“Collateral Murder” Video Released
Several major news outlets have reported on the “leaked” video of what appears to be a US helicopter gun attack on civilians. News of the video has been distributed under the “collateral murder” moniker. Reportedly, a Reuters photographer and driver were killed, as were about a dozen others in a small group. A van subsequently comes to the scene and is also fired upon; in the van were two children who were wounded.
While not exclusively a fighter pilot topic, the video does shed some light into an area not often discussed in the public eye. There are times when helicopter pilots, fighter pilots, bomber pilots, UAV operators, and even Army Soldiers on the ground must attempt to identify the enemy. Often, their friends are being attacked, and they are forced to make a rapid life-and-death decision with only the information they have in front of them. It is not an enviable position, but it is one many US military members face.
While the video is slightly edited (with some potentially missing frames and audio), assuming all the events in the video and its description are factually correct, the actions taken in the video appear to be consistent with appropriate conduct by US military members.
The video is apparently from July 2007, a few months into the “surge” during which American forces were trying to “retake” Baghdad. The narrative, as well as video, are available on other sites. In short, helicopter crews identified and fired upon what they believed were threats to ground forces.
To call this “murder” is an assault upon the character of Soldiers both in the choppers and on the ground. There is no doubt the helicopter crews sincerely believed the equipment they saw was weaponry [Update: Even the “leaking website” admits it was “likely” the men were carrying weapons.]. There is a stressful moment when one man with a piece of equipment (previously identified on comm as an RPG), crouches and peeks around a corner in the direction of American forces–the tenor of the crews’ voices rise as they apparently fear an imminent attack on US forces.
If the information is accurate, it is tragic civilians were killed in the battle area. But their death in the midst of a ground fight does not make the US military “murderers.” The helicopter crews appeared to follow strict ROE: they identified what appeared to be weapons in the hands of military aged males, and they received ground force permission to engage. They did not engage a survivor, even though they evidently planned to if he picked up a weapon. If their goal had been to murder, the entire discussion over weapons would had to have been a preplanned charade; and their restraint over the wounded would have been contradictory.
Despite claims to the contrary, it is not obvious there were children in the van. Even those experienced with these types of video–with foreknowledge there were allegedly children in the van–would be unable to see them. It is not unrealistic to view someone in a vehicle coming to the aid of the enemy–as friendly forces near–as a threat to those friendly forces.
Finally, while some may find the “revelry” of the helicopter crews distasteful or their attitudes “callous,” they are not uncommon in any branch of the military. (The F-15 pilots involved in the friendly-fire Blackhawk shootdown over Iraq in 1994 were similarly derided for their color commentary.) When a Soldier believes someone is going to kill his friends, he wants them dead; while potentially morbid, it would not be uncommon for him to express disdain for his targets or “celebrate” his success in that endeavor. While few military members find joy in killing others, it would be a far rarer circumstance to hear gun camera footage of a Soldier crying or apologizing as he fired; simply put, such attitudes are generally inconsistent with those who join the military to begin with, nevermind those who place themselves in the position to use overwhelming lethal force. Again, however much one disagrees with helicopter crews’ attitudes, they do not make otherwise justifiable actions “murder” as a result.
The primary site upon which the video has been released is dyslexic in its characterization, first saying
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad — including two Reuters news staff.
Later, it said:
In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war.
It at once describes the killing as “indiscriminate” and also part of the natural risk of reporting on war.
For those with any doubt, carrying large camera equipment easily mistaken for weaponry into a ground battle is indeed one way of “putting their lives at risk.” The risk is they will be mistaken for the enemy and fired upon.
They were.
That they chose to accept the risk does not make the US military “murderers” when their risk becomes reality.
I rather doubt that the family and friends of the victims will be quite so sanguine about it, especially considering that the crew members were gloating over the fatally injured newsman and begging him to pick up a non-existent weapon so that they could splatter him across the street with 30mm cannon fire.
Also, the crew blatantly mischaracterized the actions of the van driver and sought permission to fire for actions that did not visually or actually take place in any form. There were no visible weapons, and nobody was taking the imaginary weapons away. Sorry, but as a former helicopter crewchief and door gunner, I call foul on this. The pilot and gunner wanted some trigger time, and they made sure they got it.
I imagine Christ is really slapping his knee with the hilarity of this one, don’t you think?
Note, I referred to the comments that were made concerning the van occupants cleaning the area of weapons. No weapons were visible anywhere around the van, and the newsman was obviously unarmed.
If the ROE allow firing on unarmed civilian vehicles picking up injured persons rendered ‘hors de combat’, than there is no longer any meaningful protection for any medical vehicle either under current agreements, since it can now be argued that the ambulance driver was possibly picking up weapons.
Lovely.
The original unedited video includes the crew positively identifying two AK-47’s, 1 probable, and 1 possible on a group of four military age males. The cameramen were nearby and the view could have been an RPG. Also, the unmarked civilian van matched the description of fellow insurgents vehicles.
I’m not saying the crew did everything right, but the ROE does not require 100% certainty. Also, whoever did the editing is looking for hits and publicity, not truth.
In combat, if a soldier attempts to assist a wounded comrade, he is not afforded any protections under the laws of armed conflict. The only “protected” persons are those who are wearing a protected symbol (red cross, red crescent, etc.). There’s no such thing as a “protected civilian vehicle” without a protected symbol. No such symbol is visible in the scene.
In addition, it is not only reasonable but also likely that an unmarked vehicle who rapidly approaches a group of enemy forces as friendlies are nearing will be considered a threat and engaged.
The streets were empty except for a group of men who confidently strode about with positively identifiable AK-47s and RPGs as US forces were being engaged. That there were cameramen among them does not change their status as a hostile force posing a threat to the lives of American Soldiers nearby.
Instead of seeing a video of a US helicopter killing insurgents and those who were with them, would you rather have seen Reuters footage of insurgents firing on and killing Americans?
JD
**The streets were empty except for a group of men who confidently strode about with positively identifiable AK-47s and RPGs as US forces were being engaged. That there were cameramen among them does not change their status as a hostile force posing a threat to the lives of American Soldiers nearby.**
What hostile force was that? The people milling about on the street were never a “hostile force” with any certainty, and no friendly forces were fired on by them. They took no action in the video that looked anything like preparation to fight. They were no visibly agitated or hiding. They did not take firing positions. They guy with a Kalashnikov was likely a bodyguard for the news crew, which is a fairly common precaution. By your standards, any person at any time carrying anything at all can be engaged with weapons designed to stop tanks in a high lethality European battlefield environment.
Is it any wonder that the people we are “saving” don’t really like us that much?
COIN is NOT about blowing apart numerous persons on street corners along with other people who come to help them…and then trying to blame them for their own deaths afterwards since they had the temerity to be alive to begin with on a street in Iraq.
The fact the you can’t seem to understand this speaks volumes.
**The original unedited video includes the crew positively identifying two AK-47’s, 1 probable, and 1 possible on a group of four military age males. The cameramen were nearby and the view could have been an RPG. Also, the unmarked civilian van matched the description of fellow insurgents vehicles.**
Were they doing anything suspicious other then simply breathing and occupying space?
If so, I didn’t see it. They were not planting an IED, or taking up firing positions. Last I checked, ownership of Kalashnikov’s is still legal in Iraq (the real select fire ones at that, not the ersatz ones we can own here…) and news crews typically have armed guards with them.
The vehicle was a frakking minivan! It was not a Somali technical with a Bofors 40mm AA gun on the back! You seem to assume that free fire rules appropriate to a set piece battle should be standard here. By your reasoning, any vehicle anywhere must resemble an insurgent vehicle, so it would be better to engage them and kill anyone inside along with bystanders since that would be safer for us (to make sure they don’t pick up any potential weapons or help wounded people) and we would almost certainly kill some insurgents somewhere along the way.
If this is a Christian site, I would be fascinated to hear the Biblical underpinning for this rational.
Again, as a former helicopter crewchief and door gunner…a person who has had a finger on a trigger…I call foul on this aircrew. I would not have engaged without clear evidence (like seeing them getting ready to fight, for starters) of hostile intent.
Please provide your source indicating no friendly forces were fired upon by them. “As a former helicopter crewchief and door gunner” you should realize that not everything that occurred was captured on the distributed gun camera footage. What was captured was military aged males, alone in the street, armed with AK-47s and RPGs in the vicinity of, and taking threatening postures toward, American forces that had previously taken fire from that vicinity.
There is no standard by which American Soldiers and Marines have to die before a force is considered “hostile.”
Those are called strawmen.
The helicopter crew on the scene certainly thought differently. In fact, they saw what looked like an attempt to engage friendlies. Watch the video again.
Who said anything about COIN? This was about keeping Americans alive on the ground. COIN is not advanced by letting RPG-wielding insurgents kill US soldiers, either.
Please provide your source that anti-US forces do not use minivans, or what was actually identified as a Bongo. US intel in Baghdad might like that information also.
What rationale?
Your 1-G, zero knot, Monday-morning quarterbacking of this situation is still wrong, yet you find fault with those who were engaged in a fast changing life and death fight. That you refuse to acknowledge the greater situation, as well as the legitimate threat posed by armed men near American forces in a firefight, “speaks volumes.”
While your service to our country is appreciated, please do not try to use it as a trump card. There are other people who have pulled the trigger who disagree with your assessment.
Celtic Dragon,
“I’m not saying the crew did everything right, but the ROE does not require 100% certainty. Also, whoever did the editing is looking for hits and publicity, not truth.”
Are you arguing they violated ROE or that they were not effective in COIN operations? The two are different arguments. Same goes for morality vs legality. The fact that you don’t understand that speaks volumes.
Morality of the crew’s action: not sure, since I only saw the video, couldn’t hear the comm. Legality of the crew’s action, probably legal, assuming the rules aren’t categorically different than they are now.
Again, the crew may have made a mistake, but your first assessment “There were no visible weapons” was based on inaccurate editing. I call foul on the video editors and I ask you to re-evaluate your position based on the ‘new’ information. If you still want to call foul based on a solid argument, I’ll respect your position.
Pingback: God and Country » Fighter Pilots, Helicopter Pilots and Attitudes toward War and Killing