Collateral Damage In A War Of Choice
Use the links below to go directly to the updates:
Updated on 4/12
Updated again on 4/21
Recently, the website WikiLeaks released an annotated, edited video from the gun-camera of an Apache helicopter from 2007. The video shows the helicopter shoot several men, some armed others not, two of which turned out to be Reuters cameramen embedded with the insurgents. Two children were also wounded when the Apache fired on a van that came to extract one of the wounded insurgents. WikiLeaks titled the video “Collateral Murder.” The information below will hopefully help you better understand the video and decide for yourself if the soldiers reacted responsibly.
First, here is a good site that puts the video into context, something you should read before watching the video. Below are key points from that article, which provide missing context and insight into the video:
- “Apache helicopters are usually not called out unless ground troops request them. In this case, ground troops were under fire and requested air support.”
- “You hear, numerous times, reports of armed combatants in the area, before this particular video feed can actually see people.”
- “This is all happening near friendly soldiers who requested air support because they were fired upon.”
Next you should read the post on Dysnomia.us (I can’t get a direct-link to the article, dated 4/6/2010) (direct link updated). This is one of the better opinions I’ve read expressed on this matter and he’s right on target:
Mistakes happen, especially in war. We could probably accept the mistakes if we were fighting for our own survival, or fighting for a cause we believe in strongly enough. But we chose this war, based on lies and the failure of democratic institutions to counter those lies. And these sorts of mistakes are one of the consequences.
A lot of people are arguing what responsibility those soldiers bear today, but not enough are questioning their own.
Lastly, here are my personal points:
- We don’t get to see the raw video first, then the annotated, edited version. Therefore we’re only seeing what WikiLeaks wants us to see, which is how propaganda works.
- We have the advantage of hind-sight. We already know there are civilians carrying cameras, not weapons. The soldiers in this video don’t have that information.
- As we look at this video we’re in no danger, nor are others we know. We’re not flying a few hundred feet above a combat zone. But the soldiers in this video are and they need to make life or death decisions in the worst of environments to protect their lives and the lives of others.
- The soldiers clearly believed they were engaging armed, enemy units and as it turned out, they were to some extent. But calling this edited version “Collateral Murder” influences our opinion of the video before we’ve even viewed it.
Here is the link to the video.
[UPDATE] 4/12/10 Colonel W. Patrick Lang, author of the blog Sic Semper Tyrannis posted a redacted report of the 2007 investigation. In that report, a few paragraphs are worth noting — first is paragraphs 8c and d in the conclusion section:
I conclude that the two Reuters affiliates were in the company of the armed insurgents who had been firing on members of Bravo Company, 2-16 Infantry, at the time of the engagement…
I conclude that the presence of the Reuters employees was not known to any of the US Forces operating in the area that morning. The cameramen made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the Coalition Ground Forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.
Secondly, paragraph 9, also in the conclusion section:
As to the presence of the children in the black van, it is obvious from the radio transmissions on the gun-camera tapes that the Apache pilots thought the van was to be used as a means of escape for the wounded insurgents. The van arrives as if on cue, and is immediately joined by two military-aged males who appear from the nearby courtyard. The children are never seen, while the driver slides open a door and then retakes his seat while two other males attempt to load the first insurgent into the vehicle. It is unknown what, if any, connection the van had to the insurgent activity.
The shooting of the van appears to be the sticking point. The Washington Post in this article quotes Bibi van Ginkel, an international lawyer and senior fellow at the Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations:
My first guess would be that a war crime was committed. Very simply speaking, if people are helping the wounded, they are non-combatants. If force is used against them, then that is a war crime
The Geneva Convention states in Chapter IV, Article 25:
Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.
The investigation report does not address the protected status of those trying to help the wounded. I also don’t know what the rules of engagement (ROE) were at the time of the shooting, but it is worth noting that the pilots received explicit authorization from “Bushmaster 7″ to engage the van.
Personally I’m still trying to gather information on this to come to some conclusion but I’m not sure I’ll ever feel that I have the “right” opinion. I don’t know what it’s like to be in combat and have to make these kinds of decisions. I also don’t have much information outside the video to give me what I think is “enough” context or insight into this situation. What I do know is that we (the U.S.) had a choice to get into this war or not get into this war and since we chose the war, we have a greater moral obligation than if we were directly attacked by Iraq. The incident in this video is regrettable, unfortunate, and even devastating in some respects and ultimately it was completely avoidable had the Republic not been asleep at the wheel when the decision to take military action was made.
[UPDATE] 4/21/10 Wired Magazine has interviewed one of the soldiers (Ethan McCord) who responded to the scene. The article is irresponsible in the following ways:
- There is too much hearsay and conjecture on the part of the McCord. The published interview should not include the part about the hellfire missile attack at the end of the video because McCord clearly states “I wasn’t around that building when it happened.” Everything he says on the topic after that fact is admittedly hearsay.
In another part of the interview, he’s asked if it was reasonable for the Apache crew to assume the insurgents were part of the group McCord was fighting just a couple blocks away (which is an irrelevant question) and his response was “I doubt that they were a part of that firefight.”, which doesn’t answer the question and regardless, it’s pure conjecture.
- McCord says that what WikiLeaks did by editing the video was not done “in the best manner” but overall he supports what they’re doing. However, what they’re doing is releasing propaganda that could be interpreted as maliciously inaccurate if not outright seditious under U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2388.
- McCord thinks the Apache should have fired warning shots at the van. However, the Apache crew didn’t know who or what was in the van. It could have contained another RPG crew. If the ROE states that Iraqis aren’t to remove the wounded from the scene, then the driver of the van violated the ROE, not the Apache crew and the Apache crew was then complying with the ROE by engaging the van.
Just replied to your comment. Thanks for the link.