From WikiLeaks, Collateral Murder

[zraver]

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to turn all patriotic here for a second, but the Israeli have a better record with collateral damage, by perhaps even one order of magnitude. In the Gaza conflict in 2008, there was one civilian for every 2 terrorists taken out. In Iraq, there are 16 dead civilians for every one insurgent.

Those figures need to be taken with a grain of salt, since I heard Natan Sharansky say them in a speech, but as an MK, you'd think he has a bit of an idea.

Sheik Ahmed Yassin was targeted twice, after he survived the first assassination attempt since the bomb the Israeli's used was too small, but was used in order to minimize collateral damage.

I'm not saying the US isn't doing a hell of a job in Iraq, but they're not the best at minimizing collateral damage.

before the Surge over dead in Iraq were about 70,000 after non-Iraqi coalition losses, the US also claimed to have killed up to 15,000 insurgents. This leaves 55,000 civilian dead. 80% of those were killed in sectarian violence not by coalition forces. This leaves 11,000 dead civilians killed by the US. 15,000 insurgents v 11,000 civilians. This after 4 years of war at the time, not the month long event that Gaza was. The US is good at reducing the pain on the civilians populations. I don't think its the right way to fight, but if that is how we are going to fight, then we need to get even better at it. Hence my calling the van a bad shoot.


Sir,

Z,

I understand what you are trying to do ... and if it was done your way, it would have save a lot of people, especially two pilots, a hell of a lot of heartaches.

That being said, hors de combat is NOT a legal prevention to stop the enemy from regrouping.

I am not saying that your read of the GC is incorrect but by the same token, the counter-read is also not incorrect. Again, a LAV III with uniformed personnel trying to withdraw the wounded is still a legitimate military target. The Insurgents, through their actions that day, established legitimate military targets, ie unmarked combattants and vehicles.

As much as you don't like it, there is a grey area ... and one exploited by others more than ourselves.

Added to this, Z, I have to ask ... more of a challenge as food thought than to doubt. If we do not accuse the Russians of war crimes for firing on their own hospitals during Chechen hostage crises, then how can we accuse our people of war crimes in a combat zone with no clear identity of enemy non-combattants?

Sir anyone not armed and not marked is legally presumed to be (and treated as such) a civilian and enjoys protected status. Add into the fact they were rendering aid (transport of wounded is aid), made no threatening moves and were not doing anything you or I would not do on an equally busy highway to save a crash victim or in the aftermath of a violent attack/robbery. I know you've risked your life before to save complete strangers, as have I and most of us here. I am not going to presume that those Iraqis were doing anything less given the absolute lack of evidence of any hostile intent. Even the man they grabbed was not an insurgent but a reporter. If they have been insurgents you think they would have grabbed one of their own.

[J`ve]

Even the man they grabbed was not an insurgent but a reporter.If they have been insurgents you think they would have grabbed one of their own.

But guys on apache didn't have any information about that.

[Blue]

We DO have troops on the streets in America more and more.

After reading back through this thread, I thought I had saw this before. I will agree to this point. I don't want to derail this thread but thought this was worth addressing properly here. I may kick off a new thread next week when I get some time.

In the mean time, which ones are soldiers? Which ones are cops?


Hint: the cops are usually the fat ones!

If you dress like a soldier, are armed like a soldier and enforce American laws like a soldier, then there is an almost diminished line that is only divided by the posse commitatus. Keep in mind that most states refer to thier state police as "State Troopers".

If your not the least bit curious about this trend, you should be.

[zraver]

But guys on apache didn't have any information about that.

Your right they didn't, but the post battle facts establish that they fired too quickly, that sometimes people who look like civilians, act like civilians and rive civilian vehicles are in fact civilians.

[bigross86]

Your right they didn't, but the post battle facts establish that they fired too quickly, that sometimes people who look like civilians, act like civilians and rive civilian vehicles are in fact civilians.

And sometimes they aren't. Every soldier has a burden to bear. They can bear the burden of shooting someone who acts suspiciously who might have been an innocent, or he can bear the burden of not shooting someone who acts suspiciously and ends up killing some of the soldier's friends or comrades.

Out of the two, I'd shoot the civilian. I care less about someone else's family and friends than I care about my friends in the unit and their family.

[Blue]

Regardless of the debate of weapons present, civilians present, or the decision to shoot, or even what the official report says. Those soldiers made a decision IAW the ROE. No matter what, those troops know for sure what happened and the result of it regardless of the morality attached to the action and must live with it.

I don't quite know how to say what I mean here, but bottomline is, officially justified or not, the only opinions that count are the troops involved. If it realy wasn't what they thought it was, they have to live with it.

And sometimes they aren't. Every soldier has a burden to bear. They can bear the burden of shooting someone who acts suspiciously who might have been an innocent, or he can bear the burden of not shooting someone who acts suspiciously and ends up killing some of the soldier's friends or comrades.

Out of the two, I'd shoot the civilian. I care less about someone else's family and friends than I care about my friends in the unit and their family.

That's it!! Well put!!

[Albany Rifles]

Your right they didn't, but the post battle facts establish that they fired too quickly, that sometimes people who look like civilians, act like civilians and rive civilian vehicles are in fact civilians.

From the reporting I heard, didn't they request permission to open fire from higher?

Seems they evaluated the situation, found a threat (maybe not to them but to the ground forces they were supporting [the mission of a fire support element is to provide fire support, after all]), requested permission under their ROE, and then engaged. And the an unmarked target rolled into the same area, which could or could not be a VBIED, more enemy forces coming to the assistance of their buddies....and, once again, in the context of providing support to the forces on the ground.

As the Colonel has said, a bad situation, perhaps a bad decision from the CP, but illegal or murder?

No way.

[zraver]

And sometimes they aren't. Every soldier has a burden to bear. They can bear the burden of shooting someone who acts suspiciously who might have been an innocent, or he can bear the burden of not shooting someone who acts suspiciously and ends up killing some of the soldier's friends or comrades.

Out of the two, I'd shoot the civilian. I care less about someone else's family and friends than I care about my friends in the unit and their family.

Thats fine, but thats also why we have the laws of war. Because if it was left up to the soldier, he would kill them all and let god sort them out. We've seen what unrestrained war looks like. However if we don't every urban battle to look like Manila or Berlin then the soldier needs to sometimes bear the risk of his comrades and count their lives as worth less than the civilians trapped in a war they didn't want and that came to them.

[bigross86]

Thats fine, but thats also why we have the laws of war. Because if it was left up to the soldier, he would kill them all and let god sort them out. We've seen what unrestrained war looks like. However if we don't every urban battle to look like Manila or Berlin then the soldier needs to sometimes bear the risk of his comrades and count their lives as worth less than the civilians trapped in a war they didn't want and that came to them.

OK, we seem be straying slightly into ideology, morals, ethics and the like, which is something that no one man can or should be able to change for someone else.

Zraver, I know you were/are a military man, and to that extent I offer you nothing but respect and reserve the right to disagree with you on certain topics, such as this one.

There are people who I've literally spent every single day of 3 years in the army with, and who I will be doing reserves with for the next 20 years. The lives of my friends and comrades will never, ever be worth less to me than a civilian, even one trapped in a war they didn't want and that came to them.

A while back I posted what to my eyes was the simplest solution to the war in Iraq: The insurgents should lay low until the US leaves, then go back to doing whatever they want. Barring that, and while the insurgents keep trying to mix it up with US forces, they need to pay the price for that, and the civilian population that supports them needs to know that as well.

I'm not bloodthirsty, and I most definitely do not condone a "kill them all, let god sort it out" attitude. But I do know my priorities, especially when it comes to taking and saving lives. With all due respect to justice, fair play and the rules of war, the lives of my brethren come first, and I'll do anything to make sure they stay alive, because I know they are doing the same exact thing for me.

[J`ve]

Out of the two, I'd shoot the civilian. I care less about someone else's family and friends than I care about my friends in the unit and their family.

Everyone in this thread is right within their own point of view. We couldn't decide for days about how soldiers must react in this type of situations and pilots (or their officers) made that decision in seconds and decisions in real time are never perfect.

On the video, soldiers shoot a van which they shouldn't and as OeE says, they will live the rest of their live with the burden of this day. I'm sure, if pilots noticed the kids, they didn't shoot the van. But in reality, they did and the idea of leaving kids to the Iraqis is also disturbing.

If an army operates in a foreign country and claims it's there for liberating the country and protect it's people not for an invasion, then it must act like that. Maybe they has to wait a little longer. They has to take the chance of getting killed for not hurting civilians. Isn't that all about of being soldier? Putting your life at stake for save others?

And in my point of view, "kill civilians for protect your fellow comrades" idea, a bit out of line.

[Dreadnought]

*Two different worlds.

a) Soldiers world.
b) Civilians world.

All soldiers have been civilians, but all civilians have not been soldiers. There is much a civilian would never understand about a soldiers world nor the choices he or she must make in seconds. Civilians have the luxury of time and prolonged thought where as a soldier rarely gets that oppertunity and must react, if not then they are a casualty or worse.;)

[S2]

Civilians Interjecting Themselves Into The Fight

"the soldier needs to sometimes bear the risk of his comrades and count their lives as worth less than the civilians trapped in a war they didn't want and that came to them."

We don't know what those people wanted nor if the men in the van were civilians with no dog in the fight or actual sympathizers/fighters but we do know that those in the van came to the war and not the other way around.

More to the point, neither did the pilots know. That's clear. The fact is that the situation wasn't a traffic accident nor a one-off crime but a part of running gun-battle which continued even after B Co. 2-16 Inf arrived at the scene (according to the AR 15-6 report).

"Even the man they grabbed was not an insurgent but a reporter. If they have been insurgents you think they would have grabbed one of their own."

The man they grabbed was the only one I saw at the scene still moving.

Without benefit of post-mortem analysis I doubt any would have discerned he was, in fact, a reporter but simply one of those nine or so at the scene of the attack. The pilots certainly wouldn't have had benefit of that post-battle relevance either. To the best of their knowledge, he was one of a group of combatants whom they'd engaged and somebody beside the ground element manuevering to the scene was attempting his removal.

They, however, certainly weren't attempting to render the first-aid he likely needed. Nor did they possess emblems and equipment suggesting they were medical professionals exclusively involved in such. Nor was the vehicle marked as a medical vehicle.

Those pilots had more than a single camera's view. The viewers don't. Neither do the viewers possess the context of that morning's battle which might include the manner in which insurgents manuevered about the battlefield.

The viewers have the benefit of an exhaustive post-battle analysis that summarizes the actual facts as we know them now. The pilots did not possess after-the-fact knowledge as we here at WAB do now. They, instead, were in the moment. Nonetheless, the pilots didn't immediately engage but seeked clearance to do so.

There's far too much ambiguity to render the accusation laid upon these pilots that's been made at this board.

[zraver]

OK, we seem be straying slightly into ideology, morals, ethics and the like, which is something that no one man can or should be able to change for someone else.

Zraver, I know you were/are a military man, and to that extent I offer you nothing but respect and reserve the right to disagree with you on certain topics, such as this one.

and vice versa

There are people who I've literally spent every single day of 3 years in the army with, and who I will be doing reserves with for the next 20 years. The lives of my friends and comrades will never, ever be worth less to me than a civilian, even one trapped in a war they didn't want and that came to them.

And that is both natural and the problem.

A while back I posted what to my eyes was the simplest solution to the war in Iraq: The insurgents should lay low until the US leaves, then go back to doing whatever they want. Barring that, and while the insurgents keep trying to mix it up with US forces, they need to pay the price for that, and the civilian population that supports them needs to know that as well.

The US has decided on a velvet glove approach for dealing with the Iraqi population. This means national will trumps what ever value system the soldier has. Our leadership has decided that a certain amount of increased risk is worth the larger political goal. Those pilots by lying to their superior short circuited that and substituted their goals for the national. If they had reported honestly, the guys in the van show no sings of weapons and are carryign a wounded man they would not have had permission to fire.

I'm not bloodthirsty, and I most definitely do not condone a "kill them all, let god sort it out" attitude. But I do know my priorities, especially when it comes to taking and saving lives. With all due respect to justice, fair play and the rules of war, the lives of my brethren come first, and I'll do anything to make sure they stay alive, because I know they are doing the same exact thing for me.

War left up to the guys actually in contact gets very messy very fast. I assure you that you or I are both equally capable of doing despicable acts to save our buddies. its even the right thing to do from that point of view. I would also argue that a brutal painful war is better than a long drawn out bloodletting. However, our countries have decided on a different approach. To the credit of the US and Israel they have reduced the pain. But being pretty good at protecting civilians isn't good enough.

[silentsam]

War stinks. Sh!t happens and the only way to avoid doing the sh!t is to surrender.

Well put.

[zraver]

We don't know what those people wanted nor if the men in the van were civilians with no dog in the fight or actual sympathizers/fighters but we do know that those in the van came to the war and not the other way around.

Wrong, the US and insurgents brought the war to them.

More to the point, neither did the pilots know. That's clear. The fact is that the situation wasn't a traffic accident nor a one-off crime but a part of running gun-battle which continued even after B Co. 2-16 Inf arrived at the scene (according to the AR 15-6 report).

It was people suffering needing help and getting it.

The man they grabbed was the only one I saw at the scene still moving.

Without benefit of post-mortem analysis I doubt any would have discerned he was, in fact, a reporter but simply one of those nine or so at the scene of the attack. The pilots certainly wouldn't have had benefit of that post-battle relevance either. To the best of their knowledge, he was one of a group of combatants whom they'd engaged and somebody beside the ground element manuevering to the scene was attempting his removal.

All the more reason the should have slowed down and looked for a threat instead of just going all gung ho.

They, however, certainly weren't attempting to render the first-aid he likely needed. Nor did they possess emblems and equipment suggesting they were medical professionals exclusively involved in such. Nor was the vehicle marked as a medical vehicle.

Rushing him to a hospital is rendering aid.

Those pilots had more than a single camera's view. The viewers don't. Neither do the viewers possess the context of that morning's battle which might include the manner in which insurgents manuevered about the battlefield.

We know the insurgents were not using bongo trucks, or the pilots would have reported seeing a vehicles used earlier. We ahve their radio calls and in so far as the scene of the attack, we see what they saw.

The viewers have the benefit of an exhaustive post-battle analysis that summarizes the actual facts as we know them now. The pilots did not possess after-the-fact knowledge as we here at WAB do now. They, instead, were in the moment. Nonetheless, the pilots didn't immediately engage but seeked clearance to do so.

They sought permission by misrepresenting the facts creating a situation in their commanders mind that did not fit the reality on the ground. The fact that post battle no weapons were recovered from the van, there were kids inside and the man they tried to help was a reporter all point to one conclusion- they shot too fast and innocents died.

There's far too much ambiguity to render the accusation laid upon these pilots that's been made at this board.

I disagree, and I've seen other professional warriors, officers agree with my take on the situation.