WikiLeaks publishes apparent negligent attack on civillians in Iraq video

If something exonerated the pilots like an unedited video I'm sure we'd be hearing talk that it was being actively sought.

Apaches were made as tank killers. There isn't much infantry can do to damage them seeing as they can withstand even some tank shells, hence the pressure on the pilot and gunner was very limited - hardly life and death. Or did they edit out the Taliban had a few tanks just out of the picture... Oh yeah, unless carrying unusual armament, it can take out at least 8 tanks with Hellfire missiles...

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But the context is important to the video.

I don't think the fact that the military didn't want to release it is good evidence of wrongdoing. If a video looked bad but wasn't actually they wouldn't want to release it.

Absolutely. Being edited certainly makes it an imperfect source of evidence; the point is, it's what we've got access to. I don't like the suggestion that we can't question the rightness of the military action without further evidence, when further evidence is not forthcoming. If the military feels that this video is a poor representation of what happened, they are free to counter it by releasing more information.

Ajax

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Absolutely. Being edited certainly makes it an imperfect source of evidence; the point is, it's what we've got access to. I don't like the suggestion that we can't question the rightness of the military action without further evidence, when further evidence is not forthcoming. If the military feels that this video is a poor representation of what happened, they are free to counter it by releasing more information.

Ajax

The unedited video was released by wikileaks, and I think the military did an extensive write up.

But the thing is, the video in either version does not provide enough information to condemn or clear the military. The wikileaks commentary attempts to bridge that gap by talking about how the military didn't want the the video released, and by clearly labeling the innocent people just before they are shot. That doesn't bridge the gap.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But the thing is, the video in either version does not provide enough information to condemn or clear the military.

Not condemning. Only questioning.

Ajax

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Not condemning. Only questioning.

Ajax

Fair enough...but is "Was this a negligent attack on civilians, including two small children?" really "only questioning?". I agree that the reasonable thing to do is to question as we are doing, but the releasers clearly trying for more than that.

I guess in general I feel that in this day and age people are to believe that because something was "leaked" it has a special truth quality about it. You see this all the time with political campaigns and such "leaking internal documents" when really it's a dressed up press release. I guess it's a cultural bias of ours. "The truth they didn't want you to know!"

FWIW, Wikileaks was leaked the encrypted video a few months ago. They had to decrypt it themselves before they could go public with it.

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

And if it's not common for the military to release the materials from their investigations (and shouldn't be?), what kind of evidence is BG going to be able to find? Perhaps a leaked video? In the absence of other evidence, it's what we've got, man.

Ajax

The video does not contradict the findings of the military's investigation.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

...

And I think it is idiotic for you to trust the creators of such an obviously biased and heavily edited video to present the reality of the situation.

Seriously, as fun as it may be to do, how does mocking me address the question? If you are going to discount the military's investigation, you'll need more than the assumption that they are liars... like... oh I don't know... some evidence of misconduct in carrying it out.

Actually PJ, you might notice I haven't offered an opinion on this video and what it may be evidence for or against.

I'm just amused that if the government launches say, an attack on some loons in Texas, there are cries of cover-up and conspiracy from certain sections of the citizenry. Almost always the same section that will accept without murmur the word of the military on any incident. I just find it an amusing paradox that one arm of the government is given a free pass, that's all.

I have no intention to mock you, just tease you a little bit with that observation. As for the video, I would agree with you that it's not really evidence for anything as it stands. That's why I believe that all forms of government should be transparent and held to the highest standards of public examination, rather than having web sites try it.

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'm just amused that if the government launches say, an attack on some loons in Texas, there are cries of cover-up and conspiracy from certain sections of the citizenry. Almost always the same section that will accept without murmur the word of the military on any incident. I just find it an amusing paradox that one arm of the government is given a free pass, that's all.

The paradox is due to the Posse Comitatus Act. The military only goes after foriegners, so we aim all of our scorn on the jack booted thugs of the various 3 letter enforcement agencies.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If something exonerated the pilots like an unedited video I'm sure we'd be hearing talk that it was being actively sought.

Apaches were made as tank killers. There isn't much infantry can do to damage them seeing as they can withstand even some tank shells, hence the pressure on the pilot and gunner was very limited - hardly life and death. Or did they edit out the Taliban had a few tanks just out of the picture... Oh yeah, unless carrying unusual armament, it can take out at least 8 tanks with Hellfire missiles...

Tank shells? Apaches can take some large caliber bullets and small auto cannon rnds, not tank main gun rounds. Besides, the armor on an Apache is certainly not uniform or perfect, there is always the chance of a freak hit from a small caliber round knocking it out of the sky, massed small arms fire at an Apache has a good chance of damaging some of the systems aboard at the least.

Also, it doesn't have to be life or death for them, there are US troops on the ground that they are supporting, certainly they feel anxious on behalf of their buddies on the ground. They mistook the guy with the camera peering around the corner of US troops for a guy with an RPG getting ready to engage US troops. While the "RPG" was not aimed at then they felt compelled to engage because they thought it was an impending and dangerous attack about to happen.

EDIT: Here is a Wikipedia link to aviation losses in Iraq. I count 10 post invasion losses of Apaches to enemy fire. Not a high number compared to the Soviets in Afghanistan or the US in Vietnam but still proof that they can be shot down by something short of "tanks."

Originally Posted by spmetla

Also, it doesn't have to be life or death for them, there are US troops on the ground that they are supporting, certainly they feel anxious on behalf of their buddies on the ground. They mistook the guy with the camera peering around the corner of US troops for a guy with an RPG getting ready to engage US troops. While the "RPG" was not aimed at then they felt compelled to engage because they thought it was an impending and dangerous attack about to happen.

They asked for engagement and had gotten it before they saw the camera and mistook it for an RPG. That part is almost irrelevant. If anything the act of the crowd afterwards is indicating that something is wrong. How many would stand next to a guy that aimed an RPG towards an armed helicopter and then care nothing about the helicopter?

Originally Posted by Ironside

They asked for engagement and had gotten it before they saw the camera and mistook it for an RPG. That part is almost irrelevant. If anything the act of the crowd afterwards is indicating that something is wrong. How many would stand next to a guy that aimed an RPG towards an armed helicopter and then care nothing about the helicopter?

You're forgetting that everyone browner than Aryan White are evil, Ironside...

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You're forgetting that everyone browner than Aryan White are evil, Ironside...

Well that's certainly an out of line conversation stopper...

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You're forgetting that everyone browner than Aryan White are evil, Ironside...

Horetore:

That comment is rather asinine, and far below your usual level.

Moreover, it does not gibe with the demographics of the U.S. military. Source


This is such a broad brush bit of silliness that I, personally, will not gig you for it -- though if one of my colleagues thinks it warranted, I will not object.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Horetore:

That comment is rather asinine, and far below your usual level.

Moreover, it does not gibe with the demographics of the U.S. military. Source


This is such a broad brush bit of silliness that I, personally, will not gig you for it -- though if one of my colleagues thinks it warranted, I will not object.

It was a joke, relax fella Lack of smilies etc. Glad you were joking. SF

But is there some truth to it, are there racists, neo-nazi's and fascists in the US army(or any other army for that matter)? Of course there are, why on earth wouldn't there be? Being a tough guy soldier is the homo-erotic dream of any fascist. It's the same reason why you'll find a higher than normal number of commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.

“commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.”
You and me have met different kind of commies…

In France, Commies were the one starting strikes, joining the Brigades Internationales, demonstrating against the Colonial Wars and having work values as Gods.
And made a few mistakes as well, as we all know…
But smoking pots? They even didn’t know what it was… They were reading, reacting, were political… They were dreaming, but what a dream… No need of pot…

Originally Posted by Brenus

“commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.”
You and me have met different kind of commies…

In France, Commies were the one starting strikes, joining the Brigades Internationales, demonstrating against the Colonial Wars and having work values as Gods.
And made a few mistakes as well, as we all know…
But smoking pots? They even didn’t know what it was… They were reading, reacting, were political… They were dreaming, but what a dream… No need of pot…

Next you're going to tell me that black people don't steal and arabs don't beat their wives.

“Next you're going to tell me that black people don't steal and arabs don't beat their wives “ No. I just telling you that you have a different kind of commies, another branch…

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It was a joke, relax fella Lack of smilies etc. Glad you were joking. SF

But is there some truth to it, are there racists, neo-nazi's and fascists in the US army(or any other army for that matter)? Of course there are, why on earth wouldn't there be? Being a tough guy soldier is the homo-erotic dream of any fascist. It's the same reason why you'll find a higher than normal number of commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.

PJ would agree with you that the US goes on rampaging racist wars.


And don't get wobbly knees! You are our leftist voice, stand for what you say. Of course there is a lot of racism involved, especially during the early years of the war. That the US army is itself multiracial doesn't diminish that.

Q: They refer to Iraqis as “Hajjis”?
DELGADO: “Hajji” is the new slur, the new ethnic slur for Arabs and Muslims. It is used extensively in the military. The Arabic word refers to one who has gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is used in the military with the same kind of connotation as “gook,” “Charlie,” or the n-word. Official Army documents now use it in reference to Iraqis or Arabs. It’s real common. There was really a thick aura of racism.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

And don't get wobbly knees! You are our leftist voice, stand for what you say. Of course there is a lot of racism involved, especially during the early years of the war. That the US army is itself multiracial doesn't diminish that.

Q: They refer to Iraqis as “Hajjis”?
DELGADO: “Hajji” is the new slur, the new ethnic slur for Arabs and Muslims. It is used extensively in the military. The Arabic word refers to one who has gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is used in the military with the same kind of connotation as “gook,” “Charlie,” or the n-word. Official Army documents now use it in reference to Iraqis or Arabs. It’s real common. There was really a thick aura of racism.

Disliking your opponents isn't racism. Hajji means something like "person who has gone to mecca" right? So it isn't referring to skin color.

Do the soldiers believe that they are inherently better because of the color of their skin? Are the prejudiced towards the iraqi's because of the color of their skin? What is racism then?

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Disliking your opponents isn't racism. Hajji means something like "person who has gone to mecca" right? So it isn't referring to skin color.

Hajis is an ethnic slur, of the level of *beep* or *beep*.


One does not need to scour Eurocommie.com for allegations of institutional racism. US Military Review ran a scathing article by British Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster:

In an article published this week in the Army magazine Military Review, British Brig. Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was deputy commander of a program to train the Iraqi military, said American officers in Iraq displayed such "cultural insensitivity" that it "arguably amounted to institutional racism" and may have spurred the growth of the insurgency. The Army has been slow to adapt its tactics, he argues, and its approach during the early stages of the occupation "exacerbated the task it now faces by alienating significant sections of the population."

Rampaging rednecks? No, the probrlems are (were?) more subtle than that:

The Army is full of soldiers showing qualities such as patriotism, duty, passion and talent, writes Aylwin-Foster, whose rank is equivalent to a U.S. one-star general. "Yet," he continues, "it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."



Those traits reflect the Army's traditional focus on conventional state-on-state wars and are seen by some experts as less appropriate for counterinsurgency, which they say requires patience, cultural understanding and a willingness to use innovative and counterintuitive approaches, such as employing only the minimal amount of force necessary. In counterinsurgency campaigns, Aylwin-Foster argues, "the quick solution is often the wrong one."


He said he found that an intense pressure to conform and overcentralized decision making slowed the Army's operations in Iraq, giving the enemy time to understand and respond to U.S. moves. And the Army's can-do spirit, he wrote, encouraged a "damaging optimism" that interfered with realistic assessments of the situation in Iraq.
"Such an ethos is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command," Aylwin-Foster says. A pervasive sense of righteousness or moral outrage, he adds, further distorted military judgments, especially in the handling of fighting in Fallujah.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011001456.html

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Edit: Nearly wasted this excellent opportunity to sow discord between the Anglo powers.

While the British Iraq command openly acusses the Yanks of being trigger-happy racist hicks, the Americans, for their part, had this to say about the Limeys:
"I think he's an insufferable British snob," said Col. Kevin Benson, commander of the Army's elite School of Advanced Military Studies, referring to Aylwin-Foster. Benson said he plans a rebuttal.

Quite the cultural difference. The British and Americans should make cultural sensitivity training mandatory, that both countries, so very different, learn to understand each other.

Two countries, separated by a common language.


I don't think I'd consider it "racism" at all. Cultural insensitivity may be a fair critique, though. It's not as though I don't have a lot of fellow Americans who are woefully ignorant of other cultures.

The other concerns are very important to counter-insurgency operations. Many of you have heard me argue for a changed focus -- shock and awe is not the best answer to all problems.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Two countries, separated by a common language.


I don't think I'd consider it "racism" at all. Cultural insensitivity may be a fair critique, though. It's not as though I don't have a lot of fellow Americans who are woefully ignorant of other cultures.

Exactly. Banning the burqa isn't racist, and having a "slur" isn't racist. "Pothead" and "Jock" are slurs aimed at a specific group of people. Neither disliking a culture (however wrongly), nor using a slur is racist. Racism is being prejudiced against people of other races and believing your own is inherently superior.

I would not take seriously any criticism concerning anything having to do with Iraq from anyone in the British military.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

And don't get wobbly knees! You are our leftist voice, stand for what you say. Of course there is a lot of racism involved, especially during the early years of the war. That the US army is itself multiracial doesn't diminish that.

Wobbly knees? Bah. The US army is certainly no more racist than the Norwegian army. The problem is that every single army is more racist than the rest of the population, because, as I said earlier, it's every little fascist/racists dream to wear a shiny uniform.

EDIT: And you think "Hajji" is a slur? In the vocabulary of those from my platoon who have served in afghanistan, the word "Afghan" was swapped for "monkey". They simply didn't use "Afghan", they consistently referred to them as "monkeys". The rest of you should be happy that the Norwegian force is a communication camp in the quiet north Afghanistan, we would've massacred half the country if we'd been in the south.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I would not take seriously any criticism concerning anything having to do with Iraq from anyone in the British military.

While British privates are thugs with guns, British officers are actually surprisingly intelligent. At least that's my impression from my quite limited contact with the Royal marines.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

While British privates are thugs with guns, British officers are actually surprisingly intelligent. At least that's my impression from my quite limited contact with the Royal marines.

The front line troops merely need to know to kill. The officers should when, where and how to kill.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

While British privates are thugs with guns, British officers are actually surprisingly intelligent. At least that's my impression from my quite limited contact with the Royal marines.

Interesting. In Iraq, their soldiers were generally highly motivated and professional while their leadership was simply awful - a stain on a checkered, yet generally proud, history.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The front line troops merely need to know to kill. The officers should when, where and how to kill.

I think there is too much in the way of high-tech equipment for this "Wellingtonian" mantra to hold completely true. The modern private soldier has a bit more to keep track and too much scope for independent action than his historical peers -- necessitates at least a rudimentary intelligence.

Sadly people die in war and people will still complain. I watched the video and believe the attack was justified. Tell the civilians not to inter-mingled with the insurgents next time :).

I think some of us are trying to make the point that there were no insugents? What did they attack off of? The cameraman having an 'rpg'.