The Wikileaks collection

**efraker** · 04-06-2010

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

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

I put my thoughts up at my blog, 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

The 5-16 investigation 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.

**Wargames Mark** · 04-06-2010

Originally Posted by pjmunson

The 5-16 investigation 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

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

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.