Supporting the Decision of the Soldiers in the WikiLeaks Video
I was going to write about a video published by WikiLeaks recently – supposedly 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 writing a long post defending these soldiers, I’ll just quote him and add some thoughts of my own:
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.
I watched the most important part of the video and agree completely. These soldiers were fighting a war. They had learned that being too careful was dangerous to them and their colleagues. They saw a group of armed insurgents gather on the streets of Baghdad and acted. That’s not only defensible but completely logical. WikiLeaks’ attempt to present this as a war crime is despicable and sickening. As Michael puts it:
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.
Bill Roggio adds at The Weekly Standard:
Baghdad in July 2007 was a very violent place, and the neighborhoods of Sadr City and New Baghdad were breeding grounds for the Mahdi Army and associated Iranian-backed Shia terror groups. The city was a war zone. To describe the attack you see in the video as “murder” is a sensationalist gimmick that succeeded in driving tons of media attention and traffic to Wikileaks’ website.
Quite right.
As for the two journalists who were killed: as the Confederate Yankee points out, these Reuters employees “made the mistake of joining a ragtag group of Muqtada al Sadr’s Medhi Army militia, some of which were still clearly armed, with at least one folding stock AK-pattern assault rifle and an RPG-7 antitank rocket in the video that WikiLeaks chose to show us.”
Nice try by WikiLeaks to create outrage aimed at the U.S. military, but I’m afraid most of us won’t fall for it. It’s perfectly clear that the soldiers in this video acted in good faith and in obedience to the rules of engagement. If two innocent journalists died that’s sad, but it’s also part of war.
This attitude demonstrates the alternate reality that the left inhabits. They simply think their presence transforms an enemy into a friend.
I guess that explains why Obama is systematically disarming America.
Seemingly so….
Yeah, you guys, jump right in there like you're busting your buttons over what you saw. You sound a little panicky to me. I'm one of those benighted fools in the middle, and l was looking for …something to help me keep believing in what our boys are doing over there. Then I read your article and your comments, and your reflexive ratifications ring mighty hollow right now. You seem incapable of acknowledging how this little clip of horror will be perceived.
The Leftists will use it to do all they can to smear America and our military. I think we know that; their goal never changes. I've wondered about those "benighted fools in the middle". Are they the same people who "don't know" how they feel when cited in polls? How long does any situation continue before the people in the middle use their brains and take a stand- one way or the other?
Nice strawman here: "…something to help me keep believing in what our boys are doing over there."
That's an argument against a policy, this is an incident involving enlisted personnel. Use of logic…FAIL! You bulldozed right over the point and took the lefty propoganda bait hook, line and sinker.
part 1. As someone who has served in war zones, not this current Iraq war, but the first I can tell you quite plainly that the soldiers in this instance did exactly the correct thing, let me explain simply for you.
1. the journo's were traveling with armed militia.
2. the militia were armed.
3. when a military unit comes accross an armed "group" you take out the "group".
4. the journo's probably did NOT inform the US military that they would be traveling around with armed militia.
5. therefore the journo's (2 of them if I am not mistaken) imbedded themselves inside of an armed "group" thereby making themselves ligitimate targets, concidering if you will that it is a war, and the role of a soldier in time of war is to locate and kill the enemy, which they did with acuracy and efficency as only the group that was involved on the ground were eliminated.
I believe in killing the enemy, so if I needed it this would be "something to help me keep believing in what our boys are doing over there."
If it's perceived as you seem to think it will be (an unjust action of murder), it's only because WikiLeaks has made it that way. They've taken an entirely justifiable action and made it seem like a group of out of control soldiers were committing an act of cold blooded murder, which it was not.
They try and create the perception that two journalists, only looking to do their job (which I don't doubt was the truth), were killed by soldiers acting like this was all a game to them, a judgment of character which was also not the case, despite how some of their comments sounded (and I've seen some people who disagree that this action should have been taken write that they understood that developing that behavior is part of their training). So, I know how it's going to be perceived, because it was manufactured that way.
Secondly, this video has nothing to do with the policy of going to Iraq. This video was about a certain action taken while we had just been fighting other battles nearby, and that's what should be focused on, no matter what you opinion is on what happened.
Finally, I spent several hours prior to writing my article looking at what both sides were saying about the video, as well as watching the entire 39 minutes. Then I took everything into account and made my own decision on what happened. Furthermore, I think going into Iraq was the wrong action, because it caused us to lose focus on the real goal, Afghanistan. That and Iraq was not a direct threat to us (though probably would have to been dealt with eventually).
So trust me when I tell you that what I wrote is not based off any knee-jerk need to make justifications for what's in that video.
part 2. If anything this video should show how awesome our soldiers are, they found the enemy, identified the enemy, eliminated the enemy without collateral damage to anyone who was not involved in the "armed group" which the journo's were traveling with.
As much as the death of those journo's are sad, you must remember this is war, and the enemy doesnt care if they kill journo's women children civilians military property. this is a war sunshine, get over it, people get killed, and if they chose to traps around a battle feild then they run the risk.
from Reddit, a Blackhawk pilot with a tad less knee-jerkiness than you brilliant and open-minded pundits were able to muster today :
Former Blackhawk pilot, Iraq veteran here. I understood engaging the first group of people. Anything resembling an RPG is going to be interpreted as a first order threat by any aircrew. And if you have any experience with that sort of threat, you know it doesn't really work like the movies. There's no…. 'RPG, five o' clock, break left…' from your crew chief. That shit doesn't work in the real world. RPG's, despite their reputation, move faster than any ordinary human can react to. By the time any crew member is done telling you about it, it's already past you. So you have to identify and engage it before it's fired. Which is what the Apache crew was trying to do. I have no problem with this.. right or wrong, they saw a potential threat and acted appropriately. Firing on the van, however, is in my opinion as a former Army Aviator, a complete departure from any ROE I've ever been subject to. Bottom line is, no weapons or hostile intent were evident. I can't think of any reason why they should have fired on the van. 'Enemy combatants' are fair game, but there's nothing in the video to suggest that the occupants of the van were doing anything but removing a wounded person from the battle. In war, horrible things happen and this is one of those things. After spending more than a year of my life in Iraq, I can't rationally defend the actions of these particular pilots but I can't stress enough that they are NOT an example of business as usual in Iraq. In all of my time in that theater of operations, I never witnessed such an example of disregard for ROE. The vast majority of soldiers over there are exercising restraint and good judgment to a point where it puts their very lives in great danger. This was a horrible, horrible thing that happened. But don't ever think it's 'just the way things are' in Iraq. It isn't.
Happy, you meant to write 'traipse', 'field', and most especially, 'accuracy'- don't mention it, you big tough studly guy you.
Now I see. You look at murder and see stars and stripes. Hallelujah, we've won a lot of hearts and minds today, patriots. Nothing the American military has ever done could possibly be regrettable and I bought a line We should kill more enemy kids in ambulances just for the public relations boost it gives the U.S. around the world. Party hearty, boys, and I'll leave you to the reinforcement of your delusions.
Awesome, thanks for the spell check, most appreciated.
No I dont see murder and see stars and stripes. what I see is video that shows a combat situation that unfortunately had civilians getting killed who by their own choice embedded themselves with terrorists, you know those lovely guys who want to slice us all up and cut our heads off with butchers knives and put us all under dhimmie status.
As I stated quite clearly, in a war situation, IE: people on both sides running round with big bang sticks shooting crap outta each other, that people can, will and do get killed. unless you think our troops should stand in the market square and yell out, could all the terrorists please step over here so we can shoot you without any collateral damage, I am sure you think that would work,
Happy, people who correct spelling always have another purpose. Never thank them. It's kinda like "Hey, you're too stupid to spell correctly, as such, let me take a moment to enlighten you on correct political thought."
Yet another strawman. You really should brush up on logical arguments. Something tells me law school is not on your resume.
It's not murder if they're armed combatants, or running with such, which they were. Yea, enemy kids ride around in ambulances without lights or markings all the time. Looks like you were suckered by enemy psyops, and your misperception naturally aids the enemy. No need to project your delusions on us, we're not the ones playing the terrorists' game.
I understand war is messy. I understand that it’s a “War Zone” but in this video, these men are all unarmed AND there are children. I believe the attitude of the pilots is way out of line. They do not need to search for any excuse to kill. This happens often in Iraq.
Let’s not forget that we invaded their country. And no moment in war justifies murdering civilians and children. I am thankful for wiki-leaks doing their job. Thank God someone is searching for the truth instead turning a blind eye and defending murderous acts such as these.
And please, don’t be so stupid to tell me that those two planes caused the utter collapse of the twin towers. Evidence there mounts to government coverup. So that makes everything in Iraq a tragedy firmly puts our military in the wrong for invading.
The 911 conspiracy crap has been disproven. Not only was it possible for the planes flying into the Twin Towers to cause the collapse, it also happens to be what happened. Consider the temperature of the burning jet fuel, compare that to the temperature to weaken structural steel, the ability of the steel supports to bear the weight above it was diminshed to the point of collapse. Do somne reading about Occam's Razor. Continued belief in the mounting evidence of a coverup is stupid.
Well yes, as long as you are not Joy Behar. She has done studies to prove steel doesn't melt, doncha know. It was Joy wasn't it? Or was it Rosy? Doesn't matter really.
It's easy to dismiss some of the people on the left, like Rosy O'donnel or Joy Behar, because they have a history of making wild claims independently of the facts. Their ideas are purely ideology driven.
However, there are people in the scientific community that are not biased by any political pressupositions that have disputed the collapse of the twin towers on the basis of science. Richard Gage, an architech and an member of the AIA, states that steel cannot be melted by jet fuel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkcxVdDSAY4 . It would be nice to here people respond to them instead.
Ok…I will. An architect? Really, well, I am a chef and I say it will. We work with fire and knives (made of steel) so we are experts as well. That's just as dumb as your claim, isn't i? Steel is melted by heat you dolt. And architects must have there designs reviewed and approved by a structural engineer before blueprinting….did you know that?
Guess what was left out when they built the WTC? The asbestos that was supposed to encase the steel in the support columns. I work in a machine shop (lol, good one OG), I'd be more worried about those support beams absorbing carbon from the smoke with the heat from the fire and becoming brittle. Then they'd fail in the wind, rather than flex, like they apparently did.
I just want to meet the guy that rigged a demo job that could survive a jumbo jet impact;-)
Nobody is claiming that jet fuel melted steel. It raised the temperature to the point of reducing the strength of the steel. Steel does not go from full strength to liquid over a difference of one degree. It gradually loses its strength as the temperatrue increases. Long before it reaches melting point, it becomes too weak to support such massive weight as that of the upper floors of the twin towers.
IntheKnowOG is clearly a troll.
@Michael Pat. If you watched the video and are familiar with other corroborating reports from firemen, ect, then you are aware that there were pools of molten steel smoldering for weeks in the basement. Jet fuel burns at about 1400-1600 degrees while steel melts at 3000 degress. How do you account for that? How do you account for the millions of bits of nanothermite material found in the steel?
If you watched the video, those would have been some of the questions that your responses would have addressed.
There is no point in debating someone that has a closed mind and won't at least listen to what someone else has to say.
Yes, that would explain why I have a screenname and have been commenting on this site for over a year. Also, several of my comments have been highlighted as punksmacks of truthers such as yourself. I can and have systematically, logically destroyed the 911 truther fire/steel argument using math and science. In addition, you, as a truther, are attempting to create an off topic comment stream which, If I comprehend correctly (which I do) is a violation of the commenting guidelines. Jack Samwell is clearly a crackpot. Not to mention his "proof" is inaccurate because it ignores the basic principle of a blast furnace (which is used to…tada! melt steel)
No, it's just that what you're saying is ridiculous. Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning in those buildings (wood, paper, plastics, solvents, carpet), and in that wind those floors became big blast furnaces, and those fires got a lot hotter than 1600 degrees.
Thermite burns straight down, not across, BTW.
An open mind is great, just don't open it so wide your brain falls out. There are just too many holes in every truther theory I've looked at to take them seriously, beyond the fact that they aid and comfort the very people who not only admit they did it, but brag about it and say they will do worse.
I just have one question. Where is the video that reveals the incredibly loud and unavoidable sound of demolitions going off before the collapse of any of the buildings. I have seen video of controlled demolitions that was shot in a helicopter about a mile above the building and I could hear the explosion clear as day, yet the video I watch shot right under the towers reveals no such sound. What did they cover the explosives with down pillows? Or did someone invent silent explosives?
Mark is correct. The descriptions the gunners and pilots gave of the targets did not match what i saw at all. There were no AK47s or RPGs — just a couple of cell phone weilding journalists walking with an unarmed group of pedestrians. Nothing about them seemed threatening. Firing on a van full of civilians and children was equally unwarrented .
I support the troops but this was clearly wrong and these soldiers should have been investigated and punished.
"I understand war is messy. "…….No, clearly you don't.
War is not a freekin game either. These guys sounded like a couple of online gamers trying to rack up the most kills. i play online quite a bit and the tittering about "running over dead bodies" with the bradley vehicle sounded very familiar.
Unlike you in your comfy gameroom, they and the ground troops they're protecting have only one life, and it's out there on the line. Most of them have seen the barbarity of the mahdi and aq towards their own people enough to have little to no empathy, even if the terrorists weren't targeting them foremost.
In addition, your comment regarding thermal imaging exposes the fact that you have no idea what you are talking abaout. That was real time digitaloptical. That incident took place in broad daylight which begs the question; during a period in which Sadr's militia was told specifically NOT to assemble (armed no less) they chose to anyway. Why were the reporters with them? Were they hoping to get a story? The brave Sadr militia standing up to Bush's oppresive neocon puppet regime? Perhaps if those men were part of the Hutaree militia and some Fox news photographers decided to infiltrate hours before an FBI raid, you libs would have said that they new what they were doing?
When soldiers go to war they accept that they may be killed. If journalists decide to tag along, they should accept the same thing.
Kids, journalists, paramedics and civilians are no combatants. They do not go to war like soldiers, they either try to live in their hometown Baghdad, try to help the wounded or report from the war zone respectively. Would you accept a white flag or would you open fire in case it is a RPG? I mean what would you accept as a proof that these people were civilians? Or is ANY person in Iraq a 'soldier of evil?' I understand that soldiers are under high pressure because they risk their lifes but I could not sleep well after shooting some 12 years old kids with a 30mm gun. And in any case it is not funny to shoot a crawling, wounded person. It is a question of morality. It is sad, that there are so many people who don't understand that. This attack is sad even though it was inevitable, what I do not believe.
Firing on the first group is acceptable… I guess. I do think i saw the RPG that the pilots were talking about, but I could not make out any AK-47's.
As for firing on the van that showed up… disgusting. The van posed no threat and nobody was armed at the time… they seemed more worried about one the people that was still alive being taken away.
The pilots actually say, "they're taking him", and "come on let us shoot"… for what!?
I hate to say it, but the thermal images and distance from target makes it look like a video game, and I wouldn't be surprised if the pilots felt the same way.
The comment that the pilot made about "not taking children to war" is also unbelievably evil seeing that the van did not contain combatants, as the pilots should have clearly been able to tell… they were too worked up about someone trying to save the guy they just injured though.
The people in the van were picking up enemy combatants and weapons, which made them a threat. Is it really news to you that terrorists often send out kids to retrieve dropped weapons in a US field of fire? Evil is taking children to war, or excusing it.
You point out in the video where the people in the van picked up weapons and I will retort.
Then, perhaps you could point out the weapons scattered around the people that were happily shot up in this video as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FD1jHueZZc
In addition to the two cameras, I saw three rifles and an RPG among the bunch (who were attempting to conceal them) across the street from where the stringers were peeking around the corner. The reuters stringers were embedded with illegal enemy combatants and shared their fate. TDB
It was no accident the van policing the weapons and bodies had two unseen kids in it, that was the whole idea. The van pulled up to a downed illegal combatant fire team being covered by orbiting Apaches they could plainly see, and started loading them up. They knew better, as demonstrated by their looking at the helicopter when they did something they knew would meet the ROE and draw fire on themselves. They eventually got exactly what they asked for. Even if they were really that stupid, it would still their fault, not the Apache crew's for stopping them.
It's actually my understanding that the guy they were trying to pick up was one of the journalists, who was wounded at that time.
Given the history of those involved, I am much more inclined to believe the occupants of the van were interested in picking up evidence and happened upon a survivor. And kids in the van…..have you seen the Jihadi mickey mouse? Enough said.
"Given the history of those involved, I am much more inclined to believe the occupants of the van were interested in picking up evidence and happened upon a survivor. And kids in the van…..have you seen the Jihadi mickey mouse? Enough said."
In my opinion, you've actually stating nothing more than your opinion, which is fine. Not attacking you…
My only point is that the second round of shooting is not justified, while the first is… I have heard talk about the RPG really being a tripod, but the two objects would certainly look similar to a pilot and I can't say they were wrong to act. I still can't make out any AK-47's in the crowd though. Given the dialogue from the pilots when the van showed up, it doesn't seem like they had good reason to open fire again. The pilots did say they are collecting weapons when nobody actually was (I don't even think people got out of the van at that point), so I feel that the pilots spoke in error and the order to shoot was given based on this incorrect assessment of what was happening. You can clearly hear frustration in the voices of the pilots, and I don't feel that the visual image even remotely matches the verbal image that the pilots were painting for whoever was approving the gunfire.
What evidence do you think the people in the van were inclined to pick up? Would it be to there benefit to collect the weapons and/or survivors, and leave the unarmed dead bodies? I'm just curious to know what you think the people in the van were looking for and how they planned to use it.
Thanks.
It's a common tactic used by the palestinians. Paint a different picture for the cameras before they arrive. Weapons were the evidence. It would be to their benefit to clean the area of weapons to create a "murder" scene. I see assault rifles (not necessarily AK's, could be SKS or other variants). No way those are tripods, they extend outward from the forearm identical to the way a pistol gripped rifle is carried in a ready position.
I agree with you response for the most part. I personally can’t tell whether it’s an RPG or a tripod, but the movement of the man as he peeks around the corner and the way he is holding the “object” raises questions. Again, given the context of the first round of shooting I don’t think the pilots acted in error. I only question the second round of shooting.
Can you point out where you see assault rifles in the video? I still can’t make out any firearms…
Good day.
You probably need to look at it frame by frame. The guy peeking around the corner looked like he was pointing a telescopic camera lens(better than any totable binoculars- the AH-64 has a thermal telescope) in the direction of the AH-64, the rifles and RPG were carried by the group at the far curb across the street to the right. They took their weapons across the street so the building hid them and were bunched up with the stringers doing something in a hurry when the AH-64 orbited around and engaged them.
They would want their cell phones, weapons, papers, and bodies (just knowing who they are often leads to others in their group). Iraqis know they're supposed to leave them be until we collect their intel and biometric data, and save their sorry lives, if they're still living when the ground units (which were on the way) get there.
You might want to look into the tactics the jihadis use, It'll help you spot when they're trying to play you. I thought you might be feining ignorance of it, but if you really don't know, you can find out.
Michael, I agree… I saw no attempt to collect weapons. The men exited the van, and then one went back to open the sliding door, and lastly they picked up the injured man and tried to load him into the van… then the shooting started again.
I'm sorry. I am not even convinced the audio and video of this "presentation" go together. I think it is something to be considered before even discussing anything else – including the fact that for years now, Reuters has had an "agenda". It is tragic these folks were killed. I'm just not really sure by whom.
Interesting theory. Isn't it odd how conspiracy theorists question every logical thing but accept something presented by individuals pushing an agenda without hesitation?
My husband is a Marine and he agrees that the video exonerates the soldiers.
We agree that going INTO a combat /firefight area is a STUPID move, Especially with children.
Reminiscent of human shields, and no isolated occurrence from what we have seen.
Nothing is easier than making judgments years after the fact, without any historical context and clearly having an antiwar agenda! Through years and years of brainwashing, leftists in this country do not recognize that people are responsible for their actions. If you show up with a group of militia (at least two AK's were evident) then you become a target. War is not a video game. It is a life or death matter. Sadr's militia do not play by any rules. For them it is kill or be killed and they do not seem to care who it is they kill. You come to the aid of the insurgents you automatically become a target. When you life and your buddies life is on the line it tends to put things in a whole different perspective. When they kill your friends in a most cowardly way, it definitely puts things in a whole different perspective. It is only because people like these soldiers have the balls to stand up and put their life on the line that cowards like you can even publish the tripe you call news. Snarky comments about spelling do not count as rebuttal!
When the enemy doesn't wear uniforms and travel in military vehicles, they tend to look no different from the journalists, mullahs, doctors, teachers, women, children, and seniors they hide behind. The USA pilots and observers are trained and experienced warriors who can read the battlefield and determine the proper course of action in real time – something 99% of the posters here have shown they can't even do with 20/20 rearview mirror vision. If you think the USA is not up to the mission, enlist right now and show them how to do it.
As a retired journalist, while never having covered a shooting war, I most certainly have been caught up in riots and other dangerous domestic situations where being a journalist not only didn't guarantee safety, it could — and did — on occasion make one a target. I'll give you two examples. I was in NYC's Harlem the night that Dr. King was murdered, and I was on the quadrangle at Columbia U. the night the NYPD went in to clean out Mark Rudd's wanna-be Red Brigades — both in 1968. A journalist can opt out of such an assignment if he or she desires, although none I ever knew would have done so. Not only a bad career move, but — being adrenalin junkies — we loved that kind of stuff for the by-lines, the notoriety, and — yeah — the money.
The point is — these people, be they free-lancers or staff, knew exactly what they let themselves in for. To argue otherwise is either extreme naivety, or trying to trash the soldiers in question. I venture to suggest that, if the journalists had been embedded with US troops, and killed by terrorists, the left would be cheering. Those who criticize the soldiers do so because they have no clue about the pressures of combat, the intensity, and the nano-seconds' time frame in which to make a decision that affects a single trooper or his unit. It's the same with cops coming into a life-threatening situation with mere seconds or less to make a shoot-no shoot decision. I'm sure the critics here would rather see US soldiers killed than so-called journalists stupid enough to hang out with terrorist gunmen.