I don't agree with the US invading Iraq in the first place, but that's for a separate topic... and it's not directly relevant to this unfortunate event (but indirectly, it's probably obvious that it is).
Take the disagreement of the reasons causing this stupid theatre-wide situation out of it, and what do we have? We have insurgents, civilians, and the US soldiers. The latter, are there, to do a job, which is to protect the civilians and their own comrades.
War being war, sometimes, the 2 jobs don't exactly go hand in hand. That doesn't make the soldiers' life any easier (and I'm sure UH60FtRucker knows what I mean). This case, is one of those situations. So here goes... I had not kept track on the war in Iraq much in terms of the incidents of civilians being killed or friendly fire, or whatever, I only kept track of the general situation... so I had the benefit of not having any hindsight benefits prior to seeing the first post on this topic (the words that came to mind was... "incident", and "civilians/reporters killed", to which, I immediately clicked the video link and started watching it.
|Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 22):|
I saw three AKs, and only after I paused and re-watched the video, was when I could see that it wasn't an RPG, but rather a camera. But nonetheless he was in the same pose that one fires an RPG.
I saw 3, max 4 AKs. The body language, does not show them to be a potential threat. HOWEVER, the "RPG", was the main problem. It looked like an RPG tube was wielded around the corner. Where's the RPG warhead then? Was it pointed backwards in a taunting game to a ground unit? I actually expected them to do that a few times in agitate the soldiers in the "let's screw your mind up on ROE" game (which is an OLD OLD OLD tactic)... only to suddenly come up with the projectile pointing the right way, and the RPG beginning it's trajectory of death towards the soldiers... it was at that point that the whole "RPG", disappeared from view, and not to be seen. This automatically brand that group, as a threat.
It does appear to me, prior to van arriving, that there was a little fog in the situational awareness as to whether or not the group in the courtyard was the group firing at the ground unit. That to me, appears to be where the mishap originated. Crazyhorse whichever number, Hotel 16, or Bushmaster whichever number, missed at that point.
Again, there's an old old old insurgency tactic of "lure and misdirect". Which is to cause confusion and effect an error by the opposite side. The units involved in this, may have fallen into such a trap. The insurgents were fortunate, that at the time gun fire against the ground unit, the wall corner in question was out of view, otherwise, this video would not have caused such a stirr except to the very determined regardless of the facts facing them.
There are dumb insurgents, and there are smart insurgents. Smart insurgents, know and learn these things and use it to good effect. Again, they were lucky that there were these group of men who in the end, turned out to be journalists with a bloody long lens, and several contracted personnel to provide armed security support. Had it been a large video camera, this would not have happened. Again, smart insurgents know, that >90% of the world, if such a thing like this incident was exposed or claimed, there'll be a lot of talk, like what we see in this topic. Insurgents and terrorists are first and foremost, attention whores and pot-stirrers... their guns and number of people killed, second.
It' happens... it's war... BUT....
As clear as the ROEs are written (or how poorly), war is war, and sh1t happens... you can't do a war without mishaps like these... all you can do is mitigate such a risk and hope an incident realizing that risk happen.
|Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 26):|
If you're going to properly judge these men, at least have the willingness to properly understand the situation, and rules.
I find it sad that many "anti-war commentators" don't bother to think about how these insurgents go about fulfilling their attention whore desires, and causing death of whoever (they always prefer their you killing civilians first before they do, even if the latter is imminent within the next 5 mins)... There are some insurgency school of thought (the ones bordering on chaos and reverse-terror methodology) that prefer you kill civilians when trying to hit them back, rather than them making a headshot on you. These are the ugly insurgency methods used a lot back many years ago.
|Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 28):|
sing everyone's favorite Geneva Convention, extraction of wounded personnel by unmarked other personnel/vehicles does not afford them exemption status.
|Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 28):|
n both Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgents typically make an effort to extract their wounded in order to prevent them from being questioned/interrogated by Coalition forces. And in some cases, if they cannot be extracted, they are shot, to prevent them from revealing the locations of safe houses, cell leaders, weapons caches, etc.
Again, this is an old method. If there's a standard operating procedure in insurgency warfare, this is a global standard for insurgents when the opposition has general control over the area. Extract the wounded, if unable, "silence them"... unacceptable for "civilized" and "conventional warfare" standards, but in an insurgency, a wounded man you cannot extract is as useless as a dead man... and in a lot of cases, more dangerous to you than the soldiers you're shooting at.
|Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 33):|
They did not fire on the wounded individual. They engaged the vehicle that was attempting to extract him, and there was no possible way to know there was child in the van.
Yes, as much as the gunner want to kill him, he stuck to the ROE and did not fire on him.
Those of you who think the gunner's attitude is "gung-ho trigger happy and out of this world", need to be reminded, one of the dangers in a war is "prolonged desensitization of war", which does tend to make the enemy look like game... this is very bad in urban insurgency for obvious reasons. There are generally 2 reasons for "treating the enemy like game"... One is pure immaturity, two is the desensitization effect. Put yourselves in a war zone for a long time, and you can suffer from this. That's why there are countries that adopt tour/deployment rotation even at the peak of battle, that is to reduce such a risk. Whether the gunner here suffer from "gung-ho let's treat the enemy like game" syndrome due to pure immaturity or desensitization, it's not for me to decide.
Contextually, it is something I don't like hearing, but can comprehend.
Were you? Have you been in a "heat of combat" or been involved in "direct support role for a unit in an engagement" ?
|Quoting eaa3 (Reply 39):|
You can't see what they are holding and neither could the pilots. In a situation like this, where there is no real danger to anyone, it is criminal to do what was done.
Really? at least 3 AK
type were visible from the gun camera, and what looked like to be an RPG tube. On the AKs, now, whether they were AK
-47, AKMs, AK
-74s or any other type of AK
looking weapons with a curved magazine, doesn't really matter, does it?
|Quoting eaa3 (Reply 41):|
There were no troops there (i.e. close by) and the helicopter was a mile away. This is just pathetic. They were not a threat to anyone. If they thought there was something going on then they have to have someone on the ground to confirm it. They should have sent troops to check this out.
Did you miss out the parts where the pilot said "I can see the dismounted unit"?????? The gun camera is just ONE view of it. Get to the part where the pilot says "I'm gonna get lower", and see the difference in elevation view of the gun camera and realize that they were not very high up nor too far to begin with.
|Quoting NW747400 (Reply 45):|
I just wonder if any of those that criticize these men have every actually been in a war zone.
Forget warzone... have they been involved in training scenarios involving "the heat and confusion of war", especially scenarios designed specifically to compromise one's situational awareness? My guess is... a big November Oscar.
|Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):|
Hate the ROE, not the pilots. They were just doing their jobs according to ROE
|Quoting qantas077 (Reply 50):|
In other words they fired on him...after all he had been loaded into the vehicle.
That is a consequence of being extracted. Hence the Geneva Conventions covering what you can or cannot fire on regarding extraction of the wounded.
|Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 52):|
I think I've already covered this a few times. Extraction of wounded by non-medical personnel, does not make that vehicle exempt by default.
And, being a vehicle not marked as a "protected from being engaged" vehicle, how does one not know there are or are not weapons inside it?
Ask eaa3 for that!
|Quoting eaa3 (Reply 86):|
"On several occasions, the soldiers in the Apache seem to regard the conditions on the ground in the most threatening terms, even when there is limited evidence that this is so. “Have five to six individuals with AK-47s,” they tell the on-scene commander, after identifying only one or two armed people on the street. When the Apache is flying over Saeed Chmargh, while he is wounded and struggling on the pavement, the crew expresses hope that he’ll find a weapon so that they can kill him legally under the Rules of Engagement. But when the van arrives, the Apache crew reports to the commander, “We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.” This is later amended to, simply, “picking up the bodies.” (There are important legal distinctions between the two scenarios.)"
You see a wounded enemy, suffering... no medical help is available to him... there's no way for you to assist him... would you rather just see that person suffer to death or just make it quicker for him? Some will choose the latter... but guess what, you're not allowed to reduce his suffering due to the ROEs. You can always look at it both ways.
|Quoting eaa3 (Reply 91):|
There was just an aircraft flying overhead with trigger happy (killing happy) pilots.
And someone's just a keyboard happy (hate happy) person... what's the difference? They have the ROEs, we have the A.net rules !
|Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 92):|
...We know NOW that it wasn't an RPG, but like I've said, anyone watching that who did not have prior knowledge, would have never guessed it was a huge camera.
See what I said above after deliberately not giving myself hindsight benefit.
|Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 105):|
and the entire Muslim world sees how "evil" Americans are. This video can be spun very negatively and unfortunately, it doesn't take much to see the negative aspects of it. The next thing you know, moderate Muslims who don't know which side to trust, look at this video and it shows that the Americans are persecuting their people. hmmm I wonder what side they'll choose to support?
Well, I'm not planning on switching sides to the crazy attention whores or change my faith...
Just saw the vid again... pity it didn't start earlier... would have been able to pick how this mess came to being:
"Let whoever was talking about rooftops know that we engaged personnel on ground level..."
Coz the conversation between CH18 and H26 (or whoever else) would reveal how the mistake occurred.
It was only clear after seeing the video again, that it was a camera! There was only 1 second or less where it was visible that what the guy was holding was a camera with a long lens...
The permission to fire by H26 was given before someone mentioned that (if I understood correctly), the proper target was identified as somewhere else.
grid 5458 8616 or grid 5458 8617?
I don't know how far off that 1 grid is (may have used a different system)
War sucks... coz mistakes happens... this is one of them... sad day it was
Men eager to fight and shoot is normal in a war... that's why there are ROEs... even with that, things screw up in war.
No matter how good you are, no matter how good the C3
and technology you have, no matter how good the training is, in a war, mistakes happen. The problem is, once you're in it, you got the responsibility to restore law and order before you leave... and that means longer wars and more mistakes. Just pulling out tomorrow means you're just walking away from your responsibility. This is why I don't like war.