A question about viewing the innocent casualties in Iraq.

[TallBill]

I'm going with the fact that we are already here, and not pulling out at the moment, so please don't reply with "we shouldn't be there" because that simply isn't happening at the moment.

Anyways, follow this scenario. In the US, someone fires a weapon at a police officer and the officer fires back to defend himself but misses his intended target. He strikes a random innocent person and kills them. According to the law, the person that shot at the police officer is ultimately responsible for the murder of the innocent bystander.

So over here in Iraq, if someone ambushes a US convoy from multiple buildings, obviously the convoy is going to return fire. If they wipe out the attackers as well as killing 10 innocent civilians, who is ultimately responsible? I think that its fairly obvious that it would be the insurgants fault.

Now I'm not talking about just going out and randomly killing or attacking an Iraqi civilian without any provocation. Thats cut and dry murder, and the corresponding individuals should be punished as such. But why does the media pin the loss of innocent life on our side? Nobody would have died if we werren't defending ourselves? I'm not saying that its a great thing to kill innocents.

And lastly, yes I am in Iraq. I've been here for 7 months and seen almost zero "combat". I've avoided trouble out of complete randomness.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I'm going with the fact that we are already here, and not pulling out at the moment, so please don't reply with "we shouldn't be there" because that simply isn't happening at the moment.

Anyways, follow this scenario. In the US, someone fires a weapon at a police officer and the officer fires back to defend himself but misses his intended target. He strikes a random innocent person and kills them. According to the law, the person that shot at the police officer is ultimately responsible for the murder of the innocent bystander.

So over here in Iraq, if someone ambushes a US convoy from multiple buildings, obviously the convoy is going to return fire. If they wipe out the attackers as well as killing 10 innocent civilians, who is ultimately responsible? I think that its fairly obvious that it would be the insurgants fault.

Now I'm not talking about just going out and randomly killing or attacking an Iraqi civilian without any provocation. Thats cut and dry murder, and the corresponding individuals should be punished as such. But why does the media pin the loss of innocent life on our side? Nobody would have died if we werren't defending ourselves? I'm not saying that its a great thing to kill innocents.

And lastly, yes I am in Iraq. I've been here for 7 months and seen almost zero "combat". I've avoided trouble out of complete randomness.

Huh?

 

[Vonkhan]

Maj. Gen. Frank H. Kearney III, head of Special Operations Command Central, also said there is no evidence that the Marine Special Operations platoon came under small-arms fire after the bombing, although the Marines reported taking enemy fire and seeing people with weapons. The troops continued shooting at perceived threats as they traveled miles from the site of the March 4 attack, he said. They hit several vehicles, killing at least 10 people and wounding 33, among them children and elderly villagers.


... "We found . . . no brass that we can confirm that small-arms fire came at them," Kearney said


The military investigation found direct evidence, such as broken glass, showing that the Marines kept firing for about three miles as they left the ambush site in a convoy, Kearney said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18114214/


Now, compare that situation to one involving cops. Imagine, if you will, cops driving for atleast 3 miles discharging their weapons at percieved threats. Make sense?

Don't compare apples to oranges

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Vonkhan
Maj. Gen. Frank H. Kearney III, head of Special Operations Command Central, also said there is no evidence that the Marine Special Operations platoon came under small-arms fire after the bombing, although the Marines reported taking enemy fire and seeing people with weapons. The troops continued shooting at perceived threats as they traveled miles from the site of the March 4 attack, he said. They hit several vehicles, killing at least 10 people and wounding 33, among them children and elderly villagers.


... "We found . . . no brass that we can confirm that small-arms fire came at them," Kearney said


The military investigation found direct evidence, such as broken glass, showing that the Marines kept firing for about three miles as they left the ambush site in a convoy, Kearney said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18114214/


Now, compare that situation to one involving cops. Imagine, if you will, cops driving for atleast 3 miles discharging their weapons at percieved threats. Make sense?

Don't compare apples to oranges

The story that you are referring to is a bunch of Marines under investitgation for wrong-doing, which has nothing to do with what I posted. A cop driving for 3 miles and shooting would get investigated as well.

You made the assumption I guess that my post was referring to this, but it wasn't at all.

 

[Vonkhan]

It would come down to ROE, pretty sure you know what that is

1. Do u know where the fire is coming from?
2. Are there are any visible weapons?
3. Do you have any targets?
4. Will direct / supression fire cause civilian casualties?
5. How effective is the enemy fire?
6. Is CaS an option?

COIN ops are hard, and from what I've read more and more troops are getting pushed out with inadequate training, let alone COIN training.

 

[Lemon law]

To TallBill,

Thank you for weighing in as a person in Iraq. For some one like me, the ultimate act of keyboard courage and 2020 hindsight is quite different than someone like you who may suddenly find they find the combat situation they have been lucky enough to avoid up until now.

Its one thing to memorize the rules of engagement and quite another to correctly apply them while under fire. Especially when some buddy right next to you has paid the ultimate bloody forfeit. Raw emotion can instantly cloud all judgment.

But still I would advise you to lose any notion that if some insurgent shoots at you and totally innocent Iraqi civilians end up dead as a result, the public blame will fall on the insurgent. It simply is not how international law works, its not how Iraqi public perception works, and its perceptions like that that are hurting the hell out of Iraqi civilian support of our occupation. You also have to remember that the Iraqi civilian has been caught in the cross fire between insurgents and US troops for four years now. And they are way past terrorized by now.

 

[1EZduzit]

Your in a tough spot and I feel for you and hope you don't get into a situation where you have to decide what constitutes a reasonable response.

As a US soldier you represent the American people so what you do reflects on us all. You have the right to defend youir self. More then that, it's your duty to defend your self and your fellow soldiers, just do your best to do it honorably and it will be OK.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I'm going with the fact that we are already here, and not pulling out at the moment, so please don't reply with "we shouldn't be there" because that simply isn't happening at the moment.

Anyways, follow this scenario. In the US, someone fires a weapon at a police officer and the officer fires back to defend himself but misses his intended target. He strikes a random innocent person and kills them. According to the law, the person that shot at the police officer is ultimately responsible for the murder of the innocent bystander.

So over here in Iraq, if someone ambushes a US convoy from multiple buildings, obviously the convoy is going to return fire. If they wipe out the attackers as well as killing 10 innocent civilians, who is ultimately responsible? I think that its fairly obvious that it would be the insurgants fault.

Now I'm not talking about just going out and randomly killing or attacking an Iraqi civilian without any provocation. Thats cut and dry murder, and the corresponding individuals should be punished as such. But why does the media pin the loss of innocent life on our side? Nobody would have died if we werren't defending ourselves? I'm not saying that its a great thing to kill innocents.

And lastly, yes I am in Iraq. I've been here for 7 months and seen almost zero "combat". I've avoided trouble out of complete randomness.

Why don't you just point out precisely the incident you're referring to instead of beating around the Bush?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TallBill
I'm going with the fact that we are already here, and not pulling out at the moment, so please don't reply with "we shouldn't be there" because that simply isn't happening at the moment.

Anyways, follow this scenario. In the US, someone fires a weapon at a police officer and the officer fires back to defend himself but misses his intended target. He strikes a random innocent person and kills them. According to the law, the person that shot at the police officer is ultimately responsible for the murder of the innocent bystander.

So over here in Iraq, if someone ambushes a US convoy from multiple buildings, obviously the convoy is going to return fire. If they wipe out the attackers as well as killing 10 innocent civilians, who is ultimately responsible? I think that its fairly obvious that it would be the insurgants fault.

Now I'm not talking about just going out and randomly killing or attacking an Iraqi civilian without any provocation. Thats cut and dry murder, and the corresponding individuals should be punished as such. But why does the media pin the loss of innocent life on our side? Nobody would have died if we werren't defending ourselves? I'm not saying that its a great thing to kill innocents.

And lastly, yes I am in Iraq. I've been here for 7 months and seen almost zero "combat". I've avoided trouble out of complete randomness.

Why don't you just point out precisely the incident you're referring to instead of beating around the Bush?

Perhaps he cant for security reasons? Or are you one of those that believes most everything that happens on the ground should be made availble for the world to see? Im sure we dont even hear a quarter of what goes on - good or bad.

To TallBill: Thank you sir for your service. I sincerely hope all the negitivity here at home about the war doesnt demoralize you guys. I think it's very telling about your comment of 7 months with almost no combat. I have a feeling things are better than the media leads us to believe.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Why don't you just point out precisely the incident you're referring to instead of beating around the Bush?

No particular incident. It was just a thought.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Why don't you just point out precisely the incident you're referring to instead of beating around the Bush?

No particular incident. It was just a thought.

Oh, all right. Let me move on to my next point - what makes you think that the laws governing us here in the US are the equivalent to the rules and regulations of the US military during the occupation of a foreign country?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Why don't you just point out precisely the incident you're referring to instead of beating around the Bush?

No particular incident. It was just a thought.

Oh, all right. Let me move on to my next point - what makes you think that the laws governing us here in the US are the equivalent to the rules and regulations of the US military during the occupation of a foreign country?

I'm 100% certain that our laws dont matter here. Never said that they do. But when you see civilian casualties in a US newspaper in an article about getting troops out of here, shouldn't they be shunning the Iraqi people responsible for those casualties, and not us? (minus the rare cases of murders)

Btw, when you invade and take over a country, you kind of do get to set up rules and regulations. Hence the "occupation" of a foreign country.

 

[nqbus]

Collateral damage is an inevitability of armed conflict. It is hard for those to grasp this isn't neat and tidy, force on force warfare they all have come accustomed to watching the US dominate.

The Joint Chiefs have through executive orders defined very clearly what is acceptable (in a sense of risk parameters) and what takes a higher level of approval with regard to CDE. I can tell you it is an understatement to say it is one of DoD's supreme concerns in the Iraqi theater of operations.

NQBUS

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Why don't you just point out precisely the incident you're referring to instead of beating around the Bush?

No particular incident. It was just a thought.

Oh, all right. Let me move on to my next point - what makes you think that the laws governing us here in the US are the equivalent to the rules and regulations of the US military during the occupation of a foreign country?

I'm 100% certain that our laws dont matter here. Never said that they do. But when you see civilian casualties in a US newspaper in an article about getting troops out of here, shouldn't they be shunning the Iraqi people responsible for those casualties, and not us? (minus the rare cases of murders)

Btw, when you invade and take over a country, you kind of do get to set up rules and regulations. Hence the "occupation" of a foreign country.

So are we "occupying" them or "liberating" them?

 

[Lemon law]

To TallBill---who notes--Btw, when you invade and take over a country, you kind of do get to set up rules and regulations. Hence the "occupation" of a foreign country.

I would point out that international law set up many of the rules---with the occupying force then free to set up sub rules in that larger framework.

But in a larger context----its is right to thank our troops for their sacrifice of even being there---so thank you.

 

[dmcowen674]

Thanks for your service Bill. :thumbsup:

Sorry you are there to begin with on false pretenses

Hopefully we will have more deserving leadership of your services after Nov 2008.

 

[BlancoNino]

Civilians die in modern warfare. It's terrible and I wish it didn't happen, but it's just the way things are.

 

[StageLeft]

If I'm in a crowd of people and shoot at a cop and his response is to call in an airstrike and scorch the entire crowd, is that my fault?

Civilians die in modern warfare.

They always have, some just don't realize it. A big part of WWII was battering the other side's civilian side. In actual fact it makes perfect strategic AND moral sense to do it. Afterall, the military is merely a tool used by the civilians, right? Allies and Axis both committed "terrorist" (if we go by the current definition) acts. What was Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It's silly throwing demagogic terms onto things...terrorist, insurgent. Let's just call them what they are: enemies, who cares what methods they use, we're only better because we have options.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
If I'm in a crowd of people and shoot at a cop and his response is to call in an airstrike and scorch the entire crowd, is that my fault?

Civilians die in modern warfare.

They always have, some just don't realize it. A big part of WWII was battering the other side's civilian side. In actual fact it makes perfect strategic AND moral sense to do it. Afterall, the military is merely a tool used by the civilians, right? Allies and Axis both committed "terrorist" (if we go by the current definition) acts. What was Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It's silly throwing demagogic terms onto things...terrorist, insurgent. Let's just call them what they are: enemies, who cares what methods they use, we're only better because we have options.

but there is a difference when you are on a peace keeping mission and then in a war

 

[jackschmittusa]

I have said for some time that we are not currently at war in Iraq. We are in a role of providing security, police services.

Since you are comparing actions atr home and over there, consider this. Would you condone the police in NYC calling in an airstrike on a residential neighborhood? Who would bear the responsibility for any collateral damage? Police in Philly once dropped a bomb from a helo on a house full of bad guys that burned down several homes and killed innocent people. Most were outraged.

I admit that civilian casualties are inevitable. I do question where we have put the bar for how many and how frequently we see them.

There is a tradeoff in this kind of fighting. A bomb from an F-16, or a missile from a chopper, offers a smaller chance of casualties for you and your fellow G.I.s, but radically increases the chances of civilian casualties. Direct fire from standard infantry weapons at properly identified targets minimizes civilian casualties, but puts our guys at greater risk by making them be closer to the action and subject to return fire.

I wish I could say with any moral certainty where the dividing line should be, but I am not that wise. I tend to believe that pushing the line too far in the way of civilian casualties is counter-productive though, and wonder if that is where we are.

Good luck on the rest of your tour.

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I'm going with the fact that we are already here, and not pulling out at the moment, so please don't reply with "we shouldn't be there" because that simply isn't happening at the moment.

Anyways, follow this scenario. In the US, someone fires a weapon at a police officer and the officer fires back to defend himself but misses his intended target. He strikes a random innocent person and kills them. According to the law, the person that shot at the police officer is ultimately responsible for the murder of the innocent bystander.

So over here in Iraq, if someone ambushes a US convoy from multiple buildings, obviously the convoy is going to return fire. If they wipe out the attackers as well as killing 10 innocent civilians, who is ultimately responsible? I think that its fairly obvious that it would be the insurgants fault.

Now I'm not talking about just going out and randomly killing or attacking an Iraqi civilian without any provocation. Thats cut and dry murder, and the corresponding individuals should be punished as such. But why does the media pin the loss of innocent life on our side? Nobody would have died if we werren't defending ourselves? I'm not saying that its a great thing to kill innocents.

And lastly, yes I am in Iraq. I've been here for 7 months and seen almost zero "combat". I've avoided trouble out of complete randomness.

Because the US's invasion of Iraq has thrown that country into chaos. If the US had not invaded Iraq would that innocent bystander had been killed?