No matter how jaded I get, horrific, covered-up atrocities like this still wound me in a profound way:

Calling it a case of “collateral murder,” the WikiLeaks Web site today released harrowing until-now secret video of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter in Baghdad in 2007 repeatedly opening fire on a group of men that included a Reuters photographer and his driver — and then on a van that stopped to rescue one of the wounded men.

None of the members of the group were taking hostile action, contrary to the Pentagon’s initial cover story; they were milling about on a street corner. One man was evidently carrying a gun, though that was and is hardly an uncommon occurrence in Baghdad.

Reporters working for WikiLeaks determined that the driver of the van was a good Samaritan on his way to take his small children to a tutoring session. He was killed and his two children were badly injured.

Here’s the video (very graphic):



As a parting note, I can’t help but think of something that Bill Kristol recently said;

Yeah, [Russia has] been pretty brutal in Chechnya and in some ways have brought this, I’ve got to say, on themselves.
Yeah, Bill. And we’ve obviously been such benevolent rulers in Iraq.

Metavirus filed this under: , , , , ,  
  1. Gherald says:

    From reddit:

    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.

    • schu says:

      When you are in this type of engagement this will happen. We need to get out without making things worse than they are. The problem that I have with the story is not in the troopers actions, because they only had a split second to decide what to do, and I was not there, but in the political cover up from the Bush administration and the pentagon. And I agree with Gherald on this, the blame storm that is coming needs to be directed at the elected politicians that got us in this mess and not at the troopers that are trying to survive in it!

      • Gherald says:

        Note that I was just quoting a redditor's post… which doesn't say anything about elected politicians.

        I tentatively agree with what he does say, but I don't feel equipped to say much of anything definitive myself (beyond regretting the obvious tragedy of killing reporters).

        • Metavirus says:

          it is interesting how your instinctive parenthetical singles out the killing of reporters for regret. is not the killing of the innocent Iraqi civilians who drove up to help tend to the wounded an "obvious tragedy" to be regretted?

          I'm not saying you're operating under the following, but i always find disturbing the american penchant for only caring about most anything that happens in the world when americans, or others deemed to be otherwise respectable (reporters), are killed.

          after all, why don't the iraqis appreciate the sacrifice we've gone through to liberate them?

          oh yeah, we kinda unleashed a wave of killing upon them that's claimed shy of 500,000 of "their" lives.

          but does anyone in this country know that?

          no, but some people know a few thousand american soldiers have died.

          and that is where their interest stops.

          • Gherald says:

            | is not the killing of the innocent Iraqi civilians who drove up to help tend to the wounded an "obvious tragedy" to be regretted?

            Yes but their innocence is not as obvious as the reporters', so the tragedy is less clear…. and as the Dish reaxed:

            Let's assume there's a positive place for an organization like Wikileaks. An outlet. A steam valve. Whatever. Is it the proper place of that outlet to take their raw leaked documents, audiotapes and video, and add biased editorial analysis when they do not — and cannot — have all the facts?

            Anyhow, thinking on this more I do find myself in definite agreement with the redditor on an important point: none of the events (especially if you watch the uncut 30 minute video) seem to be war crimes, but simply war as we should understand it. Ugly, tragic, awful, with collateral damage--but not criminal.

            • Metavirus says:

              i take your last point, insofar as the videos don't show the soldiers attacking with knowledge that the people are civilians. the interesting legal twist to the idea of war crimes (or any other crime) is that reckless disregard for otherwise easily identifiable facts (i.e., as to the status of the people as insurgents or not) can sometimes be deemed to be as bad as actual knowledge of the facts in question. This is sometimes referred to as willful blindness to the truth

              • Gherald says:

                | easily identifiable facts (i.e., as to the status of the people as insurgents or not)

                Unfortunately we don't live in the fantasy world where people in Iraq are easily to identify as insurgents…. especially from a helicopter. Furthermore, some of the men were armed, the soldiers clearly mistook the reporters' cameras for arms, and reacted in genuine alarm when it seemed they were being targeted by an RPG. That's in no way "reckless disregard" or a "willful blindness to the truth"… I would expect any soldier to react similarly.

                What I do not approve of is their cavalier attitude towards death. But seeing as I've not experienced anything like the stress these soldiers are in, I'm really not equipped to judge--it may be a perfectly normal coping mechanism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Your Vintners