Quote Originally Posted by Cecil Turner View Post
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!).