I want to first start by saying that Wikileaks has really misled the public on the details of this video. They made it sound like it was an unprovoked massacre of unarmed civilians, and so it angers me when I wasted my time watching this video to see nothing like that.
I would then like to plead that you not respond or argue with me unless you have watched every second of the 39 minute video. In any engagement, be it in Iraq, or a DUI arrest in Los Angelas, a complete understanding of the event is essential.
Apache helicopters are usually not called out unless ground troops request them. In this case, ground troops were under fire and requested air support. This is clear considering they approached the hot zone at the beginning of the video with intel, either from ground troops, or from the another Apache, that there were armed combatants in the area. You hear, numerous times, reports of armed combatants in the area, before this particular video feed can actually see people. This is all happening near friendly soldiers who requested air support because they were fired upon.
The video opened up with footage of a black van moving left, and the van would later become involved again. What the black van was doing in the area is unknown to us; it’s purpose was not speculated upon anywhere in the video. Considering ground troops arrived from the right, it might be possible that this van was deliberately moving away from the conflict.
After 2 minutes, the footage of the group clearly shows that at least 2 of them have AK-47s. As for the possible observation of an RPG, which some suggest could be a tripod, and the guys who have things slung over their shoulders, which could be the cameras, then it is regrettable if they were, in fact, a tripod and 2 cameras. However, too many people are acting as if the guy who peaked around the corner actually had a camera. It could have legitimately been an RPG as the gunner said, because an RPG was found at the scene after the engagement. We know that the photographer did not die in the initial engagement, his camera was found in the van… Meaning all this speculation about the tripods and cameras in the original scene is bogus, unless there were multiple journalists in the area.
When the black van, which had already been seen lingering in the area, returns to pick up a survivor, the other helicopter had observed the van picking up bodies and weapons. The reality is, an unmarked van, which was already in the area (red flag), reported to be picking up wounded men and weapons, and is in an area of an ongoing operation, is fair game for engagement.
Lastly, the last video footage leading up to the bombardment of a building is revealed to us far too late into the operation. They say there are 6 armed individuals in the building and we had only seen 2 enter at that point, and 1 of them appears to be armed, although this is the first time I actually feel that it might be a camera. For all we know, this is actually where the photographer was killed, and not at the initial site. However, this doesn’t explain the fact that the camera was found in the van.
No reports of a camera being found at the initial engagement have been revealed, and so it’s entirely speculation on our part on whether or not we actually saw a camera anywhere in any of the footage… To the contrary, we saw AK 47s, and an RPG was found at the scene of the initial engagement. Even if the photographer was killed somewhere during this video, we can be certain that he was knowingly in the vicinity of armed men near an area where American soldiers were fired upon. My prediction is that the photographer was one of those killed rescuing the wounded man, and the van was just following the conflict around. I distinctly remember a photo made public that was taken by a soldier from within the van that came from the photographers camera, I cannot recall where I saw this photo though.
Regardless, no one is allowed to be armed except for Iraqi police and Coalition forces. There is no such thing as an armed Iraqi escort for journalists. My only guess is he underestimated how quickly and deadly the situation can become if he were to hang around with armed insurgents.
I really wish Americans would get the fuck out of the Middle East and tend to their own problems… Collateral damage is inevitable during an insurgency in populated cities. You could clearly see an unarmed pedestrian get wasted by the first hellfire missile. But in the end, it is incomprehensibly stupid to be unmarked, carrying a large camera and tripod around with armed individuals, when Apache copters are overhead and are near an area where a gunfight had occurred.



49 Comments







There is clear signs that the people in this video (atleast the reuters reporters in the first set) were not scared nor were attacking the apache nor other ground troops. Apache’s may be patrolling/scouting and not necessarily requested by ground forces, especially when they have free OIL.
This video has some commentary on a few scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1O7jL_hKXQ
The apaches were called in to observe this area to provide support to ground troops that were under fire. So apaches showed up (2 of them) with the knowledge that there were armed combatants in the area. In this particular video feed, the other apache calls over the radio that they spotted an armed individual. The apaches only engaged once they felt that there choppers were in danger, which was when they spotted what appeared to be an RPG crouching around the corner. Considering an RPG was found at the scene, and the journalist was found killed in the van, and not in the open, then it appears that their quick assumption was actually true…
As for you fiftyseven, there was no camera found in the open. The journalist was killed in the van. Are you really that knowledgeable about RPGs to know the difference between an RPG and a large camera on such a crappy tape? This released tape does not show the same quality as the actual live feed. As for the one armed combatant, there are numerous scene where it’s clear that at least 2 of them are waggling around AK 47s. Even if it’s just 1 AK 47, that was 8 guys hanging around with him, wtf?
In addition, the van was shot at because it was picking up bodies and weapons as reported by the OTHER apache. This van was also seen in the area so clearly, and even identifiably so, was not a medical van. By the ROE, there engagement of the van was legal.
FFS everything I just wrote in this post I wrote in the original post. l2r and if you’re going to make assumptions and observations, at least acknowledge the fact that an RPG was found, AK 47s were observed, and the journalist and his camera were killed/found in the fucking van, no where near the supposed sighting of the RPG… READ!!!
After viewing the video, it clearly is an unprovoked massacre.
The video indicates there was ONE combatant, and that the group of people was NOT him.
@2:49: air: “we had a guy shooting, now he’s behind the building”
@2:52: ground: “Uh, negative, he was uh, right in front of the Brad. Uh, ’bout there one ‘o clock. Haven’t seen anything since then”
The “RPG” @2:32 was clearly a telephoto lens pointed at the ground. I’ve never heard anyone claim it was a tripod, it is clearly a photo camera with a telephoto lens. I don’t see how you can refute this if you examine the frame between 2:40 and 2:41, it is CLEARLY the camera with a telephoto lens that he is holding completely in front of him pointed at the ground.
When the van comes to pickup the target, NO ONE IS ARMED. The CO should never have given them permission to engage unarmed people “for picking up the bodies”, PERIOD. According to the Huffingon Post the driver of the van was a good Samaritan on his way to take his small children to a tutoring session.
@c0mputar
~~~EDITED IN MODERATION~~~The pilots lied about armed insurgents, and should be tried for murder.
This is why the united states (sic) is hated the world over and for good reason, there are no better that the SS.
~~~ModNote: Attack the message, never the messenger.~~~
Fiftyseven,
Thanks for the walk-through. I never saw any RPG, but I can make out a telephoto.
With respect to the rescue van: no evidence to suggest the people in it were doing anything but trying to help the wounded. Unfortunately, if you watch CNN, you would think the attack on the van never happened. US media reaction to the video was lame…
http://jotman.blogspot.com
It doesn’t matter what happened in the rest of the video, 2 journalist where killed, 2 children where wounded(may have died) and the US military said only insurgents where killed. They lied and covered it up.
You make an awful lot of assumptions and expect everyone to agree with them. Please explain to me, as you are obviously wise in the way of warfare, how far the Apache was from the “insurgents” and the range of the mythical RPG.
Bullshit.
I saw a bunch of guys milling around and talking on cellphones before the Apache opened up on them, most of them with their backs to the Apache. If they were planning to attack the Apache, one wonders why they weren’t taking cover.
Okay. This “message” is an embarrassment to FDL.
The author is now inoculated from critique and scrutiny.
Your lying eyes again, dammit.
“Collateral damage is inevitable during an insurgency in populated cities.”
– This comfortable and casually removed attitude is exactly the type of attitude that lets people get away with all sorts of atrocities. You can sit there and call it collateral damage and you don’t have to look in the eyes of the 2 kids that got shot up and tell them about collateral damage.
http://www.collateralmurder.org/en/resources.html <– in case you want to look at the pictures of the kids.
Who gives a crap whether or not the soldiers were under fire or not. That’s not the point, it’s not about the soldiers. In the end fathers, journalists, and a heroic bystander trying to save a life is dead, and god knows how many widows and orphans have been made, and is there any compensation by the US government? No. No apology, no medical care, just cover up.
And you should be fricking /pissed/. Not at the soldiers but to why atrocities like this happen and why no one is ever there to clean up the freaking mess that they’ve created.
War is messy to all involved.
Sure, the Apache (crew) is over aggressive and too trigger happy. But it’s not easy to make a clear judgement on what’s on the ground when you are hovering above ground with camera shaking, people moving, radio com in the back. The Apache don’t have the luxury of time and calm to study what’s that “thing” on the goound. However, the Apache should be better trained to do a better job at assessing the situation. No doubt about it. But I don’t blame the Apache, because I don’t know what I would do if my life is on the line.
I blame the politician who brought the Apache there. The politician who started the war and couldn’t finish it. The high-ranking officier who denied the kids better care at the US hospital. I blame the bureaucracy that said everyone followed the rule and no one is to be blamed. If innocence people died, there must be something we can do better.
Don’t disgrace the innocent lives by saying ” … Collateral damage is inevitable during an insurgency in populated cities. ” NYC was pretty populated …
P.S ” … no one is allowed to be armed except for Iraqi police and Coalition forces … ” that’s the bigest joke …
- Regardless, no one is allowed to be armed except for Iraqi police and Coalition forces.
Americans have invaded Iraq without any legitimacy. Iraq was a peaceful and laic country before invasion. Now it’s a country dominated by death, violence and islamic fundamentalism. Americans brought chaos and disorder in Iraq. Why americans have invaded that country? Why have they conducted that terrible war? Which resukts did they achieve?
The so-called “coalition” force is largely composed (and paid) by Americans. If you live in Iraq (or in Afghanistan) with your civilian friends or relatives being killed by american copters, will you have no reactions at all?
Here we are talking about an unprovoked massacre. A murder of 12 civilians. But even if someone of that group had a weapon, the americans was not titled neither morally or legally to kill them in such barbaric and coward way. In my country if I kill 12 persons I’ll spend my lifetime in jail, in Usa I would be called a hero.
If an Iraqi copter would fly upon an american town and shoot moving people and moving black van, what would be the reaction of people living there?
I’ve got to have what you’re smoking or snorting …
Collateral damage is inevitable during an insurgency in populated cities
Collateral damage is inevitable during an insurgency in populated cities
Collateral damage is inevitable during an insurgency in populated cities Collateral damage is inevitable during an insurgency in populated cities
Collateral damage is inevitable during an insurgency in populated cities
There are NO heroes in an unconstitutional ,illegal and immoral invasion and occupation, NONE.
That cheney and bush walk as free men says all I need to know about a country moral center which is sadist, satanic and these are the devil’s foot soldiers.
How can you skip the inhumanity of our insatiable greed?
I’m with you and oppose all unconstitutional use of the military.
But, These are our sons and daughters that serve in the armed services. For some, they chose it as a way out of despair for others a way to fund their education.
Please Do not demonize all members of the military. They are carrying out what our Congress is allowing and funding.
Our hatred of innocent death needs to be directed at those that are allowing it, those that are using our tax dollars to pay for it, towards our elected members in the House and Senate.
They swore to uphold the constitution and are not doing so.
Seems like you ignored virtually everything I wrote.
So in that case, here’s another one of my views.
You’ve got bad guys on the ground taking shots at my son, if a mistake is going to be made, let the mistake be to protect my sons, not the individual on the other side. And in an urban setting, that absolutely means civilians will be killed. Read some history.
If you don’t like that, bring the boys home, right now. Period.
as uncomfortable as this may be for you to read, you seem to forget one very important thing:
Your son chose to persue a career that put him in harms way. He knew the risks and as such accepted them.
Innocent civilians did not.
As for bringing you boys home right now, i’m all for it.
No dissagrement
And let’s concentrate on the other agreement: bring the boys home right now
This wasn’t “collateral damage”.
This wasn’t “the fog of war”.
This was guys in an Apache attack ‘copter going after two fellas who — as journalists working in Iraq — are allowed by law to have armed bodyguards.
So the whole bit about “well they had weapons pointed at us” is not only a lie (nothing was being pointed at the Apache), it’s also a strawman.
Are there any requirements for Press to mark their Vehicle?
I have very little understanding (like none) of how the Press works in any potential combat area if not embedded.
I think the problem is ROE at the time, which did not require any number of safeguards normally employed in urban combat operations. It really does come down to, they weren’t required to ensure a threat, merely suspect a threat.
thanks, understood
it’s difficult all over librty, I do not envy the parents of our servicemen and women any more than I envy the brave people enlisted to protect our country.
this didn’t start on the ground, this started up top when ROE were relaxed extensively to ensure the ‘political fallout’ of the extended occupation were minimized by making sure more of our boys didn’t come home in pieces or in body bags.
may they all come home to their loved ones open arms and in the sure knowledge that we will never again abuse them in the manner we continue to in wars of fancy rather than wars of need.
It’d be really nice if we could dispense with this fiction while we’re at it.
What possible evidence could anyone use in the last 50+ years to conclude that anyone who joins the military has even a faint probability of serving to “protect our country.” When was the last time the sovereignty of the United States was under active duress due to a military assault on it? At best you’ve got the Cold War, and even that had effectively nothing to do with troops, and everything to do with M.A.D.
We’re flanked by two massive oceans, and capped in by two geopolitically compatible nation-states (one of which is bordering on failure due to our exporting one of our most asinine policies).
This idea that there’s something inherently noble about military service, when the evidence overwhelmingly points to its use in anything but noble causes, needs to be fundamentally addressed. The problem seems to be that we’ve set up the military as the employer of last resort, and thus thousands of people funnel into it as the only plausible means of escaping poverty, and we’ve conflated the honor of hard work, and a desire to elevate oneself, with the dubiousness of military service.
This of course exacerbated, if not directly underwritten, by a multi-decade assault on labor, turning it into a pejorative term. So, the military now gets to be the only place where labor and dedication are to be admired.
I appreciate your opinion, I do not necessarily agree with it. Keeping in mind that I grew up in England initially, which is an island…by your logic they should have no military what so ever, which I can’t agree with.
How we use our military, on the other hand, I think i’d find more in common with you. The motivations of those who join, again i’m certain we’d disagree greatly.
There are exactly zero non-allied, non-nuclear militaries capable of launching an invasion of the United States.
Additionally, I don’t really care what the motivations are of those who join (excepting for addressing the situation, so they don’t bother); it’s rather immaterial to how they ought to expect to be used, assuming they have at least one functional, firing synapse.
You’re standing in front of a recruiting office today, and you’re about to sign up, and I walk up and ask you, “Can you give me one single piece of empirical data to show me that you’ll be more likely used to defend the citizens of the United States, than you will be shipped off to some 3rd world country on the witch-hunt du jour?”
What do you say? Is there any such data?
Nathan,
Are you aware of the percentage of those In Theater that are Active Duty Regular vs State Guard or Reserve?
Yes, quite. It’s a seriously unfortunate consequence of our civilian leadership’s cowardice; avoiding a proper draft like they should be if they “need” that many troop deployments.
They aren’t being asked that question. They’re being asked, rightly or wrongly, to lay their lives on the line for their country. Disparaging their motives based on your own world view is disengenious. The day you can stand in front of each and every recruiting station to present your case is the day you can start passing judgement on their motivations.
How exactly is this any different than a person willingly volunteering to join a crime syndicate? Would your treatment of them be as kind? Blind dedication to a cause, right or wrong; how exactly is that admirable and noble? Taking this to the logical conclusion, one ought to be just as deferential and reverent toward Hutu foot-soldiers as they are to U.S. infantrymen; they were just as dedicated to the truths of their state.
The U.S. has “defended” holdings via conventional forces as well. I didn’t say we wouldn’t find ways to employ conventional military forces, I said that employ doesn’t make a bit of sense given the geopolitical and technological realities of the world post WWII.
Britain probably should have no military what-so-ever. At least not in the conventional sense. What’s the point?
Your only possible conflicts are going to be either asymmetric or existential. In the case of asymmetric conflict your conventional military is a hinderance, not an asset, that’s the entire point of the asymmetry. The only existential conflicts you’re going to find yourself in are going to result in utilizing your nuclear arsenal. Full stop.
The grey area in the middle is nothing but a fanciful construction of complete fiction to perpetuate the ability to make a game out of human suffering and “creative” destruction.
The modern era (post-nuclear) has shown the significant effectiveness of economic warfare between developed nation-states who don’t want to engage in nuclear war; ie. the Suez Crisis.
Idealism is awesome, reality isn’t so neat. England has defended U.K. holdings in recent memory through use of its military. You can argue the merits of that war, however it was fought conventionally. There is also the case where military intervention in another country has been required to prevent genocide, something I actually support. In the case of Rwanda, it wasn’t and I am ashamed that our military wasn’t used to prevent the massacres that took place, similarly in Sudan and the Congo.
If you want a militarized humanitarian world police force, then build one. Get everyone on board, and make it autonomous.
This will never happen of course, because no country wants to give up that little bit of its sovereignty for something as honorable as combating genocide.
I’m with you ,I know all to well how this crap is sold.
anyone who thinks they can, from their comfy seat in upper class america, pretend to understand what was going on back in 2007 in Baghdad is fooling themselves. from today’s perspective, Baghdad is relatively peaceful because of the surge of 2007. if you want a good perspective on what it was like for soldiers on the ground there (and I believe some of the actual soldiers from the video), you owe it to yourself and this discussion to read The Good Soldiers. No it’s not a pro-war book, it’s a terrifying look into what it was really like in Baghdad back in 2007. After reading it, you’ll understand why the soldiers did what they did here. ALL death is horrible, war is horrible, and innocent people look to have been killed. But what were they doing during that extremely intense time period hanging out with guys with AK47s? Terrible tragedy, for sure, but irresponsible for wikileaks to armchair quarterback this complex event.
I suppose this could be true, though it hardly explains our current situation, as we’re quite obviously not engaged in a war. We’re performing a heavily, heavily militarized policing action against people who are rejecting a foreign occupation.
That’s not a war. War is just what we call it, because it absolves us of all manner of responsibility.
Out of a dozen or more people, only maybe 2 had weapons. And they were casually milling about on the street.
The time to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan is long over due. They are gonna have problems but us being there is just making matters worse.
i love this line – “only maybe 2 had weapons. And they were casually milling about on the street.” so by this logic it wouldn’t matter to you if people in your neighborhood were casually walking around with ak-47s. no big deal, huh?
for instance, what if a group of insurgents fought US troops on the street and then dropped their weapons, changed their clothes and after a while acted like innocent civilians. do they receive amnesty because they don’t appear at the moment to be doing much killing? that’s the problem with a video like this. it is absolutely horrible to watch, but it seems to be taken out of context.
and yes the soldiers seemed to be acting strange by our standards here in comfy America, but I’m not sure what I would do if I was in their shoes at that moment in the Iraq war
Bodyguards are prevalent in Iraq. They are armed. Comparing oranges to apples is never a good idea.
If the insurgents drop their weapons and mix in with the civilian populace then they are not an imminent threat and should be processed like criminals. Mowing down the entire civilian populace in order to ensure ‘killing the bad guys’ is morally reprehensible, but that’s what you seem to suggest.
definitely understand what you’re saying. it’s difficult for me because after reading about the psychological terror that the soldiers were going through on a daily basis there i can understand the thought process in the video.
i just think the focus with this video shouldn’t be on the soldiers as much as the war they were involved in. it’s a shame that they are being treated as they are by some people.
The surge “worked” because the U.S. was paying Iraqis $10 a day not to fight against U.S. troops.
Some 70,000 former insurgents are now being paid $10 a day by the U.S. military. It costs about a quarter billion dollars a year.
It’s a controversial strategy, and Macgregor warns that it’s creating a parallel military force in Iraq that is made up almost entirely of Sunni Muslims.
“We need to understand that buying off your enemy is a good short-term solution to gain a respite from violence,” he says, “but it’s not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order inside a country that, quite frankly, is recovering from the worst sort of civil war.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17899543
lbrty, I would like nothing better than to see the men and women serving in Iraq come home. Unfortunately, the people who swore to uphold the Constitution seem intent upon prolonging this illegal war that has nothing to do with defending the security of the U.S. and everything to do with rewarding our corporate masters.
I gave that some thought and the question occurred to me, was Eisenhower the only President since WWII that has not taken us into major military forays? (oops, forgot about Carter but he did have his attempted desert rescue that killed GI’s)
I have viewed every military action since WWII as illegal and unconstitutional. Last night while giving it some thought I came up with this: the Framers granted CiC control to the President while reserving the ability to declare War for the Congress. Congress declares, the President carries it out.
I do not believe this argument, and Truman used it (and I know Teddy did too) that because the President is CiC, he can use the Military within his own discretion.
When the Constitution was drawn, I believe it was commonly accepted that first you declare War on your enemy, then you conduct War.
For some reason, we’ve been conducting it without declaring it, for 60 years now.
Insulates the Congress and also possibly insulates the people of the United States from the responsibility.
I like your phrasing.
I tend to revert to my rural roots and think of them as chickenshit SOB’s
I watched the video several times, looked at the still which included a second attack and read the transcripts of the whole thing.
The truth is there are two sides to this video that need to be taken into account.
The first is that this is war and I can see how under those circumstances the mistakes made (if they turn out to be correct), could have lead to what happened. The soldiers erroneously thought they were killing the enemy (I hate the term insurgent and it is useless).
I think that the killings could have been avoided, and I have to wonder how many other civilians were killed under the same circumstances.
What really bothers me about the video, and will I think cause the most problems is the callous attitude to those being killed. I don’t care how much war you have seen and how much you hate the enemy, when you find out that children have died, and your response is basically “oh well” then something has gone wrong somewhere.
This video will be further evidence in the Arab world that Americans don’t see Arabs and Muslims as ‘human’ and that killing them, regardless of if they are women and children is no big deal.
It does not matter how many fighters are killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we can’t convince the civilians (and killing them does not help our cause), that what we have to offer is much better than what the enemy does, these wars are lost and can never be won.
So in the end it does not matter if the rules of engagement were followed and the attack was justified, the Muslim and Arab world will see people who look like them being killed without apparent provocation, jokes being made and the injury of children brushed off as unimportant.
When you add this to the large numbers of civilians that have been accidentally killed and if it is true that the people killed were not involved in attacks on Americans then their is nothing good that can come from this video.
The families of those killed deserve answers and the truth about what happened.
It is the honorable thing to do.
Some 70,000 former insurgents are now being paid $10 a day by the U.S. military. It costs about a quarter billion dollars a year.
I’m okay with this part. A quarter billion dollars is cheap compared to dropping bombs, shooting bullets, and sending home bodybags. If we could end the Afghanistan war by paying off the Taliban to give up AQ, I’d be down with that too. Better to pay out a few billion and come home than spend hundreds of billions hunkered down in the mountains of Afghanistan.
I gave that some thought and the question occurred to me, was Eisenhower the only President since WWII that has not taken us into major military forays?
No, but he overthrew Mossadegh. Not sure if that was any better than war in the long run.
I have viewed every military action since WWII as illegal and unconstitutional. Last night while giving it some thought I came up with this: the Framers granted CiC control to the President while reserving the ability to declare War for the Congress. Congress declares, the President carries it out.
But that’s never been the case, even from the beginning. Barbary pirates? Native Americans? How many actual, formal declarations of war have we had, five?
These men were enemy combatants. I see nothing untoward about KILLING them with dispatch. Excellent video, but hardly anything to be concerned about.
A couple aspects about the video I feel compelled to comment on, in the favor of the US and the US military:
– the idea that the soldiers involved were “callous” and that somehow their attitude is a shame. This really is bull. If you feel this way I suggest you read some nonfiction written by soldiers and it will likely change your mind. I understand the dialoge between killing soldiers seems jarring when you are viewing it on your laptop here in the states, but it is really mypoic to judge this from that perspective.
– war is brutal business. Even “good” wars. Read some infantrymen’s accounts of WWII sometime. As sad as this scene was, and whether one believes the actions were justified or not, this is what happens in conflicts like this. Soliders kill the enemy where they find them. Even when they are just milling about.
– The United States has spent untold billions to develop technologies that keep soliders out of the line of fire if possible. That is why we have helicopters with cameras and hellfire missles. Perhaps this video would look “better” if American soldiers on the ground confronted the enemy and had a firefight? But for decades we the people have demanded our military put a high value on the lives of our soldiers.
– The video is tragic. For a lot of reasons. Chief among them the apparent ambiguity involved in ascertaining who the enemy is and when to bring lethal force. Secondly, the fact that actions take place in urban areas like this. I can’t speculate on exactly what the killed men were doing or if they were definitely “enemy.” I do wonder WTF anyone would be doing driving around with their kids in such a situation or with a war photographer or stopping to try and help moments after a firefight.
– the WikiLeaks commentary in the videos is utter BS. From quoting George Orwell (in a quote, ironically, that seems to apply more to their own commentary than anything else) to the presumptuos name they’ve given the video, clearly they’ve made their conclusions regarding what took place. But, really, what they have done is color anyone’s perception about the “leaks” they present. I don’t begrudge anyone their conclusion on the video but their presentation pushes the viewer strongly in one direction before it even presents the actual footage. They got it backwards I’d say.
– There is stuff in the footage that is quite commendable by US troops. Yes, the guys doing the shooting are congratulatings themselves and that rubs out-of-action viewers the wrong way. But there are several cool and level-headed guys calling the shots and quite professionally ascertaining the situation. There is communication with troops on the ground; there is a lot going on apart from the helicopters. When the troops on the ground appear, what do they do? They move in fast and quickly are pulling the wounded kids out of the van and running with them in soldier’s arms for help. Whatever you think about the decision to engage, immediately afterwards it is not indifference you see in that video. Think about that for a second — the troops on the ground, who likely called in and briefed the helicopters in the first place because they were aware of the initial threat, were on the scene that fast and almost immediately a solder was sprinting down the street with a kid in his arms. And, as even the video commentary describes, the military was quickly discussing where to get these kids medical treatment.
– There is also the point of waging an insurgency in an urban area. Complicated to be sure. But in such a situation who is most culpable for civilian casualties? I honestly am not sure and not eager for my country to engage in that sort of business. But I don’t think the moral equation is anywhere near as clearcut as the video editorilaizes.
– War Photographer. Not a “safe” occupation. Especially when you are darting around amongst fighters. Do you think the photographers themselves thought they were taking a big risk at the time? I do. Obviously they would not expect to get shot at in this manner, but if we are eager to say the helicopter crews miscalculated I think we are also implying that the photographers miscalculated too. And that is assuming they were surrounded only by innocent bodyguards, which is not at all clear.
I think it’s a mistake to judge these men based on their attitudes or speech. Having never been a soldier, I have no idea what these guys see, read, or hear on a regular basis. I can’t possibly judge them as callous when I have no idea what they go through on a day to day basis. Imagine if we could have recorded some soldiers at Gettysburg or Iwo Jima–I’m sure the language would have been pretty salty.
In terms of their actions, I don’t see that they did anything wrong. They followed their Rules of Engagement. Remember that this was 2007. The Surge was in full swing and we were going after the insurgents pretty aggressively.
People are sitting here debating whether the Iraqis were holding guns or cameras or rockets or tripods. What’s it like sitting 2,000 feet up in a shaking helicopter, looking at a grainy 6-inch video?
It’s the van that steams me the most: what kind of chickenshit ROE allows firing on those evacuating the wounded?