I read a story recently on everyone’s favorite
” WikiLeaks posted a video that showed the U.S. military in a less favorable light. WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said his organization got the videotape of "the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people" and verified its authenticity from "a number of military whistle-blowers"; the videotape was ultimately confirmed as genuine by U.S. military officials.”
Indiscriminate slaying? Mercy me! Let’s read on. The men, including the reporters, are blown away by the gunship, and then:
“Suddenly a van appears and Iraqis hop out to help the man. The helicopter crew seeks and receives permission to fire on the vehicle. In the ensuing barrage, two children inside the vehicle are apparently wounded, and their father, a Good Samaritan who had stopped to take the wounded man to the hospital, is allegedly killed. When U.S. ground troops arrive later, they discover the youngsters. ‘Well, it's their fault,’ a member of the Apache crew says, ‘for bringing kids into a battle.’ Initially, the U.S. said the dead were all insurgents and had been killed in battle, but the video as released seems to offer no evidence of hostile intent by those on the ground.”
Obviously there are no extenuating circumstances for such an atrocity…I mean, except for the fact that the two reporters in question had intentionally embedded themselves with a group of armed insurgents….or that there had been multiple attacks on American forces in the neighborhood that very day…or that the reporters neither told anyone in the military that they were going to be embedding themselves…or that the reporters didn’t even bother to mark themselves somehow to signify they were non-combatants…or that the reporter took a knee to take a photo of the oncoming patrol with his shoulder mounted camera, which is exactly the stance you’d take if you were about to fire with your shoulder mounted RPG…Nope, no extenuating circumstances here.
The Apache was in the area to defend American foot patrols. They saw a group of apparently armed insurgents, one of which was posed in a threatening manner towards friendly ground troops. They did exactly what they were trained to do: They eliminated the threat utilizing the most violent means they had at their disposal. After destroying the enemy, they see a van arrive on scene and begin giving aid to said enemy. This, under any rational rules of engagement, would classify said van as an enemy vehicle, making it a legitimate target.
It is very easy for someone who never has, and with any luck never will, seen the realities of war to sit back and judge the decisions of a soldier in the warzone. It is easy, given the comfort of your couch and the luxury of time and no ramifications, to dissect the course of action taken by that soldier. Unfortunately, when a soldier hesitates too long because he is uncertain, people die. When a soldier doesn’t hesitate, and makes a decision, and that decision is the wrong one, people die. When a soldier doesn’t hesitate, makes a decision, and that decision is the right one? You guessed it: People die!
This is not a game.
This is not a movie.
There is the very real possibility that no matter what the soldier does, some American family’s husband, wife, son, or daughter will never come home. All he can do, all anyone can do, is act on the perceived information he has and make the best of the consequences. This is the reality that the soldier must live with.
What do their detractors, those who call them murderers, suggest they had done? Should they have gotten out of the helicopter and asked the man politely if he was intending on harming the Americans he was pointing at? Should they erred on the side of caution? What if their caution had been incorrect? What if that person had gone on to kill members of the oncoming patrol? What do they suggest the Apache crew tell the grieving mother of those dead soldiers? “Sorry, but I decided I didn’t want to take the risk?”
The hidden tragedy here is not that these civilians were killed. Do not mistake me: If we could conduct a war without a single civilian casualty, I would be all for it. Any civilian who dies as part of the business of war is a tragic loss. What I mean when I say hidden tragedy is the fact that this was brought up to disparage our troops at all. I am referring to the mindset that sees it as legitimate news to bring up the fact that the soldiers made comments about the enemies they saw, about the enemies they had just killed, that may offend the sensibilities of those at home. It is this mindset of the comfortable civilian, the sheltered politician, the bleeding heart peacenik, who presumes to tell the soldier exactly how to do his job.
The Rules of Engagement have grown into a grotesque monster that serves only to bind our soldier’s hands and cause them to wonder if they will go to jail if they make the wrong move. Our men and women in uniform have enough on their minds, what with the daily threat of death and dismemberment and all. What they do not need is the threat of an ended career simply for pulling the trigger with the best of intentions.
It is appropriate that the situation was investigated. It was appropriate for any mistake to be evaluated, and for solutions to be found that will hopefully cause a better resolution next time. It was appropriate for these soldiers to be cleared of all wrongdoing. Now it would be appropriate for those who have never once put their life on the line for something greater than themselves to STFU, and let those who have do the job they swore to do.
2 comments:
ROEs are half the reason we wind up with as many American casualties as we do. Half of the time American aircraft aren't cleared to fire on a KNOWN enemy aircraft until they witness/experience a hostile act. Many times this includes letting the hostile SU-30, MiG29 or SAM get a radar lock on them before they can defend themselves. BUT, by the same token, American service members always have the inherent right of self defense built into the ROE. At the very least, if a soldier/airman/marine/sailor feels they are threatened, they can take whatever action they feel is necessary to preserve their own life. It's very easy to sit back and nitpick split second decisions that someone else had to make. It's a lot harder when your life or someone else's life is on the line.
Well said, Matt. It is absolutely true that the inherent right to self defense is included in every ROE. The magic words known throughout the military are "I felt threatened". Know what you saw and be able to articulate it is the rule of the day.
The fact of war is that the most aggressive force in an engagement will often win. Violence of action is drilled into every soldier's head from the first day. A good ROE should be designed to win wars by maximizing our capacity for violence while minimizing civilian casualties. Too often it is designed instead to limit our capacity for violence in the hope that this will also limit civilian casualties.
Post a Comment