2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2010/04/06/supporting-the-decision-of-the-soldiers-in-the-wikileaks-video/
0
0
  |   13 comments

I am not a hawk (nor a dove, but more of an eagle; perhaps a bald eagle), but I can certainly respect that soldiers on the battlefield oftentimes must make difficult decisions.  And that’s exactly what I saw in the video released today by WikiLeaks.  The video shows soldiers killing several Iraqis who were determined to be carrying RPGs and AK-47s.  WikiLeaks says that they were Reuters journalists (two of them, at least) who were only carrying cameras.

Regardless of the truth of the matter, the fact remains that they were in a warzone (apparently just outside the location of an earlier ground battle), determined to be a threat, and that threat was eliminated.  That is what soldiers in a war zone do, they eliminate the enemy.  Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20.  What the soldiers might know now is not the information they had while in Iraq.  They acted on what seemed to be an accurate analysis of the situation, and through (from my armchair reading safe in the States) the proper Rules of Engagement.  That the journalists appeared to be traveling with armed people, possibly insurgents, only make the decision easier, and based on the information at the time, the right one.

That this incident is being treated by WikiLeaks and the anti-war crowd as murder is beyond disgusting.  There was no murder here, nor malicious intent of any kind.  The soldiers were doing their job.  And if that job caused innocents to be killed, that is regrettable, but an unfortunate fact of war.  Was a mistake made?  It is possible, and the facts of the situation still appear to be murky, despite what WikiLeaks wants us to believe.  Even so, I still support the decision made by the soldiers.

I’ve been reading comments on several sites from both people who think the right decision was made, and also from people who think this was murder.  But I think no commentary stands out more than one left at Reddit.com by a soldier who has been to Iraq and knows what can happen.  Keyquote:

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.

Below is the video.  It is…well, it’s a 37 minute video from a war zone showing people being killed.  I sat through it and didn’t blink much (and I’m not sure what that says about me), but other people are not me.  So, I’ll say it again: Iraq, war zone, people being killed.  Don’t say you weren’t warned:

  1. Pingback | Link #110450
    Tweets that mention PoliGazette » Supporting the Decision of the Soldiers in the WikiLeaks Video -- Topsy.com [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dymero. Dymero said: The soldiers in the WikiLeaks video made the right call: http://is.gd/bgxte #tlot #wikileaks #iraq #reuters [...]
  2. Posted by manelok
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110453
    manelok I support US Army!!
  3. Pingback | Link #110456
    Supporting the Decision of the Soldiers in the WikiLeaks Video | NewsReal Blog [...] showing American soldiers killing, among others, two Iraqi journalists – when I read this post by my good friend Michael Merrit about it. He and I agree completely on this one, so instead of [...]
  4. Posted by Evil
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110457
    Evil I understand those who pursue active military duty as poorly as I understand people who prefer dogs over cats or uphold a religious belief of any kind, but with what I know about ROE tells me this decision wasn't bloodthirsty. It was a risky, morally gray job carried out as the general standards of war (for what they are worth these days) dictate. You don't give people in a warzone the benefit of the doubt when there are convoys relying on you to look for people who may seek to kill them. The soldiers didn't do much wrong (their cavalier comments on the situation are understandable - if it's your job to turn living people into dead ones, you will make some trivializing comments t bear through the experience) - the fault is with the US government and by extension the US public, who incompetently and carelessly put these soldiers in a very turbulent theater of war with little consideration for the future or the many exigencies and factors that should go into an invasion. Of course, this nuanced reality isn't going to stop the armchair combat veterans on the left and the right who are respectively going to make sweeping, useless and infantile attacks on and defenses of the entire US martial history, oeuvre and rosters. Siiiiigh.
    • Posted by Patrick Glenn
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110461
      Patrick Glenn From what I've read, this is your best comment yet: direct, logically coherent, with excellent support of your main points. Yeah, I know writing that is going to sound patronizing, but don't let anyone accuse me of being incapable of giving credit where it's due. A few more comments like this one and we might actually be able to disagree in style. Btw, I didn't realize before that you are female, but that explains a few things.
  5. Posted by Jeb42
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110459
    Jeb42 As to the initial shooting, I cannot tell if it is appropriate without the full context of the encounter, which is not currently available. The shooting of the second van with people helping the injured does not seem justified. Can someone here explain how the shooting of the people in the second van who were pulling the injured to safety was justified?
    • Posted by AnonymousCoward
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110463
      AnonymousCoward I've had similar lingering thoughts, to say the least.
    • Michael_Merritt From what I can gather, the assessment seems to have been that a person was taking a guy who was among an armed group of men. The van had no marking that would indicate an ambulance. It could have been any, possibly a fellow militia member taking him back to wherever the militia was stationed.
      • Posted by AnonymousCoward
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110468
        AnonymousCoward Absolutely. And I was not there, I've never been fired upon, so I don't know the situation. However, taking care of the wounded is not firing at troops. Taking out of people rescuing the wounded is not suppression of the enemy, nor elimination of present threats. And the wounded was not a CONFIRMED aggressor. But again, I have no idea what it's like to be there. On either side.
        • Posted by AnonymousCoward
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110469
          AnonymousCoward And yes, I also support the army that protects me and furthers the interests of the motherland I rely upon to provide me with a home and with my welfare. This discussion is not about supporting the army, but is about one specific incident.
      • Posted by Jeb42
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110471
        Jeb42 Apparently in the 39 minute video the van is seen moving about in the combat area prior to where we see it in the edited video. We have yet another data point in the don't make judgments on what you see in a video until you have seen it unedited set.
  6. Posted by Jeb42
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110470
    Jeb42 Thankfully someone else has watched the full 39 minute video and has a good take on it. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/39215
  7. Pingback | Link #110640
    U.S. Soldier Gives Interview Re: the Wikileaks Video [...] of Iraqis killed by Apache helicopters in 2007.  I, along with many others who watched the video, gave my analysis and opinion on the incident.  However, Wired.com has found a soldier who was actually there, Ethan [...]