Collateral Murder - WikiLeaks - Page 21

TL;DR: I'm military and been right over that neighborhood at a different time; the video may be disturbing but doesn't strike me as unjustifiable. The coverup is what we should save our real vitriol for. I know some of you will immediately dismiss this as you view everyone in the military as inherently evil. I find that silly. (There are also people who think I can do no wrong because I AM and I find that dangerous). Give it a read anyway.

War is an ugly, atrocious action. Bad things happen every day; good things only rarely. It's a waste of money, time, potential, and especially lives. What's in this video is distasteful to say the least, but it's also intentionally inflammatory (presumably so WL gets more clicks, and we all obliged them). This video is from a period of increasing, and increasingly violent, action by insurgents. Mortar and rocket attacks, IEDs/EFPs, executions in the most grotesque manner, were all becoming the norm.

The men you hear are reacting to stress from a variety of sources: lack of sleep because of indirect fire attacks, stress from friends being WIA/KIA, stress from feeling little support from the Iraqis at that time, from being away from home and family. In all that stress, they still behaved according to the rules of engagement. They positively identified small arms (which are a threat) and misidentified an RPG. Had I not known, I would also have called out RPG. It unfortunately looks like it, and that was amplified by the pose he took. WL added in captions to let you know there were cameras to amplify outrage, but having flown around Baghdad in helos everything looks like a threat after they shoot at you.

Shooting the van was also justifiable because the "insurgents" were going to collect their wounded and weapons. Clearly the aircrew were wrong, but not unjustifiably and probably only in hindsight. They followed the ROEs, received approval to fire, and did so efficiently. Further, the initial statements that said they were engaged with a violent group also does not strike me as "cover up." If you've ever been involved with an emergency situation you know the first reports out are usually wrong. The later reports, however, I find repugnant. Events like this make me want to stay in the military because I don't want the bastards trying to cover up what was a horrific mistake thinking I won't be right over their shoulder next time.

I have found virtually all the military members I was with in Iraq serious, professional (at least on duty!), and genuinely concerned for civilians. You saw the soldiers running out with the kids. Genuine concern there, from fathers, older brothers, cousins that know kids like that back home. The amount of work we did to keep civilians out of harms way was breathtaking sometimes because it put us in much more vulnerable situations. I'm good with that. I signed up, they didn't. As for the attitude and demeanor of the aircrew, yep, it's stomach-turning. I did see this on occasion, and it's not something I've seen many redditors say they teach you in training. It's a defense mechanism to deal with the privations and violence you see. Dehumanizing the enemy makes it easier to deal with it. If you've never read or seen a synopsis of On Killing you absolutely should. That's why running over a body was seemingly funny. I'm ashamed to say I've had similar gut reactions of really terrible things, and like those guys I feel awful about it when I reflect.

This post isn't to justify the killings, but hopefully to tone down some of the hyperbole. It's a terrible tragedy; it's a waste; I'd love to see us out of Iraq as soon as feasible. It's not a war crime. It's not 18-year-old kids just wanting to kill people for the fun of it. Now, let's all be pissed together that it took this long to get the real story out. OK, too long of a ramble but I needed to get it off my chest. Ask away if you have questions; I'll tell you what I can.

So I've spent about two and a half years deployed to Iraq, and seen my share of combat. I've served in several different infantry positions, both as a dismount and as a gunner in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (the "Brad" mentioned in the video). I am always skeptical of these sorts of videos, because they lack context. As a third party, one never knows the full tactical situation, the histories of individuals and groups in the area, the mission and orders of the soldiers involved. So everything I say must be understood to be the view of a third party observer, one with a fair amount of boots-on-the-ground experience, but a third party nonetheless. Based solely on what appears in the video, it doesn't look like the gunner(s) had sufficient justification to fire. Simple possession of an AK-47 is legal in Iraq, and having it on the street isn't always enough to warrant immediate termination, and certainly not when the target is standing in a crowd of unarmed personnel. The "RPG" was poorly identified, and didn't appear to be of significant threat to the Crazyhorse element. It does sound like there had been recent combat in the area, so that may be why there was a minimum standard of ID used prior to engaging the targets. One thing to remember is that Bushmaster element can't always see everything that Crazyhorse does; they rely to some degree on the helos' info to inform their commands. If nothing else, this looked like a textbook situation for dismounted troops with air cover. It sounds like they had Bradleys and dismounts nearby, and they probably should have been sent in to deal with the situation. Dismounts have an infinitely superior view of what exactly is happening on the ground, and when combined with top-down info from the birds, they can properly assess a situation. If these RPGs and AKs were really cameras as reported by the site, then that would have been obvious to dismounts. Firing on the van completely blew my mind. This looks like a series of tactical mistakes combined with an overeager air element, combined with total disregard for the normal RoE (and again, I don't know if they were operating on some kind of modified Rules of Engagement). U.S. soldiers, in my experience, go to great lengths to prevent civilian casualties. Maybe things are different in the air, but those of us working on the ground have to look at everything we do, up close and personal. Don't paint U.S. forces with a broad brush based on the actions and mistakes of a few individuals. Also, remember that it's not the line troops that are performing coverups. Talk to your government about that.

The tape is, in my opinion, authentic. I was serving in the area at the time. I note four things in the tape:-
1. Double-tap --- engaging an individual or individuals after the threat has been eliminated.

2. Engaging personnel with anti-material weaponry; this isn't illegal but it looks bad. :-p

3. Failing to establish PID (Positive Identification of a threat) before engaging the "bongo truck" full of injured individuals.

4. Failing to establish PID before engaging what is, basically, a group of civilians wandering around the streets.

In essence, they shot some people for carrying weapons, then shot up the ambulance. I'm very saddened by this, since it's not the first violation of the ROE that I've encountered. The last one wasn't caught on tape. I had to put a stop to it myself.