Tweet
Re: U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe
I understand that, and specifically mentioned the children being used for cover. The adults were attempting to recover weapons in addition to helping the other insurgents.
Nope, I have to disagree that there is a point that it's not OK. As you say, "collateral damages" are always on a sliding scale. What amount of such losses are acceptable is a horrible decision to make, but sometimes it must be made in balance of what the losses might be to your own troops and the value of taking out the target.
Truman made the decision to take out whole cities with relatively low tactical value, just to push a strategy that saved an estimated 1 million casualties on the sides of the Allies. That seems to be about the worst decision to have been forced to make, ever, but I still am of the opinion he made the correct one.
Again, I'm going to have to disagree. I'm not sure any ROE were violated. There were insurgents armed with RPGs. The gunship crew reported on what they saw and were given clearance to fire. This happened several times during the course of the video. It's pretty extreme to call people "trigger happy pricks" when they clear weren't just acting unilaterally, but were describing the situation as they watched it unfold in front of them, and were getting proper authorization down the chain of command to take out armed enemies.
Since the "Collateral Murder" video came out, there have been some analyses done by others. While some were extreme in the opposite direction (i.e. 'kill 'm all and let god sort 'em out"), for the most part, most were much more balanced that the Wikileaks version. Some were done by those with similar combat experience, who tend to see this a acceptable action. I'll take the word of an experienced observer over an inexperienced politicized commentator any day,
Fair enough, but personally, I think Hexjunkie hit on something. If you haven't been in a firefight, it's damned easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. The problem here -in my opinion- is a misunderstanding of people who don't understand the specific engagement, the more generalized daily issues in this particular conflict in or combat in general, and swallowed the heavily edited analysis published by Wikileaks hook, line, and sinker.
Also, a lot of the misunderstanding also comes -again, in my opinion- from people who get very emotional about the "innocents", namely the Rueter's reporter and cameraman, and the children.
The children where being used as cover as was previously mentioned. I've read at least two reports that indicate weapons were being taken with the wounded into the van, and I've also read some reports of rounds being fired from the van.
According to at least one (unsubstantiated) source, I've heard the camera crew remained despite being given warning about the danger of being with the insurgents. Also, several reports have said that the the Rueter's crew apparently supplying the insurgents with tactical information by recording coalition forces movements and locations and immediately replaying the video to the insurgents. (Similar actions have apparently been observed in Iraq as a common tactic to allow an RPG operator to select a target-specific warhead and preset the weapon's sights, thus minimizing the operator's exposure prior to firing the RPG.) If that is true, and I understand much of the video recovered from the camera supports this theory, that doesn't exactly make the Rueter's crew neutral observers.
I understand that, and specifically mentioned the children being used for cover. The adults were attempting to recover weapons in addition to helping the other insurgents.
Nope, I have to disagree that there is a point that it's not OK. As you say, "collateral damages" are always on a sliding scale. What amount of such losses are acceptable is a horrible decision to make, but sometimes it must be made in balance of what the losses might be to your own troops and the value of taking out the target.
Truman made the decision to take out whole cities with relatively low tactical value, just to push a strategy that saved an estimated 1 million casualties on the sides of the Allies. That seems to be about the worst decision to have been forced to make, ever, but I still am of the opinion he made the correct one.
Again, I'm going to have to disagree. I'm not sure any ROE were violated. There were insurgents armed with RPGs. The gunship crew reported on what they saw and were given clearance to fire. This happened several times during the course of the video. It's pretty extreme to call people "trigger happy pricks" when they clear weren't just acting unilaterally, but were describing the situation as they watched it unfold in front of them, and were getting proper authorization down the chain of command to take out armed enemies.
Since the "Collateral Murder" video came out, there have been some analyses done by others. While some were extreme in the opposite direction (i.e. 'kill 'm all and let god sort 'em out"), for the most part, most were much more balanced that the Wikileaks version. Some were done by those with similar combat experience, who tend to see this a acceptable action. I'll take the word of an experienced observer over an inexperienced politicized commentator any day,
Fair enough, but personally, I think Hexjunkie hit on something. If you haven't been in a firefight, it's damned easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. The problem here -in my opinion- is a misunderstanding of people who don't understand the specific engagement, the more generalized daily issues in this particular conflict in or combat in general, and swallowed the heavily edited analysis published by Wikileaks hook, line, and sinker.
Also, a lot of the misunderstanding also comes -again, in my opinion- from people who get very emotional about the "innocents", namely the Rueter's reporter and cameraman, and the children.
The children where being used as cover as was previously mentioned. I've read at least two reports that indicate weapons were being taken with the wounded into the van, and I've also read some reports of rounds being fired from the van.
According to at least one (unsubstantiated) source, I've heard the camera crew remained despite being given warning about the danger of being with the insurgents. Also, several reports have said that the the Rueter's crew apparently supplying the insurgents with tactical information by recording coalition forces movements and locations and immediately replaying the video to the insurgents. (Similar actions have apparently been observed in Iraq as a common tactic to allow an RPG operator to select a target-specific warhead and preset the weapon's sights, thus minimizing the operator's exposure prior to firing the RPG.) If that is true, and I understand much of the video recovered from the camera supports this theory, that doesn't exactly make the Rueter's crew neutral observers.
Comment