Quote: Original post by Jan Wassenberg

Quote: but the people weren't being considered as civilians.

Exactly, that's the problem. However, (at least in Afghanistan,) they better not *turn out to have been* civilians. That means: in case of doubt, don't shoot/drop.

As for not killing civilians in Afghanistan, I wonder if that notion is promoted for the benefit of the folks back home. Consider, President Obama ordered a "surge" in Afghanistan at a time when Americans want the troops to come home from Iraq. President Obama also called for more European involvement with Afghanistan. Talk about avoiding civilian deaths in Afghanistan may be a public relations ploy to dilute opposition to his plans in the US and Europe.

Really Sorry

Quote:
...
Of the three women killed, according to the Times, one was a pregnant mother of ten. A second was a pregnant mother of six. NATO officials had originally peddled the story that the victims had been stabbed to death by family members prior to the U.S. attack on the compound where they had gathered for some festive occasion. This turned out to be entirely bogus—in short, a lie.

Brigadier General Eric Tremblay, a NATO spokesman, manfully offered an apology on behalf of the alliance. “We deeply regret the outcome of this operation, accept responsibility for our actions that night, and know that this loss will be felt forever by the families.” Having read from what has become a set script, Tremblay presumably headed off to the gym for a workout or perhaps to the mess hall to enjoy some good army chow.

Would such a ritualistic expression of sorrow suffice had the incident snuffed out the lives of pregnant women in Tremblay’s native Canada? Not likely.

Who killed the women? How exactly did it happen? Who was in charge? Who has been held accountable and in what way? What actions have been taken to preclude any recurrence of such an event? Given the veil of secrecy behind which Special Operations Forces (SOF) operate, these questions don’t simply go unanswered. They don’t even get asked.
...

Quote: Original post by Jan Wassenberg

Quote: "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."

Wow. No warning, no attempt to stop her, just launch a grenade. Unbelievable.

Yes, very sad, but strangely more understandable as a mistake. I think the other snippets I quoted are very telling. They relate situations where officers were telling soldiers to "light em up" after the soldiers asked if it was really necessary. In one case, "fire on all taxicabs" set the tone for the rest of that soldiers deployment. And retroactively categorizing dead civilians as insurgents - I hear echoes of Vietnam in that.

Those who resort to violence have run out of good ideas. Violence is never good even if the reason seems good. I disagree with anything that kills other human beings.

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care

Quote: Original post by Hodgman

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care
I saw some pictures from the camera the guy was holding and there was actually a US humvee just down the street from them.

According to wikileaks and Reuters, the guys camera was confiscated by the military and the pictures have never been released. Got a link?

My friend showed it to me, but I haven't heard back from him on where he saw it.

Here's the link though:
http://i43.tinypic.com/5qpeg.jpg

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1617459520070716

the camera was returned to Reuters in 2007. From the reuters article:

Quote: Other pictures on the wide-angled lens camera show what appears to be the aftermath of an earlier shooting incident. The images can be timed from the camera's internal digital clock.

Around this time, Noor-Eldeen's long-angled lens camera shows four frames of a U.S. military humvee at a crossroads.

What appears to be the last picture taken while Noor-Eldeen was alive is on his wide-angled lens camera. It came some 10 minutes after he photographed the two women.

Here's another decent link to the US investigation into the attack. Apparently the group of men did have RPGs as well as rifles.

here

Given how Iraqi insurgents used vehicles if international law prohibits firing at them when identified it needs amending.

Quote: As for not killing civilians in Afghanistan, I wonder if that notion is promoted for the benefit of the folks back home.

I think the intent is genuine - see an article about debriefings for close-air support pilots.

Quote: Yes, very sad, but strangely more understandable as a mistake.

That depends entirely on whether enough warning was given, or whether they just "lit her up" (it being "the only way to be sure"). Given the taxicab order (wow yet again), one might suspect the latter.

Quote: And retroactively categorizing dead civilians as insurgents - I hear echoes of Vietnam in that.

Definitely.

Quote: Here's another decent link to the US investigation into the attack.

Thanks, interesting read. Looks like the Geneva Convention is right out the window. The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. Instead, if the helo pilot thinks attempts to "collect and care for wounded" are "a means of escape for the wounded insurgents" (note tautology and the above mentioned retroactive categorization *facepalm*), it's apparently OK to blast everyone involved. Can you think up a more clear-cut violation? Where are the consequences?
I guess the answer is hinted at by the report title "Civ Death [..] (Reuters Employees)", as if non-journalist civilian deaths didn't matter. And the section about how to prevent similar incidents is censored.

Quote: Original post by Jan Wassenberg

Quote: As for not killing civilians in Afghanistan, I wonder if that notion is promoted for the benefit of the folks back home.

I think the intent is genuine - see an article about debriefings for close-air support pilots.

I could count that article as evidence for my case. The reporter is on board an aircraft carrier (i.e. embedded). The article quotes military personnel extensively. It includes this snippet: "A report by the human rights division of the United Nations found that in 2009, 596 civilian deaths were caused by those forces, compared with 828 in 2008 — in both years, airstrikes caused most of those deaths." But offers no further comment on that report and what else it might say. More directly to my point, in relaying how pilots don't want civilian blood on their conscience, the article serves to pacify the reader into a complacency about the matter. I don't want them to kill civilians and they don't want to kill civilians either. Everybody is happy.

Quote: Original post by Jan Wassenberg

Quote: Yes, very sad, but strangely more understandable as a mistake.

That depends entirely on whether enough warning was given, or whether they just "lit her up" (it being "the only way to be sure"). Given the taxicab order (wow yet again), one might suspect the latter.

I find it understandable that a group of soldiers (many probably still teenagers) at war in a foreign land would shoot first (i.e. panic reaction) and regret later. The taxicab matter is more disturbing because the order came from an officer who seemingly ought to know better. Consider, the soldier was skeptical of the order, the officer repeated it. The resulting actions are deliberate. In contrast, the actions in the killing of the woman with the groceries were probably spontaneous and reactive.

I think they are putting much more effort into it than would be justified by merely angling for a little bit of good press.
The recognition that civilian deaths endanger the military mission is certainly reason enough to go to some lengths to avoid them.

Quote: I find it understandable that a group of soldiers (many probably still teenagers) at war in a foreign land would shoot first (i.e. panic reaction) and regret later. The taxicab matter is more disturbing because the order came from an officer who seemingly ought to know better. Consider, the soldier was skeptical of the order, the officer repeated it. The resulting actions are deliberate. In contrast, the actions in the killing of the woman with the groceries were probably spontaneous and reactive.

Ah, I see - mistake vs. deliberate intent/hazarding the consequences.

I don't know how I would react in similar circumstances, and I don't know what should or should not happen to the people involved in the incident, but I think it is at least clear that the persons pulling the triggers did not believe they were shooting unarmed innocents.

I assume that as we come to rely more and more on long distance killing like this (not only spurred by technological advancements, but also by budget issues which will make it harder and harder to keep a large enough force on the ground), we will see more instances of this kind. Technology may allow us to hit the target more accurately, but it doesn't seem to allow us to mark those targets more accurately (without having some boots on the ground to mark the targets from up close). Even with these kind of incidents, the total loss of innocent life might still be less than it would be in a situation where you have more boots on the ground and rely less on long-distance killing, just because the number of volatile situations might increase.

Here's a sort of "aftermath" follow up.

Revolving door of multiple tours linked to PTSD

Quote:
...
With two long wars — Afghanistan is in its ninth year and Iraq just entered its eighth — the U.S. military finds itself straining to maintain a steady flow of troops. More than 2 million men and women have been deployed to serve in both conflicts, and more than 40 percent of them have served at least two tours, according to military records.

Nearly 300,000 troops have served three, four or more times. (The vast majority of deployments last more than six months.)

For these men and women, life becomes a revolving door of war, home, then back to combat — sometimes within months — as they face the same dangers, the same stresses and the same agonizing separation from family.

Multiple tours, according to several studies, have been linked to stress, anxiety and PTSD, which is often marked by nightmares, flashbacks, angry outbursts and insomnia.

"It's common sense," says Dr. Judith Broder, founder of The Soldiers Project, which provides free, confidential counseling to returning troops and their families. "The more deployments there are, the greater the danger not just of combat stress but depression. ... Many people also feel alienated and isolated from their family."
...
Soldiers face repeated stresses that pile up, says Dr. Paul Ragan, an associate professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University and a Navy psychiatrist for the Marines during Desert Storm.

"The bottom line is trauma is cumulative," he says. "It embeds itself in your brain and you can't shake it loose."

Military in-field surveys support the notion.

A 2009 report of Army troops in Afghanistan found the rate of psychological problems rose significantly with the number of deployments: 31 percent for three tours, more than double the rate of those with just one.

In Iraq, the survey found nearly 15 percent of Army troops who served two tours suffered from depression, anxiety or traumatic stress, more than double that of single tour. When it came to PTSD alone, the rate was almost 2.5 times higher for two deployments compared with one.

"We just don't know whether it's combat exposure, repeated separation from the family or (not enough) time off," says Lt. Col. Paul Bliese, director of the division of psychiatry and neuroscience at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. "All of those are reasonable explanations."
...

Quote: Original post by Silvermyst
I assume that as we come to rely more and more on long distance killing like this (not only spurred by technological advancements, but also by budget issues which will make it harder and harder to keep a large enough force on the ground), we will see more instances of this kind.

We may also see less, if long distance killing lets us place fewer troops at risk and take more time to confirm a threat or non-threat. I'm thinking this is especially true if UAVs proliferate enough that we can replace physical troop presence with 'telecommuting' troops that aren't actually in harms way.