The Wikileaks collection

[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?

[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.

[braun]

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" ) 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

[Schmedlap]

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" or worse.

[Uboat509]

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]

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]

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]

@braun: Than this makes for an interesting read or that 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]

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]

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/op...18dadkhah.html ) and we are putting our soldiers and Marines at risk ( http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...s-vs.-soldiers ).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6338832.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/Civilia...2%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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

...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, 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 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. (I wonder how many people would want to view the video version of this, and how they'd respond.)

[Steve the Planner]

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]

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:


(h/t, The Jawa Report)

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]

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]

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]

Maybe not...

You're still entitled to your opinion regardless.