Wednesday
Apr072010
UPDATED Iraq: Reactions to the "Collateral Murder" Video
Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 9:11 
UPDATE 7 APRIL: Juan Cole, highlighting a discussion on Reddit including a number of soldiers, offers these "main conclusions": 1. The cover-up of the pilots' mistake in killing the Reuters cameramen and mistaking their cameras for an RPG is the worst thing about this episode.
2. While the pilots who fired at apparently armed men (and at least 3 were actually armed) thought they were saving US ground troops who had been pinned down from men with small arms, they had less justification for firing on the van. Indeed, the latter action may have been a war crime since the van was trying to pick up the wounded and it is illegal to fire on the wounded and those hors de combat.
Iraq and “Collateral Murder”: The White House Response
US Military & Iraq’s Civilians: The “Collateral Murder” Video
3. While many actions of the pilots may not have been completely wrong under their rules of engagement, nevertheless they often acted inexcusably, and their attitude is inhuman and deplorable.
The US military's Central Command has posted a set of documents, released under the Freedom of Information Act, on the deaths in Iraq in 2007 of Reuters journalists, who were among killed in the "collateral murder" video released yesterday by Wikileaks.
James Fallows of The Atlantic, who has covered Iraq extensively over the last decade, reacts:
I can't pretend to know the full truth or circumstances of this. But at face value it is the most damaging documentation of abuse since the Abu Ghraib prison-torture photos. As you watch, imagine the reaction in the US if the people on the ground had been Americans and the people on the machine guns had been Iraqi, Russian, Chinese, or any other nationality. As with Abu Ghraib, and again assuming this is what it seems to be, the temptation will be to blame the operations-level people who were, in this case, chuckling as they mowed people down. That's not where the real responsibility lies.
Bill Roggio of The Weekly Standard has a different view:
There is nothing in that video that is inconsistent with the military's report. What you see is the air weapons team engaging armed men.
Second, note how empty the streets are in the video. The only people visible on the streets are the armed men and the accompanying Reuters cameramen. This is a very good indicator that there was a battle going on in the vicinity. Civilians smartly clear the streets during a gunfight.
Third, several of the men are clearly armed with assault rifles; one appears to have an RPG. Wikileaks purposely chooses not to identify them, but instead focuses on the Reuters cameraman. Why?
Glenn Greenwald of Salon challenges this by putting the video in the context of the Pentagon's fight against Wikileaks and other cover-ups of civilian deaths:
WikiLeaks released a video of the U.S. military, from an Apache helicopter, slaughtering civilians in Iraq in 2007 -- including a Reuters photojournalist and his driver -- and then killing and wounding several Iraqis who, minutes later, showed up at the scene to carry away the dead and wounded (including two of their children). The video (posted below) is truly gruesome and difficult even for the most hardened person to watch, but it should be viewed by everyone with responsibility for what the U.S. has done in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e., every American citizen).
Reuters has been attempting for two years to obtain this video through a FOIA request, but has been met with stonewalling by the U.S. military. As Dan Froomkin documents, the videotape demonstrates that military officials made outright false statements about what happened here and were clearly engaged in a cover-up: exactly as is true for the Afghanistan incident I wrote about earlier today, which should be read in conjunction with this post.
Reader Comments (11)
I watched this last night.
It made me want to puke.
Since when does "We engaged 8 people" translate into "We just slaughtered 8 people"?
Since when is it OK to blame those who come to the aid of the lethally wounded for the extensive injuries inflicted on their children!? "It's their own fault those kids got hurt," says the pilot. "They should know better than to bring their kids into battle." [I paraphrase here] Whose fault? What battle? There was no battle. There was a one-sided full-on assault by massively over-powered airborne US military against pedestrians in the street, including children who could clearly be seen in the front seat of the van that these guys blew up like it was a damn target in a video game.
These soldiers were amused when US vehicles ran over one of the dead. They looked at the people that they killed, those lives that they utterly destroyed in a hail of bullets raining from the sky, they laughed, and said, "Nice."
There is nothing "nice" at all about it.
And I do not take responsibility for these reprehensible actions. The US government knew - we came to the streets to tell them - that it did not have the American peoples' permission to go to war in Iraq, let alone execute helpless people on the street. The US government ignored the will of the people, and did this instead. That is not my government.
These are war crimes, and responsibility for these crimes goes from bottom to top. I'll know that I'm living in a real democracy when this country's war criminals are finally held accountable for their massive, massive crimes against humanity.
Maria, you do realize that you are watching a video in the context of a war, right? I was not aware that soldiers were supposed to moderate their sense of humor for your personal benefit. I do not think they did during World War 2, Korea, Vietnam, and I doubt they are obligated to now. Especially considering the fact that they put themselves in harmes way.
These people killed in the street, with the exception of the two journalists and the children being used as human shields, were far from harmless... they were armed in a warzone.
Watch a video of a suicide bombing in a marketplace, or of insurgents sawing off heads of civilians, or killing civilians; and remember who it is we were fighting at the time this tragedy took place.
American soldiers are killed by friendly fire and are collateral damage all the time, the extent the US military goes to reduce risk to civilians is enormous... look at how far we have come in the last century.
Reactions of an ex-army man with experience in such situations, interesting read:
http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/
Chukmaty, what are you going trough?
Can't you see how dumb people are being manipulated to fight a war that has no sense at all, and how they are trained to see murder as something to desire and make fun about. You sick buddy... You deserve going to war to figh a fantasy war for elite interests and getting shot in the back of the head and made fun of... HAHAHA... Im sure ur family would laugh as well... You sick person...
Thank you, SH !
Here is an article about traumatized Vietnam veterans, 60.000 of whom committed suicide -- more than were killed during the war. It did not end with the end of warfare, and I fear it has not ended for all subsequent war veterans, may they be Americans, Russians, Germans, Iraqis or Iranians... http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,685629,00.html
Peace!
Arshama
DC,
Great reference. I am going to paste in the article so all can hear an objective analysis from a military perspective:
"To start things off, I will come right out and say I support WikiLeaks in their endeavors to bring about transparency in government. The government promises to do such things and fails time and time again. That said, I have several problems with their presentation of “Collateral Murder,” the video immediately below this paragraph. These errors do nothing to lend to the credibility of this organization, and if there is any desire to promote anything but transparency and truth I will cease any inkling of support immediately.
For those unaware of my background, I have spent quite a lot of time (a conservative estimate would be around 4500 hours) viewing aerial footage of Iraq (note: this time was not in viewing TADS video, but footage from Raven, Shadow, and Predator feeds). I am certain my voice can be heard on several transmissions with several different Crazyhorse aircraft, as I have called them to assist troops on the ground more times in my 24-months in Iraq than I could even attempt to guess. I need no reassurances to determine the presence of an RPG7 or an AK-variant rifle, especially not from a craft flying as low as Apache (even after the video has been reduced in dimensions to a point at which it is nearly useless).
Several commenters on Twitter and YouTube have expressed a great deal of anger towards the United States and members of its military. Many of them, unsurprisingly, have wished death on us all. Part of the problem, which is far more complex than I have the time or desire to fully discuss, lies in the presentation of above video.
What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer.
WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience.
Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable.
At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error.
(note: It has to be taken into consideration that there is no way that the Crazyhorse crew had the knowledge, as everyone who has viewed this had, that the man on the corner of that wall was a photographer. The actions of shouldering an RPG (bringing a long cylindrical object in line with one’s face) and framing a photo with a long telephoto lens quite probably look identical to an aircrew in those conditions.)
I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. Any of the officers with whom I served are well aware that I would continue voicing that recommendation until ordered to do otherwise. A few of them threatened me with action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for doing so. Better officers than they, fortunately, were always ready to go to bat for me and keep that from happening. That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed.
(nte: The above is based on the number of times footage from a UAV under my unit’s control produced visual evidence that showed a lesser threat level than that reported as possible by either attack aviation or troops on the ground. Such footage may not have been available during this incident, and as such if the camera was thought to be an RPG the engagement of the personnel was well within any ROE I have ever seen. By making the call, I mean that I have quite literally been the voice heard over the radio clearing an engagement. It is important to note that while I was a position to influence the decision, the actual decision was not mine to make – that falls to the officer-in-charge, not the non-commissioned officer-in-charge.)
The point at which I cannot support the actions of Crazyhorse 18, at all, comes when the van arrives somewhere around 9:45 and is engaged. Unless someone had jumped out with an RPG ready to fire on the aircraft, there was no threat warranting a hail of 30mm from above. Might it have been prudent to follow the vehicle (perhaps with a UAV), or at least put out a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for the vehicle? Absolutely without question. Was this portion of the engagement even remotely understandable, to me? No, it was not.
All in all, the engagement clearly went bad. I would have objected when I was a private first-class pulling triple duty as an RTO, driver, and vehicle gunner. I would have objected when I was a sergeant working well above my pay-grade as the Brigade Battle NCO. My assessment is based on my experiences in that very theater of operations. I did not see a threat that warranted an engagement at any point. I did, however, see the elements indicating such a threat could develop at any moment. (note: As I did, in fact, already know several things about the situation when I viewed this footage I cannot say with any certainty that had I viewed the exact same footage at the time of the incident that I would not have concluded the camera was an RPG as well.) People can make their judgements however they wish, but what is clearly visible is not the entire picture. I’ll also say that I’ve seen Crazyhorse elements do some pretty drastic maneuvers to protect troops and civilians alike. Those pilots have saved the lives of my friends many times, and a bad shoot is not going to ruin them as far as I’m concerned.
Update: I have seen several mentions of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle running over a body off in the rubble. This is highlighted at some point in the video. Crazyhorse 18 misidentifies a Canon zoom lens as an RPG7, but WikiLeaks has managed to identify a HMMWV as a BFV. I’m not even sure how that’s possible. The transcript also has the ground commander calling on the BFV crew to “drop rap” – there should be an ‘m’ between the ‘a’ and the ‘p’ – ramp is what it should read.
WikiLeaks claims to seek to shed the light on the truth, yet continues to allow such gross errors in reporting stand unchanged. There are many veterans with thousands of hours experience in both analyzing aerial video and understanding the often-garbled radio transmissions between units. It is not unreasonable to think any number of us would be willing to make sure everything is identified correctly, and all jargon is translated appropriately, before things go to the presses. Promoting truth with gross errors is just as shameful as an unnecessary engagement."
Thanks to Scott and DC for the links to ALL the articles and reports, from Glenn Greenwald at Salon to Dan Froomkin at HuffPo to Juan Cole and Anthony Martinez' blog entry - all extremely illuminating.
I've been going through a lot of different websites that discuss this video. There seems to be a lot of "all the Americans are evil" vs. "these soldiers did nothing wrong" kind of debates going on.
Most people seem to have a preconceived idea of an American soldier and are unable to see through it. I guess it is the same as with the scandal of Abu Ghraib, when the sadism of certain individuals was exposed. People find it difficult to admit that amongst the multitude of people serving in the army there are also some soldiers that simply enjoy killing.
So do all the readers' reactions above, as well as the reports, articles and blog entries you link to in this entry, refer to the 17-minute version and not the 38-minute version you have published in http://enduringamerica.com/2010/04/07/iraq-the-collateral-murder-video/ ?
Any decent human being watching the Video shall call it “Crime Against Humanity”.
Some cowards in US claiming to be patriotic, with blindness to cover-up crimes of their government and corporations and Israelis/ Jewish-Mafia (to get cheap oil and control other nations) and enrich themselves, claim that foreigners and insurgents with guns are running in Iraq; that
US forces have lost 4000 brave soldiers and several thousands wounded; but
they do not mention that these soldiers and their colleagues have killed and murdered more than one Million, and wounded and destroyed lives of Millions of innocent Iraqis children, olds and families who had never invaded US.
They are committing the same in AFGHANISTAN, Africa, South-Central America (and did in VIETNAM, ……), and are planning to do in IRAN, (under the same CIA, Israeli-agents falsification of WMD).
They claim there is transparency in US. The biggest FALSIFICATION and LIE in the human history is “Western/ American Freedom, Democracy, Equality and Justice “, while slaving people all over the world, stealing their human and natural resources.
The main major Media and Televisions rather than being outraged and/or at least discussing these crimes, show which Hollywood ‘celebrities’ has slept with whom, and who divorced whom, showing their ‘waxed vaginas’ without underwear (which are real transparency).
At least these patriots should have courage to tell: is it acceptable if it had happened to Americans? be ashamed!!!
Thanks Bill for your comments, that was the best comment at all.
I must say that this video shows someway disrespect to human life similar to those disrespect of that superior german army in 40´s. That Germany also had "good guys" and "bad guys", but a war (and crimes) came up even without the "good guys" agremment, thanks to propaganda and brainless education the murdering of million of people was possible, and those deaths were taken as justifable at that moment and any "good guys" was "anti-patriot".
I can see this now, it´s too much easy for us accept any statement that make us feel better.
This war started without major people aggrement, the world was against it, based on big lies, and we can´t see how deep those errors gone. This video is only a shell, there are so much wrong things inside it.
Those soldiers must not be there, on the other hand those children were in the right place, that was their country, their street (maybe where they played some soccer), when there were no apaches flying by, but could have a tyrant, a tyrant that those iraqi people could have displaced on their own national riot, making their own history.
This lie only grows up and so much hate has been raised that we can say that this anti-terrorism war (another lie) only created more terrorists, for us and for the good iraq people (those who want peace and now are taken as traitors). Somehow if you are willing to forgive the apache pilots, trying to understand them, i can bet that the same excuses we use for them we can use for the "terrorists", if we put ourselves apart.
That children were in the right place, that apache are in the wrong country, doing wrong things, even when trying to do the best.