Results 1 to 20 of 543

Thread: The Wikileaks collection

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default

    (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
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 04-07-2010 at 04:38 PM. Reason: fix quote

  2. #2
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default We can disagree that any excuses are needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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...

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Three tangential observations:

    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

  7. #7
    Council Member Greyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    117

    Default Not my CAB...

    ...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.)

  8. #8
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    @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

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default

    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....

  10. #10
    Council Member Polarbear1605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    176

    Default In an effort to kill two birds with one stone.

    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?

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seabee View Post
    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
    Last edited by braun; 04-07-2010 at 01:27 PM. Reason: Spelling

  12. #12
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seabee View Post
    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?

Similar Threads

  1. "Processing Intelligence Collection: Learning or Not?"
    By Tracker275 in forum Intelligence
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-21-2011, 12:46 AM
  2. New to S2, need FM 34-20 and collection management info
    By schmoe in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 11:03 PM
  3. Efing Wikileaks
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 02:12 PM
  4. Relationship between the political system and causes of war (questions)
    By AmericanPride in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 09:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •