Because we haven't talked about Iraq enough...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This came up on my friend's page this morning.

followed by this .

When Rupert Hamer, the British journalist who served as the Sunday Mirror's war correspondent, was embedded with US forces in Afghanistan and was killed when an IED took out the MRAP he was traveling in, nobody seemed to give much of a shit. No general outcry, no "Those murderers!", no wailing and gnashing of teeth from blogs as different as Balko and BoingBoing.

But when a Reuters journalist is embedded with insurgents in Iraq who are approaching US armored vehicles while armed with weapons specifically designed to destroy such vehicles, and is engaged and killed in their company by a gunship crew who follows rules of engagement and directly asks for permission first, a whole bunch of people just about wet themselves in their eagerness to decry those who killed him.

Why is this?
-"Phanatic"

I have my own take behind the cut but I'm curious about what others have to say.


There is no discernible difference in my eyes, both were killed in action.

The responses to this incident reminds me of the Joker's monologue from "Dark Knight".

Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, it's all "part of the plan"...

...But if one of our Soldiers "The Good Guys", blows up a journalist everyone loses their freaking minds.

An american helicopter crew spotted a group of men gathering near an american convoy.

Weapons are clearly visible, 2 RPGs and a Light Machine-Gun. The standard AQ fire-team everywhere from Afghanistan to Chechnya for the last 15-20 years. Since the insurgents don't wear uniforms this armament and organization is the single best identifier.

They reported the situation and waited for permission to engage.

The enemy was defeated. Additional Insurgents attempted to extract the wounded before they could be captured but in doing so exposed themselves to American forces and were defeated as well.

This is war.

Support it, or oppose it, I won't judge.

All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it.


Disclamer:
I am an Iraq War vet, and a helicopter crewman to boot, so this story hits a little close-to-home for me.

Edit:
In the interests of "citing sources" here is CENTCOM's official report on the incident.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's the problem of fighting a war where the enemy is an extremist mutation of the culture of the majority of the population. Now, these strawmen do you no good.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually, that helped the USSR and the Union win the Great Patriotic War and the US Civil War, respectively. Hitler's whole agenda for invading had been the theft of Soviet resources, which the USSR quite effectively denied him. And from a purely pragmatic rationale, there's no reason to torch places like the Shenandoah Valley, one of the breadbaskets of the pre-Civil War South. All the same, without Sherman and Sheridan the war would have creeped on still longer.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think it's also that Americans forget what the end of the Civil War, which saw these tactics unleashed by the Union Army on a wide scale in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, and parts of Virginia meant. The North brought total war to end the conflict and the South decided discretion was the better part of valour....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually, that's a discredit to Uncle Joe. He was an evil bastard, but he was also one of the finest war leaders of World War II, and one of the only dictators to recognize he was a poor strategist and tactician. Stalin rehabilitaed the Soviet Army and oversaw a sweeping rebuilding of it that resulted in a change in three years from the Battle of Brody, where the Soviet military was sent packing to Operation Bagration, where the USSR revived the Deep Penetration Doctrine and dealt the Wehrmacht its single largest-scale defeat of the entire war.

Stalin also proved to be a capable and inspiring war leader who was able to use discretion and issued autocratic meddling by the middle of the war that actually worked. Hitler happened to be a Corporal that took charge of directing a Military-Industrial Complex fighting three great empires all at once and was....inadequate, is a good way to put it, at the task.

The USSR was the single greatest success story of the Allies, not least because Uncle Sam reaped the material benefits of re-armament without half the devastation that hit the UK or the USSR.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

This was a mistake, and mistakes often have huge consequences when the potential for lethal force is involved.

The main question is, what policies and procedures were in effect and were they followed? If so, we need to improve them. If not, then disciplinary action needs to be taken.

Some ancillary questions are:
Why was this incident not made public and is that part of SOP?
What would have happened had this video not become public?
When have similar incidents occurred and what was the outcome?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually, unless one is fighting the equivalent of Shaka Zulu with helicopter gunships and M-1 Abrams, genocide is sharply *im*practical. It tends to cost the country doing it any attempt at good PR, it tends to sour relationships with the locals and lead to guerrilla insurgencies....the Nazi embrace of genocide proved impractical enough to the point that Hitler's belief in his own ideology did more harm to the Nazi cause than the USSR itself did.

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

It involves journalists getting killed, which always gets attention from journalists and those who value the profession. Same with doctors.

Plus Wikileaks did a good job of releasing this in a way that would maximize exposure. They released it at a good time, with the health care debate being over, and that not really being a major story going on.

But really, why X story gets big, and Y doesn't is one of those questions that is really hard to answer.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Why is this?

Cause he was killed in someone ELSE's country.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

"evul baby killers make inappropriate comments to each other which clearly indicates how much they enjoy killing little children"

"How can you shoot women and children?"

"Easy, you don't lead them as much."

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

And they could have been taking fire. I don't remember all the details.

They weren't taking fire. It had been dead for a while.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

But really, why X story gets big, and Y doesn't is one of those questions that is really hard to answer.

But worth discussing.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

but in doing so exposed themselves to American forces and were defeated as well.

And their kids too!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Why would anyone ever assume the worst (http://community.livejournal.com/antiwar/3006820.html)?

[headhouse.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right, from now on we should assume that everyone in an american uniform is a savage who is only there to kill innocent civilians, and maybe kick some puppies while they're at it. A small handful of examples completely overwhelms any evidence to the contrary. And that "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy has worked so well in the past.

Your comment doesn't address my point, which is that many people condemning (and, really, in this case distorting) the actions of american soldiers simultaneously give a free pass to the same level of behavior on the part of anyone who's not an american.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

we should assume

Do you live somewhere where American military is a occupation force?

that "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy has worked so well in the past.

Au contraire, occupation forces are welcomed with dates and flowers by the locals since they know how much their lives will improve under military occupation. Hell, in my state, we have two or three a year.


Your comment doesn't address my point, which is that many people condemning (and, really, in this case distorting) the actions of american soldiers simultaneously give a free pass to the same level of behavior on the part of anyone who's not an american.

That's because actions are in Iraq and not America. Its never in America. Always in someone else's county.

[headhouse.livejournal.com]

Your choice of phrasing and language makes it clear you've made a final decision on any situation related to this issue, and aren't interested in re-evaluation. Sorry, I figured out long ago that it's silly to argue about matters of faith.

[paft.livejournal.com]

So tell me something. If whether or not it was dark didn't actually enter into things, why did you offer that as an argument?

And surely you realized that most people don't define a "split second decision" or a "reflex" reaction as happening over a period of ten minutes. Why then, did you claim it was a matter of a "split second" and reflex when you knew perfectly well it was not and when, in fact, it didn't actually matter to you whether it was or not?

Re: Godwin violation.

[paft.livejournal.com]

It's not frivolous to invoke Godwin's Law in a discussion with someone who thinks "Kill' em all and let God sort 'em out" is an admirable slogan.

[paft.livejournal.com]

u: The sociopath has a neurological disorder,

Not always. Severe childhood abuse can lead to sociopathy because the child becomes so preoccupied with survival that he or she never has the chance to be truly socialized, to learn how "right" and "wrong" work. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a child who has had every wish gratified, and has never had any limits put on behavior can turn out the same way.

In any event, I'm not talking about sociopaths. I'm talking about behavior that mimics that of the sociopath -- the same lack of empathy, the tendency towards self-justification, instant gratification, refusing to learn from mistakes, blaming the victim, etc.

And yes, I will agree with you that human beings who have not been damaged as true sociopaths are, but engage in behavior similar to sociopaths, are the closest thing to true evil. (Ever seen the movie M, with Peter Lorre? That's a point that film makes.)

[paft.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

at least that is an answer.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

No I am not a pacifist.

Why not?

What would you kill for?

As for The Geneva Conventions, I would reccomend reading the full text (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView) before going further in this debate.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

You had the advantage of researching the event before I did. To familiarize myself before responding, I Googled news reports - the first one I read said it happened 9:30 at night. Their error - hence my error.

As for the "split second" and "reflex" issues, I've already explained that in terms of training tank crewmen for combat - in general. For that specific incident, the radio chatter was confusing, as it often is during combat. The only point I'm trying to convey is that people in combat can make mistakes; but based on information the Captain was receiving, the person on the hotel balcony was a threat. He took the appropriate action to protect his soldiers - whether it happend over eight seconds or ten minutes.

Selecting a building in the middle of a live combat situation for special protection with an invisible 'force field' is wishful thinking. The senior officer's 'no fire' comment: "even if there is an artillery piece on the roof" was asinine.

I've given my opinion; you're intitled to yours. The only difference is mine is based on experience; yours is a stereotypical anti-military "OMG, it HAS to be a military whitewash!"

SEE: Abu Ghraib
and read "Embedded: The Media at War in Iraq", Bill Katovsky and Timothy Carlson

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I might also add that I have Master's degree in journalism, so I have no issues with combat journalists.

[jblaque.livejournal.com]

Ouch.