The only way to reliably spot insurgents from the air is to be shot at by, and see the point of origin for the firing by, said insurgents.

Soldiers, concerned as they are with personal survival, are rarely patient enough to await being shot at first and attempt to identify insurgent forces PRIOR to taking it on the chin.

Regrettably, unless this identification is being made by mark-one eyeball at a range of 50m or less (and in quite a few of those instances as well) mistakes will be made. This is particularly true of troops that have recently engaged insurgent forces in similar physical/terrain conditions. Selective perception is a well-known psychological trait.

So what do you do about it?

1. Do you change the ROE so as to require troops to take fire before replying and only reply when the point of fire can be pinpointed by more than one observer? Remember, anything less (and probably even this standard as well on occasion) is going to put it up to the judgement of anxious 20-somethings who really would rather not end up dead.

2. Do you accept that innocents are going to get killed -- insurgents often rely on this as a strategy in point of fact -- while working to minimize it? This is a balancing act, and such incidents as the two dead Reuters newsies will continue to occur.


Horetore is suggesting that the military IG program is an insufficient investigative tool and prone to manipulation (whitewash) efforts. If we accept this criticism, where do we find an unbiased (no such thing as a true neutral exists) party to conduct such an investigation. None of the parties involved are likely to accept that any such 3rd party capable of the appropriate detachment and with the skills to conduct such an investigation exists. I know I'm skeptical.