From WikiLeaks, Collateral Murder

[S2]

Zraver Reply

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

Wrong, nobody compelled that van to drive to the scene of that battle.

"It was people suffering needing help and getting it"

It was still (and remained) an active battlefield-not a traffic accident nor a one-off crime incident.

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

"all gung ho" as you put it, belies the absence of any indication that non-combatants were in the battle area and immediately follows the engagement of armed combatants in that exact location. At approx the 7:49 mark the pilots indicate they intend to cease fire. Both that intention and a following comment from the second chopper of "Yeah we won't shoot anymore" can be heard. The pilots are hardly "all gung ho".

"Rushing him to a hospital is rendering aid."

Neither the pilots nor you would know the intention or destination of the van at the time. It could have easily have been a safe-house.

"We know the insurgents were not using bongo trucks, or the pilots would have reported seeing a vehicles used earlier."

Because you didn't hear any report that the spotted vehicle had been seen earlier doesn't mean that its purpose could be construed as wholly benevolent. Item 9. of the AR 15-6 report states the following-

"9. As to the presence of the children in the black van, it is obvious from the radio transmissions on the gun-camera tapes that the Apache pilots thought the van was to be used as a means of escape for the wounded insurgents. The van arrives as if on cue, and is immediately joined by two military-aged males who appear from the nearby courtyard. The children are never seen, while the driver slides open a door and then retakes his seat while two other males attempt to load the first insurgent into the vehicle. It is unknown what, if any connection the van had to the insurgent activity."

This, on the heels of engaging armed combatants, is the context underwhich the pilots were operating.

"They sought permission by misrepresenting the facts creating a situation in their commanders mind that did not fit the reality on the ground."

No. The pilots report a van approaching and "picking up the bodies" at the 9:02 mark. The pilot in contact with Bushmaster indicates "possibly" picking up weapons and bodies at the 9:13 mark. They use the description of a van and bongo truck interchangably throughout the transmissions beginning at the 9:02 mark. The pilots' representation of the scene reflects what's occurring before them. It's clear that removing wounded from the scene isn't permissable in the mind of BUSHMASTER 7.

Nothing there is intentionally misrepresented thus the pilots are not liars.

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

Those at the battlescene were professional warriors and officers too. Unlike those whom agree with you, those at the scene didn't have the benefit of an after-the-fact considered analysis. That any after-the-fact disagreement exists at all makes clear the ambiguous nature of the decision but doesn't relieve those at the battle scene from having the responsibility to make a decision in split-seconds.

I wonder if those military professionals whom agree with your take do so to the extent of also accusing those pilots of, to use your words, having "...basically lied to their higher HQ by claiming they were gathering weapons".

[Triple C]

Zraver,

As I don't have the time to go through 10 pages of material at this moment, I have a quick question: How did you draw the conclusion that the pilots misrepresented the targets? The 17 min. version of the video I saw showed a group of men, one of whom carried an AK and the cameramen were ID'd as RPG gunners, especially when one turned around the corner using the building for cover. The pilots reported AKs and RPGs. Do you think it was clear to the pilots that the threat was not enough to warrant engagement but the pilots exaggerated it?

[zraver]

As I don't have the time to go through 10 pages of material at this moment, I have a quick question: How did you draw the conclusion that the pilots misrepresented the targets? The 17 min. version of the video I saw showed a group of men, one of whom carried an AK and the cameramen were ID'd as RPG gunners, especially when one turned around the corner using the building for cover. The pilots reported AKs and RPGs. Do you think it was clear to the pilots that the threat was not enough to warrant engagement but the pilots exaggerated it?

The first engagement was totally legit, at 3:56+ plus on the tape the man in the middle of the cameras view swing an RPG away from his body. The whole groups life is forfeit at that time. The reporters knew what ticket they bought, and that ticket got punched.

My only problem is with the shooting of the van. Helping wounded men is not a threat, shooting the wounded is illegal. The people emerging from the van and court yard were unarmed, and presented no threat. The Apaches could have slowed down and better assessed the scene. They didn't, they chose to seek permission to engage. In part by attributing actions to the van that are not borne out on tape. When the helo fires, there is one man behind the wheel, and 2 men carrying a wounded 4th. That is not a threat. There were other options besides firing.

[S2]

Zraver Reply

"There were other options besides firing."

The options available besides engaging would seem to be

1.) firing a burst of 30mm into an area other than the van,

2.) following the van, or

3.) landing to confront the van thus attempting to block its departure...or

4.) do nothing except report its departure from the scene.

It seems that following the van would mean removing one or both helicopters from providing supporting fires for B Co. 2-16 Inf. Landing one or both helicopters would seem technically dangerous while ignoring that the battlezone remained active and, thus, exposing one or both helicopters and pilots on the ground.

Firing a burst would mean selecting a target that wouldn't threaten the van nor the occupants of any area houses from either direct hits or ricochet. That might work or you may wound others unintentionally of whom you're presently unaware. Then again, it might hasten the van's departure. What do you do if the van continues its actions and/or immediately departs the scene at high speed?

That leaves, I suppose, the fourth option of doing nothing aside from reporting the van's departure along with the contents.

Have I missed any other options? If so, what, and what might be your choice? You'll have the luxury of thinking these options through at your leisure while knowing the circumstances of how events actually unfolded and the rapidity with which they did so.

[zraver]

"There were other options besides firing."

The options available besides engaging would seem to be

1.) firing a burst of 30mm into an area other than the van,

2.) following the van, or

3.) landing to confront the van thus attempting to block its departure...or

4.) do nothing except report its departure from the scene.

It seems that following the van would mean removing one or both helicopters from providing supporting fires for B Co. 2-16 Inf. Landing one or both helicopters would seem technically dangerous while ignoring that the battlezone remained active and, thus, exposing one or both helicopters and pilots on the ground.

Firing a burst would mean selecting a target that wouldn't threaten the van nor the occupants of any area houses from either direct hits or ricochet. That might work or you may wound others unintentionally of whom you're presently unaware. Then again, it might hasten the van's departure. What do you do if the van continues its actions and/or immediately departs the scene at high speed?

That leaves, I suppose, the fourth option of doing nothing aside from reporting the van's departure along with the contents.

Have I missed any other options? If so, what, and what might be your choice? You'll have the luxury of thinking these options through at your leisure while knowing the circumstances of how events actually unfolded and the rapidity with which they did so.

The ground component was only seconds away, and already under the covering guns of the helos. Furthermore the area was already shot up by the Apaches, a warning burst into the ground by the van might well have sufficed. Finally we don't know what scout helos or UAV's were in the area to follow the van. If it had been intending on going to a safe house, or the chance thereof existed it might have been better to detail an element to follow it to gather intel. Instead of seeking more information to make a more reasoned decision the rush to judgment ruined multiple lives on both sides. Those GI's running with the kids are not going to be the same. Those helo crews are not going to be the same, they know that since the kids were sent to an Iraq hospital they probably died and that they killed them. At least 3 and possibly Arab families were ruined as well. The US reputation is taking a beating, all for the lack of an extra 30 seconds of information gathering.

[S2]

Zraver Reply

"The ground component was only seconds away..."

Wikileaks suggests eight minutes. The AR 15-6 report denotes 5:50 seconds between initially identifying the van and troops arriving on scene. More time elapsed after the Apaches initially I.Ded the van. I believe about one minute elapsed before engagement.

"...a warning burst into the ground by the van might well have sufficed."

Or initiated a dash away from the scene. Dunno. There's a lot about this engagement I don't know nor understand.

"Finally we don't know what scout helos or UAV's were in the area to follow the van. If it had been intending on going to a safe house, or the chance thereof existed it might have been better to detail an element to follow it to gather intel."

Unknown what assets are available but the decision by BUSHMASTER 7 has to be quick. Meanwhile, detaching one of the two Apaches might not have been possible or authorized in the midst of an active TIC. Do you know what resources BUSHMASTER 7 had that were available and could be diverted for such purpose? I don't. I don't even know the mission, attachments, etc that were part of the OPORD.

"Instead of seeking more information to make a more reasoned decision..."

"...seeking more information to make a more reasoned decision..." is the eternally elusive quest of battlefield commanders, it seems. Perfect clarity wasn't likely in the cards IMV.

The reason for such elusiveness is dictated by the pace of events. The actions by the van had gotten inside BUSHMASTER 7's decision cycle. We do hear what sounds like BUSHMASTER 7 say at the 9:22 mark

"Roger, hey we need to stop that..."

"Those GI's running with the kids are not going to be the same. Those helo crews are not going to be the same...At least 3 and possibly Arab families were ruined as well."

The futures of families on both sides of the world were at stake the moment that morning's battle began. Decisions would be rendered through the course of that morning that all potentially impacted any number of people but, then, that's why it's war.

"...The US reputation is taking a beating, all for the lack of an extra 30 seconds of information gathering."

Depends upon whom is administering the beating and why. It also depends upon who is listening and why. This isn't Abu Ghraib and those pilots aren't Lyndie England. It is a battlefield. Some understand better than others that the nature of such is defined by an absence of clarity and combat often proceeds at a pace of its own making.

Like it or not, we are not its master. That's my view. Those pilots are not liars.

[J`ve]

Iraqi Army and Police officers see many Americans as too soft, especially when it comes to dealing with terrorists. The Iraqis who seethe over the shooting of Kurilla know that the cunning fury of Jihadists is congenite. Three months of air-conditioned reflection will not transform terrorists into citizens.

Over lunch with Chaplain Wilson and our two battalion surgeons, Major Brown and Captain Warr, there was much discussion about the “ethics” of war, and contention about why we afford top-notch medical treatment to terrorists. The treatment terrorists get here is better and more expensive than what many Americans or Europeans can get.

“That’s the difference between the terrorists and us,” Chaplain Wilson kept saying. “Don’t you understand? That’s the difference.”

Gates of Fire

[Officer of Engineers]

The ground component was only seconds away, and already under the covering guns of the helos.

Z, the APACHE's job was to protect the ground element from unnecessary risk. It was in the pilot's judgement that waiting was an unacceptable risk. Whether that judgement was correct or not does not consititute that the pilots were not doing their jobs.

Instead of seeking more information to make a more reasoned decision the rush to judgment ruined multiple lives on both sides.

Out of curiousity, what would be your judgement had they found AK-47s and explosives instead of kids?

[Shek]

Some commentary that points out the weapons in the group.

The Jawa Report: Video Shows Reuters Camerman With Insurgents Being Killed [BUMPED/UPDATED: Vidcaps Show Weapons]

The image taken by the camera peering around the corner (mistaken for a RPG, one of which had been with the group seconds before the engagement).

[zraver]

Out of curiousity, what would be your judgement had they found AK-47s and explosives instead of kids?

I doubt we would ever have heard of the event. However, assuming the van had been insurgents, they probably would have behaved differently, had visible weapons etc.

[Blue]

Some commentary that points out the weapons in the group.

The Jawa Report: Video Shows Reuters Camerman With Insurgents Being Killed [BUMPED/UPDATED: Vidcaps Show Weapons]

The image taken by the camera peering around the corner (mistaken for a RPG, one of which had been with the group seconds before the engagement).

I saw the RPG in the film, but the thing poking around the corner was a telephoto lens IMO. I'm glad you posted this Maj. Further, I will agree 100% with this comment in the link you posted.

Cassey Fiano has this good point:

I’ve long held the view that journalists shouldn’t even be embedded with our troops in a war zone. It endangers the journalists, and it endangers our troops.

I have always contended that since Vietnam, televising a war will always work against the just cause, and worse.

[S2]

More

From the Mountainrunner Blog, there's a rebuttal video out that includes footage not shown in the wikileaks video. It includes very early on the van that's later attacked in the video. Here (at the very beginning of the video) the pilots suggest that it's dropping off insurgents in the engagement area-

The True Fiasco Exposed By Wikileaks-Mountainrunner April 8, 2010

Interestingly, the rebuttal video was shut down by youtube shortly after it was placed on their site. Evidently this was in response to negative viewer reactions. Here is Matt Armstrong's (mountainrunner) interpretation of that censorship-

"UPDATE: The "rebuttal" video was removed from YouTube for "violation of the YouTube Community Guidelines." The cause of action: "graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed in YouTube videos." The "rejection notice" at right was sent by someone close to the "rebuttal". Neither Collateral Murder nor the unedited video have been removed from YouTube. It appears the "rebuttal" video is a clear victim of manipulation by supporters of Collateral Murder or its cause. The method was social media's "democratic" ability to suppress or silence opposing viewpoints by flagging content as inappropriate, a feature in YouTube that is often used by insurgent and terrorist propagandists. Conversely, content can be promoted and rise to the top of search results with a "thumbs up." Jillian York has documented the same silencing technique on Facebook.

UPDATE 2 (10 APR 10): The "rebuttal" video is now available at LiveLeak and again at YouTube. As of 11 April 2010, the LiveLeak video has nearly 8000 views and the YouTube video has under 600. At YouTube, the first in the suggested list of similar videos is this news report from Russia Today titled "With No Accountability for Atrocities Iraqi Civilians Killed With Joy As If In A Video Game" from April 6"

Here's the rebuttal video-



The real crime, in mountainrunner's estimation, has been the thoroughly inept response by the U.S. Army. CENTCOM has provided a website accomodating the FOIA request and some of the pertinent documents. They can be accessed via a link at mountainrunner's blog. For some reason, my access to the documents is spotty. I've repeatedly been unable to access the sworn statements other than those included in the 2nd Brigade's AR 15-6 report. In addition to 2nd Bde, 2nd Inf. Div AR 15-6 Investigation, a separate AR 15-6 investigation was conducted by 1st Air Cav Bde, 1st Cav Div-

AR 15-6 1st Air Cav Bde, 1st Cav Div

The blog is worthy reading IMV.

Of further note, here's the full unedited version-



At the 4:36 mark, HOTEL 26 (ground element) is ordered to the location to take photos as soon as CRAZYHORSE 18 completes their engagement. BUSHMASTER 7 clearly intends a detailed sensitive site exploitation. This later proves impossible owing to continued small-arms fire at the site.

[tinymarae]

Something I came across while reading about the wikileaks video.

The soldiers writing this letter were part of the company that was on ground that day and were involved in the rescue of the children in the van.

Very touching..

AN OPEN LETTER OF RECONCILIATION & RESPONSIBILITY TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE

From Current and Former Members of the U.S. Military

Peace be with you.

To all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video:

We write to you, your family, and your community with awareness that our words and actions can never restore your losses.

We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions.

There is no bringing back all that was lost. What we seek is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to tell others of our experiences and how the people of the United States need to realize we have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. We humbly ask you what we can do to begin to repair the damage we caused.

We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.

We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.

More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.

Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.

We have asked our fellow veterans and service-members, as well as civilians both in the United States and abroad, to sign in support of this letter, and to offer their names as a testimony to our common humanity, to distance ourselves from the destructive policies of our nation's leaders, and to extend our hands to you.

With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. Please accept our apology, our sorrow, our care, and our dedication to change from the inside out. We are doing what we can to speak out against the wars and military policies responsible for what happened to you and your loved ones. Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.

Solemnly and Sincerely,
Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army
Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army

[bigross86]

I don't know if that letter is real or not, but if it is, those soldiers are not helping matters at all, and are fcuking things up on so many different levels.

To start off, they sound like a bunch pacifist pussies, not the kind who would volunteer to join the Army and the Infantry, especially knowing there's a very good chance they could be sent to war. They are literally groveling on their hands and knees. I haven't met many US soldiers, but I know that in the IDF, even when writing a protest letter (i.e., the Pilot's Letter, the Commando's Letter) there is no groveling and bicthing, just a stating of facts and opinion.

Second, why is there no mention of the soldiers' rank, only "former specialist"?

This whole thing reeks to me of something extremely foul. It comes across that the writers are not only representing the entire US Army, but they are actively calling the leadership stupid.

"this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region", "But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation's leaders no longer represent us", "to distance ourselves from the destructive policies of our nation's leaders"

I would not be surprised if this turns out to be some very cleverly concocted piece of propaganda.

[S2]

bigross86 Reply

"I would not be surprised if this turns out to be some very cleverly concocted piece of propaganda."

I don't find it helpful one way or another either but I've no reason to suspect it's a "cleverly concocted piece of propaganda".

It's likely real enough and heart-felt. An accurate summary of the larger picture? Different story and they aren't necessarily best-placed to judge.