From WikiLeaks, Collateral Murder

[bigross86]

Dread, I agree with you completely, I just figured I'd let someone else ask for him to leave. I was more then content to answer his spew, it gave me something to do and boosted my post count ;)

[J`ve]

So there we have it. Carrying weapons, even in peace time, is a shootable offense in many countries.

Our soldiers saw suspicious characters with firearms, roaming about a war zone, and opened fire.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Don't want to get shot? Don't hang out with guns in a war zone.

I agree.

But, shooting the van still buggin' me

The place is a war zone, but also It's a city full of civilians and every war has collateral damage but if the battlefield is a city, I think you have to think twice -or more- before pull the trigger and surely this can put your life in danger.

Maybe that's the price "good guys" must pay ?

[Ararat]

I have only watched the short clip of this video (17 min) and I don’t see how the Apache crew did anything wrong as far as engaging the insurgents. First of all there was no way to know that there was reporters among them, even if they did that still doesn’t relief the flight crew from their immediate responsibility. It is obvious that certain members of the group were armed with automatic weapons as seen in the video and the guy kneeling behind the building does seem to have what appears to be a grenade launcher especially the way he is holding it. As soon as that was spotted there was an alert over the radio by ground crew that the enemy is firing. They had more than enough reason to open fire.

As far as the van picking up the wounded….the call from the ground unit to the Apache was that they needed to be stopped (almost like an order). Even after that call the crew did not engage right away until they had clearance to do so. There was even a call to the Apache crew for a damage assessment on the Van from the ground who gave the OK after the engagement which the pilot told them to stand by for now.

I must say what kind of an IDIOT takes young children with him into a kill zone (dust hasn't even cleared yet) to pick up wounded people and expose the kids to traumatic and graphic scene with bodies shred to peaces, not to mention putting the children’s lives in extreme danger. No paramedic will do that and they assecc the situation and check all bodies to prioretize help.....and in most cases regular people avoid those areas like a plague and it is the US soldiers that give help and send them to hospital.

Pilots cannot read minds, they can't see through walls or objects, they have seconds to make a decision, the enemy does not wear a uniform or the van had no signs on it.....they have a responsibility to protect the ground crew and I hope people realize that they did not go against the ROE. Their conversation between each other over the intercom is irrelivent (I know it sounds bad but that is a self defense mechanism from the crualty of war that can will hunt you and weaken your performance). It would be a lot worst if you were to hesitade and get a coalition soldier killed or yourself or even worst, your wingman....because you guessed by yourself that there is no threat.

The Apache crew did a good job and acted professionally.

Off topic but the only question I have why did the Apachy gun jam (according to the gunner he had a Azimuth light?)

[Shek]

Off topic but the only question I have why did the Apachy gun jam (according to the gunner he had a Azimuth light?)

Probably a software issue or maybe something that was pre-programmed into the fire control system. I've never been in the Apache before, but I know that our system on the Stryker was driven by software and we occasionally had issues as they were working through all the testing and releases.

[bigross86]

I remember during training, my TC's favorite pastime was to turn off all my gunnery and FCS computers as soon as we started our attack and watch me struggle to do everything manually, tracking a target whilst in motion. Still hit the target, mind you, it just took an extra second or two...

[gunnut]

I agree.

But, shooting the van still buggin' me

The place is a war zone, but also It's a city full of civilians and every war has collateral damage but if the battlefield is a city, I think you have to think twice -or more- before pull the trigger and surely this can put your life in danger.

Maybe that's the price "good guys" must pay ?

Absolutely. It's a warzone and war is hell. We try our best not to harm anyone that shouldn't be harmed. But as the Colonel pointed out, fog of war is thick in a firefight. A bunch of people show up in an unmarked van rendering aid to someone we just shot, believed to be insurgents, what is the normal rule of engagement?

My issue is with people claiming our soldiers shot these people in cold blood, knowing full well they were non-combatants. That could not be further from the truth.

The US military possess unimaginable firepower, unmatched by any force in history. Yet the count of collateral damage is proportionately smaller than any previous conflict. That's pretty good restraint in my book. And we absolutely do not shoot non-combatants for college money.

Can we do better? Sure. Can we be perfect? Can anyone be perfect?

I can say the US military will come closer to perfect than any other military in similar situations.

[Officer of Engineers]

I agree.

But, shooting the van still buggin' me

AS IT SHOULD!!!

I can see Zraver's point but I can also see the pilot's PoV. Were the people collecting weapons? No BUT and I state BUT, when those people exited the van, they did NOT go for the wounded ASAP, they took pause. I can see where the looking for weapons eval came from.

Secondly, this was REAL TIME. What you said 1 second ago is now obsolete. You do not correct yourself. You don't have time to correct yourself. You report real time. Whatever info you've passed before is now obsolete. BUT and I state this absolutely BUT the past actions remains in your mind.

You saw a threat. You keep it as a threat. You do not re-evaluate simply because 1) you're not trained to re-evaluate and 2) you don't have time to re-evaluate.

All said, this was a bad shoot, an extremely bad shoot. It may very well be a wrong shoot. But I have a tough time calling it an illegal shoot.

[zraver]

AS IT SHOULD!!!

I can see Zraver's point but I can also see the pilot's PoV. Were the people collecting weapons? No BUT and I state BUT, when those people exited the van, they did NOT go for the wounded ASAP, they took pause. I can see where the looking for weapons eval came from.

Secondly, this was REAL TIME. What you said 1 second ago is now obsolete. You do not correct yourself. You don't have time to correct yourself. You report real time. Whatever info you've passed before is now obsolete. BUT and I state this absolutely BUT the past actions remains in your mind.

You saw a threat. You keep it as a threat. You do not re-evaluate simply because 1) you're not trained to re-evaluate and 2) you don't have time to re-evaluate.

All said, this was a bad shoot, an extremely bad shoot. It may very well be a wrong shoot. But I have a tough time calling it an illegal shoot.

I don't know the actual RoE in place at the time. Here is a USMC ROE (Granted for personnel not units and heavy equipment) from 1999. The part in bold is important- the VAN did not rise to the level that would call for deadly force.

U.S. Military ROE
The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” broken down as follows:

- Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
- Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
- Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
- Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
- Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm.

Rules of engagement are most often decided upon by battle-space commanders and are created to carry out and fall in line with over-arching orders or goals from higher command. In order for this to be accomplished, battle-space commanders must manufacture rules of engagement that will not violate the trust of the local population, but will instead foster a relationship of respect and understanding.

ROE failures
In any engagement, the ROE need to balance two competing goals: The need to use force effectively to accomplish the mission objectives and the need to avoid unnecessary force. (Marcus Luttrell's "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Red Wing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10" is a critique of America's rules of engagement for professional soldiers.) This creates room for two types of error:

Excessively tight ROE can constrain a commander from performing his mission effectively, called a Type I error. It is typical for the political leadership to constrain the actions of military commanders. This is often a source of tension between the political leaders, who are trying to accomplish a political or diplomatic objective, and the military commanders, who are trying to make the most effective use of their forces. Sagan provides an excellent discussion of this topic. The UN Peacekeeper's ROE (see UNAMIR) during the Rwandan Genocide is a tragic example of over-restrictive ROE.
Excessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which, while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This is a Type II error or "escalatory" error. A common contemporary Type II error would be the use of excessive force, such as air-strikes, in an area with high numbers of noncombatants where such force would result in unintended collateral damage. Such action would most likely negate the trust of a local indigenous population who would then support the escalation of an insurgent force through protection, harboring of weapons, and recruitment.

[Officer of Engineers]

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?

[Guest]

From WikiLeaks, Collateral Murder

I don't think it's completely fair for us to second guess what the soldiers are doing in the field. To a certain extent it needs oversight, and mistakes do happen, but there will always be civilian casualties in any armed conflict.


Thanks
______________________
Military Gifts Specialists provide a wide range of Gifts for soldiers for all branches of the Armed Services._

[bigross86]

The US military possess unimaginable firepower, unmatched by any force in history. Yet the count of collateral damage is proportionately smaller than any previous conflict.

I can say the US military will come closer to perfect than any other military in similar situations.

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.

[Shek]

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.

BR,
I wouldn't find the fact that Israel does a better job surprising given that Israel's had 40 years to build up their intelligence networks (~25 at the time of the first intifada). It's much easier to keep the count low when you can autodial houses surrounding targets minutes out and tell them to evacuate. However, I do find that 16:1 count pretty high and wonder as to its source.

[bigross86]

BR,
I wouldn't find the fact that Israel does a better job surprising given that Israel's had 40 years to build up their intelligence networks (~25 at the time of the first intifada). It's much easier to keep the count low when you can autodial houses surrounding targets minutes out and tell them to evacuate. However, I do find that 16:1 count pretty high and wonder as to its source.

Like I said, I heard MK Natan Sharansky say it in a speech. Unfortunately, I have no idea where he got it from. I vaguely recall him mentioning a study of some sort which said that in Iraq, there are are approximately 15 (the 16 before was a typo) civilians killed for every terrorist. In Kosovo, the ratio was almost 60 civilians for every militant. In Operation Cast Lead, the ratio was 2 terrorists for every civilian.

I don't remember if it was a UN study, or a government study, or where the figure came from. Not the best supportive proof, I know, but unfortunately it's all I got.

[Gun Grape]

I don't know the actual RoE in place at the time. Here is a USMC ROE (Granted for personnel not units and heavy equipment) from 1999. The part in bold is important- the VAN did not rise to the level that would call for deadly force.

U.S. Military ROE
The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” broken down as follows:

- Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
- Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
- Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
- Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
- Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm.

These are watchstanding use of force guidelines. Not applicable to a combat situation. More applicable to handling drunks coming back off liberty than anything else.

In fact these "Continuum of Force" guidelines are reprinted from MCO 5500.6_, Arming of Security and Law Enforcement [LE] Personnel and the Use of Force. They are not as you call them "Rules of Engagement"

[Dreadnought]

These are watchstanding use of force guidelines. Not applicable to a combat situation. More applicable to handling drunks coming back off liberty than anything else.

Boy Gunny, have I heard some of those tales from Liberties past. There are some great ones. A few that I have both heard and read from WWII definately come to mind among others. Especially from the DD men and the BB men. A job I wouldnt want.:))