The Wikileaks collection

[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.

[Fuchs]

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/FULL/470?OpenDocument

Finally the GC III text for completeness' sake (only relevant to POW "human shields")
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004a9e68

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

[Polarbear1605]

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]

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???

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Dayuhan]

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]

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]

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...