like Green’s trial, Nazario’s crimes could have been charged under the War Crimes Act Section (d)(1)(D), and similar to Green’s trial, the Nazario trial also drew significant media coverage.

15 Dan Slater, Will Legacy of Jose Luis Nazario Haunt Blackwater Prosecutors?, WALL ST. J.: LAW BLOG, Dec. 9, 2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/09/will-legacy-of-jose-luis-nazario-haunt-blackwaterprosecutors/. (JMM: link is now dead) ...

See also, short Wiki on Jose Luis Nazario, Jr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Luis_Nazario,_Jr.).

So, Nazario was acquitted via the jury's version of "combatant immunity". On its face (an incomplete record as media reported), Nazario was a much stronger case for the prosecution than the 2007 Apache case.

To make it very clear, I wouldn't prosecute under 2441 (War Crimes) or 3261 ("Street Crimes"), or under the UCMJ's articles governng various types of homicide. There is simply no murder case likely of success before a US jury (military or civilian). Whether what was done constituted "best practices COIN" is not for me to judge and second guess.

Regards

Mike

mendel

04-09-2010, 10:12 PM

That's not what happened. The van's arrival and their attempt to aid the wounded were not at all spontaneous. That much is obvious from the video: just as the van drives up, two other men appear from an adjacent courtyard. Without even stopping to discuss it, the driver of the van gets out, opens the cargo door, and gets back into the driver's seat. Meanwhile, the two pedestrians immediately help the wounded guy to his feet and start moving him towards the van's cargo door. Their behavior doesn't indicate spontaneity, it indicates coordination and cooperation with the first group.

Do you any evidence that your version of events is more than wishful thinking?

There were witnesses to this scene in buildings around the open space; one of them could have phoned for help; there might have been somebody else who saw this from a sidestreet who might have run to flag down a vehicle on a thoroughfare; it took 4 minutes (from the first attack) until the van arrived; as has been noted, the streets were empty.

That nobody stops to to discuss may be testament that they're in a hurry to get Saaed to a hospital, and that occurrences such as these have happened all too frequently in Baghdad.

The widow of the van driver has stated that her husband was on his way to drop the two children off at a "special school".

Sombody else held against them that they were moving on a street that was otherwise empty. Another reporter says that whenever a journalist gets out of his car, people come out and cluster around him because they want to tell their story. There's tragedy in that.

This isn't a WW1 type trench warfare no-man's-land; people live there. Not everybody who might be an enemy is one.

Polarbear1605

04-09-2010, 10:13 PM

One of the principles of the Laws of War is Military Necessity, as I said before, under the laws of armed conflict killing civilians is to be avoided (not forbidden) but can occur because of the need of “military necessity”. Here is an example that occurred not too long ago in Afghanistan.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/04/nato-airstrike-afghanistan-kills-90/
The other part of the law states that the “field commander determines “military necessity: Apparently this general officer did determine MN and here is his take on the incident:
http://www.military.com/news/article/german-general-says-truck-strike-justified.html

jmm99

04-09-2010, 10:53 PM

Hey, Great White Furry Critter What Gnaws at Generals' Ankles. Greetings and a half-a$$ed salute.

The Astan incident you mention was discussed in this SWC thread, Germans in Afghanistan (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5470), starting at post #20, Germany and the Haji Sakhi Dedby airstrike (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=82008&postcount=20) and continuing on to the next page with input from two Germans (Fuchs and Igel).

Although the 2009 German situation was much less direct than the 2007 Apache situation - no Coalition ground assets were in direct contact or subject to imminent attack; and the purpose was preemptive (so, neither tankers nor fuel could be used in future attacks on German FOBs or convoys), I had no bitch with GEN Schneiderhan's initial assessment re: no criminality. But, he resigned his command in Nov 2009 (2 mos post-incident); and so also the Defense Minister - Igel's post #37 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=87804&postcount=37).

Curiousity requires me to ask: Were any charges preferred in Germany (civilian or military courts) against anyone because of this incident ?

Regards

Mike

mendel

04-09-2010, 11:30 PM

Curiousity requires me to ask: Were any charges preferred in Germany (civilian or military courts) against anyone because of this incident ?

There's been a congressional inquiry (Untersuchungsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestages), and some politicians took their hats.

A "regular" DA started an inquiry, but the proceedings were soon escalated to the Attorney General (who in Germany is not a member of the executive, but rather part of the judiciary branch of government). The Attorney General (Generalbundesanwältin Monika Harms) spent some time gathering information before deciding in March to formally charge Oberst Klein und Oberfeldwebel Willhelm. The law being used is the German Völkerstrafgesetzbuch; §8-12 cover war crimes, and §11, paragraph 1, number 3 specifically prohibits military actions that would predictably result in a disproportionate number of civilian casualties.

Seabee

04-09-2010, 11:41 PM

jmm99

04-09-2010, 11:44 PM

thank you for the input - are the charging documents online ?

Also welcome to SWC. Some background information would be helpful and is completely voluntary.

Regards

Mike

motorfirebox

04-10-2010, 12:19 AM

Tell that to the State Department, because this "ridiculous" interpretation is the official and on the national level legally binding version.
At best, it's a civil war and an international conflict.

Do you any evidence that your version of events is more than wishful thinking?

There were witnesses to this scene in buildings around the open space; one of them could have phoned for help; there might have been somebody else who saw this from a sidestreet who might have run to flag down a vehicle on a thoroughfare; it took 4 minutes (from the first attack) until the van arrived; as has been noted, the streets were empty.

That nobody stops to to discuss may be testament that they're in a hurry to get Saaed to a hospital, and that occurrences such as these have happened all too frequently in Baghdad.

The widow of the van driver has stated that her husband was on his way to drop the two children off at a
"special school".
The evidence is right there in the video--it very much appears to be a coordinated, practiced effort by guys who knew what they were doing. In that circumstance, such coordination in relation to insurgent activity strongly suggests further insurgent activity--which enough for PID.

Cecil Turner

04-10-2010, 12:40 AM

There were witnesses to this scene in buildings around the open space; one of them could have phoned for help; there might have been somebody else who saw this from a sidestreet who might have run to flag down a vehicle on a thoroughfare; it took 4 minutes (from the first attack) until the van arrived; as has been noted, the streets were empty.

Do you any evidence that your version of events is more than wishful thinking?

Seriously, the problem with the innocent explanation is that two RPG-7s were discovered at the scene. The "bystanders" cooperate immediately with the van driver, who, when under fire, decides to turn the van around (away from US forces) and tries to escape. The soldiers on the scene thought they were all combatants. And their explanation make a lot more sense than a guy driving kids to a "special school" across a courtyard that he knows he can't go out from.

And while we're on the subject of criminal prosecutions, the standard under the UCMJ or title 18 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) requires intent, and that any reasonable mistake of fact by the defendant is assumed as correct. Hence a court would have to assume the Apache drivers did in fact see an RPG aimed at the US convoy, and were motivated by trying to protect said convoy and then to prevent the ambushers from escaping. I've sat on several courts (though admittedly all non-combat prosecutions), and my personal estimate of chances for conviction is that they're nil.

jmm99

04-10-2010, 01:40 AM

is briefly Wikied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkerstrafgesetzbuch); but in full - in German (http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/vstgb/gesamt.pdf) and English (http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/VoeStGB.pdf).

This is the law that confers universal (global) jurisdiction on German courts to prosecute any person (any nationality, any place) determined to be a "war criminal" by its prosecutors. The Wiki mentions a case pending against Don Rumsfeld (more fully discussed in the German Law Journal (http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol06No03/PDF_Vol_06_No_03_689-724_Developments_Fischer-Lescano.pdf), and in an ASIL Guest Editorial (http://www.asil.org/insight041213.cfm)).

Two critical provisions of the German Völkerstrafgesetzbuch deal with attacks on civilians:

§ 11 Kriegsverbrechen des Einsatzes verbotener Methoden der Kriegsführung

(1) Wer im Zusammenhang mit einem internationalen oder nichtinternationalen bewaffneten Konflikt ...

1. mit militärischen Mitteln einen Angriff gegen die Zivilbevölkerung als solche oder gegen einzelne Zivilpersonen richtet, die an den Feindseligkeiten nicht unmittelbar teilnehmen,
....
3. mit militärischen Mitteln einen Angriff durchführt und dabei als sicher erwartet, dass der Angriff die Tötung oder Verletzung von Zivilpersonen oder die Beschädigung ziviler Objekte in einem Ausmaß verursachen wird, das außer Verhältnis zu dem insgesamt erwarteten konkreten und unmittelbaren militärischen Vorteil steht, ....

and (in English):

Section 11 War crimes consisting in the use of prohibited methods of warfare

(1) Whoever in connection with an international armed conflict or with an armed conflict not of an international character

1. directs an attack by military means against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities,
....
3. carries out an attack by military means and definitely anticipates that the attack will cause death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects on a scale out of proportion to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated,

These provisions are very influenced by Additional Protocols I and II, and by the "direct participation in hostilities" requirement of the current ICRC (see here, International humanitarian law (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/ihl?OpenDocument) and Clarifying the notion of direct participation in hostilities (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/direct-participation-ihl-feature-020609)).

The Germans are not shy about prosecuting not only their own soldiers under these provisions; but also are not shy about prosecuting those from other countries (including the US) as war criminals - even though their acts or omissions would not be prosecuted under their own laws. E.g., the US has not ratified AP I & II; certainly has not accepted the ICRC's "direct participation" standard; and has a different take on Common Article 3 and what is prohibited and allowed under it.

Do not think that, via this explanation of the Euro construct, I am endorsing it and its views on "international humanitarian law". I'm not (but "know thy enemy" ;)).

Regards

Mike

William F. Owen

04-10-2010, 06:29 AM

I've not bothered to comment on this, because my observations would be largely worthless, given how emotional people get about this stuff.

... but all this falls a murder mile from anything that could be constituted as a war crime. As concerns bad things happening in war, this is really small fry. Breach of ROE? Maybe? So what?

If one of the dead wasn't a journalist, this wouldn't even get aired.

Wikileaks "leaked it" to make money. They're media. They have to make money, and entertain. That's what media does. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Democracy creates a free media. Free media does not create democracy.

Schmedlap

04-10-2010, 10:22 AM

I've not bothered to comment on this, because my observations would be largely worthless, given how emotional people get about this stuff.

We don't need no stinkin' logic.:p

Polarbear1605

04-10-2010, 12:48 PM

I posted the “German” example for a couple reasons. First, the morality issue screams at you as in all civilian deaths. As we all know, the morality of war and its associated acts has been debated since “before Christ was corporal”. (Of course that is a Marine Corporal; Marine records show that he entered boot camp in 18 AD, his parental consent form was also signed in 17 AD.) The fuel truck is seen as a threat by the military commander; and the tragic part is civilians see it as a windfall of free heat. The commander has to make a call based on the situational risks and the ticking clock. The Laws of War, in my opinion, provide for this situation under the rules of military necessity. The War Laws provide protections for civilians and the warriors that must prosecute that war. The Laws of War are not meant to be and cannot be precise. They present principles (“general guidelines” in my opinion) that are meant to be used with our best and subjective judgments, hence, the "field commander" rule. The German Col’s intent (IMO) is not to kill civilians but to protect his soldiers and do what he can to win the war. The Laws of War are based on the notion that wars need to be rigorously pursued in order to end them quickly minimizing destruction and death. The reason I like the Lieber Code is that it states that clearly and strongly. I also think the beauty of the Lieber Code is in what it accomplishes concerning war in just over 9000 words.
Another reason I use this example isbecause the inspector “General” applies the Laws of War when he states the air strike was justified. He stays out of the politics and sticks to his expertise (he is after all, a general). He is, in effect, reinforcing the protections of his soldiers. US generals tend to cross that line on a regular basis…hence the charge of “political correctness” by throwing the soldiers into the political arena where they have far less protection.
I did not realize that the political fallout of the German example was still on-going and thanks for that information…I will follow that more closely. I still think the US military leadership can learn from the German General’s example. There is a certain amount of courage there that I have to admire.
The last reason I posted this example is I wanted to get away from the “you Americans” issue.

Cecil Turner

04-10-2010, 03:03 PM

... but all this falls a murder mile from anything that could be constituted as a war crime. As concerns bad things happening in war, this is really small fry. Breach of ROE? Maybe? So what?

That's my view in a nutshell. As a retired attack aviator (Marine) and FAC in GWI, I've seen worse mistakes by well-meaning idiots (a couple far worse) and feel the major lasting issue here is the propaganda value of the film. The practical limitations of attack aviation is glaringly exposed, including their great field of view but poor ability to discern fine detail, and inability to influence the battle by anything other than shooting. I'm going to recap my view of this and quit, and apologize in advance for the length.

The convoy of US troops was ~100m away at the time, and had been fired at several times. One of the witness statements (http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf)identifies the victims of the airstrike (unconvincingly) as what "Hotel 2-6" called "the ones taking pop shots at his PLT all day." Though unlikely to be the same guys, they are equally unlikely to be unrelated bystanders just happening on the running firefight with cameras and RPGs.

There are two RPG-7s and an AK rifle at the scene, but the Iraqis do not appear to be efficiently maneuvering to employ them. The first photo in the tribute to Eldeen (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/remembering-namir-noor-eldeen/)shows a propaganda shot with an RPG, and I suspect the mission was to produce something similar. The RPG team appears to be in support of the cameraman rather than the other way 'round. But this is still a combat mission.

The Apache pilots see weapons and cameras and mistake them all for weapons. They mistake the camera at the corner of the building as an RPG assuming a firing position. Their mistake has no practical effect except instilling a sense of urgency that doesn't actually exist. The subsequent engagement is perfectly righteous.

The van removing the wounded man appears more interested in transporting him than providing medical care. Assuming they're combatants, pursuit/preventing that escape is a legitimate military mission, and the van is a legitimate target. From the Apache driver's view, assuming they just interrupted an RPG attack in progress, it's a judgment call. If they'd known the photog was the target and there were kids inside, it's clearly not warranted.

As far as war crimes issues go, the GCs are incorporated in the ROE, and the soldiers are responsible for a working knowledge of the former but following the latter. That defines things like "self defense/ troops-in-contact," not some nebulous international law consensus. Similarly, German law has no practical application. As far as I can tell, the aircrew are scrupulously adherent to the ROE except for the final Hellfire attack, where there is a bystander walking by who clearly appears to be uninvolved (which terminates the authorization to use deadly force under the "Pursuit of Hostile Forces" section, as I read the ROE (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf)). That's pretty small potatoes, and the investigation covers it all pretty well.

Massengale

04-10-2010, 04:10 PM

as a practical matter, considerably "worse" engagements have been deemed to follow the relevant ROE. this one is of primarily of pedantic interest except for the hyped video.

motorfirebox: I think you make good points as to the action itself. But as a matter of law this is not a conflict "of an international character" and has not been since the dissolution of the Iraqi Army in 2003. We don't take POWs anymore and we didn't in 2007 either...and that's why. I understand what you're saying, but it's a legal term of art and not the plain meaning in English. hope that makes sense.

stanleywinthrop

04-10-2010, 06:26 PM

Re: stanleywinthrop's post #83 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=96419&postcount=83), the Aug 2009 Depaul Rule of Law Journal, MEJA for Street Crimes, Not War Crimes (http://www.law.depaul.edu/students/organizations_journals/student_orgs/lawrol/0908-issue-pdf/drolj-0908-article-lee-meja.pdf), by Tara Lee ("Tara Lee is a partner in the Litigation group of DLA Piper LLP. She is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a former member of the U.S. Navy JAG Corps.").

The article makes the following point about the shift in DoJ use of MEJA to cover cases not within its original "gap-filling" purpose:

See also, short Wiki on Jose Luis Nazario, Jr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Luis_Nazario,_Jr.).

So, Nazario was acquitted via the jury's version of "combatant immunity". On its face (an incomplete record as media reported), Nazario was a much stronger case for the prosecution than the 2007 Apache case.

To make it very clear, I wouldn't prosecute under 2441 (War Crimes) or 3261 ("Street Crimes"), or under the UCMJ's articles governng various types of homicide. There is simply no murder case likely of success before a US jury (military or civilian). Whether what was done constituted "best practices COIN" is not for me to judge and second guess.

Regards

Mike

Mike, I agree 100% that these apache bubbas should be tried under any scheme. My first post in this thread was my gut reaction 15 minutes after seeing the shortened version of the video. Upon further reflection I agree they shouldn't be prosecuted.

However, the point of Tara Lee's article is that as it stands MEJA can be used for war crimes or street crimes. Lee's main argument is that USAs shouldn't attempt to prosecute war crimes under MEJA. I agree with that 100% as well. However, Congress has yet to heed Lee's plea and as it stands now war crimes can still be prosecuted under MEJA.

The real problem with the Nazario case was a lack of evidence. The Defense was able to speculate all day about military necessity etc. with basically no contradiction from the prosecution who presented no substantial evidence. I hope his acquittal serves as a deterrent to future zealous AUSAs.

jmm99

04-10-2010, 09:16 PM

In this:

from sw
Mike, I agree 100% that these apache bubbas should be tried under any scheme

you did mean "should not be tried", did you not ?

Agree that trial under MEJA is allowed (even if not best practice); just as incorporation of war crimes offenses into the UCMJ is allowed - but not best practice - see MAJ Martin N. White, Charging War Crimes: A Primer for the Practitioner (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/war_crime_charging.pdf) (FEBRUARY 2006, THE ARMY LAWYER, DA PAM 27-50-393):

Introduction

This primer provides the practitioner with a framework for determining the proper method for charging an American service member accused of committing war crimes. Compared to charging traditional offenses, charging war crimes offers more options and potential pitfalls to the trial counsel drafting the charge sheet. Using a hypothetical situation involving a Soldier who commits several acts of misconduct while deployed, this primer outlines the advantages and disadvantages of charging war crimes as an enumerated offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)[1] — as conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces under clause 1 of Article 134,[2] as a service discrediting act under clause 2 of Article 134,[3] or as a violation of a federal law by assimilation under Article 134, UCMJ.[4]

This primer discusses why, in drafting a charge sheet, the prosecutor should begin with offenses enumerated in the UCMJ. As discussed below, the enumerated offenses can be properly applied to a broad spectrum of misconduct, including offenses considered war crimes. Due to the nature of the misconduct, however, a prosecutor should also consider the possibility of charging the service member with violation of war crimes [5] by assimilating federal law in addition to the enumerated offenses. This primer outlines various offenses that the prosecutor could potentially charge as war crimes. It concludes that only in the rarest of circumstances should a prosecutor charge a war crime by assimilating federal laws governing the prosecution of violations of the laws of war.

1 See MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES pt. IV, ¶¶ 1 - 113 (2005) [hereinafter MCM].

2 UCMJ art. 134 (2005).

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 There are several definitions of “war crimes.” See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF ARMY, FIELD MANUAL 27-10, THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE para. 499 (July 1956) (“The term ‘war crime’ is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.”) [hereinafter FM 27-10]. In addition, the Department of Defense Law of War Program defines law of war as the following:

[t]hat part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. It is often called the law of armed conflict. The law of war encompasses all international law for the conduct of hostilities binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party, and applicable customary international law.

U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, DIR. 5100.77, DOD LAW OF WAR PROGRAM para. 3.1 (9 Dec. 1998). For purposes of this primer, a “war crime” is considered to be a criminal act committed during international armed conflict against an individual who is protected from such acts by codified and/or traditional laws of war.

And, as correctly noted, an over-zealous prosecutor will not be stopped by a caveat that an available avenue is less than "best practice". :(

Regards

Mike

motorfirebox

04-11-2010, 10:57 AM

motorfirebox: I think you make good points as to the action itself. But as a matter of law this is not a conflict "of an international character" and has not been since the dissolution of the Iraqi Army in 2003. We don't take POWs anymore and we didn't in 2007 either...and that's why. I understand what you're saying, but it's a legal term of art and not the plain meaning in English. hope that makes sense.
If that's the legal reality, then the legal reality--on top of being straight up clown shoes--seem more likely to create more strife than it actually resolves.

The problem with Fuchs's interpretation is that is leaves zero room between the lawful killing of armed combatants and simple murder. I find it hard to believe that the GC is to be interpreted such that any misidentification is a war crime. No matter if this conflict falls under GCIII's "convention in miniature" or the more general purview of GCI, this particular engagement falls under Protocol I Additional to the GC, 1977 (specifically, Article 57). All evidence available at the time strongly indicated that both sets of targets were viable.

jmm99

04-11-2010, 11:14 AM

Re: this

from motorfirebox
No matter if this conflict falls under GCIII's "convention in miniature" or the more general purview of GCI, this particular engagement falls under Protocol I Additional to the GC, 1977 (specifically, Article 57).

Neither the US nor Iraq has ratified 1977 AP I. How then do you make it applicable to this engagement ?

Regards

Mike

Massengale

04-11-2010, 01:16 PM

If that's the legal reality, then the legal reality--on top of being straight up clown shoes--seem more likely to create more strife than it actually resolves.

Not at all. "conflict of an international character" means a conflict overtly between states. insurrections can be dealt with in a more robust and kinetic fashion than simple police actions....and, in fact, arguably with more latitude than straight up international war.

Wargames Mark

04-11-2010, 03:02 PM

Re: this

Neither the US nor Iraq has ratified 1977 AP I. How then do you make it applicable to this engagement ?

Regards

Mike

I share your disagreement with the notion of the U.S. being subject to a treaty which the U.S. government has not signed and ratified.

I have noticed a large number of people believing that the notion of "customary law" should make the U.S. subject to API and APII.

I dispute the entire notion of "customary law."

motorfirebox

04-11-2010, 05:40 PM

Re: this

Neither the US nor Iraq has ratified 1977 AP I. How then do you make it applicable to this engagement ?

Regards

Mike
*Headdesk* Too focused on remembering where the actual wording was, forgot to verify the list of ratifiers. I'm really batting a thousand on the GC.

The point remains: there is a difference between unlawfully targeting those protected by whatever laws are applicable, and making a bad judgment call that results in the death of those protected.

jmm99

04-11-2010, 06:34 PM

from motorfirebox
*Headdesk* Too focused on remembering where the actual wording was, forgot to verify the list of ratifiers. I'm really batting a thousand on the GC.

The point remains: there is a difference between unlawfully targeting those protected by whatever laws are applicable, and making a bad judgment call that results in the death of those protected.

It's very easy (too easy) to have incidents of cranial gas passage when considering "international humanitarian law" in general and the GCs (+APs) in particular. ;)

Moving away from that to your salient point (para 2 quoted above). The video and transcript proved to me that the Apache people's perception (consistent throughout) was that they were engaging a hostile armed force (groiund unit had been in contact; and not everyone in an armed force has to be carrying a weapon openly). Their perception was correct (weapons were found), although they mistook the cameras for weapons ("bad judgment call" or simply "war fog"). Criminal intent is clearly lacking (as opposed to intent to kill hostiles, which is clearly present - it's supposed to be).

Another key factor was the investigation report, which found no wrongdoing. As a worst case scenario, I envisioned that report being ashcanned and a flag officer pushing for a prosecution (which has happened). But then, issues of undue command influence aside, I envisioned "MAJ Investigator" being called by the defense. What a wetdream scenario for defense counsel - a built in reasonable doubt.

-------------------
Hey WM: "I dispute the entire notion of "customary law." As it is often presented, I too. But full discussion of that would move us far off the mark. What is important is this:

I have noticed a large number of people believing that the notion of "customary law" should make the U.S. subject to API and APII.

That number includes some JAs, as well as operational soldiers who have been wrongly indoctrinated. Your post and its long quote, here in another thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=96602&postcount=26), sets out the correct picture under US law. Good material.

I think your link was clobbered by a filter. Could you post the author, name, publication and year of the article, so it can be Googled to get its url.

Regards

Mike

mendel

04-12-2010, 08:15 AM

The practical limitations of attack aviation is glaringly exposed, including their great field of view but poor ability to discern fine detail, and inability to influence the battle by anything other than shooting.

I don't think it's the fine detail that's the issue here. Apart from the points in your summary, I see a psychological issue.

After a few days thought about this, I was reminded of Judge Dredd (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0012709/bio), an old Science Fiction "street cop empowered to act as judge, jury, and executioner". I see the four Apache crew in exactly that role. (Unlike the kind of operations that Anthony Martinez (http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/) described, where somebody on the ground reviews the video feeds and decides on the use of deadly force (but the crews would still play a large part in the decision-making process), it seemed to me that in this case, the Apache crews were on their own, with "Bushmaster" merely clearing them to fire in the sense of "we're out of the way".)

I've read the Apache crew's witness statements which the DoD has released. It confirms the impression that the video has left me with: that they've consistently overestimated the actual threat; their witness statements speak of 15 people on the street when there were 8, and 5-6 people in the van episode when there were clearly 3. Since I expect people who are allowed to handle helicopters to be able to count, I get the distinct impression that on that day, they were not in the frame of mind that I would wish somebody who acts as in the abovementioned triple role to be in when assessing matters of life and death. (Maybe battle fatigue?) A system that put these people on that day in this role seems broken to me. Has it been fixed?

I've read numerous forum posts on this issue that thank the Apache crews for "saving their bacon"; imagine the number of Iraqis that blame them for killing their sons, husbands or fathers, and it's clear that this is a sensitive issue if we've got a conscience. The question is not, "can these people be legally convicted for this", but rather "do we want things to keep on happening this way"? What has been done to change this, and what still needs to be done?

Cecil Turner

04-12-2010, 10:46 AM

I don't think it's the fine detail that's the issue here. Apart from the points in your summary, I see a psychological issue.

In my opinion, using a SciFi flick adapted from a comic book as a cultural reference really doesn't add. And I think logical arguments are more impressive than armchair psychoanalysis.

It confirms the impression that the video has left me with: that they've consistently overestimated the actual threat; their witness statements speak of 15 people on the street when there were 8, and 5-6 people in the van episode when there were clearly 3.

I've not read the apache witness statements and would appreciate a link. But there are at least 17 people in the opening scene on the video, and 9 on the corner. And there are two RPGs, but they only see the big bulky one (that happens to be a video camera). I think that reinforces my view that their analysis suffered from missing fine detail, not overestimation. But they also are barely making out weapons (e.g., missing the AK and RPG at first, then mistaking them for two AKs), and so are logically assuming the others are similarly equipped and so there are others there they can't see. (Which is indistinguishable from overestimation as a practical matter.)

I've read numerous forum posts on this issue that thank the Apache crews for "saving their bacon"; imagine the number of Iraqis that blame them for killing their sons, husbands or fathers, and it's clear that this is a sensitive issue if we've got a conscience.

You persist in viewing these guys as noncombatants and I just can't feature it. They brought along the RPGs for a reason, and I can't think of a more logical explanation than they were setting up a photo shoot of the shot, and still fairly casual and getting ready to drop the empty tubes and run like hell after they took it. If that were a US mission, with combat camera support and drivers, they'd all be wearing uniforms and we wouldn't be pretending it was a war crime if they were engaged by the enemy.

I'm not sure about the van (and the kids are inexplicable), but it seems to me the "saving their bacon" view is at least as valid as the "innocent bystanders with RPGs" one. The ground witnesses consistently claimed only the two kids were noncombatants, and I think they're right.

William F. Owen

04-12-2010, 12:54 PM

I've read the Apache crew's witness statements which the DoD has released. It confirms the impression that the video has left me with: that they've consistently overestimated the actual threat; their witness statements speak of 15 people on the street when there were 8, and 5-6 people in the van episode when there were clearly 3. Since I expect people who are allowed to handle helicopters to be able to count,
Memory is actually quite a dynamic thing. It's not a recording. Memories of stressful situations are especially imprecise

The question is not, "can these people be legally convicted for this", but rather "do we want things to keep on happening this way"? What has been done to change this, and what still needs to be done?
War is chaos. You cannot engineer this stuff from not happening, in a dynamic, lethal and adversarial environment. ROE is the best you can do.

... and in 2007 961 US personnel died in Iraq. in 2009 it was 150. This year it's 20. Things are better for now

motorfirebox

04-12-2010, 02:16 PM

I've read the Apache crew's witness statements which the DoD has released. It confirms the impression that the video has left me with: that they've consistently overestimated the actual threat; their witness statements speak of 15 people on the street when there were 8, and 5-6 people in the van episode when there were clearly 3. Since I expect people who are allowed to handle helicopters to be able to count, I get the distinct impression that on that day, they were not in the frame of mind that I would wish somebody who acts as in the abovementioned triple role to be in when assessing matters of life and death. (Maybe battle fatigue?) A system that put these people on that day in this role seems broken to me. Has it been fixed?
What would have been different about the Apache crew's response if their estimates had been more accurate?

Uboat509

04-12-2010, 03:08 PM

This is what I was talking about with regards to people who have not experienced combat judging the actions of others during combat. I have not commented on whether or not I believe that the crew acted properly or not, and I won't. That was settled by the 15-6. You don't have to like it but that is the way it is.
I will say this, however, it is very easy to second guess the actions of the crew when you have to the benefit of hind-sight and plenty of time in a stress free environment with which to make those judgments. At any given time, the aircrew must be aware of where other aircraft are, where friendly forces are, where the enemy is or is reported to be and what each of those entities is doing now and what they will likely be doing next and they have to do all this from a moving aircraft. They often must make snap judgments based on whatever information they have on hand because the enemy has an annoying habit of not waiting for them. On top of all that they have the additional stress of knowing that if they fail and don't see or don't engage an enemy then the consequences could be a dead or severely wounded US or coalition soldier.

Fuchs

04-12-2010, 04:04 PM

A policeman also needs to do snap judgments sometimes and may be tired.
Nevertheless, we expect him not to kill without a reason that withstands a judge's curiosity - or else he faces and deserves serious problems.

Extenuating circumstances aren't the same as "not guilty".
Also keep in mind that these men were highly trained and not mere enlisted personnel or even conscripts. You should be able to have high expectations of their judgmental abilities or else you shouldn't entrust them a multi-million dollar machine of war for a combat mission over a densely populated city.

PeaceOutE

04-12-2010, 04:35 PM

Since when is it against the rules to have an AK-47 in Iraq? This is not a justified ground to attack an Iraqi as it is their legal right as Iraqis to own one AK-47 per household. Granted, if the AK-47s where directed at an incoming host nation or other MNC-I combat troops the Apaches would be justified in their attacks.

As far as the camera, the telephoto lens of the cameraman is amazingly huge and at first caught my eye. Then I saw an image of the photographer with a massive telephoto lens. Regardless, the object in the video is smaller than an RPG.

With all of this identified, US Army CID will have one massive job. Also, certain SOPs will possibly be created such as what proper chatter to be used for conversations over the radio. Professionalism can go a long way, even when possible wrongs occur. Second, this may already have been established put proper Rules of Engagement. To my knowledge every combat zone I have been in has issued ROEs prior to boots on the ground. This will most likely be part of the CID investigation.

With regards to the children and the location where they were to go. No one is aware of the nearest hospital, the time it will take for a Blackhawk to arrive versus the IPs medical teams. There are too many unknown variables that resulted in the decision made by the chain of command for the appropriate action for the children.

There is more to the situation than all the self-professed experts identify. I'm in no way an expert and will eagerly wait for the CID report findings. All I am able to do is put my 2 cents in based of my experience in Iraq during the surge.

jmm99

04-12-2010, 05:25 PM

from mendel
After a few days thought about this, I was reminded of Judge Dredd, an old Science Fiction "street cop empowered to act as judge, jury, and executioner". I see the four Apache crew in exactly that role.

The problem with this word picture (to this apparently Neanderthalian USAian, JMM) is not that it refers to a sci-fi character, but that it attempts to import the concepts from a civilian due process legal trial and sentencing into a combat situation.

In a combat situation (whether regular or irregular), the soldier operates under the same basic rules: definition of the enemy, distinguishing combatants from civilians, military need for the action taken and proportionality (which does not mean that civilians have to be absent in order to fire on the target). The decision to shoot or not rests on the shoulders of that soldier, who is indeed "judge, jury, and executioner".

Those rules are more difficult to apply in an irregular warfare situtation where irregular combatants are "transitory guerrillas" - they meld into the general population which becomes in effect their camo and cover. It is in this situation that the divergence occurs between parties who have adopted Hague, 1949 GCs, 1977 API&II and the ICRC requirements of "direct participation" in "hostilities" (e.g., Germany) - and those parties who accept only Hague and the 1949 GCs (e.tg., USA).

Now, it is quite possible that, in Germany (I don't know their ROEs), the rules of engagement take away that decision from the soldier at the tip of the spear - and require multi-party review and agreement before a shot can be taken. All that should come out in the charging documents and subsequent events in the German Astan tanker bombing case.

The decision can also be taken from the individual soldier at the tip if the military in question has micro-management in practice (even if not required by the ROEs). In a micro-management environment, legalistic analysis may outweigh operational analysis; but political considerations are more likely to outweigh both legalisms and operations.

The comments from Fuchs, Mendel and others possibly reflect the influence of "international humanitarian law" as it is accepted in their countries; and as it apparently is being applied in Germany in the Astan tanker bombing case.

The problem for many here (including myself) is that their conclusions about this Apache incident are phrased in terms of what would be - if German law applied here. Thus, the Apache crew are "indicted" as "war criminals".

The broader picture, as I see it, is that there are serious chasms within the "Coalition" as to the basic issues of enemy definition, civilian distinction, military need and proportionality.

Regards

Mike

PS - PeaceOutE. Has this case been re-opened for investigation ? Not that I'm aware. It was investigated and the report can be found here, AR 15-6 Legal Review (http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf) - first linked by pjmunson in this thread at post #8 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=96194&postcount=8). No criminal liability was found.

It it has been re-opened, please provide a reference so we can explore the logic of that.

Ken White

04-12-2010, 05:53 PM

Many seem to miss that distinction, though JMM grasps it quite well.

The civilian concept of self defense is not directly translatable to combat. Nor can the actions of Police Officers, charged with protecting the public be equated to armed forces in combat, charged with killing enemies (all other aspects of warfare are essentially political). Two very different mindsets are required and developed. Some will say Armies should not be so trained, that could be but it's irrelevant, at this time they are...

Fuchs makes a a very valid point:
...Also keep in mind that these men were highly trained and not mere enlisted personnel or even conscripts. You should be able to have high expectations of their judgmental abilities or else you shouldn't entrust them a multi-million dollar machine of war for a combat mission over a densely populated city.What he elides is that they were highly trained combat aviators in a combat situation, doing what was almost guaranteed they would do. The real issue for many is perhaps whether they should have been in that situation, as Fuchs says in the last phrase. Whether they should have been or not, they were there and to expect other than a combat mentality effort is at best naive.

Many are commenting on the video, while several have commented that this is an extract and that some context may be missing, few seem to be recalling that this incident was thoroughly investigated and reported at the time and even fewer seem to be considering what the US Troops on the ground were telling the Apache crews. Those folks were not as highly trained and saw different things -- as much as one sees while the adrenalin flows -- different than the Aviators saw at the time and quite different than viewers of the video see today...

motorfirebox

04-12-2010, 06:53 PM

A policeman also needs to do snap judgments sometimes and may be tired.
Nevertheless, we expect him not to kill without a reason that withstands a judge's curiosity - or else he faces and deserves serious problems.
I'd like to note, here, that the Apache pilots' reasoning did withstand (the equivalent to) a judge's curiosity.

Since when is it against the rules to have an AK-47 in Iraq? This is not a justified ground to attack an Iraqi as it is their legal right as Iraqis to own one AK-47 per household. Granted, if the AK-47s where directed at an incoming host nation or other MNC-I combat troops the Apaches would be justified in their attacks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe private citizens in Iraq are allowed to own any number of RPGs. There was at least one RPG-7 visible in the gunsight video, and an RPG-7 and rounds were discovered by the ground troops who arrived to secure the scene.

As far as the camera, the telephoto lens of the cameraman is amazingly huge and at first caught my eye. Then I saw an image of the photographer with a massive telephoto lens. Regardless, the object in the video is smaller than an RPG.
I would point out that I know several people who know what to look for, who had to double-check to make sure the object in the video was a camera. If you got it right the first time, good for you--but you did so with advantages that the Apache crew did not have. Namely, the leisure to focus on the video exclusively; and the headlines that forewarned you that a guy with a camera got blowed up.

Fuchs

04-12-2010, 09:34 PM

...The real issue for many is perhaps whether they should have been in that situation, as Fuchs says in the last phrase. Whether they should have been or not, they were there and to expect other than a combat mentality effort is at best naive. ...

How about a thought experiment?

Screen U.S. police helicopter crews about their prejudices against Muslims and Iraqis and whether they personally knew Iraq War KIA/WIA people.

Then take the ones who seem to be able to keep their calm and re-train them on Apaches. A limited training only, without the conventional war, hydra and hellfire stuff.

Maybe that would have helped to keep the mission - to provide security and stability to the people of Iraq - more in the focus?

I ask because the U.S. military culture aspect and arguments seems to make up a huge part of this discussion.

Ken White

04-12-2010, 10:30 PM

How about a thought experiment...Maybe that would have helped to keep the mission - to provide security and stability to the people of Iraq - more in the focus?Almost certainly would have done so. Unfortunately, we didn't do that so we're confronted with reality and not the ever elusive ideal that you keep looking for and I remind you is nonexistent -- that happens all too often in dealings with fallible humans and harsh, messy, illogical reality...:eek:

That's not the good call, though, this is:
I ask because the U.S. military culture aspect and arguments seems to make up a huge part of this discussion.Military culture is indeed the culprit. Not so much the US military culture but really because generic military culture in combat is involved. :cool:

I suggest that British, Dutch, Israeli or Singaporean Apache crews or French or German Tiger crews as well as Italian Mangusta crews probably would have reacted in much the same way -- though the cockpit chatter might have been more 'professional' by some (with the Singaporeans the most professional and the Italians or French being little if any better than the Amis). Americans are gauche, everyone knows that...:D

While we have always been aggressive, others used to be equally so and a number were and probably are, as you know, far more ruthless than any US force has ever been. We seem more aggressive today than many but as one who saw us in action many years ago and for much of the intervening time, I can assure you that we, also, are far, far less aggressive than we used to be.

While I believe this incident exemplifies a generic military reaction I will acknowledge that the US forces today are more aggressive than most -- but only slightly so.

That is as a military force. Like politicians elsewhere, ours are less aggressive than they used to be -- just not quite so much less as most. That is the major difference with respect to the US today... ;)

Massengale

04-13-2010, 05:27 AM

mendel

04-13-2010, 08:37 AM

You persist in viewing these guys as noncombatants and I just can't feature it.

There were 11 military-age Iraqis and 2 children. We can see from the footage that nobody removed any weapons from the scene after the Apache attack. The 2nd Brigade combat team investigator states in his sequence of events (6.g) that they found 2 RPG-7 and one AK-47; on the face of it, that leaves 10 unarmed people, keeping in mind that they didn't have the time to do a detailed site examination, so there may have been more weapons present than indicated in the report (but I doubt they'd have overlooked that many).

If this was a military operation (with uniforms and all), even the drivers would at least have sidearms.

My view is, if they didn't bring weapons, they're noncombatants. Your view seems to be, if they're in the vicinity of an RPG, they're combatants. That's where we differ.

While there are 17+ people in the shot at 6:19:25, they're beginning to disperse, some moving off with scooters; the gunner switches to closeup to examine at 19:45 the photographers with two cameras with two apparently unarmed companions walking towards the corner, and then at 20:20 4 people with 2 AK 47 and one RPG that are joined by two more apparently unarmed people.

Then the situation with the camera looking around the corner develops, where the Apache crew states (20:40) "yeah, we had a guy shootin'", and BM comes back with "negative". From the further unfolding of events, I think that didn't really get through to them, because from then on they seem to operate on the assumption that any delay is going to cost friendly lives (they then fire into a group of ~10 men, 5 of whom they have PID'd with weapons, if we're including the two cameras - they may not even have misidentified them).

Would more detail have prevented them from mistaking a lens flash for a muzzle flash as their flight path made them lose sight of the cameraman? Hard to say, but I doubt it. I want to know what made them miss the fact that ground said there was no shooting, and what made them see the van as a legitimate target. Why weren't they able to make the most of the available information? How can we provide something in real-time that comes closer to our hindsight awareness of the situation? These are larger issues than mere lack of detail (I doubt adding detail would fix them), and I don't see anybody adressing them.

I'm not sure about the van (and the kids are inexplicable), but it seems to me the "saving their bacon" view is at least as valid as the "innocent bystanders with RPGs" one.
My point is precisely that both views towards the Apache crews (and other military) are valid (in general, not just in this operation - in fact, whenever "collateral damage" is willingly incurred); that's why good judgement is needed to make conscientious decisions in these circumstances.

I like JMM's reply to my post, except for the polemic barbs ("require multi-party review and agreement before a shot can be taken" - come on!).

Cecil Turner

04-13-2010, 01:25 PM

If this was a military operation (with uniforms and all), even the drivers would at least have sidearms.

So if the combat cameraman ditches his sidearm he's protected? Recce pilots? How about a MG a-gunner or tank driver? Obviously not; they're combatants. They bring sidearms along because there's no reason not to, not because they're likely to be useful.

My view is, if they didn't bring weapons, they're noncombatants. Your view seems to be, if they're in the vicinity of an RPG, they're combatants. That's where we differ.

If they're executing a combat mission, they're combatants. That includes the guy standing next to the guy with an RPG as he prepares to fire (on a US convoy), the guy who's holding the extra round, the drivers, scouts, messengers, and the camera guys. The most logical reason not to carry extraneous weaponry is that they have to escape afterward, possibly through checkpoints (which is also the most logical reason for the kids); that doesn't mean they are noncombatants, it means they're "unlawful" combatants.

Then the situation with the camera looking around the corner develops, where the Apache crew states (20:40) "yeah, we had a guy shootin'", and BM comes back with "negative". From the further unfolding of events, I think that didn't really get through to them, because from then on they seem to operate on the assumption that any delay is going to cost friendly lives (they then fire into a group of ~10 men, 5 of whom they have PID'd with weapons, if we're including the two cameras - they may not even have misidentified them).

Those conversations aren't related: from context the ground radio transmission is obviously to the other ground unit (somewhat stepped on in the recording by the intercom). And the implication that they should hold fire on an ambusher because the enemy might've brought some unarmed men to the ambush site strikes me as eyerollingly ludicrous. (And, like some of the other disputed changes to the GCs, likely to produce a battlefield even more dangerous to civilians rather than more civilized.)

Would more detail have prevented them from mistaking a lens flash for a muzzle flash as their flight path made them lose sight of the cameraman? Hard to say, but I doubt it. I want to know what made them miss the fact that ground said there was no shooting, and what made them see the van as a legitimate target.

I don't think there's any evidence to support the "lens flash" theory either. The lens remains pointed at the ground and the chatter afterward is that the RPG is "getting ready to fire." As to the ground guy's radio comm, he takes responsibility at ~15:25 into the long vid, and it's clear he vectored the Apaches onto the target, not that he was trying to warn them off. Finally, a van removing combatants from a battlefield is a legitimate target.

I find this overanalysis fun (obviously), but essentially meaningless. The guys actually in contact had to operate with far less information, with far more stress in far less time, and the arguments for their misconduct even with hindsight are underwhelming. The glaring things to me are that the insurgents were playing the ROE like a Stradivarius, and correctly prioritizing the propaganda mission above casualty production. Their allies and fellow travelers still are. And the biggest takeaway is that we need to get our IW act together (starting with better controls over engagement videos).

motorfirebox

04-13-2010, 05:39 PM

If this was a military operation (with uniforms and all), even the drivers would at least have sidearms.

My view is, if they didn't bring weapons, they're noncombatants. Your view seems to be, if they're in the vicinity of an RPG, they're combatants. That's where we differ.
Er, the men in that video were quite a bit more than 'in the vicinity' of an RPG (seriously--you can't complain about hyperbole and then say something like that). They were quite obviously grouped with the men carrying the weapons; it's not like they were, by happenstance, crossing the street at the same time a guy with an RPG walked by.

And the idea that no weapon = noncombatant is problematic. Glaringly, it doesn't take into account spotters. Obviously, the base assumption about a guy without a weapon is that he's a noncombatant, but if his behavior indicates otherwise, it's reasonable to make a reassessment. A guy who just planted an IED and is in the process of escaping is, after all, not carrying a weapon.

Regarding the first sentence I quoted--these insurgents aren't carrying out military operations. I mean, that's kinda the whole problem, here. Their tactics necessitate a different method of identifying targets than we would use against another uniformed military.

jmm99

04-13-2010, 06:26 PM

from Mendel
I like JMM's reply to my post, except for the polemic barbs ("require multi-party review and agreement before a shot can be taken" - come on!).

I simply expressed the possibility of a ROE requiring that. We (US) have seen that possibility become a reality in our own operations. A Vietnam joke was a multi-helicopter stack (all directing the platoon leader on the ground), with GEN Westy at the top.

Now, we have the ability to create a multi-level virtual stack, running up to and including the White House. We have seen in Astan (e.g., Tora Bora, but also less "high value" operations) situations involving exactly what I stated - "multi-party review and agreement before a shot can be taken".

Others could expand on that, I'm sure.

Regards

Mike

davidbfpo

04-13-2010, 10:07 PM

I have only skimmed this thread and cannot find a reference to the commentary on Matt Armstrong's blogsite:http://mountainrunner.us/2010/04/wikileaks.html which includes references to a 'rebuttal video'.

Hat tip to Zenpundit:
Matt Armstrong has a must-read, incisive, take on the manipulatively edited propaganda popularly known as the “Wikileaks video”

mendel

04-14-2010, 06:28 AM

Er, the men in that video were quite a bit more than 'in the vicinity' of an RPG [...]

And the idea that no weapon = noncombatant is problematic. Glaringly, it doesn't take into account spotters.

I was trying, in one simplified sentence, to sum up the distinction between Cecil and myself. Of course I know about people who may have combat roles without being armed, but in the incident under discussion, I didn't see any, so I wanted to not split hairs here.

Your basic arguing point is still that they're combatants because they're close to an RPG, and you presume to correct me on how close. However, my point stands that other than the proximity (and being in a spot where insurgents were expected to be), I see no evidence that could possibly justify labeling all those 11 people insurgents. Give me a scenario where all of these 11 people have a role in a combat operation that involves 2 RPG and a Kalashnikov, and I'll believe you're not employing a double standard. Until then, please accept that some of those were in fact civilian noncombatants.

You come across as if your "different method of identifying targets" means "anyone who looks hostile to me is a target", and I'm sure that's not what you want to say. So what other method than "they've got a weapon and are aiming it at people" (and yes, that would include IEDs), or that they are directly supporting people who do, do you want to use?

Cecil, you're reading all sorts of of meanings out of my post that I didn't put in there, and it'd be too cumbersome for me to set all that straight. The "lens flash" is at 6:20:37 Z to 6:20:38 Z in the video.

JMM, I don't doubt a multilevel review is indicated in some cases (e.g. planned air strikes), but your polemic phrasing makes it sound as if the red tape prevented soldiers even from returning fire without multi-level review. I really hope that was an exaggeration.

jmm99

04-14-2010, 07:39 AM

I ran into this Der Spiegel article, Changing the Rules in Afghanistan: German Troops Beef Up Fight against Taliban (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,635192,00.html#ref=rss), from July 2009, reflecting changes in their ROEs (making them more permissive).

07/09/2009

Changing the Rules in Afghanistan
German Troops Beef Up Fight against Taliban
By SPIEGEL Staff

Behind closed doors, the German government is slowly but surely changing the rules for combat on Afghanistan, allowing its forces to take a more offensive approach. At the same time, German popular support for the "war" that no one wants to call a war continues to decline.
....
On April 8, nobody even noticed when a few words -- important words --were deleted from a NATO document. One of the deleted phrases was: "The use of lethal force is prohibited unless an attack is taking place or is imminent."

On March 3, 2006, the Germans had this sentence added to the NATO operations plan for Afghanistan as a "national clarification" or caveat. Bundeswehr soldiers were only to shoot in self defense. And there were further explanations in bylaws 421 to 424 as well as in rule 429 A and B. For instance, Germans were not to refer to their actions using the word "attack." Instead they would talk about the "use of appropriate force."
....
This policy is now outlined on the pocket-sized reference card of combat guidelines that German soldiers carry with them. The Bundeswehr calls it "a structural adjustment;" the Defense Ministry's legal department is considering swapping Chapters II and III on the pocket card around. This means that the chapter, "Use of Military Force to Complete a Mission" would be placed ahead of the chapter, "Use of Military Force in Self-Defense" -- which, one assumes, would mean that the former becomes more important. Additionally, to avoid future misunderstandings, examples will be included to illustrate to soldiers when they are permitted to use lethal force.

Another issue being discussed is whether the guideline in Section II, No. 4 should be amended. The current wording states that defensive measures can be taken if an attack is "imminent." The words could be changed to read that defensive measures can be taken "if there is evidence of an approaching attack."

When the Bundeswehr got into a gun battle in Chahar Dara two weeks ago, some soldiers thought that they had to wait until they were shot at before they could fight back. Essentially they turned themselves into targets -- and this is exactly the kind of confusion the German military wants to eliminate.

The tankers were bombed in Sep 2009 - the theories for engagement appeared to be "hot pursuit" or prevention of the tankers' use in future attacks. See posts #105, Another Incident (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=96520&postcount=105), and #106, Cross-reference & comments (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=96523&postcount=106), for links to the tanker bombing incident (and Wiki, Kunduz airstrike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airstrike)).

The Jul 2009 Der Spiegel article has a quote by Oberst Klein (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,635192-2,00.html), who was responsible for the decision to bomb the tankers.

Winfried Nachtwei, the German Green Party's parliamentary expert on defense, said it was reasonable to amend the pocket card if it meant that German soldiers can better defend themselves. "But," he argued, "we must be careful not to be drawn into a whirlpool of escalation. It would be counterproductive to end up looking like we are hunting the Taliban, nor would that be compatible with our mandate. Anyone who thinks you can simply clean up out there is out of touch with reality. You can actually get further over three cups of tea in Afghanistan."

Part 2: 'We Will Strike Back with all Necessary Force'

However soldiers in Kunduz told a different tale. "We will strike back with all necessary force," said Colonel Georg Klein, 48, commander of the field camp.

Combat has become routine for German soldiers stationed in Kunduz. After returning to the camp, the men mentioned their "TICs," or "troops in contact" (military jargon for enemy contact) almost casually. For them, requesting American "Reaper" drones to fire at booby traps is just common practice now.

Anyway, clearly not all the soldiers are unnerved by the finer legal details of combat. On May 7, in view of a German convoy, a number of Afghan fighters jumped off their motorcycles and went into combat position. But before they could fire their rockets and assault rifles, the Bundeswehr troops opened fire on them, killing at least two.

"What happened afterwards gave the troops a sense of security," said Klein. Instead of launching an investigation, as would have been the case in the past, the public prosecutor's office in Potsdam, near Berlin, concluded that the soldiers had acted in self-defense. Klein and his men see this as setting a precedent. "Soldiers need courage in the field, what they certainly don't need is fear of a public prosecutor," noted one officer.

A further change in Germany's Astan position occured in Feb 2010, from The Intelligence Daily, German army given green light to kill civilians in Afghanistan (http://www.inteldaily.com/2010/02/german-army-given-green-light-to-kill-civilians-in-afghanistan/):

February 17, 2010

in Analysis, Defense

By Peter Schwarz

(WSWS) — The German government has now reclassified its military mission in Afghanistan as intervening in a civil war or, as they say in legal jargon, a “non-international armed conflict.” This was announced by Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (Free Democratic Party—FDP) on Wednesday in a government statement to the Bundestag (parliament). Previously, the government had described the Afghan intervention as a stabilization operation to assist with peacekeeping.

The recasting of the mission has far-reaching legal consequences. In a civil war, international criminal law applies and not, as hitherto, the German criminal code and police law. Before the reclassifying of the conflict, German soldiers could, in theory, only make use of firearms in exceptional circumstances, such as in self-defence. International criminal law is much more lenient, and even tolerates the killing of uninvolved civilians if this is proportionate to the expected “military advantage.”

Now, German soldiers who shoot Afghan civilians must no longer reckon with an automatic investigation by the state prosecutor. The latter only needs to be involved if the killing is “disproportionate,” although this term is defined very vaguely. Although this reclassification does not give the Bundeswehr carte blanche to kill civilians indiscriminately, the threshold has been significantly lowered. The risk that a soldier could be held criminally responsible for killing an innocent bystander is now much lower. (much more in article).

As to this source (WSWS), I note that it is the voice of the "International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)"; but the basic facts are confirmed in the Frankfurter Rundschau, Germany Finally Acknowledges Civil War in Afghanistan (http://worldmeets.us/frankfurterrundschau000041.shtml) (trans). The point of this paragraph is that the same facts and events give rise to very different headlines and narratives, dependent on political view.

So, both Germany and the US have had some problems in deciding on the rules that should apply to irregular warfare.

Regards

Mike

PS - mendel: you're making too much of a sentence which explicitly spoke of a possible ROE policy, which is posited to be quite restrictive and require higher-level approval for certain uses of force. But, if you want that hypothetical to be "polemic phrasing", who am I to dissuade you.

I'd consider the WSWS headline, "German army given green light to kill civilians in Afghanistan", to be a polemic.

Cecil Turner

04-14-2010, 12:17 PM

I was trying, in one simplified sentence, to sum up the distinction between Cecil and myself. Of course I know about people who may have combat roles without being armed, but in the incident under discussion, I didn't see any, so I wanted to not split hairs here.

Your basic arguing point is still that they're combatants because they're close to an RPG, and you presume to correct me on how close. However, my point stands that other than the proximity (and being in a spot where insurgents were expected to be), I see no evidence that could possibly justify labeling all those 11 people insurgents.

I think that sums up the distinction quite well (i.e., I think they're combatants, you don't). I would dispute the issue being primarily that of proximity (i.e., they're not just crossing the street together, but obviously working together doing something). They were interrupted before they completed it, but it looks to be an ambush primarily designed for a propaganda photo. (Which makes the whole thing look funny to a military observer.) If that's what it is--with the unarmed folks collocated in the ambush site--I can't see any labeling other than "combatant" or "insurgent" being possible. And I still can't see any innocent explanation fitting the known facts. I admit this is problematic if the ROE had allowed an engagement that subsequently turned out to be innocents, but don't see that as happening here.

(And as an aside, the ROE could also allow engagement if they're all in the same group of known insurgents such as "Mahdi Army" which I think these folks are; but that's irrelevant to this incident as no one cited it as a reason or as something they were thinking about at the time.)

Cecil, you're reading all sorts of of meanings out of my post that I didn't put in there, and it'd be too cumbersome for me to set all that straight. The "lens flash" is at 6:20:37 Z to 6:20:38 Z in the video.

From shadows, the camera lens is down sun when pointed at the convoy. There is no flash that could be mistaken for a firing signature (and in any event they don't look very similar and nobody claims that happened). I'm not sure if you're thinking the aircrew thought a shot had already been taken or was merely imminent, but I think from the chatter and vid the latter is correct. The aircrew missed several things, but I don't think they misconstrued a shot that wasn't there.

Cecil Turner

04-14-2010, 12:35 PM

I have only skimmed this thread and cannot find a reference to the commentary on Matt Armstrong's blogsite:http://mountainrunner.us/2010/04/wikileaks.html which includes references to a 'rebuttal video'.

Hat tip to Zenpundit:

I didn't find it very useful. I'd already seen all the "context" it pointed out, and the claims of editing are fairly weak, since WL provided the full video (and I mostly ignored the inflammatory WL commentary anyway). Also, the WL running trancript makes mistakes in several places, but the one correction made in the rebuttal (for "f***ing pr*ck") wasn't one of them.

Polarbear1605

04-14-2010, 01:50 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/13/world/international-uk-iraq-usa-journalists.html?ref=world

Not soon enough for these comments by the SEC DEF.

motorfirebox

04-14-2010, 01:53 PM

Your basic arguing point is still that they're combatants because they're close to an RPG, and you presume to correct me on how close.
That is not my basic theory. That is your hyperbole about my basic theory. You're fixating on proximity as if it's the only factor, or the deciding factor. The deciding factor, in this case, is the voluntary grouping and cooperation. Again, the unarmed men aren't simply walking near the guys with the weapons, they're walking with them. By your reading, if there were a guy with an RPG standing in a crowded market, I would be fine with classifying the bystanders around him as insurgents, based on their proximity. But I'm not. I would classify such bystanders as bystanders. Proximity to a weapon is not the only, and certainly not the deciding, factor in determining who may or may not be classified as an insurgent.

However, my point stands that other than the proximity (and being in a spot where insurgents were expected to be), I see no evidence that could possibly justify labeling all those 11 people insurgents. Give me a scenario where all of these 11 people have a role in a combat operation that involves 2 RPG and a Kalashnikov, and I'll believe you're not employing a double standard. Until then, please accept that some of those were in fact civilian noncombatants.
The unarmed men could easily be assigned as scouts, lookouts, and spotters. They and the men with the weapons travel as a group, and if eyes on the group's target are required, some of these men split off and do it. If they were armed, they'd draw attention to themselves; unarmed, they're more free to move around and gather information. That's just a theory, of course, but one that fits the requirements you laid out.

You come across as if your "different method of identifying targets" means "anyone who looks hostile to me is a target", and I'm sure that's not what you want to say. So what other method than "they've got a weapon and are aiming it at people" (and yes, that would include IEDs), or that they are directly supporting people who do, do you want to use?
I would base it on behavior. Pointing a weapon is one behavior. Acting in concert with people who point weapons is another behavior.

BayonetBrant

04-14-2010, 02:59 PM

Stephen Colbert actually asks some of the tough questions you would've liked to have heard from NBC or the NY Times...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270712/april-12-2010/julian-assange

Greyhawk

04-14-2010, 03:06 PM

From MountainRunner's post (http://mountainrunner.us/2010/04/wikileaks.html):
The "rebuttal" video was removed from YouTube for "violation of the YouTube Community Guidelines." The cause of action: "graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed in YouTube videos." The "rejection notice" at right was sent by someone close to the "rebuttal". Neither Collateral Murder nor the unedited video have been removed from YouTube.
Elsewhere in this thread others have raised the (valid) question "how many insurgents did we create that day?" Whatever figure answers that, it's lower by far than the number created by the release of this video (a true global sensation) nearly three years later. Since any greater number increases Wikileaks' chances of getting more snuff porn for future audience enjoyment I suspect they'd call that a "win".

Uboat509

04-14-2010, 03:30 PM

From MountainRunner's post (http://mountainrunner.us/2010/04/wikileaks.html): Since any greater number increases Wikileaks' chances of getting more snuff porn for future audience enjoyment I suspect they'd call that a "win".

Well put.

Greyhawk

04-14-2010, 03:36 PM

As for context, here's a bit more. I'm going to go "bigger picture" here. Elsewhere in this thread are links to David Finkel's observations on events of the day, he's done a fine job of providing that context from the perspective of a reporter embedded with the guys on the ground.

Some very basic stuff - apologies to the old guard but this post has obviously attracted newcomers (and welcome aboard) and probably a significant number of non-member visitors. We tend to forget that not everyone knows the very basic stuff we know. (I hereby acknowledge that nothing that follows can't be argued on semantic and other points, and that any effort to attempt what I'm about to attempt will not be met with universal agreement, but here goes.)

This event occurred in July, 2007, a month that (in hindsight) represents a demonstrable turning point in the war in Iraq. Full "surge" operations only began in mid-June of that year - after the last of the surge brigades (including "mine") arrived in May.

There's a misconception regarding the surge - that we had unpacked a shiny new approach to Iraq from a box delivered earlier that year. There's truth to that, but it's more accurate to say we were building on lessons learned - from Tal Afar to Ramadi (and greater Anbar) and elsewhere through the previous four years in Iraq. While much subsequent attention has been given to the effective violence reduction methods adopted later in those battles (for simplicity I'll say the "hold" and "build" phases) - including the Awakening Movement - the more neglected (in polite discussion) "clear" phase preceded both in all cases. ("Clear" can also be described as heavy kinetic operations, if you'd like, or simply "war" or "combat".)

There are veterans of those particular campaigns on this board, I'll leave it to them to offer any suggestions how to avoid that initial combat phase in future operations. (Cav Guy could, I'm certain, describe the "welcome" his guys received from some of the locals in Ramadi that preceded the awakening there...)

But even before that, the Telegraph's December, 2005 story on Tal Afar was headlined "Iraqis in former rebel stronghold now cheer American soldiers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1505872/Iraqis-in-former-rebel-stronghold-now-cheer-American-soldiers.html)." Excerpt follows:
Tal Afar was the site of the largest military operation of 2005, when 8,000 US and Iraqi troops reclaimed it from armed groups.

It has since been used to test a new strategy of "clear, hold, build", in which areas would be purged of insurgents and then rejuvenated to win support from local people, before being handed over to the Iraqi security forces...

While many of the citizens of Fallujah still eke out their existence in the ruins of their former homes, in Tal Afar the streets are full of building sites. New sewers have been dug and the fronts of shops, destroyed in the US assault, were replaced within weeks. Sunni police have been hired and 2,000 goats were even distributed to farmers.

More remarkably, the approach of an American military convoy brings people out to wave and even clap, something not seen since the invasion of spring 2003 that toppled Saddam Hussein.

But the success in Tal Afar only highlights the problems of replicating it elsewhere.

The strategy will require more troops, which is politically unacceptable right now in America, given growing public doubts about the war.
So, from "fronts of shops, destroyed in the US assault" to "cheers" - to oversimplify with a cliche: from broken eggs come omelets. And from there we see a bit of late-2005 negativity - "too bad there aren't enough troops to accomplish this on a larger scale."

I'll skip the reasoning, but will also emphasize that "The strategy will require more troops, which is politically unacceptable right now in America" is exactly right.

And it was "unacceptable" a year and half later, too, but we did it.

1069

1070

Vertical red lines on the (hopefully familiar) charts above mark July, 2007.

I absolutely do not mean to imply that events of this particular day were a "turning point" - nor do I mean to excuse "unlawful" behavior where any might have occurred (for the record, I see none on the part of the Americans involved in this particular firefight - but there have been many other examples where it did occur, was reported - often as not by fellow soldiers - and prosecuted). Again, see Finkel's accounts of the day for an account of the day (including an alarm red for incoming as the soldiers formed their convoy at dawn). I offer this broader context as an indication of effects of the larger effort of which this was one small part.

mendel

04-14-2010, 07:39 PM

Thank you, Cecil and mfbox, I understand better now where you're coming from.

The deciding factor, in this case, is the voluntary grouping and cooperation.

The witnesses (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/exclusive_witnesses_describe_deadly_2007_us) said that people clustered around the press, which another journalist confirms tends to happen there (I think it happens pretty much anywhere in the world when a camera crew turns up). That would explain the grouping, and tbh I don't see much evidence of organized cooperation in the video, much less cooperation with armed combatants.

It comes down to what one wants to believe, I guess.

jmm99

04-14-2010, 08:50 PM

I'm underwhelmed by the witnesses interviewed by Rick Rowley (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/exclusive_witnesses_describe_deadly_2007_us):

AMY GOODMAN: The video is from the July 12th, 2007 attack on Iraqi civilians by US troops, released Monday by the website WikiLeaks.org.

Well, independent journalists Rick Rowley and David Enders were on the scene the very next day in 2007 and filed this exclusive report for Democracy Now!

RICK ROWLEY: We came to the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad one day after a US attack helicopter strike that killed twelve Iraqis, including a journalist and a driver working with Reuters. The US military claimed that they were under attack from rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire and that all of the dead, except for the two Reuters employees, were insurgents. But local residents showed us the remains of a burnt-out van spattered with blood and told us a different story.

WITNESS 1: [translated] The helicopter came yesterday from there and hovered around. Then it came right here where a group of people were standing. They didn’t have any weapons or arms of any sort. This area doesn’t have armed insurgents. They destroyed the place and shot at people, and they didn’t let anyone help the wounded.

WITNESS 2: [translated] I swear to God it was helicopters that attacked us. These people are all witnesses. They attacked us twice, not once.

RICK ROWLEY: Another resident went on to describe what happened to the man who tried to help the wounded.

WITNESS 3: [translated] The driver went to carry the injured, who had been shot in front of his eyes. While he was going to pick them up, the pilot of the helicopter kept flying above, watching the scene. They started firing at the wounded and the dead. The driver and the two children were also there. The helicopter continued shooting until none of the bodies were moving.

RICK ROWLEY: We asked the crowd of people what might have prompted the attack, and they said that when the journalist arrived, residents quickly gathered around him.

WITNESS 2: [translated] The group of civilians had gathered here because people need cooking oil and gas. They wanted to demonstrate in front of the media and show that they need things like oil, gas, water and electricity. The situation here is dramatically deteriorating. The journalists were walking around, and then the Americans started shooting. They started shooting randomly and targeted peaceful civilians from the neighborhood.

WITNESS 3: [translated] There were children in the car. Were they carrying weapons? There were two children.

WITNESS 2: [translated] Do we help the wounded or kill them? They killed all the wounded and drove over their bodies. Everyone witnessed it. And the journalist was among those who was injured, and the armored vehicle drove over his body.

WITNESS 3: [translated] The US forces, who call themselves “friendly” forces, were telling us on speakers that they were here to protect and help us. We heard those words very clearly. But what we saw was the opposite of that. We demand the American Congress and President Bush supervise their soldiers’ actions in Iraq.

RICK ROWLEY: For Democracy Now!, this is Rick Rowley and Dave Enders with Big Noise Films.

The point is that there were weapons (we know that); but according to witness #1: "They didn’t have any weapons or arms of any sort. This area doesn’t have armed insurgents." And, per witness #2: "They started shooting randomly and targeted peaceful civilians from the neighborhood."

The van also seemed to have been in close proximity to the action ab initio - per witness #3: "The driver went to carry the injured, who had been shot in front of his eyes."

Instead of denying the presence of any armed Iraqis, those witnesses would have been more credible if they admitted the weapons and claimed the armed men were part of the "Neighborhood Watch". Of course, depending on the section of Baghdad, the "neighborhood watch" might have been part of a DTO (Designated Terrorist Organization) - a hostile force under the ROEs.

The Democracy Now webpage leads into another interview, that of Josh Stieber (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/12/this_is_how_these_soldiers_were), described as:

Josh Stieber, former member of Bravo Company 2-16, the company involved in the 2007 US helicopter shooting in Baghdad. He left the military as a conscientious objector last year and is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.

As a CO, one would expect that Stieber would have very strong moral and ethical objections to the violence (harm) shown in the video. He does express those, but here is his analysis about what went down viewed from a military standpoint:

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined by Josh Stieber in Washington, DC, a veteran of the company involved in the July 2007 shooting of twelve Iraqi civilians in the video released by WikiLeaks. He left the military as a conscientious objector last year and is a member of Iraqi Veterans Against the War.

Your reaction when you saw this videotape, Josh?

JOSH STIEBER: When I first saw it, I was, you know, kind of shocked that I recognized exactly what it was. And then, as I watched it a second time and then started to read about some of the reactions from it, I guess I was also surprised a little bit by kind of the nature of the conversations, because, you know, again, not to morally justify what happened—and, you know, as a conscientious objector, obviously I disagreed with our tactics—but I think the statements that have been put out by the military and by Secretary Gates yesterday have reaffirmed that what happened was by no means unusual.

So I guess the nature of the conversation, I think, is the really important thing to focus on here, in that, you know, the easy thing and maybe the natural thing to do would be to instantly judge or criticize the soldiers in this video, and again, not to justify what they did, but militarily speaking, they did exactly what they were trained to do. So I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that if we are shocked by this video—which, again, it is a very shocking video—if we’re shocked by this video, then we need to be asking questions of the larger system, because, again, this is how these soldiers were trained to act.
....
JOSH STIEBER: I guess that is an important thing that I think needs to be considered with that video, is that, again, by no means morally justifying what happened, but I think just the seventeen-minute WikiLeaks clip is taking things a little bit out of context in what was going on that day, was that the troops on the ground were searching house to house, and the helicopters were assigned to keep watch over them, and so part of that is to eliminate any threat that comes up. That was, you know, what we were trained with regularly in the military.

And again, I would take so much of this just back to the training that we had. And one thing that I think about is one exercise. Some of my leaders would ask the younger soldiers what they would do if somebody were to pull a weapon in a marketplace full of unarmed civilians. And not only did your response have to be that you would return fire, even if you knew it was going to hurt innocent civilians, because you’re trying aim at the person with the weapon, the answer had to be yes, but it had to be an instantaneous yes. So, again, these things are just hammered into you through military training. So that’s, you know, the background of what the people in the helicopter had in their minds, so that they saw this as a threat.

And actually, looking at the video myself, you know, based on my training, what I saw in the video of what the people on the ground were holding in their hands, whether or not it was a camera, but again, from my military training, I would have, you know, been told that that was a military—militarily justifiable thing. And, you know, top sources have confirmed this. But again, if you watch the forty-minute video, they actually recovered an RPG shell, so I think there’s evidence that there were weapons involved. And I think, you know, the conversation has to be that the people in the helicopter and the people in the military were responding exactly as they had been trained.

Regards

Mike

Wargames Mark

04-15-2010, 12:53 AM

I think your link was clobbered by a filter. Could you post the author, name, publication and year of the article, so it can be Googled to get its url.

Title: Training America's Strategic Corporals
Author: LTC David Bolgiano

Don't know the author, but it was recommended to me when I was working on a scenario based on the Haditha incident, as a way to understand the difficulty of applying criminal sanctions to battlefield decisions.

jmm99

04-15-2010, 02:34 AM

Must be this computer and network which doesn't show the link in your post. My computer at work yesterday, different network, had it loud and clear.

Cheers

Mike

Cecil Turner

04-15-2010, 02:36 PM

Thank you, Cecil and mfbox, I understand better now where you're coming from.

Thank you as well. I think I understand better both where you're coming from and my own mind as well, which is one of the happy results of hashing out things like this . . . and it's no sin to agree to disagree.

Instead of denying the presence of any armed Iraqis, those witnesses would have been more credible if they admitted the weapons and claimed the armed men were part of the "Neighborhood Watch".

The problem with that is that two RPGs just doesn't fit. I'm trying to use their statement to poke holes in my own theory, but the only logical conclusion is that there's no good explanation, so they lied about it.

[IVAW member Josh Steiber]And I think, you know, the conversation has to be that the people in the helicopter and the people in the military were responding exactly as they had been trained.

I'd note the familiar antiwar meme that tries to run a variant of the Nuremberg defense on every supposed war crime (i.e., to shift the blame from supposed perpetrators to training or higher headquarters). I'd submit this is a logical impossibility: higher headquarters might be guilty, but if there's an atrocity, the shooters cannot be innocent.

The truly interesting thing about this ongoing effort is the focus on propaganda. From the photogs' apparent command of the initial incident to the leaked video years later, the enemy's view of the schwerpunkt is public opinion. I both think they're right, and that we're helping them entirely too much. (With "we" defined very loosely.) I was also a bit disappointed in Gates's response, because while it's perfectly apropos to point up the flaws in the manipulated video, the blame for the leak of the raw footage has to rest with DoD. And I completely agree with Greyhawk that the vid is far worse than the original incident for propaganda purposes.

Fuchs

04-15-2010, 09:01 PM

The truly interesting thing about this ongoing effort is the focus on propaganda. From the photogs' apparent command of the initial incident to the leaked video years later, the enemy's view of the schwerpunkt is public opinion.

This video looks more like the inevitable accident of a strategy that attempted to suppress an internal conflict with the military instead of with intelligence and police only (with the military merely in the background to keep the enemy from rising into the conventional battle phase).

I personally believe that the approach (I know I simplified it here) was wrong and it's important to learn the lesson that internal conflicts ("insurgencies") should be handled with intelligence and police methods, not with attack helicopters circling over a city and firing with autocannons at mere suspects.

Another lesson is that an army tasked to provide security in some place must not value the life and health of its soldiers (much) higher than life and health of the normal inhabitants of that place.

BayonetBrant

04-15-2010, 09:24 PM

one can't help but wonder how much the conversation of the crew on the recording colors the interpretation of it. would we appraise it any differently if they had shown greater remorse over the children being shot? would there be a different argument if there had been less banter and a more workmanlike discussion of the ongoing attack?

sorry - just a stray thought I had based on a conversation here at work...

Ken White

04-16-2010, 12:02 AM

walrus

04-16-2010, 12:29 AM

If you watch the unedited video, at between 2 minutes Ten seconds and Two minutes Eleven seconds, you can see that the second man from the top of the screen is carrying a loaded RPG7. The round is pointing to the top Right of the screen.

That makes this an insurgent group. The photographers have chosen to "embed" with an insurgent group, without distinctive vests that would draw attention to their status.

This is speculation, but the photo one of them took and then "shared" with the insurgents was, in my opinion going to be followed by an RPG7 attack on the Bradley AFV in the photo.

I apologise to the helicopter crew. They did exactly the right thing. The following incident with the van was unfortunate, nothing more.

jmm99

04-16-2010, 02:03 AM

Briefly, from the Al-Amin al-Thaniyah Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Amin_al-Thaniyah):

Al-Amin al-Thaniyah is a neighborhood in New Baghdad, a district on the east side of Baghdad.

It was named after the Caliph al-Amin[citation needed]. In 2003, Shiites renamed it to "Al-Murthadha District", after Ali Murthadha, the first Shiite imam.[1]
....
[1] citing this Fox News story (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,93690,00.html):

Shiites Renaming Baghdad Streets
Monday , August 04, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq

There's no Yasser Arafat Street in Baghdad anymore, and a main thoroughfare along the Tigris River once named for an 8th century poet has a new name as well.

Both have been renamed for Shiite Muslim (search) imams whose memory had no place in Saddam Hussein's rule, when Sunni Muslims dominated despite being a minority in Iraq.

In midnight operations underlining the newfound strength of Iraq's long-oppressed religious majority, Shiite leaders are whitewashing the names of many of Baghdad's bridges, streets and neighborhoods, replacing the hallmarks of the old regime with scrawled titles rich in symbolism for Shiites.
......
Among other Baghdad sites renamed:
......
Al-Ameen District. It's now known as Al-Murthadha District, after Ali Murthadha, the first Shiite imam.

The Wiki references several Baghdad maps, including a street map (http://www.understandingwar.org/files/Baghdad.jpg) and an ethnic map (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/baghdadethno1.JPG). Here is a composite snip:

1071

Al-Amin is in far southeast Baghdad, south of the major Shia area (green) around Sadr City. Al-Amin is a mixed neighborhood (brown), with a Christian belt (violet) nearby. Al-Amin main streets run east-west. The 2007 clear operation ran from south to north (5th St. thru 8th St.).

Based on the mission order and the investigative reports (link by Schmedlap here (http://bit.ly/bLlCEi)), Al-Amin was not an unarmed, peaceful neighborhood; but was the site of current sniper and IED activity. The area of 7th St. was the hub of hostile actions. That picture of active hostilities is supported by the Finkel book excerpt from the Wash Post, BOOK EXCERPT: David Finkel, The Good Soldiers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040601368_pf.html) (also previously mentioned in this thread).

The 2007 clear operation did not result in Al-Amin being a "weapons-free zone". At some time before Jul 2008 (date might be useful), the Iraqi government ordered Al-Amin to be a "weapons-free zone" - not even AKs allowed. That order was enforced in Jul 2008, Iraqi National Police Takes the Lead, Enforces Weapons-free Zone (http://www.usf-iraq.com/?option=com_content&task=view&id=21333&Itemid=128):

Sunday, July 20, 2008 21:11
By Spc. Grant Okubo
4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division

FORWARD OPERATING BASE RUSTAMIYAH - National Policeman and their U.S. National Police Transition Team partners took to the streets of eastern Baghdad to enforce a weapons-free zone in and around Al Amin, July 13. ....

Some weapons seized were these (snip from article):

1072

The picture of Al-Amin as a peaceful, unarmed suburb is contrary to the evidence.

Regards

Mike

PS: I don't have the video clips on this computer; but I recall, in the long video near start where the Apache was panning the neighborhood, a van appears on the right moving left. Someone might want to look for that.

mendel

04-16-2010, 07:48 AM

However,

Another lesson is that an army tasked to provide security in some place must not value the life and health of its soldiers (much) higher than life and health of the normal inhabitants of that place.

this one is highly unlikely to happen. Ever. Nor do I think it should.

Yet, "all men are created equal" is at the heart of every democracy.

(I know it is hard to identify with a group as large as humanity; smaller groups (such as family, or a somewhat larger social clique, e.g. a band of soldiers) are easier to feel a part of and to defend against "the outside".)

Mike, I had a close look at that van, because the "rebuttal" video made much of it; but the van that was shot had what looks like white paint on the roof (to keep off the heat, I presume), and the one that appears earlier doesn't.

(Oh, and I'd love to see the result of a weapon seizure like that carried out on any suburb of a Texas town. ;) )

Ken White

04-16-2010, 01:17 PM

Yet, "all men are created equal" is at the heart of every democracy.If they were, I could play basketball as well as Uwe Blab. I can't. However, he probably can't navigate cross country at night as well as I can. That ridiculous myth is responsible for a great deal of harm in the world.
(I know it is hard to identify with a group as large as humanity; smaller groups (such as family, or a somewhat larger social clique, e.g. a band of soldiers) are easier to feel a part of and to defend against "the outside".)Everyone pretty intuitively knows that, yet they listen to some dipwad academics and even dumber politicians selling that ridiculous 'equality' myth and allow said politicians to pass stupid laws trying to dictate an unnatural outcome while said academics bemoan that only if they were in charge would all be well. :rolleyes:
(Oh, and I'd love to see the result of a weapon seizure like that carried out on any suburb of a Texas town. ;) )Last time that occurred was probably in 1864 or thereabouts. :D

Why would you love to see wartime actions in a state not at war? Yet again, someone attempts to apply peacetime civilian 'rules' or law to a combat situation. Doesn't work. Never has. No matter how hard a lot of people try...

Fuchs

04-16-2010, 03:47 PM

Yet again, someone attempts to apply peacetime civilian 'rules' or law to a combat situation. Doesn't work. Never has. No matter how hard a lot of people try...

Well, SWAT teams would disagree.
They're not allowed, not supposed and not used to go killing people at the next block because there was a shooting incident.

A force of roughly 130,000 personnel taking only about two KIA on an average day cannot claim to be in a war that justifies the treatment of 30,000,000 people like "sentenced to immediate death on mere suspicion" because of maybe 50,000 insurgents and at the same time fulfill a mission that IIRC required providing "security".

Danny

04-16-2010, 04:32 PM

You are wrong. You have a habit of making statements for which there is no basis in fact.

SWAT teams would not in fact concur with your assessment. In the U.S. law enforcement is still restricted by the SCOTUS decision in Tennessee v. Garner and can only use their weapons in self defense. Period. If you go back and study the ROE, there is provision - albeit muddled and faint (and I wish that this aspect would be corrected for the benefit of the troops) - for direct action kinetics against groups that have been named as the enemy (designated terrorists or declared hostile forces).

Categories, definitions, and so on - you know? Slow down and rethink this thing. You're swinging wildly and hitting nothing.

Cecil Turner

04-16-2010, 04:34 PM

Well, SWAT teams would disagree.
They're not allowed, not supposed and not used to go killing people at the next block because there was a shooting incident.

Don't mean to be a pedant, but you can't argue a violation of Geneva in one post and then make an analogy to civil law in the next. It's not even internally consistent. Similarly, I find discussions of "suspects" carrying RPGs completely unpersuasive.

Ken White

04-16-2010, 04:53 PM

as I think it offers a capability that seeks an equal and opposite reaction and thus is prone to provide or provoke a violent incident not desired or required in far too many cases.
Well, SWAT teams would disagree.I'll also point out that they are not exposed to warfare-like conditions all day, every day for a year or so at a whack... :rolleyes:

That can affect your thinking and attitude.:cool:
A force of roughly 130,000 personnel taking only about two KIA on an average day cannot claim to be in a war that justifies the treatment of 30,000,000 people like "sentenced to immediate death on mere suspicion" because of maybe 50,000 insurgents and at the same time fulfill a mission that IIRC required providing "security".Easy to say when you haven't been in or are likely to be in that situation, those who have been look at it differently. Whether they should or not is another question but I can assure you they long have, currently do and probably always will.

Your argument aims at the force -- wrong target. They are doing what comes naturally (in a great many senses of that phrase). Better you should aim at the politicians who put them in a situation where your civilian rules do not -- cannot -- and will not apply.

If you send an Army to another Nation, they are very probably going to break things and not be nice; nature of the beast. If you send a SWAT team or the European equivalent on an arrest where they are likely to be an (or provide some) excessive force, then sooner or later, you will have an 'incident.' Violent entities do violent things. If you do not want violence, do not send an exploding cigar

Probably not all bad that those things exist -- violent entities are sometimes needed. A lot of places in the world, a lot of people are not as nice as you or as Europe is today. For your sake, I truly hope Europe can stay that way -- but I won't bet on it...:(

jmm99

04-16-2010, 05:01 PM

re: this

from Mendel
[1] Mike, I had a close look at that van, because the "rebuttal" video made much of it; but the van that was shot had what looks like white paint on the roof (to keep off the heat, I presume), and the one that appears earlier doesn't.

[2] (Oh, and I'd love to see the result of a weapon seizure like that carried out on any suburb of a Texas town. )

1. I've been stuck at home for the last couple of days (Net access via dialup), so I didn't have a chance to look at the long video. So, the bottom line is that we don't know where the white-roof van was before it appears in the video, except for the witness who stated it was eyes-on when the shooting began.

2. I wouldn't "love to see" a weapons sweep in either TX or MI. Such a sweep of the Northern Michigan county where I live would produce a lot of weapons. BUT, in both MI and TX, the weapons would likely be at most semi-automatics (civilian) vs. automatic (military). If you did the same thing south of the TX border, you would probably find some automatic weapons. Not to make too big a point of that since our forefathers in WWI and WWII managed considerable havoc with bolt action and semi-automatic rifles.

The points, of course, are (1) refutation of the "eyewitnesses" who claimed the neighborhood was unarmed and peaceful; and (2) that weapons were used by insurgents in the neighborhood before, during and after the 2007 clear operation.

Regards

Mike

Fuchs

04-16-2010, 07:45 PM

@Danny;
What's your problem with my text? I quoted Ken's assertion that you cannot use peacetime rules in a combat situation and disproved it by referring to SWAT teams (that for sure get into combat situations sometimes and adhere to the law).

That's factual - while your reply doesn't seem to be related to what I wrote except for unfounded criticism.

@Cecil:
I'm sorry if my post required too much mental agility, moving from one aspect of a topic to another one with a pause of only five days.
(1) The GC stuff was context of the 2007 incident.
(2) The criminal law aspect was relevant as the context in which SWAT teams and police operate. I referred to the police in order to show that armed & dangerous suspects can be handled without killing them with an attack helicopter.

- - - - -

@Ken:
I wonder whether you talk about U.S. troops, Western troops or troops in general because I'm sure neither of us has the knowledge base to make such broad assertions as you did for all armed forces of the world.

Keep in mind that the French Gendarmerie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie_Nationale_%28France%29) has combatant status and belongs to their ministry of defence & military, for example. I have a suspicion that France would have been able to raise a military force of 100,000 troops that can handle such tiny groups of armed suspects more police-like in Iraq if they had tried hard (if they had done the mistake of participating in the war of aggression and subsequent occupation).

Maybe a less violent behaviour in a "provide security" mission is not fully out of reach, but just impossible for certain forces or branches?

The thing that irritates me much more is a different one; the attitude .

See, I have no holy cows. It's difficult to make me enthusiastic about anything. I'm a skeptic.
As such a person, it's entirely out of my grasp how one could stand so firmly by the own institution after such an embarrassing performance. Blaming politicians is a cheap excuse. The 2003-2010 performance in Iraq was poor. The internal conflict ran out of steam by 2007 and the participating institutions succeeded to learn some lessons after four years.
Seriously, that's a disaster. Imagine what we'd think of WWI generals if they had ordered 1914-style attacks as late as 1918!

Failure is usually a great argument for the insight that better ways need to be sought. The "surge" stuff doesn't qualify in my opinion. Not at all.

Well, how could one stay conservative and stick to one's institution and its natural mode of operation after experiencing its gross failure? Wouldn't the natural reaction be to consider radical ideas and changes because incremental improvements won't cut it?

Isn't the chain of war scandals coupled with the inability to provide security for years enough to question discipline and competence, to acknowledge that previously acceptable levels of discipline and competence proved to be unsatisfactory and expectations need to be raised?

Look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KHJGVOrBI). It seems obvious to me that the expectations for discipline needs to be raised.
A more police-like (policemen aren't saints, but apparently still better than many soldiers) behaviour would likely have kept the war at an (even) lower intensity, probably keeping the foreign forces out of the internal conflicts. The police is rarely if ever the main target in conflicts between organised criminals, after all.

Entropy

04-16-2010, 08:00 PM

What's your problem with my text? I quoted Ken's assertion that you cannot use peacetime rules in a combat situation and disproved it by referring to SWAT teams (that for sure get into combat situations sometimes and adhere to the law).

Just because some of the tactics and gear may appear similar on the surface does not mean they are the same thing nor does it mean they are governed by the same sets of rules and legal regimes.

jmm99

04-16-2010, 08:23 PM

from a post on 09-27-2009 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=83318&postcount=59) by STS:

There is a time and a place for surgical, precision and hi-intensity MOUT. I have freely transitioned between the three, sometimes on the same day doing all three, depending on METT-TC.

While some units are enamored of "the one way" and hone their skills to be perfect at one skill set, I will settle for "good enough" at a wide range of skills which will allow the tactical flexibility to prosecute targets in a variety of ways.

The ROE is usually THE definitive variable on what is allowed, which has the unintended effect of causing escalation with regards to a situation. If others find themselves in that situation, then the transition from precision (or surgical) MOUT to hi-intensity must be trained on or else they will quickly find themselves out of their depth when that situation arises.

With regard to the enemy, here is a little personal vignette:

We were doing some training with a LE SWAT team (a double booked range...what are the odds!) and we watched them, and they watched us.

Eventually, we started to compete, as we are wont to do...

Long story short, they attacked we defended (10 on 10) and we defended like we were taught. Concertina in the stairs, crew served covering the avenues of approach, etc. We won. Crew served weapons vs. SWAT = dead SWAT.

They defended, we attacked. We attacked hi-intensity (using a borrowed M-113 as cover) and using "bait" to troll for shots... Again, we won.

There was some good natured discussion afterwards (after a full day of fun, including one night iteration) which basically boiled down to "don't attack a well defended position with SWAT tactics"

SWAT stuff is nifty and a very acceptable TTP IF certain other criteria are met. Simply doing it because that is the only thing you know is the wrong answer.

If an insurgency has reached the "armed conflict" stage, I'd vote for a combination of investigative police (special branch), field force police (gendarmerie) and special tactics police (taking the best features of the provincial recon units in CORDS-Phoenix), augmented with foot-mobile infantry (heavy on patrol and sniping) to control the environment. I would also vote for a vigorous civil affairs component (with built in security; e.g., the USMC CAP program) reaching down to the lowest political unit that needs to be reached.

Now, having said all that, I have to say that is a pipe dream for even the US; and that no such force exists or is likely to exist which can take on large projects such as Iraq and Astan. So, our GP force becomes the "go to" by default, again and again.

Regards

Mike

Ken White

04-17-2010, 12:37 AM

...I quoted Ken's assertion that you cannot use peacetime rules in a combat situation and disproved it by referring to SWAT teams (that for sure get into combat situations sometimes and adhere to the law).However, I replied inferring that (a) SWAT teams do not always obey the law. (b) they are not in constant or extended combat with enemies capable of significant local overmatch which significantly affects one's defensive and offensive mindset and actions; and (c) combat infantry rules and law enforcement rules, even for paramilitary elements, differ. There's a reason for that latter.

Those are the points, they are all fact, not supposition and they discredit your thesis.
I referred to the police in order to show that armed & dangerous suspects can be handled without killing them with an attack helicopter.I'll use that to point out that the police do not have an armed attack helicopter and suggest that if such an aircraft is available and allowed to be used, the probability of death from above is quite good.

There's a reason the police don't have such equipment. There's also a reason that Armed Forces do have it. Regardless, if it's available it will be used because no commander is going to deprive his troops (or police officers) of a combat advantage. Unless the politicians make it uncomfortable to do so -- in which case those politicians are likely to reap what they sow.

Again, you're attacking the wrong target -- Armies do army things, police do police things. If you believe that armed forces should not do police things (and I'd agree with that), then your disagreement, at one level, is with the politicians that sent the wrong people to do a job. A job whose parameters and outcomes is totally predictable...
I wonder whether you talk about U.S. troops, Western troops or troops in general because I'm sure neither of us has the knowledge base to make such broad assertions as you did for all armed forces of the world.Can't speak for you but I've seen forces from 17 nations in combat situations, all for weeks, most for months at a time and I've seen about that many more in combat training situations also, from all seven continents and a great many races -- I'm comfortable that those numbers easily translate to 'most if not all.'
Keep in mind that the French Gendarmerie has combatant status and belongs to their ministry of defence & military...I've long contended that we need such an organization for the foreign internal defense role -- but US LE tradition opposes that so we're unlikely to ever have a paramilitary force.
Maybe a less violent behaviour in a "provide security" mission is not fully out of reach, but just impossible for certain forces or branches?I've also long contended that we, the US, do not do those missions well and should avoid them. I don't think what you suggest is impossible, I do believe it is quite difficult and is indeed particularly difficult for Americans. I also believe that achieving that degree of 'discipline' would adversely affect capability in near peer combat -- and maintaining that capability is IMO, far more important than trying to do or being able to do lesser missions like COIN and internal defense.
See, I have no holy cows. It's difficult to make me enthusiastic about anything. I'm a skeptic.Sure you do -- have holy cows, that is. You believe that better discipline can eliminate adverse incidents or reduce them significantly. True but I doubt you've tried to 'discipline' a bunch of Americans. :D

You not only believe in strong discipline and in everyone doing what they're told -- which is highly unlikely -- you appear to believe, quite mistakenly in my view, that military forces should always behave in accordance with the tenets of civil law. So you have several holy cows. Or holy Moose -- they aren't accurate enough to be cows, ;)
As such a person, it's entirely out of my grasp how one could stand so firmly by the own institution after such an embarrassing performance.Because the institution did what it was designed to do. The fact that it did not do what you and some others wanted it to do or not do is immaterial. The fact that it did not do a good job on things it had not trained to do reflects on the senior officers responsible for its doctrine and training and on the politicians who tell it what to do, not on the institution per se.
Blaming politicians is a cheap excuse.Not an excuse at all, a contributing factor -- but as I've said elsewhere, your problems are with America (generically) and America in Iraq (and / or Afghanistan, specifically). The first exists as it now does due to the ministrations of those politicians, the second issue was purely their responsibility. They had an Army that was not prepared to do what they thought they wanted -- and it was their responsibility to know. They sent that Army to do a job it had not been trained to do -- that's their responsibility. The Army did what it was told, unprepared partly due to own error, partly due to political error. So the institution coped as best it could given its highly bureaucratic structure. Most of the relatively junior people in it did and do their best. Don't shoot at the wrong target. :eek:
The 2003-2010 performance in Iraq was poor. The internal conflict ran out of steam by 2007 and the participating institutions succeeded to learn some lessons after four years.We can agree on that.
Seriously, that's a disaster. Imagine what we'd think of WWI generals if they had ordered 1914-style attacks as late as 1918!Comparing the pressure cooker of either World War with an off the wall minor incursion in a distant nation by elements of the Armed forces of another nation that barely realizes it is in a war is like comparing a SWAT team to a Combat Infantry Unit -- it just won't work. The structural differences are too great. :rolleyes:
Well, how could one stay conservative and stick to one's institution and its natural mode of operation after experiencing its gross failure? Wouldn't the natural reaction be to consider radical ideas and changes because incremental improvements won't cut it?I might and you might; most Generals will not because they're terrified of failing so they will stick with the old unless they're in the pressure cooker of a world war -- then they adapt or get relieved. Shot or hung in some nations...
Isn't the chain of war scandals coupled with the inability to provide security for years enough to question discipline and competence, to acknowledge that previously acceptable levels of discipline and competence proved to be unsatisfactory and expectations need to be raised?Sure. The only question is how you do that and still raise a force of adequate size. To paraphrase the old management adage, you can have it small and highly competent, mid size and fairly competent or big and marginally capable. We opted for mid size and fairly competent.
A more police-like (policemen aren't saints, but apparently still better than many soldiers) behaviour would likely have kept the war at an (even) lower intensity, probably keeping the foreign forces out of the internal conflicts. The police is rarely if ever the main target in conflicts between organised criminals, after all.Heh. I've got two sons who are police officers and have been for years. Both were also in the Army and will tell you in a second that different skills, mindset and action sets are required. One of them BTW is on his Department's SWAT team and he makes derisory comments about their 'combat' skills and the fact that many members of that team are what we here in the US call "wannabes." They wannabe like soldiers -- but aren't...

Different strokes. Very different...

JarodParker

04-17-2010, 05:58 PM

I read a lot of the comments on internet and on this forum before watching the video. And when I finally did get around to watching it, my reaction was, “this is it?” Frankly I can’t understand what all the hoopla is all about.

I'm sorry if my post required too much mental agility, moving from one aspect of a topic to another one with a pause of only five days.
It’s not that your posts require mental agility, I think the problem is that your argument seems to shifting. It’s like a defendant arguing in court, “hey I’m innocent, but if you really think I committed the crime, then I’m mentally ill and if you don’t believe that then it was self-defense.”

Keep in mind that the French Gendarmerie has combatant status and belongs to their ministry of defence & military, for example. I have a suspicion that France would have been able to raise a military force of 100,000 troops that can handle such tiny groups of armed suspects more police-like in Iraq if they had tried hard (if they had done the mistake of participating in the war of aggression and subsequent occupation).
You can have all the suspicion about how the Gendarmerie would’ve performed in Iraq but since they’re not there, we’ll never know.

A policeman also needs to do snap judgments sometimes and may be tired.
Nevertheless, we expect him not to kill without a reason that withstands a judge's curiosity - or else he faces and deserves serious problems.

What you seem to be missing is that police officer’s actions are not judged in hindsight after all the facts come out but based on their perception at the moment they had to make the snap judgment. And 99% of the time the police officers are cleared of criminal liability in internal investigations and in court. The average juror might not have a “full working knowledge” of police work but that’s why expert witnesses are brought in to explain laws, policies and realities.
People have been shot by the police for reaching for their wallets, under their seat, etc. A toddler was killed by a SWAT team when her father was using her as a human shield. Another SWAT team raided the wrong house and killed the resident who grabbed his gun probably thinking he was about to be burglarized.

I agree with those that have stated that you can’t use LE policies in a war zone. But if you want to use a police analogy then the pilots can only be judged based on their perceptions at that moment… not based on an obviously edited, enhanced and captioned video. They perceived a threat and they took action.

On a few nice sunny Southern California days, I was stuck conducting tours for guests at the police academy. It was usually some sweet old ladies (and sometimes kids) with nothing better to do on a weekday. And every single time we got to the practice range, I was asked the same question… “why don’t you teach your police officers to shoot suspects in the arm or the leg?” (and one lady asked, “why not shoot the gun out of their hand?” :D) And our answer was, “because the officers don’t want to go home in a casket.” See, it’s not that their lives are more important than anyone else’s but they’re also not any less important. They are not throw away people that have the luxury of second guessing themselves when that split second could mean their lives of their partner’s.

Well, SWAT teams would disagree.
They're not allowed, not supposed and not used to go killing people at the next block because there was a shooting incident.

Are you seriously making this analogy? Which SWAT teams are you surveying? Also a great deal of police officers are former military. For instance, LAPD SWAT is like 80%+ former Marines (many from Recon).

A force of roughly 130,000 personnel taking only about two KIA on an average day cannot claim to be in a war that justifies the treatment of 30,000,000 people like "sentenced to immediate death on mere suspicion" because of maybe 50,000 insurgents and at the same time fulfill a mission that IIRC required providing "security".

Yea, I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with your characterization here. And also 50,000 fighters… that’s like a couple of divisions even in a conventional fight. But the fact that they utilize insurgent tactics acts as a force-multiplier.

Also, you keep referencing "low" casualties to define this as not being a war; so what's the magic cut-off number? And how long do these numbers have to be sustained?

You’ve made your disdain for the US clear a long time ago and it seems to me that you had already convicted all American soldiers as war criminals long before this video was released. So, I think we're all just going in circles here.

motorfirebox

04-17-2010, 06:43 PM

(2) The criminal law aspect was relevant as the context in which SWAT teams and police operate. I referred to the police in order to show that armed & dangerous suspects can be handled without killing them with an attack helicopter.
That is an incredibly dishonest statement. There is a significant difference between a series of individual engagements--which is what SWAT times and the like deal in--and a prolonged campaign against an organized entity. One of the more glaring differences lies in the goals of those engaged: SWAT and other police entities tend to engage people and groups whose main goal is to escape. Criminals do not, as a general rule, seek out cops--they generally take great pains to avoid cops. Our military, by contrast (and militaries in general), is and was fighting networks which are actively belligerent.

Fuchs

04-20-2010, 08:42 PM

An interview

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/#more-23793

Ken White

04-20-2010, 09:37 PM

"“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”"

Can't fight nice without doing more harm than good. Also proving that some people should not go to war, it is too damaging on their psyches. Some can stand it, some cannot.

Proves too that people focus on the significant act or action to them, not on the total action and that people tend to believe what they're told and have seen as opposed to what may actually be the case.

slapout9

04-20-2010, 10:41 PM

Just because some of the tactics and gear may appear similar on the surface does not mean they are the same thing nor does it mean they are governed by the same sets of rules and legal regimes.

That about says it all IMO. SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics that means when they were created they were for special situations....not to be used in a general purpose fashion. What happened with the attack Helicopter was bad.... but it was a consequence of the horrible thing called War..... not bad Soldiers.

sapperfitz82

04-21-2010, 03:50 PM

Someone may have already mentioned this.

I was in this part of Baghdad from Jan to June 2007. We took ground fire every time we flew without gunship escort from Jan to Mar or thereabouts.

Apache support that flew below 1000 ft AGL was shot at and often grounded during TIC's. Iraqi's disdained Apaches from what I saw. The Apache pilots usually would not slow down enough to fire accurately and so an AK wielding individual felt he had a pretty good chance of squaring off and possibly damaging one. Sounds incredible but I watched it happen a fair amount. I say this to put to rest any thought an Apache would cause people to act suspicious.

This unit was doing great work at this time. We helped with their market protection program and they did a fantastic job of protecting the populace from the rash of carbombs and ETJ killings that were tearing Baghdad apart at this time. They (I think about this time in fact) parked their IFVs and MBTs and started exposing themselves more IOT get closer to the populace. Our entire focus during this time was working with the locals.

We were being targeted with EFPs and this unit lost quite a few men to them, as I remember. The total absence of backlash is a testament to their self-control and professionalism. Just to keep things honest, I do despise them as dirty nasty legs, but credit where it is due.

I get pretty disgusted by this war crime crap. Seriously, get bent. I have worked directly with these same men (2-16 and the Crazyhorse Apache drivers) and have seen them operate with incredible restraint in the most trying conditions. The gun battle in Fadil in which Apache pilots waited for clearance to engage men that were shooting and hitting them from the ground comes to mind. BTW, two of those pilots were injured by ground fire.

These men owe nobody an explanation for their actions. They are the best we have and the most honorable in the world.

And anyone who runs TOWARDS a gun battle should expect to be shot, all else aside.

jmm99

04-21-2010, 04:36 PM

The German investigation and possible prosecution of Oberst Klein and his Oberfeldwebel because of the Kunduz gas tankers bombing has ended in dismissal of all charges - Hat tip to Igel for his post in "Germans in Afghanistan" (post #40 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=97054&postcount=40)).

It is one thing to critique (whether informed or not) how warfare was conducted and dispute "best practices" (as to which, reasonable - and unreasonable - people can disagree). It is quite another thing to allege that that conduct was a "war crime".

----------------------
The interview linked by Fuchs (Danger Room What’s Next in National Security U.S. Soldier on 2007 Apache Attack: What I Saw (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/#more-23793)) has a couple of quotes on the tactical situation which are similar to what sapperfitz82 tells us:

McCord: ... [context - he has just carried the wounded girl from the van] ...
I was told to go pull security on a rooftop. When we were on that roof, we were still taking fire. There were some people taking pot shots, sniper shots, at us on the rooftop. We were probably there on the roof for another four to five hours.

Wired.com: How much sniper fire were you getting?

McCord: It was random sporadic spurts. I did see a guy … moving from a rooftop from one position to another with an AK-47, who was firing at us. He was shot and killed.
......
Wired.com: Wikileaks presented the incident as though there was no engagement from insurgents. But you guys did have a firefight a couple of blocks away. Was it reasonable for the Apache soldiers to think that maybe the people they attacked were part of that insurgent firefight?

McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. ....

So, again, more testimony that Al-Amin was far from an unarmed, peaceful neighborhood.

Regards

Mike

bourbon

06-01-2010, 04:57 AM

No Secrets: Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian), by Raffi Khatchadourian. The New Yorker, June 7, 2010.

Video: WikiLeaks’ Media Insurgency (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/05/video-wikileaks.html), posted by The New Yorker, May 31, 2010.

This week in the magazine, Raffi Khatchadourian writes about WikiLeaks. Here Khatchadourian discusses a classified U.S. military video that shows the killing of two Reuters employees in Baghdad, posted by WikiLeaks under the title “Collateral Murder.”

Khatchadourian wrote The Kill Company (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7707) last summer, and before that an exceptional article on the American al Qaeda member Adam Gadahn.

bourbon

06-01-2010, 06:06 PM

One item that stood out to me from the NY'er article:

Before launching the site, Assange needed to show potential contributors that it was viable. One of the WikiLeaks activists owned a server that was being used as a node for the Tor network. Millions of secret transmissions passed through it. The activist noticed that hackers from China were using the network to gather foreign governments’ information, and began to record this traffic. Only a small fraction has ever been posted on WikiLeaks, but the initial tranche served as the site’s foundation, and Assange was able to say, “We have received over one million documents from thirteen countries.”

Uboat509

06-02-2010, 09:34 AM

Bourbon,

Thanks for posting that piece on Assange. That was a very interesting read. The guy is probably brilliant but he is a paranoid narcissist with delusions of grandeur. He honestly believes that what he is doing is going to somehow save the world and he is prepared to "get blood on his hands" to do it. He admits to having edited the film to make his point. That qualifies as propaganda in my book which makes him a hypocrite at the very least. Elsewhere, this guy would just be another crank on the fringe but he has built himself his own little cult of personality and has gained access to a considerable amount of data, not enough to change the world as he believes, but enough to get innocent people killed.

William F. Owen

06-02-2010, 11:24 AM

He honestly believes that what he is doing is going to somehow save the world and he is prepared to "get blood on his hands" to do it. He admits to having edited the film to make his point. That qualifies as propaganda in my book which makes him a hypocrite at the very least.

Uboat mate, all good points, but looking out from these cliffs, he's just like anyone else in the media. Very little of what you see is actually objective.
The basic reporting of events maybe, but the analysis of any conflict is almost always in support of basic narrative that the reporter/station/organisation has brought into.
Media seeks to influence policy. What annoys me is their claim to be impartial or objective. Very, very few are.

jmm99

06-07-2010, 04:12 PM

starting late yesterday with this from Wired, U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/):

By Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter
June 6, 2010
9:31 pm

Federal officials have arrested an Army intelligence analyst who boasted of giving classified U.S. combat video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to whistleblower site Wikileaks, Wired.com has learned.

SPC Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad, where he was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. A family member says he’s being held in custody in Kuwait, and has not been formally charged. .... (much more in article and blogs cited below)

E.g., blogs at the Nation, Arrested Wikileaks Whistleblower: 260,000 Classified Docs Show “Almost Criminal Political Back Dealings” (http://www.thenation.com/blog/arrested-wikileaks-whistleblower-260000-classified-docs-show-%E2%80%9Calmost-criminal-political-back-de); and at the NY Times, U.S. Soldier Arrested in WikiLeaks Inquiry After Tip From Former Hacker (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/u-s-soldier-arrested-in-wikileaks-probe-after-tip-from-former-hacker/), are running with the same story.

Regards

Mike

Lorraine

07-26-2010, 02:06 AM

By now, most everyone has read about WikiLeak's (http://wikileaks.org/) release of 92,000 reports from operations in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010 -- some of them classified. Over the last month, three news organizations: the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html), The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs), and Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314,00.html)had access to the documents. Today, they published stories based on their analysis, simultaneously with WikiLeaks release of the source documents.

All three news organizations make promises that "little or no harm" will come from their reporting.

I've only begun to wade through this mess. But initially, the hair is raised on my back. I'm wary of such easy promises.

The gravest concern is the classified information. There is simply no way that WikiLeaks or the news outlets can predict the outcome of releasing classified information -- even if names have been redacted. Classified information is protected for a reason. Lives, operations, negotiations, partnerships may perish when it's not.

I'm also concerned how easily the Rule of Law has been discarded in favor of "transparency." And how it's likely that these documents will be misinterpreted and/or distorted because they lack context and authentication. And how both these things will impact progress in Afghanistan and how we conduct ourselves as a society.

Anyways, back to reading.

jmm99

07-26-2010, 02:51 AM

when I briefly reported the Manning case, Yes, appears incriminating .... (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=99987&postcount=186), to 92K actually published. So, Wikileaks' denial of the 260K log entries may be technically accurate - unless there are to be 2nd and 3rd installments.

In any event, if someone cannot make something out of 92K classified log entries (that is, something that they shouldn't be able to make out otherwise), I'd be very surprised. Consider the Venona intercepts (The Rosenberg Case Resurrected (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6035&highlight=venona)) - not exactly gems of clarity and incomplete; but they filled in many blanks.

Regards

Mike

huskerguy7

07-26-2010, 04:50 AM

In my opinion, I think the release of these classified reports is inappropriate and unnecessary. Even though much of the names are deleted, it still compromises relationships, tactics, operations, and strategy. I do agree with transparency to an extent, but 92,000 documents from an ongoing war is disappointing. As a citizen, I know that some facts about ongoing conflicts are going to be hidden, and understand. I'm ok with that because I trust the people in office and in command. What's really frustrating is that the mass media is going to capitalize on a couple of these documents to paint their own picture of the war. I think that this may cause unnecessary panic and several misunderstandings about the war. Don't get me wrong, I am taking advantage of this event to learn more about the war. However, I would rather have preferred that this leak did not happen; the effects are not worth it. Nevertheless, anybody could oppose this assertion with legitimate points.

As for the content of the documents, I've had the chance to examine some (I'm the kind of person that prefers to avoid relays when receiving information). There is a substantial amount of interesting information that confirms some of my opinions, proves some wrong, and surprises me. After reading a certain amount, I feel that my understanding is better.

Red Rat

07-26-2010, 08:46 AM

I have only seen the UK's 'Guardian' newspaper coverage.

From the perspective of an informed observer there appears to be little new in the material released. Most was 'known of' in the public domain, even if it was not widely reported or acknowledged. The sheer amount of material published does IMHO mean that an analysis of it will reveal stuff relating to our intelligence structure, efforts and effectiveness that we just do not want people to know. It will damage us. The Guardian acknowledges (link given elsewhere in thread) that they had too much material and not enough time to process it, so they used a word search facility to home in an areas of interest (search 'blue on blue', 'casualties', 'Iran' etc). This methodology means IMHO that they are simply unable to say truthfully or accurately that its release will not put lives at risk or damage national interests. Overall I found the analysis disappointingly superficial which reinforced my feeling that they were overloaded with information and have not been able to look at it properly in the time they had.

The coverage is interesting too. The 'Guardian' is a left of centre liberal newspaper. The narrative it appeared to be trying to build was that the war was messier (morally and physically) then we think and we cannot trust what we are being told about the situation out there:

More civilian casualties
SF taskforces killing targets under dubious legal grounds
Issues over Afghan government effectiveness (and moral worth), Pakistan and Iranian involvement.

This will strike a chord with the 'why are we there and what are we achieving' component in the UK.

John T. Fishel

07-26-2010, 11:11 AM

As a former national level Army analyst, my experience was that there was an awful lot of stuff classified that had no business being classified.
A little background for those who don't know:
1. There are only 3 levels of classification in the US, confidential, Secret, and Top Secret with Secret being the middle level (contrary to the NYT story). They are established and defined by Executive Order, not by legislation. There are also compartments within each category where access is granted based on "need to know."
2. Level of classification is chosen by the"degree of harm" to US national security based on unauthorized release.
3. Most classified documents are classified because they are based on previouslly classified documents - called "derivative classification authority."

IMO documents are legitimately classified when they relate to war plans (writ large), intel sources and methods, and perishable friendly and enemy information, as well as non-perishable stuff. Generally, once a plan has been executed, there is no longer a need to keep it classified although there may be some parts that should remain so. Generally, intelligence information is perishable and becomes part of the public domain fairly quickly so there is usually no longer a need to keep the INFORMATION itself classified. Sources and methods need to stay classified fro a very long time.

My experience has been that once classified it is unusaul for declassification to take place. An exception was OPORD BLIND LOGIC, my plan for the post-conflict reconstruction of Panama which my boss deliberately declassified after it had been executed. But, it is generally too difficult to take the time to declassify plans and information while retaining as classified what should be retained. So, people don't bother. There are also plenty of examples of the improper use of classification. When the opening to China took place, my organization ran a curren intel article on Ping Pong Dipolmacy that the author classified as Confidential even though he had taken it directly from the CBS Morning News on the grounds that if it were UNCLAS the generals would not believe it! In other cases, things have been classified only because they would embarrass public officials if released - this was IMO the primary reason the Nixon Administration sought to block the release of the Pentagon Papers.

Despite some cases of improper classification, the general problem of overclassification and lack of declassification is the all too human response that doing what is right is simply in the "too hard" box. That brings on its own problems such as Wikileaks and the Pentagon Papers (which should simply have been declassified and released).

Cheers

JohnT

J Wolfsberger

07-26-2010, 12:14 PM

As a former national level Army analyst, my experience was that there was an awful lot of stuff classified that had no business being classified.

I worked with a guy who tried to classify F=ma (Top Secret, no less), on the grounds we didn't want the Soviets to know we were using basic physics. (No, I'm not making that up.)

I'll second John, but then introduce a caveat. While there is probably stuff in this release that shouldn't have been classified, that wasn't the leaker's decision to make.

A. Shahid

07-26-2010, 12:38 PM

The 'documents', if they can be called as much, appear to simply be culled from a well-known database used in theater.
The other issue, one that I'm personally concerned about, is the impact on the lives of named individuals in these documents. When we signed our agreements concerning the proper use of classified material, it was implied that the government would hold up its end of the bargain and prevent the unauthorized disclosure of our names, identities, activities, etc. The fact that US individuals are named in these documents and NOT redacted by the media is disturbing. This could have significant personal and professional ramifications for those who are not career, active-duty intelligence personnel. In some cases, the perception of involvement in 'covert' or 'special forces' raids could make us unhireable in certain professional disciplines.
What sayeth the Council on this matter?

tom_mancino

07-26-2010, 02:47 PM

1. No moral equivalency between the Pentagon Papers, released by one of the authors, and a disturbed 22 year old PFC Manning - the most likely source of this leak.
2. Failure to prosecute/stop these leaks shows a disturbing lack of leadership. Where was the CIA? Was any effort made to stop this or other leaks? The existence of this data had been suspected since Manning's arrest.
3. What will Wikileaks have to produce in order to be prosecuted? Names and addresses of operators? The founder is an Australian after all, a NATO and combatant country.
4. These leaks and others like them will have a chilling effect on intelligence operations. Would you give information if you thought it/you might be made available to the enemy?
5. Failure to prosecute these types of events provide support to our enemies, irrespective of the value of the intelligence they contain, by showing that we are not serious. What would have happened had this type of event occurred during WWII? Are we at war or not?

Ken White

07-26-2010, 03:05 PM

...What would have happened had this type of event occurred during WWII? Are we at war or not?and have not been since WW II. Elements of the Army are committed to a war, the institution is not at war nor is the US.

I know very well why that is distasteful. However, I'm unsure why it is not more widely known and accepted (in the sense that it is inevitable so you might as well enjoy it...).

tom_mancino

07-26-2010, 03:10 PM

and have not been since WW II. Elements of the Army are committed to a war, the institution is not at war nor is the US.

I know very well why that is distasteful. However, I'm unsure why it is not more widely known and accepted (in the sense that it is inevitable so you might as well enjoy it...).

Agreed.....

John T. Fishel

07-26-2010, 03:19 PM

Lorraine

07-26-2010, 03:21 PM

Yank in Germany

07-26-2010, 03:33 PM

Just as large amounts of unclassified data put together can provide intelligence, I am sure 92,000 pages will provide the enemy information on or TTP's and other operations.

Sadly such leakers haven't been prosecuted.

tom_mancino

07-26-2010, 03:35 PM

Legitimately classified stuff should only be declassified properly. That said, we shouldn't make it go into the "too hard box." My point, besidess being to give a bit of info on the nature and pitfalls of classification was to say that by not declassifying what and when we should, we create situations where someone else will "declassify" it by improper, unauthorized release. That is part of what happened in both the Pentagon Papers and the Manning and this other Wikileaks case. Not moral equivalency at all.

Tom, Australia is a combatant with us but NOT a member of NATO. She is actually a member of the ANZUS alliance. What, however, would you prosecute Wikileaks for? As far as I can tell, they have broken no US laws. Remember, we do not have an Official Secrets Act (which would probably be unconstitutional anyway). You can prosecute the govt leaker but not the media outlet.

Cheers

JohnT

Very true on both points. I wonder if Australian law is similar to our own, or more "liberal" with possible prosecution for disclosed secrets? Also, is it settled law that media outlets can't be prosecuted or is there a required 1st Amendment test relative to value of the information published to show the workings of government policy? I agree with your comments on over-classification as well. However, to me, this is exactly the type of intelligence that should remain classified for a very long time. It is unfiltered intel reporting of varying reliability, listing names/places/phone numbers, etc. not filtered analytical products with a historic value or insight into government policy (the downloadable data from wikileaks is non-redacted). Some of those reports were from just last year.

Yank in Germany

07-26-2010, 03:37 PM

One other story last week shows the lack of public commitment to the war.
The Washington Post story on "Top Secret America" condemns the role of contractors however because many Western powers are volunteer forces, the logistic and intelligence tasks have to be picked up by contractors rather than by filling the personnel shortfalls with draftees.

jmm99

07-26-2010, 03:56 PM

You forgot Top Secret BBO.

So I agree about excessive classification and also the difficulty in prosecuting beyond the initial leaker (espionage networks excepted). Ultimately, you have to come down to the people involved. If all that goes on in the "office" stays in the "office", obviously there will be no problems.

It is funny how terms mean different things in different contexts. E.g., "Confidential" (lowest security level) means to me (re: proper lawyer-client information) absolute secrecy.

Red Rat summed the present blowup well:

From the perspective of an informed observer there appears to be little new in the material released. Most was 'known of' in the public domain, even if it was not widely reported or acknowledged. The sheer amount of material published does IMHO mean that an analysis of it will reveal stuff relating to our intelligence structure, efforts and effectiveness that we just do not want people to know. It will damage us.

from a larger picture standpoint;

and Shahid:

The other issue, one that I'm personally concerned about, is the impact on the lives of named individuals in these documents. When we signed our agreements concerning the proper use of classified material, it was implied that the government would hold up its end of the bargain and prevent the unauthorized disclosure of our names, identities, activities, etc. The fact that US individuals are named in these documents and NOT redacted by the media is disturbing. This could have significant personal and professional ramifications for those who are not career, active-duty intelligence personnel. In some cases, the perception of involvement in 'covert' or 'special forces' raids could make us unhireable in certain professional disciplines.

from the standpoint of the individual who is ID'd - which may be a larger problem than the governmental aspect.

One note re: "...it was implied that the government would hold up its end of the bargain ... " Ain't no sure thing in an "implied contract" with the government. Rule 1: get the government's end of the bargain in writing. Rule 2: confirm the authority of the government official to make the bargain in writing from his superior.

Regards

Mike

* For the uninitiated (re: Top Secret BBO), BBO = Burn Before Opening. ;)

John T. Fishel

07-26-2010, 04:53 PM

No, I didn't forget BBO or its twin BBR. They are among those "need to know" compartments. ;)

There is another part of the "get it in writing from the govt" which is, that if a certain intel agency verbally tells a military person to do somethin that person had better get the order from his commander and, if there is any doubt about its legitimacy, in writing.

Cheers

JohnT

huskerguy7

07-26-2010, 05:28 PM

The White House has condemned the release of the reports along with other NATO governments. I doubt that the administration will publicly go after Wikileaks; Wikileaks has to much public support.

As I try to access Wikileak's main website (which is terribly slow and won't load), another thought came to my mind. The intelligence community despises Wikileaks and wishes (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18 _Mar_2008)that it would cease its actions. Since legal action seems unlikely, do you think that Wikileaks will be the victim of a cyber attack (stolen data or DDOSed)? Whether conducted by US government personal or outsourced to a private firm, I wouldn't rule it out.

So far, I agree with the other comments on here about the leak. Even the current situation of the war was known, the leaks reveal what we know, how we know, and our structure. Repairing this will be difficult.

The way that the media has reported this (specifically the NY Times) is disappointing. They have been picking specific stories to try to describe the whole war. This is wrong and is simply poor reporting.

Ken White

07-26-2010, 06:11 PM

Ken, I'm not sure of your intent here. Can you explain further?The first should be totally self explanatory and is accurate; the nation and the Army simply have not mobilized for the small wars that we have engaged in since 1945. That does not mean that no one cared or did not do their best in the role given, merely that the nation -- and thus, the Army -- has not had to fully mobilize since WWII.

That was a war that involved about 11% of the population in service and about 70% or so of adults in civilian supporting roles. It required about 35% of annual GDP each year for defense alone, other costs probably were almost as much. No war since then has seen more than 2% of the population in uniform (currently it's a bit over one half of 1%), other than quite minimal civilian disruption or more than 4% or so of GDP -- that was Korea, most were far less expensive. LINK (.pdf) (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf), LINK (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php). In short, the Army has sent folks to war but the bulk of the Army remained relatively unaffected. Most important and most negatively, the Army bureaucracy was and is not forced to adapt to a war fighting mode or mentality.

The second is that we're wealthy enough -- in many senses, not just fiscally -- to do that so it has been a given (and that is unlikely to change...). Those of us who served for lengthy periods (as opposed to Draftees and short term Enlistees or Officers) knew or should have known or should know it was / is part of the job and all should be willing to accept it as the price paid for the many advantages we have. I did; no regrets at all. :cool:

That does not mean that many of the short term people should simply accept it with good grace. The career folks, OTOH should or they probably should seek other employment. Though I admit it can be -- was -- annoying from time to time it's simply the way things are; it's a human thing, a feature, not a bug. .. :wry:

J Wolfsberger

07-26-2010, 06:15 PM

huskerguy7

07-26-2010, 06:20 PM

"... Spc. Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Md. He was charged with releasing classified information this month." (from FoxNews.com)

He faces 5 to Life if the information was at the Secret level, and 5 to Life with a possibility of the death penalty if Top Secret.

So it all stems from ONE person? I would imagine that 92,000 documents would require the participation from multiple people.

Pete

07-26-2010, 06:42 PM

The documents were from multiple sources. They were apparently stored in the same database or databases to which the alleged perpetrator had access.

subrosa

07-26-2010, 11:01 PM

that they have multiple sources and receive information regularly, so they claim...and apparently they dont know who the source is. can it be?

What can you tell us about the source?
We know from looking at this material, correlating it with public records and talking to military sources that this material is true and accurate. As to the specific source, obviously we can't comment.

There's been publicity about Bradley Manning, a military officer, who claims to be a source for Wikileaks. What can you say about him?
We have a number of military sources, including ones before Manning joined the army.

Do you know who the source is?
No, we don't know who the source is.

So how does Wikileaks work?
So other journalists try to verify sources. We don't do that, we verify documents. We don't care where it came from - but we can guess that it probably came from somewhere in the US military or the US government, from someone who is disaffected. Clearly, a heroic act by the whistleblower.

So the same computer system that protects the source also stops you from knowing that source?
The system we have deployed to make whistleblowers to us untraceable, also prevents us knowing who they are.

Whoever it is, the US military will regard him as a traitor.
Well, we can't speak for the decision of the US military in this case, but it's clear there are a number of people in the US military who have a view that abuses should not occur in war, and we have a number of sources revealing these abuses everyday. It's one of the optimistic things in the course of this war that there is dissent and that there are well intentioned people in the US military.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/afghan+leak+wikileaks+julian+assange+tells+all/3723392

Lorraine

07-27-2010, 12:20 AM

Intentionally or not, WikiLeaks has become an arbiter of life and death.

Here's telling quote from the Channel 4 (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/afghan+leak+wikileaks+julian+assange+tells+all/3723392) interview referenced by subrosa above:

There is an awful amount of material here that you couldn't have looked through personally. Could it cost lives? Is it putting people in danger publishing this?
We've gone through the material and reviewed it and looked for cases where innocent informers, ie an old man saying next door there is a Taliban, or what he believes is Taliban, so we've looked for those cases and there's a particular type of report that frequently has that - those have been withheld and also the source says they have done some work in doing this as well. So I think it's unlikely that that will happen. We've worked hard to make sure there's not a significant chance of anybody coming to harm.

But you can't guarantee it?
Any information can be abused for another purpose so we can't guarantee it. But our understanding of the material is that it's vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives.

With four years experience, a "strong method", and without checks and balances, WikiLeaks steams ahead with a certainty that through their work and thier proper judgment, they can achieve justice. And by extension, that any deaths occuring as a result of their work is a regrettable means to a noble end.

Achieving justice is a monumental task with which all societies struggle. For WikiLeaks to take it on in this manner reveals a dangerous naivety in their crusade and confidence.

IntelTrooper

07-27-2010, 12:25 AM

I've been thinking about it, and on the positive side someone might actually read my reports now.

milnews.ca

07-27-2010, 01:29 PM

Been a while since I've posted, so feel free to shift this if it doesn't belong here.....

Here in Canada, one of the documents drawing the media's eye (copy saved in Scribd.com here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/34905071/Friendly-Fire-Blue-Blu-03sept06-270025utc-Jul-10)) deals with an incident where 4 Canadians were killed in 2006. The report is classified "Friendly Fire", so media people here are reading this to mean "Cdn cas=blue-blue cas". A spokesperson for the Minister of National Defence has denied this (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/wikileak-afghanistan-canada-soldiers.html?ref=rss), and people who were there also say that's not the case (http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,95569).

Also, in the words of one Twitterer (http://twitter.com/Abaceen/status/19571658449) just after the release:

The Wiki leaks is going to get lots of people into the hit list of Taleban, even if the names are not real.

davidbfpo

07-27-2010, 10:20 PM

A short article on FP reflecting on how intelligence works and amidst the avalanche of comments worth a read IMHO:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/26/how_do_intelligence_analysts_figure_out_whats_cred ible_and_what_isnt

Now, does Wikileaks contribute to greater understanding for the reader of what has happened as a guide to today? I think not.

huskerguy7

07-30-2010, 06:35 AM

Last night, I was browsing some of the raw documents and appalled by what I found.

After opening one report, I came across an informant's name, elder's name, and the source's phone number. Several email addresses were also listed.

I know that the NY Times and The Guardian pledged to hide their sources (for some reason, I was under the impression that Wikileaks also deleted the names). However, even the private information is publicly available. If I can find it, I'm sure that anybody can find it.

What does this mean? With the Taliban's decision (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/07/taliban-to-attack-civilians-af/) to now attack Afghan civilians who are cooperating with the Coalition, the situation is much more disturbing. With the leaked documents (which also provide location details) publicly available, the Taliban could easily make a hit list of hundreds of Coalition informants within 24 hours. If this is done (or something along these lines), then working with the locals in some cases will be much more difficult. It's to bad that sensitive, private information about Afghan civilians was leaked.

Kiwigrunt

07-30-2010, 07:33 AM

On TED.com: (http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html) (20 min)

The controversial website WikiLeaks collects and posts highly classified documents and video. Founder Julian Assange, who's reportedly being sought for questioning by US authorities, talks to TED's Chris Anderson about how the site operates, what it has accomplished -- and what drives him. The interview includes graphic footage of a recent US airstrike in Baghdad.

JMA

07-31-2010, 08:23 AM

starting late yesterday with this from Wired, U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/):

E.g., blogs at the Nation, Arrested Wikileaks Whistleblower: 260,000 Classified Docs Show “Almost Criminal Political Back Dealings” (http://www.thenation.com/blog/arrested-wikileaks-whistleblower-260000-classified-docs-show-%E2%80%9Calmost-criminal-political-back-de); and at the NY Times, U.S. Soldier Arrested in WikiLeaks Inquiry After Tip From Former Hacker (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/u-s-soldier-arrested-in-wikileaks-probe-after-tip-from-former-hacker/), are running with the same story.

Regards

Mike

When last was a US serviceman executed for exposing classified current war information to the world and the enemy?

The best advice is to do it quickly before the media fest starts.

gute

08-01-2010, 03:08 PM

I am finding it difficult to write about this because it obsolutely infuriates me so I'll tell you about the nice dream I had last night - Assange, PFC Manning and Seymour Hersh had their heads sawed off by the Taliban on national t.v.

JarodParker

08-05-2010, 07:19 PM

WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to Web Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_hi_te/afghanistan_wikileaks)

LONDON – Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted file named "Insurance" to its website, sparking speculation that those behind the organization may be prepared to release more classified information if authorities interfere with them.

Somebody tell this guy that he isn't Will Smith and that this aint "Enemy of the State."

Lorraine

08-05-2010, 08:18 PM

According a Huffington Post story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/us-military-banned-from-v_n_671967.html), this week the Navy issued an official memo notifying sailors that they should not and are not authorized to view the classified documents on WikiLeaks. Huffington Posts quotes the memo:

"There has been rumor that the information is no longer classified since it resides in the public domain. This is NOT true."

The Navy memo articulates an important message to military and civilian alike -- viewing the classified documents at WikiLeaks expands the reach of sensitive info and reinforces WikiLeaks' role as a legitimate infomation provider.

I agree with the Navy -- tempting as it may be, there are few, if any, compelling reasons for most of us to view the classified information.

Pete

08-05-2010, 09:39 PM

The real problem is whether information in the leaked documents helps the bad guys, not the expansion the reach of classified information. DoD his pointed out that certain of the documents identify persons who have cooperated with our forces. On the other hand, most of these documents are mundane as they could be, not at all like the high-level stuff in Ellsburg's Pentagon Papers in 1972.

gute

11-28-2010, 10:00 PM

I really don't know how serious these leaks are, but who cares - he only does it us it seems. Why is this prick still alive? Seems to me he is a threat to our national security. Same with the soldier that leaked the info - he should be shot for treason. Enough is enough.

Fuchs

11-28-2010, 10:25 PM

JMA

11-28-2010, 10:31 PM

JMA

11-28-2010, 10:41 PM

Sounds to me more like he's producing embarrassments, not a degradation of national security.

Most of the info appears to be not confidential or at a low level. There's no top secret stuff among it.

Besides; would you want spies to be shot when caught? That would certainly kill scores of Americans world-wide.

Finally, Assange is not in the U.S.. An assassination in a foreign country could easily earn the CIA a status as a criminal organization in that country and possibly in others, too. The backlash could be enormous and very well exceed the benefits.
Oh, I forgot. There would likely be no benefits other than revenge. The Manning leak may prove to be a one-time event for Wikileaks, and they already uploaded all that they have (encrypted) months ago.

It will take a little time for the average American to see the opportunity to clear out those in the State Department and the CIA who have behaved deplorably in the name of the people of the US.

The US is a great country with good, genuine and warm hearted people who have been served really badly by government for a long long time. I'm sure they will ensure that they will do whatever is necessary to clean out their house in the wake of this release of documents. I wish them well.

JarodParker

11-28-2010, 11:21 PM

I would just like to know what ever happened to compartmentalizing this kind of info? How can one low level d-bag have access to so much stuff?

Lionberger

11-28-2010, 11:32 PM

JMA

11-29-2010, 12:02 AM

Fuchs

11-29-2010, 12:25 AM

That's correct. It's just that Manning was their great coup.

There's btw a similar affair in Europe.

Ten thousands of wealthy Germans have long committed tax fraud with the help of banks in Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

A single bank employee offered a CD full of tax fraud data to the German state and became a millionaire. Several other bank employees have followed this example since.
Liechtenstein and Switzerland were embarrassed (and Liechtenstein's economic model got shattered, for it's a mini state).
Many German fraudsters were either caught or turned themselves in.

There were some anti-German sentiments in Switzerland, but overall from a German taxpayer position it looks as if they were simply embarrassed that they were caught helping criminals.

Such leaks can be very, very useful - and trust me, some Swiss voices were about as harsh in this affair as are many U.S. voices about Assange.

Fuchs

11-29-2010, 12:27 AM

I would just like to know what ever happened to compartmentalizing this kind of info? How can one low level d-bag have access to so much stuff?

Afaik the restrictions were loosened and checks were removed because they were impractical for those who were deployed to Iraq/AFG.

RawIsRaw

11-29-2010, 01:49 AM

Its not just Assange who's behind wikileaks. Im pretty sure its a psy-op front run by a few secret services...all to discredit the US army, mostly. So which secret services? Not necessarily the usual suspects...after all, they do leak classified, US sensitive information so its a given that there are several collaborators within our own ranks. Some claim there are actually CIA elements that feed wikileaks. That could explain why the leaks keep going on, without consequences it seems (just yadda yadda). Yep, the spy business can be quite nasty...

Lionberger

11-29-2010, 05:19 AM

If you go to the WikiLeaks site and see what stories they have broken you will see that in the main it is not US related or targeted. To accuse Assange of targeting the US seems devoid of reality to me.

JMA, your "devoid of reality" comment shows that you believe Wikileaks has had no motive in the repeated release of US and Coalition Confidential and Secret materials. Mr. Assange has described his motives (on behalf of Wikileaks) several times and made no secret of his desire to "expose" US, Coalition and Iraqi wrongdoing with the release of this information. Any reasonable adult will recognize that such release is intended to do harm to US interests and policy on the international stage and in the case of the diplomatic cables, direct some harm to our friends and allies. This is the essence of targeting in the arena of Information Operations.

If my country or our allies chose not to respond to this act, it sets a very dangerous precedent and would validate this overt attack by a non-state actor and subject the greater international community to similar attacks in the future.

This is a complex issue with as yet unforseen second-order effects and your one-liner was not very constructive or mature. Lets give it more of an adult effort next time, OK?

JMA

11-29-2010, 07:53 AM

JMA, your "devoid of reality" comment shows that you believe Wikileaks has had no motive in the repeated release of US and Coalition Confidential and Secret materials. Mr. Assange has described his motives (on behalf of Wikileaks) several times and made no secret of his desire to "expose" US, Coalition and Iraqi wrongdoing with the release of this information. Any reasonable adult will recognize that such release is intended to do harm to US interests and policy on the international stage and in the case of the diplomatic cables, direct some harm to our friends and allies. This is the essence of targeting in the arena of Information Operations.

If my country or our allies chose not to respond to this act, it sets a very dangerous precedent and would validate this overt attack by a non-state actor and subject the greater international community to similar attacks in the future.

This is a complex issue with as yet unforseen second-order effects and your one-liner was not very constructive or mature. Lets give it more of an adult effort next time, OK?

For one who came out on this matter shooting from the hip your comment on "constructive" is hilarious. Thanks for the entertainment though.

JMA

11-29-2010, 07:58 AM

According to an article in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/how-us-embassy-cables-leaked) Bradley Manning explained how he did it:

It was childishly easy, according to the published chatlog of a conversation Manning had with a fellow-hacker. "I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like 'Lady Gaga' … erase the music … then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing ... [I] listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history." He said that he "had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months".

If it was this easy one wonders how much other stuff was lifted by other people and passed on to other agencies? At least now the US knows that everyone knows.

Lionberger

11-29-2010, 08:21 AM

For one who came out on this matter shooting from the hip your comment on "constructive" is hilarious. Thanks for the entertainment though.

Well, it seems the Non-Aligned Movement has spoken. Still as irrelevant today as it was in the 1970s.

JMA

11-29-2010, 08:56 AM

Well, it seems the Non-Aligned Movement has spoken. Still as irrelevant today as it was in the 1970s.

Yes the Non-Aligned Movement was a joke and irrelevant. Sadly that is not the issue today. The issue today is the opportunity the US people now have to assess what has been done in their name by the State Department and what information was received and how their government responded to that information. Hillary Clinton's career stone dead? A one term President?

Fuchs

11-29-2010, 09:56 AM

Mr. Assange has described his motives (on behalf of Wikileaks) several times and made no secret of his desire to "expose" US, Coalition and Iraqi wrongdoing with the release of this information.

What you don't consider is thedfact that Assange and other Wikileaks people are fanatic anti-secrecy, pro-whistleblowing folks.

They would expose Chinese, French, Russian, Indian or Brazilian wrongdoings just as happily.

The U.S. is hyper-active, large, has an apparently lousy security for it slow and medium level secrets and as a consequence it was most likely that one or several large leaks would concern the U.S..

Wikileaks is not on a campaign again the U.S., but a campaign against state secrecy in general.

Bob's World

11-29-2010, 12:10 PM

They say that "character" is how one acts when they think no one is looking. I've not seen the material in the wikileaks, but they are, by that definition, a window into America's character.

Such actions of leaking confidential material of a negative nature definitely erodes U.S. influence, which in turn makes the nation weaker. Less able to deter threats and rally allies through presence alone, but demanding more and more energy, wealth and compromise to accomplish the same tasks. Such leaks are serious.

More serious and of greater concern are the actions exposed. In the law, "truth" is an absolute defense in a slander case. Are the leaks a problem, or is the embarrassing nature of our national character the problem? We need to focus on the more important of the two if we are to move forward from this.

Like so many problems we face today, this is not one that can be simply "contained."

J Wolfsberger

11-29-2010, 01:20 PM

' "I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like 'Lady Gaga' …" '

I realize there are differences between contractor and government procedures, but by any set of standards taking uncontrolled media into a secure facility, connecting it to a secure machine, and carrying it out of the facility is a serious breach of security. As in, "confiscate the badge, detain or escort off the premises and notify the FBI" serious. There needs to be a careeer ending shake up in the staff who permitted this.

Rex Brynen

11-29-2010, 04:19 PM

A challenge posed by the latest leaks will be for the US to maintain coherent policy focus while dealing with the drip-drip-drip of leaked diplomatic cables. Even if the cables contain few startling revelations, diplomatic reporting--unlike SIGACTS from Iraq or Afghanistan--are much more likely to contain the sorts of political gossip that fuel media reporting. Moreover, because of the range of topics and countries covered, they can have this effect in scores of different ways in 180+ political and media environments.

At the moment, only 243 of 251,287 cables possessed by Wikileaks have been released on the Wikileaks website. At this rate, the drips could occur for months or years. If I were DoS, there would be no end to how pissed off I would be at US Army COMSEC at the moment.

Joske

11-29-2010, 04:33 PM

Assange/Wikileaks is a good example of a 4th (5th??) Gen Warfare transnational and non-state enemy of the US. They exploit their non-state status and conflicting national laws and priorities of law enforcement among the target nations (US/UK), host nations (Sweden?) and the nations in the middle who have an interest in the method (Internet) and the resulting political vulnerability this creates for the US.

Like any other transnational and non-state threat, Wikileaks should be targetable by the US and the UK. I would suggest that the only area of discussion should be how and to what extent.

I laugh when CNN reports that Wikileaks site has been the subject of a DDS attack today. Maybe they are currently being targeted........

Wikileaks does not only release US or coalition "secret" materials, some of the leaks they released detailed corruption in kenya, scientology (the usual stuff), sarah palin's e-mail account, membership lists of the british far-right party BNP, "incriminating" e-mail correspondence by climate change scientists, telephone recordings about an oil spill in peru, an internal report about a nuclear accident in Iran, bank corruption... etc all the leaks in 2010 (the ones who got the most media attention) come from one source (Bradley Manning) and are thus all these documents originated from the US.
So if you claim that wikileaks is fighting a war against the US is besides a gross misinterpretation of the concept itself also quite foolish seeing the previous track record of the wikileaks organization.

On a different note every time i read that wikileaks released something new i always see the amazement of the media about certain facts, while most of the "secrets" are already known as a sort of public secret, and few actual unknown facts are released.

Firn

11-29-2010, 05:46 PM

On a different note every time i read that wikileaks released something new i always see the amazement of the media about certain facts, while most of the "secrets" are already known as a sort of public secret, and few actual unknown facts are released.

Thanks to the worldwide media echo to some of it's leaks, Wikileaks seems to act as an extremely bright spotlight which forces many to give some topics, "secret" or not, serious consideration.

Our deer PM Berlusconi has already reacted to the analysis of his character. It is not a surprising one, but what matters that it is one from the USA, brought to you by Wikileaks and not a simple, olf-fashioned columnist "comunista" from La Repubblica.

Fuchs

11-29-2010, 06:20 PM

The remarks about Merkel and Westerwelle were no surprise in Germany - we already know our top politicians.

omarali50

11-29-2010, 09:19 PM

If the US govt were smarter, they would use these leaks to prove that the US is actually a far more benign power than most people seem to think. And that there is no world government, no elders of Zion and no trilateral commission running the world. In fact, nobody seems to run the place. All in all, very reassuring.
Of course, it will be good if the CIA could upload the more juvenile cables from other countries to wikileaks, just to put things in perspective, but then, CIA probably has no such capability. Maybe they can pay some hacker to do the job?

slapout9

11-29-2010, 09:42 PM

If the US govt were smarter, they would use these leaks to prove that the US is actually a far more benign power than most people seem to think.

Yes, I have been reading some of the leaks and I watched Secretary of State Clinton's response and there is certainly an opportunity for the US to turn this to our advantage, on a lot of issues if we were willing to do that. Unfortunately I don't think we will

Pete

11-30-2010, 12:56 AM

When I was a kid classified documents were things that were printed on paper that we used to store in things called safes. Perhaps these huge databases that allow unlimited access to those allowed in aren't a good idea -- they should be broken up into smaller databases or have compartmentalized sections within them. On this forum we can see what a member's last online activity was; it would make sense if secure databases captured the transaction activity of users and alarm bells were to ring at multiple levels when people make huge downloads of files way out of proportion to their assigned responsibilities.

Steve the Planner

11-30-2010, 02:35 AM

As one of those with "old time" attitudes about the integrity of a secrecy agreement and oath, I spent quite a lot of time at DoS's PRT offices trying to keep the door locked where my Sipr was, and all those maps and reports labels "Secret" and higher.

But I finished 14 months in Iraq with DoS, and never even had an out-briefing about anything I worked on, and terra drives full of valuable Iraqi info which I couldn't find anybody to give it to.

DoS's focus on security was really poor, especially in a mixed US/Foreign staff environment. The FSOs clearly did not understand the security implications of what we were working on with mil staff, or why such things were properly designated as secret. The problem was compounded by deep institutional divides between DoS and DoD, where it was not surprising to hear FSOs openly disdain the military, the war, Bush, etc....

I would not be so quick as to lay everything on Manning's doorstep, especially as wikileaks is now an open door...

The crux of the issue, though, goes back to 1984, and the concepts of a big mega computer controlled by a big mega government.

1984's vision of a totalitarian mega state came apart with the silicon chip and the distributed computing environment. Once everything is decentralized (to any extent), how do you actually keep the genie in a bottle?

Is it really practical to continue to pile up tons of gossipy internet data (the cables) in a widely distributed system without almost routine expectations of leaks---by many different parties for many different reasons. Isn't wiki as inevitable as the Pentagon Papers?

Happily for me, I am told that Wiki's media outlets are screening out names, so I can stay anonymous, but that antiquated idea of locked paper documents is just so 1960.

Doesn't it make more sense to rethink how mountains of cheap gossip is compiled and diseminated in open architecture? Maybe important stuff should be passed by courier or scrambled, and legitimate reports should be more judiciously written?

Pete

11-30-2010, 03:38 AM

When I was a little kid spies used cameras to copy classified documents, one page at a time; when I was a teenager copying machines came along, one page at a time; then later came copiers that would feed long documents through, like Daniel Ellsburg apparently used. Now we have huge databases accessable by hundreds of thousands of users and we wonder why something like this could have happened.

The knee-jerk solution of tightening up on clearances doesn't help much either -- the CI guys could bayonet hundreds of walking wounded, the alcoholics, indebted guys, etc -- without actually barring the guys who might be the ones who are likely to cause this sort of trouble.

JarodParker

11-30-2010, 08:17 PM

The problem was compounded by deep institutional divides between DoS and DoD, where it was not surprising to hear FSOs openly disdain the military, the war, Bush, etc....
I would not be so quick as to lay everything on Manning's doorstep, especially as wikileaks is now an open door...

As I stated earlier I can't believe that this stuff was not compartmentalized in a way that a junior soldier can't access DOS cables. Especially in light of the above mentioned institutional divide. Just a few years ago I remember the FBI guys complaining that they couldn't share their database with another field office. Has the pendulum swung so far in the other direction?

That's why I'm now convinced that this latest release was not the work of PFC Manning.

On a positive note, the whole thing might be unraveling...
WikiLeaks under new pressure on cable dump (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101130/pl_afp/usdiplomacymilitaryinternetwikileaks)

WikiLeaks came under intense pressure Tuesday after its mass dump of sensitive US documents, with China demanding action, the website facing cyber attack and a defector announcing a rival site.

In a Twitter message, WikiLeaks said it was under a DDoS, or distributed denial of service, attack in which legions of "zombie" computers, normally infected with viruses, are commanded to simultaneously visit a website.

NATO, the trans-Atlantic alliance, joined the United States on Tuesday, with spokeswoman Oana Lungescu saying "we strongly condemn the leaking of confidential documents."

In Iceland, former WikiLeaks member 25-year-old student Herbert Snorrason said that he and others planned to create an alternative whistle-blower site.
"We broke from WikiLeaks because a few ex-WikiLeaks members had been very unhappy with the way Assange was conducting things," Snorrason told AFP in Reykjavik.