US army murders Reuters journalists and civilians

[Stego]

Michael,

When the Marines drove through Iraq during the initial attack, their orders were to shoot anything that moved. They shot anything that moved.

[Relic]

Michael,

When the Marines drove through Iraq during the initial attack, their orders were to shoot anything that moved. They shot anything that moved.

Why would anyone give an order like that?

[awesome possum]

Why would anyone give an order like that?

Especially considering the "fact" that we were going to be welcomed with open arms as liberators.

[Ran]

I've got a relative who was in the Marines, and he accidentally killed a child. He was on watch during the night, someone was coming up at his perimeter who wouldn't identify themselves and refused orders to halt, and he did what he felt he had to do to protect himself and his unit. It was psychologically scarring, and from what I've been told he had nightmares about it for a long time.

So, it's not really a surprise. It becomes easy to forget it, though, until it's actually put in front of us. We're good at forgetting things that aren't staring us in the face.

[The Magic Man]

Especially considering the "fact" that we were going to be welcomed with open arms as liberators.

Somebody had to civilize those savages.

And now they got the vote.

Gratitude not required.

:)

[The Magic Man]

When the Marines drove through Iraq during the initial attack, their orders were to shoot anything that moved. They shot anything that moved.

Dumbasses.

But, we fixed their errors. Took a few years, though. Heh.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If they were uniformed soldiers, you'd have a point. What you have here is a bunch of people in civilian dress who are walking about and acting casually, and though some may be armed, some are not.

Yeah, maybe they were just going to the local shooting range for run. With their RPG's.

If I saw a bunch of unfiormed enemy combatants and they were frogmarching several people in civilian dress with their hands tied behind their backs, I'd assume those people are civilian prisoners and I would not shoot.

Okay. Probably a good assumption. But since everyone in this video seemed to be chumming along with the RPG guys of their own free will, that's not an issue.

If I see several Iraqi men with guns and several other men without guns, I don't know what the hell I'm looking at, and I wait for them to actually do something before I open fire.

So they get the free first shot, huh? U.S. ground troops were only a 100 or so meters away around a couple of blocks, including their Hummer.

What is the credible innocent explanation for why that group was there given that there was firing in that area, and the soldiers on the ground reported no sign of other civilians in the area? There are maps out there diagramming this, and these guys were walking towards the area where the U.S. unit was. Leaving the two reporters out of it, do you seriously think those other guys weren't insurgents?

That some of these men may have fired on the ground force is not sufficient cause for a helicopter in the sky to blow them and everyone near them away.

Yeah, I think it is, especially when they're advancing into a combat zone carrying RPG's. Much better to shoot at them first when they're easy pickings rather than letting them slip away or -- and this is particularly true of that area -- get under cover in those buildings, where the Apaches would not be able to monitor their movements as well, would be less able to engage them, and they'd be in a much better position to take potshots at the infantry that were trying to clear the area.

If they're gunning down possible insurgents instead of actual insurgents, they're not acting in support of people in a firefight.

Why did they have those RPG's?

I don't believe the Apaches should have been the ones taking the shots. If these were insurgents, the company on the ground should have approached to determine whether that was or was not the case.

And under your reasoning, Ran, the company on the ground could not possibly determine what "the case" was until the insurgents fired off their automatic weapons and launched their RPG's. Because until then, they're just your average civilians who happen to be carrying weapons in a combat zone. I guess after they killed a few guys you'd feel better about it. If you are in a combat zone, which this was, and you see people dressed in the manner of your opponent openly carrying non-civilian weapons, they are a legitimate target. This is not something that happened in some crowded market.

Note that most of the senior military figures who argue COIN tactics should be used would agree that in general, COIN doctrine means that in a situation like this, you need more than just the sight of people waving around guns to attack.

Got any support for that? Honestly, I was really leaning your way on this until I read that report. In this particular situation, the facts were clear. This was a group of insurgents and people voluntarily affiliated with them -- the RPG's are conclusive.

You want to minimize, as far as possible, the chance of something like this happening. Of course, that's hard for soldiers to do, and understandably.

I disagree. I think you want to maximize the chance of killing insurgents without losing any of your guys. The reporters were in the wrong for being embedded closely with an openly hostile force, in a combat zone, without wearing anything to distinguish themselves as members of the press. Or do you seriously think that if you have press embedded in your unit, an enemy should not be permitted to use area weapons such as mortars or artillery against you?

As to what the reporter and his driver was doing there, Reuters apparently reported that they had been in the area to do a report on weightlifters (I assume at a gym or something) and heard about a raid and decided to try and get some photos of it.

Great -- so they were hangin' with the insurgents to get a front-row seat at the ambush, and knowingly advanced into a combat zone. If you do that as a member of the press, you are taking your life into your own hands.

Matthew Yglesias raises the point that the only reason we know about this incident is that a Reuters employee was killed. How many similar incidents have happened where no one outside of Iraq knew or cared about the deaths?

Hopefully a lot. I do agree, though, that the van part of it was a tragedy. That's why you're supposed to mark vehicles like that, and it makes me angry that people would put their kids at risk like that.

But anyway, let's say we're duking it out with uniformed North Koreans. And some members of the NK propaganda press in civilian clothes are riding along with a column of reinforcing NK troops on trucks heading towards Seoul, taking pictures and videos for the Hanoi Evening News. Can we light up those trucks despite the presence of the press? Or forget the press. Let's say there's just a couple of civilians who want to come along for the ride and watch. Can we light those troops in the truck, even though we know they are accompanied by civilians?

People need to use their heads. If there is fighting in an area, and you don't want to be a target, stay the fuck away from the people with the guns. That's just basic common sense, and most people in that area had the sense not to be roaming the streets. If you notice from the video, it's not like there were a lot of other civilians around because they wanted to avoid combat. But this group was looking for trouble, and the Reuters guys were hanging out with them so they'd have a front row seat. That was their mistake.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why would anyone give an order like that?

They wouldn't, Relic.

http://thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2003/april/marchforjustice18393281.jpg

http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/dwyer-799987.jpg

http://thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2003/april/marchforjustice32.jpg

[Ran]

So they get the free first shot, huh?

If you don't know if someone is friend or foe, yes, yes you do. Mind you, with all the small arms fire allegedly taken through the "whole morning" of this operation, as far as I can find, there were no injuries. If the Apaches had caught the two-three armed guys taking some pot shots, I'd be more sympathetic, again. As it is, they had no obvious and uncontestable evidence that these were hostiles.

That's why you're supposed to mark vehicles like that.

From what reports I've been able to find so far, the van was just a civilian car who came across the carnage and decided to be good Samaritans. Too bad for them that they didn't have the foresight to mark their van when they left the driveway that morning...

Here's a Blackhawk pilot on the subject. Good, cogent points. Seems he's been advocating more focus on applying COIN doctrine to aviators, because what they get right now is barely sufficient.

[Stego]

Dumbasses.

But, we fixed their errors. Took a few years, though. Heh.

Can someone please talk to this troll?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If you don't know if someone is friend or foe, yes, yes you do. Mind you, with all the small arms fire allegedly taken through the "whole morning" of this operation, as far as I can find, there were no injuries. If the Apaches had caught the two-three armed guys taking some pot shots, I'd be more sympathetic, again. As it is, they had no obvious and uncontestable evidence that these were hostiles.

You completely ignored the critical issue of what they were doing with the RPG's, why they were heading into a combat zone openly carrying weapons, your own statement that the journalists wanted to get a close look at a "raid", and whether even the confirmed presence of journalists in the middle of combatants should prevent the use of aerial weapons.

The firing on the van is a different issue. But I don't think taking out those other guys is even a close question.

Here's a Blackhawk pilot on the subject. Good, cogent points. Seems he's been advocating more focus on applying COIN doctrine to aviators, because what they get right now is barely sufficient.

He also admits that he hadn't read the investigation and would withhold judgment until he had. Because he hadn't read it, and had only seen the video, he didn't mention that the civilians were in fact carrying RPG's, that the gunships were acting in close coordination with nearby ground troops, and that there unit had received fire throughout the day and even in this area after investigating the scene.

[WhiteHaven]

I saw/read this news in the Turkish media. There were some interviews with secular people...and wow I think this crime is, again, destroying the image of the US. People who are absolutely in favor of the EU and Democracy start, well I would not call it "hating" but "disliking" the US. Okay, maybe most of you don't give a damn, but I just wanted to share.

I am really sad and pissed that these things happen. Oh and soldiers who say things like this:

"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle"

"That's right"

They should be put infront of a judge and condemned. Lock them up forever, I say. It's the best thing you can do for society. Afterwards we should also lock those guys up who started, and continue this bloody war.

Ah, how I will rejoice when the US Army leaves Afghanistan/Iraq, heads down, beaten, again. Sadly, many more people will die before this happens. Bah.

And to my fellow boarders: Yes, I love the beauty of your country, yes I was amazed and awed by the politness of some people living in your country and yes I like them and most of you guys here. But let me be straight. Incidents like this really make me start feeling something I never felt before towards your governement, your army and all your other governement institutions. Or let's say, your "Elite". Well, I think you could call it hate.

[TerraPrime]

Can someone please talk to this troll?

I would, if I could figure what the hell he's talking about. Someone got a decoder?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I would, if I could figure what the hell he's talking about. Someone got a decoder?

Sure, once I finish this box of Count Chocula.

Disappointment or assigning blame/motives aside, I am inclined to agree with TP's brief assessment. It appears as if this was a mistake that will hopefully be sorted out by a proper military inquiry. I am more disappointed about the cover-up than the event itself, especially if it was an honest mistake.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sure, once I finish this box of Count Chocula.

Disappointment or assigning blame/motives aside, I am inclined to agree with TP's brief assessment. It appears as if this was a mistake that will hopefully be sorted out by a proper military inquiry. I am more disappointed about the cover-up than the event itself, especially if it was an honest mistake.

The investigation was completed back in 2007, and I posted a link to it above. Sworn statements and all.

[Ran]

One notices there were recommendations to prevent future such incidents, but they are redacted. Perhaps the rules of engagement for aviators were modified in a more COIN-appropriate direction.

[Guy Kilmore]

NPR had a broadcast about this topic on Talk of the Nation that might help put some of it in context. Here is a link to the broadcast: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125630795

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

One notices there were recommendations to prevent future such incidents, but they are redacted. Perhaps the rules of engagement for aviators were modified in a more COIN-appropriate direction.

I'm not sure why they gave the ok to fire on the van if it was only assisting the wounded and not also recovering weapons.

[King Nobody]

Why did they have those RPG's?

Because the army planted them there? You're reading a report by the military, the same military who tried to cover this up in the first place, and you're treating it like gospel. Did you see RPGs in the video?

why they were heading into a combat zone openly carrying weapons

You mean, why were they walking around in their own city carrying weapons. Is life supposed to stop just because the US decides they want to try out their new equipment on your city? There could be any number of reasons for them being out there that day. As to the weapons, Iraq is clearly a dangerous place, is it unreasonable to assume they simply had them for self defense, the same as millions of americans who must also be "insurgents"?

They weren't behaving in a way that would even suggest they were thinking about killing anyone.

[TrueMetis]

You mean, why were they walking around in their own city carrying weapons. Is life supposed to stop just because the US decides they want to try out their new equipment on your city? There could be any number of reasons for them being out there that day. As to the weapons, Iraq is clearly a dangerous place, is it unreasonable to assume they simply had them for self defense, the same as millions of americans who must also be "insurgents"?

RPG's for self defence?