The Wikileaks collection

[Fuchs]

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.)

[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.

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.

[Danny]

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]

More thoughts at my blog.

URL???

[davidbfpo]

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

[Danny]

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/...ateral-murder/

Wings Over Iraq has some interesting viewpoints:

http://wingsoveriraq.blogspot.com/20...important.html

Blackfive:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/0...ntcom-pao.html

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/0...aks-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.

[walrus]

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]

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

[Meinertzhagen]

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/rundown...wn.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?

[Chris jM]

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.

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.

[jmm99]

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

and you will find that neither API nor APII 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).

[Fuchs]

and you will find that neither API nor APII 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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Wargames Mark]

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.

[Seabee]

(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]

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.

[Uboat509]

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.