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

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

"I'm sorry to say it, but I'm the guy who killed the journalists. I'm really sorry, and I feel badly for their families, but I had no choice. My soldiers' lives were in danger."

That's what the Captain, as commander of the tank involved, said after the incident. It was dark, the soldiers were taking heavy machine gun fire, and thought they were returning fire at an enemy forward observer. All of the arrested soldiers were exonerated.

As a former tank platoon leader, I can assure you that tank firing at a target IS a split second decision, done on reflex in response to danger. From target sighting to firing the main gun, you have about 8 seconds to get a round off. If you don't - you're dead. I would have done the same thing.

Declaring a building "off limits" in the middle of a war is a fine thing, but it doesn't always work out.

[paft.livejournal.com]

da: It was dark,

It was during the day, and AFTER most of the heavy fighting. Hardly in the thick of battle.

da: the soldiers were taking heavy machine gun fire, and thought they were returning fire at an enemy forward observer.

There is not a shred of evidence anyone in or near the hotel was firing at them and in fact, most of the shooting had already stopped.

da: As a former tank platoon leader, I can assure you that tank firing at a target IS a split second decision, done on reflex in response to danger. From target sighting to firing the main gun, you have about 8 seconds to get a round off. If you don't - you're dead. I would have done the same thing.

By the soldier who fired the tank's own account, it was not done "on reflex." "I hesitated," he said. He swung his guns towards the hotel and asked his captain's permission to fire. It came ten minutes later. Then he fired.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

You are correct on the time of day; I found numerous conflicting early reports online in that regard. However, according to BOTH military and civilian journalists who were present, "most" of the fighting had NOT stopped in the area of the bridge, where the tanks were located. The hit on the Palestine Hotel was against a suspected forward observer (who would have been directing enemy mortar and rocket fire at U.S. troops), using an anti-personnel round designed to kill people - not destroy buildings.

The gunner requested permission to fire - not unusual given that particular situation - and received permission from the tank commander.

"I have just given the order that under no circumstances is anyone to shoot at the Palestine Hotel, even if they are taking fire, even if there is an artillery piece on top of the roof. No one is allowed to shoot at the Palestine Hotel again." This statement by the Captain's superior officer (who was not himself under fire) is bullshit by someone trying to cover their own ass after the fact. In a battle, tanks are vulnerable to rocket and mortar fire SPECIFICALLY directed by enemy forward observers.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I had been in that situation, I would have fired to protect my men - and suggested to the Colonel that he go get skull-f**ked. I would have been subsequently arrested, as were the soldiers involved, and then released, as they were. It was a bad outcome, and I would have felt as bad as the Captain did, but he still made the correct decision under the circumstances.

I don't see that much similarity between this and the video of the helicopter attack on the wounded man; in that case, I agree with your assessment. There is no excuse for killing a wounded person who clearly poses no threat.

[paft.livejournal.com]

da: II said it before, and I'll say it again. If I had been in that situation, I would have fired to protect my men - and suggested to the Colonel that he go get skull-f**ked. I would have been subsequently arrested, as were the soldiers involved, and then released, as they were.

Which is why so many of us civilians consider military "justice" a revolting joke.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

"...so many of us civilians..."

...because you know nothing about the military, and you are anti-military to begin with.

[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?

[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

[paft.livejournal.com]

da: 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.

But that's beside the point. You cited this as though whether or not it was dark made a difference to you. In fact, it did not. So why offer it as an argument?

da: As for the "split second" and "reflex" issues...

Again, you cited this as if that made a difference to you. It didn't.

So why offer it as an argument?

da: The senior officer's 'no fire' comment: "even if there is an artillery piece on the roof" was asinine.

Except, well, there WASN'T "an artillery piece on the roof" now, was there?

What's "stereotypical" here is the little minuet we just performed, in which you threw out a couple of arguments hoping they would shut me up. When they didn't work, just went and told me another one, that being that as someone not in the military, I have no business questioning military actions, even if it involved soldier killing innocent civilians by disobeying a direct order for a superior.

THAT'S why we non-military types tend to listen to rationalizations from the military about "collateral damage" with some skepticism. It's the same reason non-Police listen to rationalizations about police brutality with skepticism, non-physicians listen to doctor's rationalizations about malpractice with skepticism, etc. etc. Quite frequently the "explanations" we're offered are so much hooey intended to cover up the ugly fact that the explainer considers any "outsider" criticizing a groups policies unacceptable. "Some people just need to get beaten up! Civilians don't get that!" I once heard a cop explain when his earlier excuses involving an especially egregious case of brutality didn't pan out.

Soooo, the bit about it being dark didn't work. The bit about a split second decision didn't work. They were hooey anyway, offered because you know as well as I do that your base argument -- that the tank gunner should have fired on the hotel no matter what those silly superior officers were telling him about not doing it -- isn't a very good one. Or very convincing.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I explained my position on the event; you offered your opinion. The incident was investigated and those involved exonerated. Your continued argument is predicated on the erroneous assumption that everything 'official' is a cover-up. There have been numerous cases of the UCMJ sending people to the stockade when guilt is proven. Military justice is much harsher than our civilian body of law. As for me 'shutting you up', I have no illusions about the possibility of that, and I'm not that interested. Have a nice day.

[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.