Wikileaks, the US Government, and the slaughter of civilians

[Wiglaf]

I don't buy that they don't have phones in that whole city block in Iraq. Not buying it. (And it's Red Crescent, not Red Cross. The PR police got to it.)

Who runs to help people who were just gunned down by the U.S.?

[Asher]

I don't buy that they don't have phones in that whole city block in Iraq. Not buying it. (And it's Red Crescent, not Red Cross. The PR police got to it.)

You really have no idea what it's like in the third world country, do you?

You seriously think someone there could just call 999/911 and an ambulance would be on sight within minutes?

Who brazenly runs to help people who were just gunned down by the U.S.?

Heroes with balls.

Maybe the guy thought "Hey, I'm an unarmed man with kids in my minivan...even the US won't kill me"?

[Solomwi]

Many people don't even have phones.

This is the other thing I find deeply disturbing.

The van comes up and tries to bring a CLEARLY WOUNDED person into the van. That's ALL they're doing. It is therefore ATTACKED.

What is the rationale for that one? Anyone even want to try to defend it?

I understand under strict interpretation of the Geneva Convention, you're only forbidden from attacking medics and other vehicles marked with the red cross...but it should be abundantly clear what was going on.

It was clear, hence the van getting fired on.

[Wiglaf]

You seriously think someone there could just call 999/911 and an ambulance would be on sight within minutes?

They have police in Iraq, believe it or not. It was third world in 2003, but in 2007, things were going well.

[Asher]

They have police in Iraq, believe it or not. It was third world in 2003, but in 2007, things were going well.

[Asher]

BTW:

There is no local equivalent to the “911” emergency line in Iraq.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1144.html

[Wiglaf]

Didn't John McCain call their equivalent of 911 when he was visiting Baghdad to report like a traffic jam? And you made fun of him for it? How does this square with that?

I can't believe they don't have 911, maybe that is outdated, but I agree with you that this was dumb if only because there's good intel you can gain by following the van. I think the troops should be reprimanded and placed on a vehicle without a weapon.

[Wiglaf]

I called my friend in State and you are right. I cannot believe they have no 911. That makes this pretty indefensible.

[Asher]

The document on the US .gov website was created in January 2010. There's no 911 in Iraq.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci, it's not a binary decision. You can wait for better intel. Send in a drone. Tell the Bradley to wait while they analyzed the situation more from a distance from the Apache.

You have a very simplistic view for how urban combat works.

Back at you. Every time a helicopter sees a group of people carrying what look like weapons all the ground troops in the area should sit tight until you can get a drone in really close (if one is available), possibly warning the people, to verify absolutely that they are combatants? Not to mention, sending a drone in STILL isn't going to provide you with very definite information.

Second of all, the fact that you need to do the requisite recon work is the point. It's clear that was not done here.
Third of all, your last sentence is so morbid I don't even think I need to say anything more. You don't know who you're shooting, so rather than spend another 5 minutes ascertaining what's going on in more detail you shoot 'em all up and hope they were all insurgents?

You haven't actually explained what you think is "the requisite recon work". Is five minutes really your standard? If they had circled around for another 5 minutes and not seen anything different from what they had (dudes with what looked like guns taking cover from American soldiers) would you be A-OK with them opening up?

[Asher]

I would pass what I'd seen on and suggest an alternate route.

I certainly wouldn't indiscriminately open fire on large groups of people 'cause one of them had a rifle, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't open fire on a minivan which was doing nothing but trying to save an injured man.

[Hauldren Collider]

Just a point about the opinions running around about urban combat:

We're probably almost all guilty of this but I gather few of us have been in the military. I certainly haven't. So let's not go pretending we know what it's like to be in a war. Benefit of the doubt is appropriate. My opinion is that American soldiers are just about as professional as it gets--they definitely screw up sometimes, but I doubt many people here are qualified to second-guess their tactical decisions.

Following this, there are two possible conclusions: One, the soldiers did the right thing and made the right decision, or two, the soldiers screwed up on a snap decision as happens sometimes. Either way, war is war, and the American military remains near the top in terms of professionalism.

I certainly wouldn't indiscriminately open fire on large groups of people 'cause one of them had a rifle, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't open fire on a minivan which was doing nothing but trying to save an injured man.

But you aren't in the army. Maybe after being trained, you might think differently. Or maybe not, who knows. Point being, you weren't there, you aren't trained, you don't have the ability to judge. That said, neither does Kuciwalker.

...Although I suppose my argument boils down to "we have no idea what we are talking about so we should STFU", which doesn't make for a very interesting discussion.

At any rate, what is your point here Asher? That there are some screwups in the US Army, or that the US Army is corrupt? Or maybe none of the above, in which case, elaborate.

[Asher]

But you aren't in the army. Maybe after being trained, you might think differently. Or maybe not, who knows. Point being, you weren't there, you aren't trained, you don't have the ability to judge. That said, neither does Kuciwalker.

...Although I suppose my argument boils down to "we have no idea what we are talking about so we should STFU", which doesn't make for a very interesting discussion.

At any rate, what is your point here Asher? That there are some screwups in the US Army, or that the US Army is corrupt? Or maybe none of the above, in which case, elaborate.

My point is simple: if what they did is "a-okay" by the current RoE by the US military, they need to change. They need to remember they are operating IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S COUNTRY and it's not JUST a battlefield. The assumptions and the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude that's in place now is simply unacceptable.

If you're ever in a situation where you're unsure, the men who have volunteered their service in the military and are operating inside a country other than their own should put THEIR lives at risk instead of attacking vans with children in them, or killing civilians because their camera looks like an RPG from a long, long distance...

[Wiglaf]

If you're ever in a situation where you're unsure, the men who have volunteered their service in the military

So the ROEs depend on whether the soldiers were drafted or volunteered

and are operating inside a country other than their own

Sounds like you're bitter about the invasion more than this incident.

[Dr Strangelove]

I watched the video. It's pretty clear that what was identified as an RPG was just a camera. It was way too short to be an RPG. Two men might have been carrying RPGs, but the way they were traveling with the cameramen they were probably hired as protection. The entire group walks about casually, the guys with the guns don't react at all to the helicopter. Helicopters make a lot of noise, they'd have to have been aware of the presence of the choppers, but if they're insurgents they would have to treat it as an enemy. They don't, they ignore it. Probably becasue they're with Reuters cameramen and they think they won't be fired upon.