For the last couple weeks, there has been much debate over the video posted by Wikileaks, showing a number 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 McCord, and he agreed to give his take on that day.  It by-and-large tails with the conclusion I came to.  The key quote:

McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement.

I think this one ought to be an open-and-shut case by now.  The civilians, with dangerous intentions or not, were walking around in a war zone with weapons, blocks from a firefight.  And that is what, according to McCord, led the military to the conclusion to open fire.

What I find more interesting are McCord’s thoughts about the soldiers’ decision to fire on the van picking up the wounded man in the video (said to be one of the Reuters employees killed in the attack).  I supported that decision, from the comfort of my stateside armchair, but apparently McCord, who was actually there, would disagree with that:

Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning shots in the direction…. Instead, the Apaches decided to completely obliterate everybody in the van. That’s the hard part to swallow.

I did wonder whether McCord’s emotional history with the scene shaped his opinion of it.  After all, he was the soldier who carried the young boy away from the van to get medical attention.  Part of the article is devoted to discussing how he has dealt with what he saw that day.  This is clearly a soldier who was hit hard by what happened, and still carries significant emotional baggage.  I can certainly emphasize with him.  So I wouldn’t blame him if what he experienced influenced his opinion of that particular decision.

Now I’m not so sure, because while he may have certain feelings toward the attack on the van, he also understands the rationale behind why it was done.  And despite my conclusion on the van attack, it is the part of the video that I am least certain about.  Perhaps I was more influenced by Wikileaks’ editorializing than I wish to admit.  However, I think McCord says it best:

This is the problem that we’re speaking out on as far as the rules of engagement. How is this guy supposed to [decide] should I stop and pick them up, or is the military going to shoot me? If you or I saw someone wounded on the ground what is your first inkling? I’m going to help that person.

Basically, it’s human nature to help a wounded person, no matter who they might be, or what the situation is.  That doesn’t mean the soldiers were wrong in their analysis of the scene, as it could have easily been an insurgent getaway vehicle.  But I think McCord’s suggestion that the soldiers could have fired a few warning shots has merit.  It is a solution that I did not think about before.  Of course, it might not have worked.  And if not, then the decision to fire on the van is that much easier.

To close, I think McCord should be thanked for coming forward.  By doing so, he’s vindicated the military in their analysis of the situation and the decision to attack (though most fair minded people already came to the same conclusion).  But he’s also given us all something to think about.  Could the incident with the van been handled differently?  And did the aftermath of those attacks provide the military with any insight on how to handle similar situations in the future?