None of that is really relevant to the broader argument though. Had they decided it was best, the military could just bomb the entire area after seeing weapons (and having been engaged in firefights all morning, in nearby areas).
One thing that IS clear is that the pilot LIED about seeing some of the weapons so that he'd be cleared to shoot again. It's one thing to shoot and kill some people and some civilians get hit in the crossfire... which is a statement about the ROE these soldiers were working with.
We could just nuke all of Iraq.
What are you basing this on? Do you HONESTLY believe that we should be going around nuking cities that contain even 1 insurgent??
I'm glad you're not the one giving the orders, or we'd have a millitary policy of 'scorched earth'.
We destroyed entire cities to end WWII, why not end the war on terror* by turning Iraq into radioactive glass?
A) WW2 would have eventually been won without nuclear weapons...
B) How many cities would you have to nuke before 'terrorism' waves the white flag?
We're so far from the extreme nowadays, as despicable as war is, it impresses me from a high-level.
Yes, but if you are to maintain the perception of a 'just war' (according to Just war theory, NOT Bush's 'the war is just cause I said so'), there are certain rules of civility even in the heat of battle. It's a level of professionalism that allows US to maintain the moral high ground.
The restraint, the checks on whether or not they can engage, the caution with regards to friendlies, the average age/experience of our soliders, the video taping of it, sending in troops right after to investigate and document, etc. Compare and contrast this to say, guerilla war conduct in Africa.
There is a significant margin of error in their operations, and they will move their target response such that the margin of error will still favor the U.S. military. So they know they will have errors. Not only errors, but militarily acceptable errors, because they already know there is a margin of error, and they know where they put their target in terms of response (such that errors will occur in favor of the U.S.).
I might have read this wrong, but are you actually suggesting that we abandon the policy of engaging in conflicts WITHOUT any ROE's??
What do you propse to be done when soldiers KNOWINGLY violate the rules of engagement because they are still on adrenaline high and wanting to keep shooting?
We can help keep them in check, sure, that's a good thing. But acting as though some very specific ROE or questionable "threat" call, in a combat zone, in an area where they have been under fire and RPG threat all morning, should result in some signfiicant military response to this as if it's some big failing or localized failing that should be "corrected", misses the point.
Then what IS the point??
Here's the thing about people that start violating rules and getting away with it : they will start 'testing' to see how far beyond the rules they can go...
So, yes, it's important to keep an eye on the actions of the individual soldiers, to make sure that they are engaging in the conflict honourably. Else, the american millitary will be looked on from the world perspective as little better then the nazi armies of the ww2 era
Those lives of civilians lost from it? Their entire universe lost, crushingly sad, tragic, and arguably entirely preventable (don't be in Iraq). But as a matter of engaging in a guerilla war? Unfortunately, a calculated loss.
Naturally in an urban setting of a battle zone is going to see some civlian casualties... it's a tragedy, but they are not all violations of rules, or should be seeing reprimand of any form. However, exaggerating a threat so that you can shoot down a group of civilians is unacceptable... we're there to kill terrorism, not massacre whole cities.
You'd have a much stronger argument IMO by discussing if the military should have gone there to begin with, or should still be there, etc. If they aren't there, your dissatisfaction with their margin of error is addressed.
Oh of course we need to be there... we need to be in afghanistan to make sure the Taliban doesn't try and burn down the opium crops, and we need to be in Iraq to make sure that those 'no-bid contracts' that were signed before the war (hidden in the back pages of the newspapers) are fulfilled.
All I'm saying is that there needs to be a level of professionalism, even in the heat of combat so that we can at least maintain the illusion of this being a just war... and shooting at people with phantom weapons is not an example of professionalism.
Once they had calmed down somewhat, when the tanks rolled into that area in question... the gunner had returned to a level of professionalism as the dropped a hellfire missile into that building where there were actual combatants.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the millitary is trained to act on behalf of the group rather then the individual... So, in what way are soldiers knowingly violating their own rules of engagement HELPING the group?
