Posted on 04/06/2010 6:54:15 AM PDT by HushTX
A friend of mine recently posted this to his Facebook (I know, I'm drawing from the bastion of unreliable sources here), and I want very badly to respond, but what I want to say I can't back up with personal experience or knowledge of any reliable sort. That's why I'm asking about these things here.
Before reading my questions and answering them, please watch the video so you understand why I want to ask these questions.
Ok, now that you've watched it:
First, it seems to me that any war correspondent worth his salt would know the dangers of going into a military patrolled area. If you go where there's fighting, you might get hurt or killed. That seems like common sense. That leads me to think there might be some sort of communication between the news company and the military so that soldiers might be aware of the movements of the press. Something akin to telling the military that reporters might be moving around in a particular area. Does anyone know how this works, or if it even happens?
Second, I realize I am not trained, and assume someone who is trained would be better suited to identifying details through a visual system like the one shown in the video, but I was unable to tell that the items carried were cameras. I wouldn't say they looked like guns, but had I not been told "those are cameras" I would have had no idea. What are the chances that the gunner was making the best judgment call he could and didn't recognize the items as cameras? I'd appreciate input from someone who has first hand experience with such equipment.
Really, who gets a call that someone was shot at by a helo and decides it's a good idea to take kids with them to the site of the attack?
This is a very frustrating thing for me. I consider what happened to be a tragedy, but am having a very hard time laying blame solely on the soldiers. I believe strongly in the balance of choice and consequence, and if those reporters chose to go into a dangerous area without ANY sort of indication that they were reporters, that seems to be taking a huge risk. Even the van was unmarked.
Are there reasons why the van would have had no features to distinguish it as a Reuters vehicle? Or why the press would not have made it clear they would be there? I can understand that the correspondents would want candid material, and that alerting people to their presence could result in some kind of staged presentation to make one side or the other look good, but isn't that better than getting shot down because nobody knew they were there?
I have no military experience of my own, so really don't know how to respond to this, but I want to say SOMETHING to my friend in the defense of the soldiers. I just need a basis for my argument. I'm so sick of the military getting dumped on.
Warning to journalists in war zones: don’t hang around with terrorists, insurgents, or even large groups of people wielding what sure looks like an RPG when American soldiers in the same area are being shot at.
The soldiers were given the OK for everything they did, including taking out people still deemed to be reaching for weapons after the first attack.
As far as the van stopping to give aid; why would you do that in a war zone with an unmarked van and appear to be helping what are believed to be armed insurgents.
No doubt about it.. There is a spiritual war going on..
Collateral damage in many areas, murder, is just one of the areas..
I absolutely agree. The soldiers requested permission to fire and were given such permission.
But my concern is what lead to this. Why were they there without anyone else knowing? There’s GOT to be some system of communication set up to prevent this sort of thing. The idea that there isn’t one makes NO sense to me.
Added to thoughts: What you don’t see are the thousands of videos of the times American soldiers HELD their fire because they had not been given approval or the situation put known civilians at risk. And of course, we don’t know who those that were given a “reprieve” by our forces later killed do we?
NPR, huh? Any idea who it was that said they found a rifle and rpg? I’d like to cite a source when I mention this.
Another related site I found: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything
For some reason this did not come up when I did my initial Google search, but it shows up now. It’s pretty good.
There isn’t a system because it is a war.
How would American soldiers distinguish between REAL journalists reporting were they are so they don’t get fired on and INSURGENTS or TERRORISTS saying they are journalists to get close to American soldiers to kill them.
Wars get fought with little or no rules precisely because the enemy will never worry about rules.
The van was not marked in any way as an ambulance or other neutral vehicle. A red crescent would have kept it from being shot. As it happened, the guys in the helo made a legitimate assumption that it was a van-load of bad guys, since they were obviously assisting the bad guys who had just been shot.
Finally, the press can embed with American troops, but they tend to see that as being "at the mercy of" American PAOs and commanders. If they do that, they won't be able to get action shots of the other side, which from the video is obviously what they were up to. These two "journalists" were locals, so short of declaring a full curfew and designating anyone in violation as a hostile, there's not really any way to track where all the non-bad guys are. And that's never going to happen, especially in a COIN environment.
VIDEO Exposes Alleged 2007 'Collateral Murder' In Iraq
Video Appears to Show U.S. Forces Firing on Unarmed Suspects in Baghdad (Good shooting)
Rather than make a vanity post about your questions, it seems you ought to look at the comments made by others when this story was posted on FR.
I am certain all of your questions have already been answered in prior postings of this story.
The Apache crews identified AK-47 rifles and RPG visually. Then requested permission to engage.
Had the Apaches not engaged, I suspect the Reuters employees would have later that day, filed a report on a "successful ambush of US forces," with photos showing dead and wounded GIs. War is not a pretty business.
There were AKs and an RPG in that happy little mob.
The leader of that group was either describing an attack he had carried out (there had been an attack in the area within the last few minutes), or an ambush he was planning (on the incoming Bradleys) for the benefit of the al-Reuters “journalists.” In either case, that little mob was a prime target.
The van was there to collect weapons (to make it look like a massacre) or survivors (to rescue them and keep them from interrogation). Also a legitimate target.
I agree. I think the insurgents should notify American Military members where they will be and when they will have reporters with them so we can make sure we don't attack them. Maybe the insurgents could wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from reporters. I think bright orange would make a good uniform color and would even chip in a couple of bucks if they promise to wear them.
The pen may be mightier than the sword, but it ain’t squat compared to a mini-gun.
These idiots make a big thing out of the fact that the ARMED people and the accompanying “cameramen” (terrorist propagandists?) appeared to be “relaxed.” Well, experienced terrorists tend to be relaxed after they’ve tried to or actually killed civilians and/or US/Iraqi troops and think they’ve gotten away with it.
And they used kids as human shields, so our military are the bad guys?
God I HATE libscum...
We had several reporters come through our Operations Center in Southern Iraq, when I was there in 04/05. We would tell them, point blank, too stay out of certain areas. We would give them the intel that was pertinent to their travel plans in our area. Should they travel to restricted areas, or imbed themselves with our enemies, all bets are off. There are no secret signals, or ways of knowing. These reporters deaths are wholly on them, not the Soldiers who shot them. Sorry, but when you play with fire long enough, you do get burned.
My apologies Presbyterian Reporter. I had no intention of making a vanity post. In my frustration over the matter I didn’t think to dig for a previous post on FR regarding this story. I was quite irritated and frustrated and figured the best way to approach this was to just ask.
To everyone else, thanks for your input. I’ve since responded to my friend and basically shared some of the information and insight you’ve offered, as well as links to other points of view regarding the incident. I’m sure I’ll get flamed, as usual, and probably won’t hear from some of my friends for a while since I called them out. I can live with that. Hooray truth, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.