9 ms·

Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

361 points by mawhidby 16y ago

TallGuyShort 16y ago
If it was possible to give a standing ovation to someone via Hacker News, I would. This is perhaps the most sincere, mature, well-thought out commentary I've ever read on anything to do with the Iraq war. Spoken like a true soldier. edit: to clarify what I mean, I grew up shortly after there was a civil war in my country - and as such I really appreciate soldiers who, having fought on soil that was not their own, are able to recognize the tragedy that occurs on both sides, regardless of politics.
- stse 16y ago
  I think it came across quite clearly in the video that the guys on the ground were a lot more attached to the situation. You could here it in their voices. An important part of this story that sadly won't get much attention is how badly the soldiers are treated. The sergeant could potentially have saved this guy a lot of trouble by letting him see a "mental health person".
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Key point is that it wasn't the guys on the ground but some chopper jockey that caused the bigger part of the carnage.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- scott_s 16y ago
  You acknowledge that it's minor, then draw major conclusions from it (sloppy journalism). It's worth keeping in mind that the hospital's record of her age may be a guess from whoever admitted her. But it doesn't change the point anyone is making, on either side.
roboneal 16y ago
The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building. A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.
- pquerna 16y ago
  agree, I support their release of the video, but as the Solider discusses, exposing the average human to the terribleness of War is all you need to do, not overblow with commentary.
  - joelhaus 16y ago
    They surely had the right to release the video; however, the manner in which they did it will lead many to question the credibility Wikileaks once enjoyed. Until watching The Pacific mini-series (currently on HBO), I did not fully appreciate the saying "war is hell". Having never experienced war, I can't fully vouch for the show's authenticity, but if it's even close, you've gotta feel for any human being put in these circumstances.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      The people that are most gung-ho about war are usually the ones that have not experienced it or any fall out from one in any way. Figure the US reaction on 9/11, 3500 civilians killed (unjustly, no mistake) vs the US reaction on tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed. It's just too far away from home, and this video did one service, it rammed home just how ugly that war really is.
- pg 16y ago
  Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.
  - 16y ago
krschultz 16y ago
Here is a solid collection of reactions to the video from military blogs. They were a bit after the actual WikiLeaks video hit HN so I never posted the link here, but it might be interesting to those looking for the insightful view of people with relevant knowledge and experience. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-military-blogs-to-the-wikileaks-video/ http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-milita...
ErrantX 16y ago
You know what I find most depressing? That Gizmodo got 20 Million page views in a day for their iPhone 4G scoop. I somehow doubt this will get as much coverage. Shame.
techiferous 16y ago
[EDIT: The following comment is off-topic; therefore I wish I hadn't posted it. I didn't delete it, though, so that you could make sense of the comment responses to it. My apologies for being off-topic.] I'm about to express an unpopular opinion, so I'm expecting lots of downvotes, but at least I believe that what I'm expressing is rational and from the heart. Regarding this whole WikiLeaks incident, I felt bad for both the Iraqi casualties and the soldiers. If the soldiers had full knowledge that they were firing on a family that was simply trying to help the wounded, you know that they wouldn't have fired. They fired because they assumed there were insurgents in the van. They made a mistake. What really bothers me is that so many people get outraged over the soldiers' mistake, but so many people gladly eat factory-farmed meat. Animals in factory farms are subject to a very painful existence before their lives are cut short. Yet most people don't care. It's hard for me to stomach the criticism that the soldiers get knowing that many of the people who criticize these soldiers will then go eat a burger, fully and willfully participating in a system that creates unnecessary suffering and carnage to innocent beings. In other words, our priorities as a society are out of whack. If we really cared about violence, there is something that each of us can do right away: go vegetarian. It's easier to criticize the violence of soldiers than take action ourselves to live a less violent life. Let the downvoting begin. :/
- jonpaul 16y ago
  Ya dude, that's taking it too far. You can't compare the loss of human life to ANYTHING else. I understand your position, but stating it detracts from what's really important - the unnecessary loss of human life.
  - techiferous 16y ago
    "You can't compare the loss of human life to ANYTHING else." I'm not equating animals and humans. I would be happy if I could get at least one person to start questioning. We don't have enough philosophers nowadays. We have all "picked up" from society that we can treat animals as objects and that violence against animals isn't a big deal. I just wish I would live in a world where people would question deeply these values and assumptions instead of just "picking up" what people around us believe.
adame944 16y ago
A key line: "I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. … You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. …"
- plinkplonk 16y ago
  I thought this was the key line "And where the soldier said [in the video], “Well, you shouldn’t take your kids to battle.” Well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids. There’s no front lines here. This is urban combat and we’re taking the war to children and women and innocents." and "I don’t think that [the] big picture is whether or not [the Iraqis who were killed] had weapons. I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us." I admire this guy. He seems to take responsibility vs ducking it or explaining it away.
  - netcan 16y ago
    I disagree. This is about the specifics of what happened here. It's about whether or not Americans in Iraq are living up to a high enough standard of ethical warfare in their day-to-day. These conversations decay into "big picture" when people get tired. It's not the point though. The point of rules of war, engagement or otherwise is 'while there is war..'
F_J_H 16y ago
My wife and I had a baby girl 5 weeks ago; I never imagined I could feel as much love for someone or something as I feel for her. I easily would give my life for her. Having just experience my daughter’s birth, the soldier’s description in this article of the young girl in the shot up van and the sound of her cry cut me to the core. I can’t imagine what he is going through and the torment he must feel when that memory flashes through his mind. The journalists will write, the commentators will comment, and the analysts will analyze. There are so many angles to consider, this point and that point. I realize that. But in the end, all I can think to do is to simply grieve for this situation and for the many others just like it that I am sure exist. I am also profoundly thankful that I was born where I was, and live where I do. Peace is truly priceless.
- david927 16y ago
  Were you born in America? Because America did this. They went to Iraq and did this. all I can think to do is to simply grieve for this situation No, you can ask that America leaves Iraq. If it was your daughter, you wouldn't just say, "I guess all I can do is grieve". Right? Look at her. I have a daughter too. You can do a fuck lot more than that. Let's get the US out of Iraq and back home. NOW.
  - F_J_H 16y ago
    I'm Canadian actually. More power to you bud. You are preaching to the choir.
mawhidby 16y ago
For reference, the Wikileaks video can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik The HN thread on the original video can be found at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1241879 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1241879
ck2 16y ago
The innocent people who were killed will never get to talk to the media or their family and friends. Imagine if a foreign military had been flying around your city with high powered weapons looking for insurgents among civilians and were making deadly assumptions and saying things like they did in that video If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry. Why are people attacking Wikileaks when the guilty had months to put together a calm, cooling anti-story for the media in hindsight? Things like this video probably happened dozens if not hundreds of times over there, so you want to find an excuse for this one? What about all the others?
- kscaldef 16y ago
  > If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry I'm not sure why you say that. I didn't think "war was cut and dry" prior to this video being released. Did you?
  - ck2 16y ago
    There seems to be no shortage of people rationalizing this behavior and relieved to have an explanation, implying it could be condoned. Just like the all too common abuse of power by police, the end never justifies the means and can never be condoned. Those with power have a much higher responsibility, not less with justifications like "that's just how war is".
    - delluminatus 16y ago
      I don't think anyone is condoning this behavior (certainly not the soldier in the interview). However, I should mention that police abusing power is a little different, since they aren't in a WAR ZONE, having been shot at minutes before. Whether or not the soldiers erred (and they did) is not the question here. The question is, why did WikiLeaks present it in the way they did? People are attacking WikiLeaks because they feel betrayed by the organization. I know I do. What was supposed to be an impartial mediator of classified data turned out to be a sensationalist mediator of classified data presented with a spin that would make Fox News proud. In closing: Wikileaks exposed us to civilian murder. This would normally by fine. However, they also distorted the facts and the context of the event to support a sensationalist publicity routine. That is the problem here.
brlewis 16y ago
Psychologically, it's very difficult to question a war you're fighting. Believing it's worthwhile is a coping mechanism. If this fellow can be strong enough to question it, what excuse do the rest of us have? Quote: I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us.
sunchild 16y ago
"There’s no easy way to kill somebody. You don’t just take somebody’s life and then go on about your business for the rest of the day. That stays with you. And cracking jokes is a way of pushing that stuff down. That’s why so many soldiers come back home and they’re no longer in the situations where they have other things to think about or other people to joke about what happened … and they explode." I think a lot of people who jumped to conclusions about this video should take these words to heart.
- ck2 16y ago
  If you are an American taxpayer, you also pay for their psychiatry and medication for the rest of their lives too when they come back, even if they don't "explode". I have a friend who was drafted into Vietnam, whose airport was overrun and he had to defend himself with a handgun. To this day he still has serious mental issues from being put in a position to have to kill people face-to-face. Many soldiers in Iraq were just ignorant kids who rushed to sign up after 9/11 with their misguided thinking they'd go to war against those who did that. Instead they were sent to a manufactured war in Iraq. Doesn't justify this behavior in the least but it does give some insight.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  That's somewhat contrary to the voice over from the guy flying the chopper.
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    I'm afraid you've got it the wrong way round. The detached non-emotional tone adopted in the recording doesn't contradict the assertion that fighters may adopt a detached attitude during conflict as a way of pushing down emotions.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      He's not detached and non-emotional, to me he sounds eager to kill, definitely not without emotion.
dpatru 16y ago
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that the video was released without context that would justify the American military action. If the American military had wanted context, they should have released the video themselves with additional context. Instead, the American military suppressed the video. They should not complain that the video is now being released without context. Americans are in Iraq as foreign occupiers. Americans invaded under false pretenses a country that had not attacked them first. The burden of proof is on the Americans, not Wikileaks, to justify American killing of Iraqi innocents.
- Maktab 16y ago
  Aside from the larger issue being debated here, I think you're guilty of operating under an outdated assumption. The US forces in Iraq have not been 'foreign occupiers' for quite some time. They are there at the will of the democratically elected Iraqi government in a deployment sanctioned by the UN Security Council. It should be possible to acknowledge this fact even while disagreeing with the presence of US forces in Iraq. Nor do I believe the US military had an obligation to release the video, although they did have an obligation to conduct a serious and thorough investigation and make the results and key aspects of it public. I think it's clear this didn't happen, but it did not justify Wikileaks's heavily edited and flawed version of the video.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > They are there at the will of the democratically elected Iraqi government in a deployment sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Please. The alternative is a total power vacuum, you can't really say that they're there because the locals invited them in.
    - Maktab 16y ago
      I just pointed out that calling them 'foreign occupiers' is not accurate. Although as a practical matter it's difficult for the Iraqis to boot the US out because of the power vacuum that would result, that does not change the fact that under the current legal situation the US forces are there at the behest of the Iraqi government and that they would have to leave if requested to do so. For what it's worth I did not claim that the locals invited them in. That one's a straw man.
rdl 16y ago
I was in Iraq when this happened. It is a fairly representative incident -- the only remarkable thing is that Reuters people were involved. There have been plenty of within-rules shootings which led to the deaths of civilians, but there were also plenty of situations where the rules hindered successful operations or even self-defense. It's a balancing act, and it's war, so it's choosing among least-bad options, with imperfect information. It's fair to criticize the Rules of Engagement as being overly hostile to civilians, and counter to the goal of winning and leaving. In Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal actually stopped a lot of effective tactics (night raids, airstikes, etc.) because they were counter to the strategy of winning the war by winning the populace. In Iraq, there were periods of intense kinetic violence (such as going into Baquba, Sadr city, Fallujah) combined with periods of reconstruction and trying to win the populace. I actually knew Julian Assange from running a remailer long before wikileaks, and he seemed like a pretty decent guy. I'm not sure what happened. I'm betting he/they felt marginalized and were trying to use this to raise their own profile. I support the general idea of transparency through third parties publishing information, but I can't support wikileaks.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  The thing you have to wonder about though is if this would have gotten nearly as much airplay as it did if it weren't for those reuters people there.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
david927 16y ago
Weapons of Mass Destruction were never found. That was the causus belli. That was the reason for the invasion, and they don't exist. Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal basis. Anyone. I dare you. The problem is that you can't. And so now we're talking about kids with glass in their eyes and bullets in their bodies, and soldiers with psychological scars that won't heal. Yet not a single person can give a valid, legal reason for it all. Yet no one will take two minutes to email their representative and say, "Stop it."
- ErrantX 16y ago
  They are still there because, very simply, it has gone too far now. Pulling out would be carnage - and I suspect, sadly, it has got to the stage where the US will have to see it through to conclusion (probably years away).
  - Estragon 16y ago
    Pulling out would be carnage What are you talking about? As this video shows, it's already carnage.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      There is carnage in the video, agreed. And, yes, Iraq isn't the most hospitable of places. The problem is that as it stands I don't think the Iraqi army could cope with the insurgents alone - and it seems naive to assume that if the US leaves the insurgency will stop... So perhaps "a lot more carnage" is better.
      - david927 16y ago
        That's what the US government says. The problem is, how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? The US can leave. In fact, for legal reasons, it has to. It was never authorized to invade; staying, under any premise, is unacceptable. If there's "more carnage", that's unfortunate. But the US will never leave. Not because of carnage, but because of the fortune in oil under these poor people's feet: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_oil_is_changing_the_world http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_o...
parasctr 16y ago
The war was based on lies. If it takes lies to stop it so be it.
pauljonas 16y ago
http://www.truthout.org/soldiers-wikileaks-company-apologize-violence58714 http://www.truthout.org/soldiers-wikileaks-company-apologize... >We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region. >We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us. >More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny. >Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the values of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.

361 points by mawhidby 16y ago

If it was possible to give a standing ovation to someone via Hacker News, I would. This is perhaps the most sincere, mature, well-thought out commentary I've ever read on anything to do with the Iraq war. Spoken like a true soldier. edit: to clarify what I mean, I grew up shortly after there was a civil war in my country - and as such I really appreciate soldiers who, having fought on soil that was not their own, are able to recognize the tragedy that occurs on both sides, regardless of politics.

stse 16y ago
I think it came across quite clearly in the video that the guys on the ground were a lot more attached to the situation. You could here it in their voices. An important part of this story that sadly won't get much attention is how badly the soldiers are treated. The sergeant could potentially have saved this guy a lot of trouble by letting him see a "mental health person".
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Key point is that it wasn't the guys on the ground but some chopper jockey that caused the bigger part of the carnage.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

scott_s 16y ago
You acknowledge that it's minor, then draw major conclusions from it (sloppy journalism). It's worth keeping in mind that the hospital's record of her age may be a guess from whoever admitted her. But it doesn't change the point anyone is making, on either side.

roboneal 16y ago

The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building. A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.

pquerna 16y ago
agree, I support their release of the video, but as the Solider discusses, exposing the average human to the terribleness of War is all you need to do, not overblow with commentary.
- joelhaus 16y ago
  They surely had the right to release the video; however, the manner in which they did it will lead many to question the credibility Wikileaks once enjoyed. Until watching The Pacific mini-series (currently on HBO), I did not fully appreciate the saying "war is hell". Having never experienced war, I can't fully vouch for the show's authenticity, but if it's even close, you've gotta feel for any human being put in these circumstances.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    The people that are most gung-ho about war are usually the ones that have not experienced it or any fall out from one in any way. Figure the US reaction on 9/11, 3500 civilians killed (unjustly, no mistake) vs the US reaction on tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed. It's just too far away from home, and this video did one service, it rammed home just how ugly that war really is.
pg 16y ago
Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.
- 16y ago

krschultz 16y ago

Here is a solid collection of reactions to the video from military blogs. They were a bit after the actual WikiLeaks video hit HN so I never posted the link here, but it might be interesting to those looking for the insightful view of people with relevant knowledge and experience. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-military-blogs-to-the-wikileaks-video/ http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-milita...

ErrantX 16y ago

You know what I find most depressing? That Gizmodo got 20 Million page views in a day for their iPhone 4G scoop. I somehow doubt this will get as much coverage. Shame.

techiferous 16y ago

[EDIT: The following comment is off-topic; therefore I wish I hadn't posted it. I didn't delete it, though, so that you could make sense of the comment responses to it. My apologies for being off-topic.] I'm about to express an unpopular opinion, so I'm expecting lots of downvotes, but at least I believe that what I'm expressing is rational and from the heart. Regarding this whole WikiLeaks incident, I felt bad for both the Iraqi casualties and the soldiers. If the soldiers had full knowledge that they were firing on a family that was simply trying to help the wounded, you know that they wouldn't have fired. They fired because they assumed there were insurgents in the van. They made a mistake. What really bothers me is that so many people get outraged over the soldiers' mistake, but so many people gladly eat factory-farmed meat. Animals in factory farms are subject to a very painful existence before their lives are cut short. Yet most people don't care. It's hard for me to stomach the criticism that the soldiers get knowing that many of the people who criticize these soldiers will then go eat a burger, fully and willfully participating in a system that creates unnecessary suffering and carnage to innocent beings. In other words, our priorities as a society are out of whack. If we really cared about violence, there is something that each of us can do right away: go vegetarian. It's easier to criticize the violence of soldiers than take action ourselves to live a less violent life. Let the downvoting begin. :/

jonpaul 16y ago
Ya dude, that's taking it too far. You can't compare the loss of human life to ANYTHING else. I understand your position, but stating it detracts from what's really important - the unnecessary loss of human life.
- techiferous 16y ago
  "You can't compare the loss of human life to ANYTHING else." I'm not equating animals and humans. I would be happy if I could get at least one person to start questioning. We don't have enough philosophers nowadays. We have all "picked up" from society that we can treat animals as objects and that violence against animals isn't a big deal. I just wish I would live in a world where people would question deeply these values and assumptions instead of just "picking up" what people around us believe.

adame944 16y ago

A key line: "I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. … You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. …"

plinkplonk 16y ago
I thought this was the key line "And where the soldier said [in the video], “Well, you shouldn’t take your kids to battle.” Well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids. There’s no front lines here. This is urban combat and we’re taking the war to children and women and innocents." and "I don’t think that [the] big picture is whether or not [the Iraqis who were killed] had weapons. I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us." I admire this guy. He seems to take responsibility vs ducking it or explaining it away.
- netcan 16y ago
  I disagree. This is about the specifics of what happened here. It's about whether or not Americans in Iraq are living up to a high enough standard of ethical warfare in their day-to-day. These conversations decay into "big picture" when people get tired. It's not the point though. The point of rules of war, engagement or otherwise is 'while there is war..'

F_J_H 16y ago

My wife and I had a baby girl 5 weeks ago; I never imagined I could feel as much love for someone or something as I feel for her. I easily would give my life for her. Having just experience my daughter’s birth, the soldier’s description in this article of the young girl in the shot up van and the sound of her cry cut me to the core. I can’t imagine what he is going through and the torment he must feel when that memory flashes through his mind. The journalists will write, the commentators will comment, and the analysts will analyze. There are so many angles to consider, this point and that point. I realize that. But in the end, all I can think to do is to simply grieve for this situation and for the many others just like it that I am sure exist. I am also profoundly thankful that I was born where I was, and live where I do. Peace is truly priceless.

david927 16y ago
Were you born in America? Because America did this. They went to Iraq and did this. all I can think to do is to simply grieve for this situation No, you can ask that America leaves Iraq. If it was your daughter, you wouldn't just say, "I guess all I can do is grieve". Right? Look at her. I have a daughter too. You can do a fuck lot more than that. Let's get the US out of Iraq and back home. NOW.
- F_J_H 16y ago
  I'm Canadian actually. More power to you bud. You are preaching to the choir.

mawhidby 16y ago

For reference, the Wikileaks video can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik The HN thread on the original video can be found at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1241879 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1241879

ck2 16y ago

The innocent people who were killed will never get to talk to the media or their family and friends. Imagine if a foreign military had been flying around your city with high powered weapons looking for insurgents among civilians and were making deadly assumptions and saying things like they did in that video If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry. Why are people attacking Wikileaks when the guilty had months to put together a calm, cooling anti-story for the media in hindsight? Things like this video probably happened dozens if not hundreds of times over there, so you want to find an excuse for this one? What about all the others?

kscaldef 16y ago
> If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry I'm not sure why you say that. I didn't think "war was cut and dry" prior to this video being released. Did you?
- ck2 16y ago
  There seems to be no shortage of people rationalizing this behavior and relieved to have an explanation, implying it could be condoned. Just like the all too common abuse of power by police, the end never justifies the means and can never be condoned. Those with power have a much higher responsibility, not less with justifications like "that's just how war is".
  - delluminatus 16y ago
    I don't think anyone is condoning this behavior (certainly not the soldier in the interview). However, I should mention that police abusing power is a little different, since they aren't in a WAR ZONE, having been shot at minutes before. Whether or not the soldiers erred (and they did) is not the question here. The question is, why did WikiLeaks present it in the way they did? People are attacking WikiLeaks because they feel betrayed by the organization. I know I do. What was supposed to be an impartial mediator of classified data turned out to be a sensationalist mediator of classified data presented with a spin that would make Fox News proud. In closing: Wikileaks exposed us to civilian murder. This would normally by fine. However, they also distorted the facts and the context of the event to support a sensationalist publicity routine. That is the problem here.

brlewis 16y ago

Psychologically, it's very difficult to question a war you're fighting. Believing it's worthwhile is a coping mechanism. If this fellow can be strong enough to question it, what excuse do the rest of us have? Quote: I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us.

sunchild 16y ago

"There’s no easy way to kill somebody. You don’t just take somebody’s life and then go on about your business for the rest of the day. That stays with you. And cracking jokes is a way of pushing that stuff down. That’s why so many soldiers come back home and they’re no longer in the situations where they have other things to think about or other people to joke about what happened … and they explode." I think a lot of people who jumped to conclusions about this video should take these words to heart.

ck2 16y ago
If you are an American taxpayer, you also pay for their psychiatry and medication for the rest of their lives too when they come back, even if they don't "explode". I have a friend who was drafted into Vietnam, whose airport was overrun and he had to defend himself with a handgun. To this day he still has serious mental issues from being put in a position to have to kill people face-to-face. Many soldiers in Iraq were just ignorant kids who rushed to sign up after 9/11 with their misguided thinking they'd go to war against those who did that. Instead they were sent to a manufactured war in Iraq. Doesn't justify this behavior in the least but it does give some insight.
jacquesm 16y ago
That's somewhat contrary to the voice over from the guy flying the chopper.
- confuzatron 16y ago
  I'm afraid you've got it the wrong way round. The detached non-emotional tone adopted in the recording doesn't contradict the assertion that fighters may adopt a detached attitude during conflict as a way of pushing down emotions.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    He's not detached and non-emotional, to me he sounds eager to kill, definitely not without emotion.

dpatru 16y ago

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that the video was released without context that would justify the American military action. If the American military had wanted context, they should have released the video themselves with additional context. Instead, the American military suppressed the video. They should not complain that the video is now being released without context. Americans are in Iraq as foreign occupiers. Americans invaded under false pretenses a country that had not attacked them first. The burden of proof is on the Americans, not Wikileaks, to justify American killing of Iraqi innocents.

Maktab 16y ago
Aside from the larger issue being debated here, I think you're guilty of operating under an outdated assumption. The US forces in Iraq have not been 'foreign occupiers' for quite some time. They are there at the will of the democratically elected Iraqi government in a deployment sanctioned by the UN Security Council. It should be possible to acknowledge this fact even while disagreeing with the presence of US forces in Iraq. Nor do I believe the US military had an obligation to release the video, although they did have an obligation to conduct a serious and thorough investigation and make the results and key aspects of it public. I think it's clear this didn't happen, but it did not justify Wikileaks's heavily edited and flawed version of the video.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > They are there at the will of the democratically elected Iraqi government in a deployment sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Please. The alternative is a total power vacuum, you can't really say that they're there because the locals invited them in.
  - Maktab 16y ago
    I just pointed out that calling them 'foreign occupiers' is not accurate. Although as a practical matter it's difficult for the Iraqis to boot the US out because of the power vacuum that would result, that does not change the fact that under the current legal situation the US forces are there at the behest of the Iraqi government and that they would have to leave if requested to do so. For what it's worth I did not claim that the locals invited them in. That one's a straw man.

rdl 16y ago

I was in Iraq when this happened. It is a fairly representative incident -- the only remarkable thing is that Reuters people were involved. There have been plenty of within-rules shootings which led to the deaths of civilians, but there were also plenty of situations where the rules hindered successful operations or even self-defense. It's a balancing act, and it's war, so it's choosing among least-bad options, with imperfect information. It's fair to criticize the Rules of Engagement as being overly hostile to civilians, and counter to the goal of winning and leaving. In Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal actually stopped a lot of effective tactics (night raids, airstikes, etc.) because they were counter to the strategy of winning the war by winning the populace. In Iraq, there were periods of intense kinetic violence (such as going into Baquba, Sadr city, Fallujah) combined with periods of reconstruction and trying to win the populace. I actually knew Julian Assange from running a remailer long before wikileaks, and he seemed like a pretty decent guy. I'm not sure what happened. I'm betting he/they felt marginalized and were trying to use this to raise their own profile. I support the general idea of transparency through third parties publishing information, but I can't support wikileaks.

jacquesm 16y ago
The thing you have to wonder about though is if this would have gotten nearly as much airplay as it did if it weren't for those reuters people there.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

david927 16y ago

Weapons of Mass Destruction were never found. That was the causus belli. That was the reason for the invasion, and they don't exist. Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal basis. Anyone. I dare you. The problem is that you can't. And so now we're talking about kids with glass in their eyes and bullets in their bodies, and soldiers with psychological scars that won't heal. Yet not a single person can give a valid, legal reason for it all. Yet no one will take two minutes to email their representative and say, "Stop it."

ErrantX 16y ago
They are still there because, very simply, it has gone too far now. Pulling out would be carnage - and I suspect, sadly, it has got to the stage where the US will have to see it through to conclusion (probably years away).
- Estragon 16y ago
  Pulling out would be carnage What are you talking about? As this video shows, it's already carnage.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    There is carnage in the video, agreed. And, yes, Iraq isn't the most hospitable of places. The problem is that as it stands I don't think the Iraqi army could cope with the insurgents alone - and it seems naive to assume that if the US leaves the insurgency will stop... So perhaps "a lot more carnage" is better.
    - david927 16y ago
      That's what the US government says. The problem is, how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? The US can leave. In fact, for legal reasons, it has to. It was never authorized to invade; staying, under any premise, is unacceptable. If there's "more carnage", that's unfortunate. But the US will never leave. Not because of carnage, but because of the fortune in oil under these poor people's feet: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_oil_is_changing_the_world http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_o...

parasctr 16y ago

The war was based on lies. If it takes lies to stop it so be it.

pauljonas 16y ago

http://www.truthout.org/soldiers-wikileaks-company-apologize-violence58714 http://www.truthout.org/soldiers-wikileaks-company-apologize... >We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region. >We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us. >More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny. >Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the values of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.