The Iraq Thread

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 02 2003,06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would confirm that the van was a threat before I fired. I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that would be easier said than done, and even a bit unrealistic.

And the fact you are willing to get your squadmates killed (yourself is one thing), would undoubtedly be frowned upon by your COs ,and more importantly, your squad mates.

How would you confirm whether they are "innocent civilians" or not? You are in a war zone, and soldiers dressed as civilians, and even civilians themselves potentially, have been attacking allied forces. Now you are on checkpoint duty and there is a van that refuses to stop heading right for you. You don't know what its carrying. It could be loaded with TNT or baby formula or a pregnant woman.

Lets look at it from two different prespectives:

1- You As The Officer-

Your job, as officer is to not only fulfill your mission (in this case security for allied forces) but also to keep your men alive. Now a van, unidentified, is screaming toward you refusing to stop. That van could speed past and blow up another column of troops, or it could blow you and your squad up. We'll say for the sake of argument that you decide to "better identify" the civilians and/or occupants. Presumably from the story, the van would have just kept on going, and word would undoubtedly have leaked out about it. Do you report that you LET a van just fly past, possibly jeopardizing the security and well being of other allied forces? If you do, say goodbye to your rank. If not, say hello to Levanworth. And what if the van HAD exploded next to a column of soldiers? How would that make you feel knowing you could have prevented it?

2- You As The Grunt-

Little less harder to think about. Your officer orders you to open fire to eliminate this security risk. You refuse citing your desire to make sure it doesn't have civilians. Goodbye career and possibly freedom.

This scenerios don't even include the obvious anxiety from having others try to kill you, nor your own uncertainty and unease about not knowing whether or not that van will explode right next to you or not.

Now I'm not trying browbeat you or flame your or whatever. I'm just trying to point out the fact that, while your answer is noble, I think in that situation, any of us would open fire.<span id='postcolor'>

I see your points, and they all make sense, but I stick by what I said. No offense to anyone, but none of you know me, or what my morals and values are, or how far I would carry my convictions.

Like I said in my post -</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe I wouldn't make good US soldier material. <span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

As I said earlier on the subject, there are thousands of peace keepers around the world that each day are shot at by civilians. They don't go on killing sprees.

These soldiers overreacted. The best thing now is to learn from this incident so that it isn't repeated again. I am very sceptical that it will happen though. I'm sure that just about every GI has heard about the sucide bombing but I doubt that many have heard about these poor civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's a crappy situation<span id='postcolor'>

Yes it is and it aint going to get better either. Iraqi paramilitaries will make sure that you can't differentiate between civilians and military in disguise. Which will result in more civilian casualties, more opposition against the war and more future terrorists.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2003,08:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said earlier on the subject, there are thousands of peace keepers around the world that each day are shot at by civilians. They don't go on killing sprees.<span id='postcolor'>

The threat here is explosive laden suicide bomb vehicles, not someone riding shotgun.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,07:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally? You want my real opinion? OK, but you won't like it.......<span id='postcolor'>

Whether I like your opinion of not doesn't matter.  For what it's worth, I am capable of respecting an opinion different than my own.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would confirm that the van was a threat before I fired. I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians. Admittedly, thats from a standpoint of not actually being in that situation myslef, but that's what my gut and morals would tell me to do. Maybe I wouldn't make good US soldier material.  <span id='postcolor'>

This is not intended as an insult, so don't take it as one:  I agree that you might not make a good soldier.  That's okay, I'd personally prefer that people not have to take actions that they don't like (it's why I'm against any sort of mandatory service).  Unfortunately, coalition forces in Iraq don't have that luxury.  Sometimes people have no choice but to go with the lesser of two evils.  There is no way that given the situation faced by soldiers and Marines in Iraq that they should not be allowed to defend themselves against credible threats.  From a military standpoint, a van with an unknown driver and unknown cargo, that has not stopped after verbal warnings and warning shots, represents such a threat.

It's a crappy situation.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with nearly all of what you say.

My original point wasn't that the guys at this checkpoint are war criminals or intended to murder civilians. My concern was that someone screwed up and that resulted in accidental civvy deaths.

If they followed procedure exactly, then no one can really blame them for what happened.

[Balschoiw 0]

Well the ROE´s state that there need to be warning shots. The warning shots were missing here. They went straight into the bus

Checkpoint work is always dangerous work, but this incidents look like fear-overreactions.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2003,0704)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes it is and it aint going to get better either. Iraqi paramilitaries will make sure that you can't differentiate between civilians and military in disguise. Which will result in more civilian casualties, more opposition against the war and more future terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

Call me optimistic, but I suspect that Iraqi civilians will quickly grasp that barrelling down on coalition checkpoints is a bad idea.  One obvious improvement on our part would be more effective warnings/explanations about the need for caution in approaching coalition troops.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

I don't see why suicide bombers would have to force through checkpoints. They can calmly drive, wait for the soldiers to approach the van and then detonate.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 02 2003,07:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the ROE´s state that there need to be warning shots. The warning shots were missing here. They went straight into the bus  

Checkpoint work is always dangerous work, but this incidents look like fear-overreactions.<span id='postcolor'>

The accounts that I read said there were verbal warnings, followed by warning shots, and then they opened up.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2003,07:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't see why suicide bombers would have to force through checkpoints. They can calmly drive, wait for the soldiers to approach the van and then detonate.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep.  I believe, though, that SOP is for drivers and passengers to exit the vehicles with hands in plain sight.  In any case, there will be more deaths due to these types of attacks.  Nature of the beast.

Semper Fi

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The accounts that I read said there were verbal warnings, followed by warning shots, and then they opened up.

<span id='postcolor'>

The sources I read claim that there were verbal warnings and than a tank fired his mg into the bus. No warning shots.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2003,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't see why suicide bombers would have to force through checkpoints. They can calmly drive, wait for the soldiers to approach the van and then detonate.<span id='postcolor'>

Here, they are told to halt way before a heavily manned checkpoint. If necessary, they'll get out of the car. Very few soldiers will get close, in order to prevent a potentially high number of casualties.

A car "barrelling" (WP article's word) towards a checkpoint? The main purpose is to get as close to as many soldiers as possible to maximize deaths on detonation.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 02 2003,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The accounts that I read said there were verbal warnings, followed by warning shots, and then they opened up.

<span id='postcolor'>

The sources I read claim that there were verbal warnings and than a tank fired his mg into the bus. No warning shots.<span id='postcolor'>

Obviously, none of us know exactly what happened. According to the WP report, the captain in charge also though there were no warning shots at the time of the event but he was updated by others at the scene that 2 warning shots were indeed fired.

These various scenarios and interpretations have been heavily discussed over the last 500 pages , in case you were away.

[Balschoiw 0]

Anyway the result remains bloody. Women and children were killed. No good for propaganda this time. Soldiers are showing nerves.

[theavonlady 2]

Yes, I know, it's totally sourceless, but it's a juicy headline at Debka, who have goofed but have had a sufficient number of accurate detailed scoops in the past to keep up my interest:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Names of suspected terrorists living in America, around Middle East, found in haul of documents and computer discs taken at al Qaeda-linked Ansar base destroyed this week in northern Iraq town of Biyare<span id='postcolor'>

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,07:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A car "barrelling" (WP article's word) towards a checkpoint? The main purpose is to get as close to as many soldiers as possible to maximize deaths on detonation.<span id='postcolor'>

But in this case not, just a panicked civilian with her family in the van.

If standard procedure was followed in this case, and the result is a dead family, maybe standard procedure needs to be looked into and updated.

Saying "we we're following procedure" or "it's Saddam's fault for using suicide bombers" won't bring back these dead children, will it. Very sad indeed.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,09:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,07:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A car "barrelling" (WP article's word) towards a checkpoint? The main purpose is to get as close to as many soldiers as possible to maximize deaths on detonation.<span id='postcolor'>

But in this case not, just a panicked civilian with her family in the van.<span id='postcolor'>

The WP report said they did not see who was in the van until after the Bradley fired, when the captain in charge used his binocs and realized with had happened.

How much time do you think passed from the moment of concerned threat until the shooting?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If standard procedure was followed in this case, and the result is a dead family, maybe standard procedure needs to be looked into and updated.<span id='postcolor'>

I think you'll find a report on Reuters that says that indeed new procedures are being effected.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saying "we we're following procedure" or "it's Saddam's fault for using suicide bombers" won't bring back these dead children, will it.<span id='postcolor'>

No one ever said it would. But had Iraqis not used the cover of civilians, they may very well have still been alive today.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very sad indeed.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed.

[OxPecker 0]

I think we can all agree this was a tragic accident. I have no doubt in my mind that the soldiers involved didn't open fire knowing that the van contained children and was no threat.

I just hope both sides can learn from the experience to avoid it happening again, and that there is an investigation to prove that the soldiers acted within the rules of engagement.

[Longinius 1]

"I don't know enough about the nature of the checkpoint. Were there clear signs? Barricades? Trenches? Was the road closed? Was the vehicle going to be approached (putting soldiers at risk anyway) if it had stopped properly?"

As it says in the article...

To try to prevent a recurrence, Johnson ordered that signs be posted in Arabic to warn people to stop well short of the Bradleys guarding the eastern approach to the intersection.

So, there were no signs when the incident occured. They put up a roadblock and the only way they have available to inform approaching vehicles is verbal communication and bradley guns. The outcome of that scenario seems pretty obvious to me.

"How would you confirm whether they are "innocent civilians" or not? You are in a war zone, and soldiers dressed as civilians, and even civilians themselves potentially, have been attacking allied forces. Now you are on checkpoint duty and there is a van that refuses to stop heading right for you. You don't know what its carrying. It could be loaded with TNT or baby formula or a pregnant woman."

Exactly, you dont know. That means you will have to find out before you take action.

"Here, they are told to halt way before a heavily manned checkpoint. If necessary, they'll get out of the car. Very few soldiers will get close, in order to prevent a potentially high number of casualties."

Would you hear me shouting if you sat in your car, "barreling" towards me, 250 meters away?

"How much time do you think passed from the moment of concerned threat until the shooting?"

Enough time for a captain to asses the situation and shout out multiple orders that werent followed.

[theavonlady 2]

Looks like we're in a loop.

[theavonlady 2]

Reuters pic, dated yesterday, April 1:

If there's a concern of suicide bombers, this is not the way to find out. Had anyone of these guys been wearing an explosives belt, this picture could never have been taken.

[FallenPaladin 0]

There speaks the spezialist. (No pun intended, I know what`s going on in Israel. At least from the media.)

I always wonder how the GIs are trained, or IF they are trained. They don`t know how their allies look like (e.g. the A10 incident. When my father heard of this incident and of the fact that the A10 did a second attack run he said he would have fired with all he got at that moron. I would have done so too, if it`s about him or me getting killed.) , so how should they be able to encounter an enemy correctly? If US forces are let free with sharp ammo, it seems to be the best for any lifeform to simply dig holes and lay flat in them. But wait!! There are B52s in the air with JDAMs with a 1000m kill/wound radius.  

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ April 02 2003,12:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They don`t know how their allies look like (e.g. the A10 incident.<span id='postcolor'>

Has there been any details or statements made since the original report? The reason for the mistake has still not been given anywhere, has it?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,05:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Confused and feckless drivers may be rare, but still they must vastly outnumber suicide bombers.<span id='postcolor'>  

Not according to Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf.<span id='postcolor'>

Now let's see.  If I were about to send an army of suicide bombers I probably wouldn't erode their opportunities by announcing them to the enemy.  On the other hand, if it was merely my intention to have your soldiers start shooting up more civilians then I'd attempt to drive fear into your hearts with loud threats.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,05:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In other words, the probability that this soldier was killing innocent civilians was much higher than the odds he was killing a bomber.<span id='postcolor'>

That's an opinion, and a pretty big gamble to be taking with your men's lives.<span id='postcolor'>

AFAIK there have only been 3 suicide bombing attempts (one of which surrendered voluntarily).  Is it your opinion that the number of confused civilian drivers who didn't know how to conduct themselves within 250 meters of a checkpoint has numbered 3 or less?  If not, then you are placing the welfare of your men ahead of that of the civilian population, which is just fine, but then you should probably call yourself an occupying force rather than a liberating force.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,05:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One last thing I'd like to point out:  It took you about 57 minutes to post a reply to my question.  How much time do you think the soldiers at the checkpoint had?<span id='postcolor'>

Those soldiers concluded that the van was being driven by a bomber.  And now you've concluded that I saw your question as soon as you posted it and then spent the following 57 minutes trying to answer it.    See how easy it is to jump to the wrong conclusions.

[Guest]

A good article from time magazine on arab/western media bias: What You See vs. What They See.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AFAIK there have only been 3 suicide bombing attempts (one of which surrendered voluntarily).  Is it your opinion that the number of confused civilian drivers who didn't know how to conduct themselves within 250 meters of a checkpoint has numbered 3 or less?  If not, then you are placing the welfare of your men ahead of that of the civilian population, which is just fine, but then you should probably call yourself an occupying force rather than a liberating force.<span id='postcolor'>

Excellent point Bernadotte.

You know, back in the early days of the middle east thread I never thought I'd be in agreement with your statements Live and learn, eh?