By entering a conversation that is so grave with so much at stake, I think it is very important that we do so with our proper role in mind. As a progressive civilian with no military experience and little knowledge of military law and procedure, my thoughts and comments are very limited in some ways but perhaps useful in others. I do not know what it is like to be in combat, and I don't plan on knowing. But, after all, as an American the US military is meant to represent me and as a voter the military is also meant to be controlled by me (even if it is several times removed). I guess that my lack of experience and my unease with the content of the video will have some people who read this calling me a “troop hater” and I guess that’s fine but know that I am not. I won't condemn soldiers I don't know based on this clip. But...
With this in mind, I do have some concerns and observations. To risk parroting a column by Glenn Greenwald, I think that important for Americans to realize that this is NOT about the Apache Helicopter crews. The military has defended the actions of the crew, saying that they followed protocol and (technically) did nothing wrong. I have no trouble believing this. A combination of honest mistakes, some less forgivable mistakes, bravado, and unprofessionalism caused the deaths of the men in that video, but I’m not going to condemn any individual soldiers for it. Why?
Because there is a command hierarchy.
Something terrifying did take place in that video. We cannot make the mistake of buying that this was just some bad apples because something has caused this behavior to be the norm. And don’t doubt that it is a norm; you don’t get body counts like this without making a TON of mistakes.
The evidence Glenn Greenwald collects makes this issue pretty clear:
The more I think about it, the more astounding I find it that there could even be a debate over the fact that incidents like the one depicted on this video are exceedingly common, and not at all rare (let alone that vile "He-Hates-The-Troops!" smears would be directed at those who point out this basic truth). Aside from the mountains of evidence making it undeniably clear how common such events are -- (a) the enormous number of dead civilians in Iraq; (b) the countless incidents where the U.S. military killed large numbers of civilians, lied about it, and then was forced by investigations to admit the truth; (c) the definitive statements from war correspondents and even our own soldiers about how common such incidents are -- just consider what Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of the war in Afghanistan, said not more than a month ago:In a stark assessment of shootings of locals by US troops at checkpoints in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in little-noticed comments last month that during his time as commander there, "We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force . . . . [T]o my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it."
So if we can’t chalk it up to some bad apples, then what? Is this just the way war has to be, and the Pentagon has been doing us civilians a favor by keeping the evidence away from us? There are no doubt many that believe this, and some might even be proud of it, as if this proves the existence of an essentially savage and unapologetic masculinity that roams free when unchecked by civilian society. This would be the “woman and gays weaken the military” and “rape in war is inevitable, give our boys a break” crowd.
But war doesn’t exist in a space where law, society, and culture cease to matter. The behavior of soldiers as identified in trends and patterns is as much a product of context as that of any other behavior. This is why the bad apple excuse is so dangerous—it removes responsibility from those who help to create and maintain a context which promotes this behavior.
One of the first things that strikes me when I watch this video, and I know I’m not alone in this, is how much this video is reminiscent of an online death match of a new war simulator. Profanity, banter, joking around, even cynically laughing at a body being run over--these are not signs of the professional military I had believed we had. Who decided that it was proper behavior to use official channels to curse and goad each other into firing? It was not these troops--it was those higher in the command structure. No wonder they are worried about integrating the military with LGBTs—these men are acting more like cowboys then the most disciplined army in the world. I always thought that soldiers follow orders, and so was confused when people said that gays would be rejected by their peers. Isn't it enough to order someone to serve along side someone else? I see now that discipline has been laxed to the point where commanders don't necessarily have the clout to demand their soldiers do as their told. And obviously discipline does not come from the bottom up.
Another upsetting thing is that permission to fire was gained extremely easily. First of all the information reported in was exaggerated, but the commander who gave permission seemed to be satisfied with very little reason to shoot. “Uh, we have no personnel east of our position. So, uh, you are free to engage.” How is it that permission to fire can be granted when all that is known is that a) there are armed men and b) no friendlies are nearby? What is even the point of asking for permission if this is all it takes to get it? I can think of any number of disasters that could come from this seeing as the commander does not know who the men are, why they are armed, who is nearby (US supported politicians? Iraqi Police? Children?), or any concept of how valid the information he's getting is.
The actually, real life disaster seems to be that innocent people are getting killed. A lot.
The last comment I have I hesitate to make because I have no idea what it feels like to take a life, or what kind of impact that has on a persons’ personality and mind. But I think that it is important for professional soldiers to have a high degree of reverence for taking life. Take this troubling article that my friend and fellow contributor @kchev sent me. The difference between a butcher and a professional warrior is that a warrior does not kill indiscriminately, for no reason, and without understanding the seriousness of the decision to take someone’s life. Shooting at people like it doesn’t matter makes a soldier too likely to use force when not necessary, or use an unnecessary level of force. And an eagerness to shoot, well, how can it serve either a soldier or justice to train soldiers to have itchy trigger fingers? Now I don’t know if dehumanizing your enemy is the only way to conduct war without going out of your mind, and if it is, then so be it. But the army should still encourage a culture that encourages soldiers to recognize the gravity of their situation and the humanity of their enemy.
I have posted a copy of the video, and included a minute by minute timeline of the events and my reaction to them because there was so many things going on in it worth noting. Please visit Wikileaks.org if you are considering becoming a whistle blower, they do an incredible job and have never outed a source.
TIMELINE:
At 3:19 someone seems to identify Namir Chmagh as a combatant due to his camera strap. This seems to be a legitimate, if very unfortunate, mistake.
At 3:30 is the first instance of profanity, targeted at a supposedly armed combatant.
At 3:45 someone calls in to command a report of “five to six” men armed with AK47s. I count two men who are actually armed plus Namir and his camera.
At 5:50 Command responds, “Uh, we have no personnel east of our position. So, uh, you are free to engage.” This is one of the most troubling moments in the video. Certainly there are more criteria required for engagement then that friendlies are out of the way.
At 4:09 someone identifies a combatant with an RPG. They seem to be talking about a man leaning around the corner of a building. I’ll have to take their word for it and say this was an honest mistake. They go on to say he was trying to shoot. It is striking that permission for engagement was requested and granted before any mention of an RPG. I wonder if the crew saw an RPG simply because they really wanted to.
At 4:24 we have our second incidence of profanity, this time in distress that a combatant is potentially attempting to fire on the Apache crew but that they cannot return fire due to obstructions. Number three happens at 4:34 in mid-sentence by someone who is giving orders.
At 4:51, under much encouragement, the gunner opens fire on a group of eight to ten men, none of whom are paying attention to the Apaches in any way. There is no one in the crowd who is training weapons at the Apache, nothing that even looks like it could be an RPG—in fact, I can see no one who is armed in the crowd. Namir and Saeed Noor-Eldeen are both present. Two seconds later the 30mm rounds hit, but some men have wondered away from the crowd and others have wondered into it, meaning that who was aimed out is not who is killed in the initial burst. This delay between fire and contact is troubling.
At 5:11 someone says, “We see two birds and we’re still fire,” which I guess means there are two people trying to run away that the Apaches will continue firing at. One of the “birds” seems to be Saaed.
At 5:17 someone, later named “Kyle” who I think is the gunner, has a faux moment of daydreaming and there is sporadic fire at Saaed. This is greeted with banter and profanity instance the fourth.
At 5:39 someone identifies that a few of the men are dead, and then someone else claims there are about eight. Remember that they called in five to six armed men.
At 5:44 the wounded man who attempts to crawl away is first identified. This is worth listening to just because of the tone of the identifier’s voice. Some equivocation follows as to what the wounded man actually is and leads to further fire which seems to come from the other Apache.
At 6:15, the video is cut and fast forwards. I haven’t watched the long version so I suspect nothing remarkable happens in the interim.
At 6:31, someone makes a very unpleasant remark, “Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards.” This is an example of both unprofessionalism and dehumanization of the enemy. Of course someone responds with, “Nice.”
At 7:00, the Apache’s begin giving coordinates of the bodies to I believe the Bradley column that arrives a little later. This is done with a high degree of professionalism but what could be more bragging is picked up by a mic somewhere during this exchange.
At 7:27, the crawling man is again identified (Wikileaks claims that this is Saeed). It is asserted that he is wounded, but the Bradley’s are encouraged to hurry.
At 7:48, the Apaches agree to cease fire because friendlies are moving into the area.
At 7:58, while trained on the wounded man, a conversation begins as to whether he is armed. It is made clear that he is not—in fact, its interesting to note that no guns at all are visible and haven’t been since the firing began.
At 8:29, who I assume is the gunner of the Apache says, “Come on buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.” I want to be as fair about this as possible and say that this is one comment made by one of the crewmembers, and it is possible that he does not mean he is hoping the man will reach for a gun, but it certainly seems that way. I don’t have to tell you that hoping for an excuse to kill a wounded man that you can very clearly see trying to crawl through the dirt is extremely unprofessional and shows a desire to create unnecessary death. I expect way more from our servicemen then that.
At 9:02, a van arrives. Men from the van try to pick up the bodies. There is concern that the men will also retrieve weapons, though this never appears to happen, and none of the Apache crew members claims to see it.
At 9:21 someone asks for permission to begin shooting at the van. The process for asking for permission from command begins.
At 9:38 someone says, “Come on, let us shoot!” There is no concern that this van or these men are a threat to the chopper and get there is a great deal of eagerness to open fire.
At 9:59, while someone is requesting permission to shoot due to the bodies being placed in the van, someone mutters, “fuck” because the window of opportunity to shoot is closing.
At 10:10, after command grants permission with no questions asked, shots are fired from both Apaches. Two men try to run to cover but are gunned down. The van is hit several times as well.
At 10:43 the Apache whose vantage we have looses the ability to fire. The other chopper is encouraged to continue firing, and does.
At 12:08, someone brags, “oh yeah, look at that. Right through the windshield!” while training on the destroyed van. This is met with a laugh.
Wikileaks informs us (via a first hand account) that the Bradleys were ordered NOT to drive in because they would likely run over a body. Of course, this is what happens. At 12:52, someone remarks that this has just taken place. There is laughing from several parties.
At 15:29, after discovering that there are two wounded children alive in the van, someone blames the victims for this, “Well it’s their fault from bringing their kids into a battle.” Someone else agrees, “That’s right.” I guess it would be difficult to take responsibility for hurting two children.
At 15:59 Wikileaks makes it painfully clear that two children were visible in the window the van that was facing the Apache. Perhaps if the soldiers had been more invested in gathering information then they were excited to begin shooting again then they would have noticed.
This concludes my minute by minute analysis.
