In May 2007, [Ethan] McCord, a 33-year-old Army specialist, was engaged in a firefight with insurgents in an Iraqi suburb when his platoon, part of Bravo Company, 2-16 Infantry, got orders to investigate a nearby street. When they arrived, they found a scene of fresh carnage – the scattered remains of a group of men, believed to be armed, who had just been gunned down by Apache attack helicopters. They also found 10-year-old Sajad Mutashar and his five-year-old sister Doaha covered in blood in a van. Their 43-year-old father, Saleh, had been driving them to a class when he spotted one of the wounded men moving in the street and drove over to help him, only to become a victim of the Apache guns.
McCord was captured in a video shot from one helicopter as he ran frantically to a military vehicle with Sajad in his arms seeking medical care. That classified video created its own firestorm when the whistleblower site Wikileaks posted it April 5 on a website titled “Collateral Murder” and asserted that the attack was unprovoked. More than a dozen people were killed in three attacks captured in the video, including two Reuters journalists, one carrying a camera that was apparently mistaken for a weapon.
McCord, who served five years in the military before leaving in Nov. 2007 due to injuries, recently posted an apologetic letter online with fellow soldier Josh Steiber supporting the release of the video and asking the family’s forgiveness. McCord is the father of three children.
Wired’s Kim Zetter reached McCord at his home in Kansas. This is his account of what he saw.
Apparently, Dallas and I developed #19 and #20 independently and concurrently.
To bad I was hampered by a crash of Chrome, which had never happened before…
Thanks for your time.
Seems to me that little value is put on the lives of Iraqi’s and the ROE are relaxed in accordance. The institutions which put the soldiers on the ground in a situation where murder of civilians are within the ROE are to blame.
Reading all the excuses for what happened makes me sick to my stomach. I can’t believe people are apologizing for the killing of anyone. War is disgusting, and one day I will stop funding it by not paying federal taxes. I feel personally responsible as it is because my money, which was forcefully extracted from me, was spent to fund such abhorrent activity.
The phrase “collateral damage” should be stricken from the English language. The military is just a bunch of hired guns, paid murderers doing the bidding of corrupt politicians for the sake of their buddies in the military industry. Nothing like this would be possible in a free market society.
I’d like to see if people on this forum would use “collateral damage” so flippantly if it were their family and friends catching stray bullets from an occupying force on US soil?
The rules of “war” are simply this. Engage and kill the enemy. Eliminate the enemies ability to wage war by destroying personnel, material, and support. An actual officer oral test question during Vietnam. You are in a truck loaded with marine personnel. You are sent on an important mission. While traveling down a hill with a cliff on one side and the mountain on the other, the brakes fail. There is a child in the road. You have two choices. Run down the child or drive off the cliff killing every one in the truck. The correct answer was to run down the child, and complete the mission. This is what happens when you run down the child. To put it as coldly as my drill instructor. “Your job is to complete your mission in any way possible and bring home your platoon fuck everybody else” If this is not a war than this was cold blooded murder. If this is a war than this was the business of war. Rules of Engagement are great philisophical questions over a few beers at the BOQ. When somebody is shooting at you, you tend not to notice anybody other than the guys with the guns. Your primary motivation becomes not getting shot while killing the other guy. What happened here was not new it happens in war and always has. Every soldier, marine, aviator or ship driver has a regret for something they did. The age of the internet simply allows for everyone else to see that regret and comment good, bad, or otherwise. Peace is an illusion its just the lull between wars.
@clancys_daddy, #24
Does this include the “war” on terror? How do you define personnel, material or support then? What about the “war” on drugs? Or the “war” on poverty? Do you kill a homeless person if he gets in your way?
If this were a foreign country doing the same thing on US soil, this wouldn’t be “war is war”. This would be labeled an atrocity. But americans have this f*cked up view that americans are somehow more human than everyone else in the world and everyone else is expendable in the name of war.
Oh, yes, the internet is a great new tool to expose the atrocities of war. Kind of like TV during the Vietnam war or Pictures during the WW. Just because these things have always happened doesn’t mean its ok. Regret means something is wrong. Repeated regret means something needs to be changed.
#24 clancys_daddy
“Peace is an illusion its just the lull between wars.”
Is that really how you see the world? Most people for most of history beg to differ. That is like saying rest is an illusion, it’s just the lull between work. Rather a misguided outlook for a healthy human to have. Coming from an American who has rarely needed to wage a war of survival it is a very troubling outlook, even more so for the people that have war waged on them and their families.
“You are in a truck loaded with…”
Your child was standing in the road in Vietnam where you were sent to fight an unnecessary genocidal war of aggression and your brakes failed, what would you do? If you say kill your child then you are not fighting for the right cause and the military has destroyed your moral/evolutionary compass (Bush would jump out, save his progeny and let you crash over the cliff, if he had actually turned up).
Alternatively, if you were defending America and your family from genocidal aggressors and you chose to hit a kid in the road (even your own) to complete your mission, that would be a different proposition. I hope the subtlety is not lost on you.
Either way this does not relate to this situation. At best we killed combatants that posed an immediate threat to fellow soldiers (in the Hummer patrol) and combatants that were rescuing them and posed no immediate threat (still justified if they actually were combatants), at worst we killed innocent civilians and journalists that posed no threat at all and innocent children who arrived at the scene in a car with someone who got out to help the others.
The point is if you now know them to be innocent, moral people would feel and express remorse unless they have been programmed to kill indiscriminately or are emotionally damaged by war. Putting it down to necessity when you later find out it was not isn’t good for the success of the mission or the troops mental health and safety in Iraq. The more innocent people you kill and write off as collateral damage, the more enemies you create, the more troops die, the more fellow troops are effected adversely by having friends killed, on and on to failure (e.g. Vietnam).
The country treated the Vietnam Vet’s very badly with terrible consequences, that was immoral. I do not blame the troops in situations like this and I truly appreciate their willingness to protect, I just think we should learn from the past and only put them in these positions when completely necessary and admit when we get it wrong.
No, that didn’t happen at all.
What did happen is that we voted the Democrats into power in the House and Senate in 2006 and, as promised, they got us out of Iraq.
28,
First off, dumbass, this video is from Bush’s term. Second, the right continues to block everything Obama does and then accuses him of not getting anything done. Nice try, though.
#19–Dallas==you think you are up to the challenge eh? I wish that were true, but not so pursuant to your specious logic and style. Being in the technical field you should be more conversant with sticking to fact patterns and the rigors of definition?
We both should go back and look at the video one more time . . . . . . . DAM!!! I hate it when I say that. So I did:
http://dvorak.org/blog/2010/04/05/watch-u-s-military-shooting-down-civilians-in-iraq/#comments ((Seems like a longer video than what I saw the first time?))
The van drives up at 9 minutes. The crew says they hope they go for a weapon so they can engage. The scene is perfectly clear. No weapons, no masks, no hostile activity–just picking up the war wounded. Command then gives permission to engage. Murder plain and simple, on the facts given.
It amuses me that YOU add the notion of the military not “systematically” murdering for sport and when I correct your making up facts to straw man argue against RATHER THAN accept the learning lesson you turn it around on me as if it was a clear implication of what I posted when what I posted was clearly limited to the facts before us.
Now, you ask why I separate the two scenarios as if I didn’t list the factors that made them two scenarios. Make up your own facts, ignore facts you don’t like. In addition, there are two scenarios as the crew is making a new request to engage. If it was all one engagement, there would have been no second request. No, you are not up to the challenge. Clean the BS out from between your ears and I do assume you have the ability to be relevant, just not the habit pattern.
Civilian vehicle as opposed to it having rebel insignia or other indicia of enemy support rather than humanitarian/neutral indicia.
I could go on like the “threat” you make up to the troops blocks away, or my son in the battle zone etc. You argue like a drowning man. No finesse at all, just grabbing at whatever is there, or not even there. FAIL.
Well, at least you agree My Lai was murder. We could start with that but I’m nearly out of peanuts.
Both Bobbo and Dallas don’t have a clue what they are talking about. Get up to speed then come back and join the discussion – you’re 5 years behind the real smart people.
I’m pretty sure that’s Jesus called out in the picture. Yeah, 99% sure.
#31
Bobbo is one hella funny person. He just loves to rant on and on no matter how ludicrous the discussion(s) get or how absurd he becomes and/or how WRONG he is. He’s God, he’s alright right LMAO *wipes laughing out loud tears*
It’s why I love seeing him, makes my day
#25 & 26 My comments if read as stated were neither a condemnation nor affirmation of the actions taken by the soldiers. The term War continues to be tossed around, “the war on terror,” “the war on poverty” Lets use the war on poverty, who is the enemy? how are they supported? The plan of attack is to eliminate poverty by destroying those things. A war is fought to be won. The end is to eliminate poverty, to eliminate poverty how far would you go? To what ends would you go to achieve victory? So in this case, what is the end of this conflict what determines a winning result? I did not in any way try to establish an endgame in my comments. In my comments did I in no way imply that American lives were more valuable than any other. What I did state was a question that was asked and what the correct or expected answer was. As for the internet it was an observation not an indictment. I find it interesting how many people said I knew it was a camera when I watched the video. Take a step back and forget that the video states that there were reporters present. Step away from your comfortable chair and 21 inch plus monitor, and the ability to rewind and watch again and again. Now put yourself in the gunner seat of an apache moving at speed swaying back and forth up and down side to side in what is considered hostile airspace. Watch the picture through a 5 inch monitor without the ability to zoom or rewind. Don’t forget to keep your eyes open for incoming fire or missiles and assist the pilot in flying the apache. Is that a camera? Those other two gentleman were carrying weapons. Is this one different? Your mission is to support that squad down the street. Is that a camera? Is that black van there to assist the enemy?
#27 Interesting, check world history and find a time when conflict was not occurring? We even mark significant moments in history by the wars? The boer war, the war of 1812, the revolutionary war, the war of the roses, the thousand year war, the crusades.
A hypothetical question, would you kill hitler? Yes I know its silly. If running down a child stopped 9/11 and all the after affects? When you sign on the line you become military property you are no different than a jeep or now days a Humvee. Your an asset to be used to achieve a goal. An ethical or moral compass is not part of issued equipment. With experience comes knowledge of what real right and wrong are and all the gray in between. That’s why young people fight wars that old men send them to. Basic training is designed to make an individual no longer an individual but part of the machine. That’s where the term green machine comes from. As military property you lose almost all the civil rights non-military personnel have. You are expected to comply with the orders from the chain of command. Failure to comply involves penalties, some severe up to death.
Your statement
“At best we killed combatants that posed an immediate threat to fellow soldiers (in the Hummer patrol) and combatants that were rescuing them and posed no immediate threat (still justified if they actually were combatants), at worst we killed innocent civilians and journalists that posed no threat at all and innocent children who arrived at the scene in a car with someone who got out to help the others.”
My statement
“If this is not a war than this was cold blooded murder. If this is a war than this was the business of war.”
Your statement
“The point is if you now know them to be innocent, moral people would feel and express remorse unless they have been programmed to kill indiscriminately or are emotionally damaged by war.”
My statement
“Every soldier, marine, aviator or ship driver has a regret for something they did.”
Your statement
“The country treated the Vietnam Vet’s very badly with terrible consequences, that was immoral. I do not blame the troops in situations like this and I truly appreciate their willingness to protect, I just think we should learn from the past and only put them in these positions when completely necessary and admit when we get it wrong.”
Agreed, but people regardless of political affiliation tend to ignore history quite often.
Thus endeth the sermon
Thanks for (my part of) the (interesting) sermon. I guess we really agree more than disagree.
A few further points and rebuttals…
“…check world history and find a time when conflict was not occurring?”
China, Russia, Indonesia and India are currently not at war (shooting), that is half of the world. There has been no war in Europe since 1944 except Yugoslavia and Spain, Australia got bombed once on one day in WWII, England since 1944, New Zealand / Canada never (unless you count European invasion). I guess it depends on what you mean by war (you changed it to conflict). You could argue that war of necessity happens very infrequently and that conflict and peace happen at the same time constantly in different places, but then it gets down to conjecture and semantics.
Regardless I get your original point, I just choose to see it differently. I think people that were actually the target of war would agree with me that peace is far from illusionary and war is not inevitable.
“A hypothetical question…”
Yes, I would kill Hitler (Saddam, Pol Pot, death camp guard, pilots that dropped bombs on my family in WWII, etc.) in a heart-beat.
No, I would not kill a (innocent) kid to prevent 9/11. I can only be responsible for my actions, I can not control (fix) the world. I would only target combatants who actually posed a threat.
“Your an asset to be used to achieve a goal. An ethical or moral compass is not part of issued equipment.”
You should not obey illegal orders. They still take an oath to the Constitution don’t they? The military command does not determine your morals (or issue them) and if they try to remove it, they are not working for the good of the soldiers or the mission.
“As military property you lose almost all the civil rights non-military personnel have.”
You should not be treated unconstitutionally. You can not sign away your Constitutional rights. There are a lot of things that are done these days that are not legal (I blame the voters).
“Every soldier, marine, aviator or ship driver has a regret for something they did.”
I understand that, I just think that admitting it, and offering repentance if it is sincere can help in many ways.
I do not want it to be an army of slaves, that defeats the point. I understand you need cohesion and a command structure, but free men and women should not be treated like equipment and cannot be (legitimately) charged for not carrying out illegal orders. I understand reality is a different matter.
#33–Clancy==you think just like Gen Westmoreland and Dallas: if we kill lots and lots of people we call then enemy, then we Win!
Murdering innocent civilians loses the war, thats the whole point.
Join the 21st Century.
Only half the world? What about the other half? Take a look at Africa, a civil war is still a war. Even if half the world is “at peace” it still does not negate the argument. What if hitler was that child? you are responsible for your actions Hitler was an innocent child at one time. At what point does killing him become justified? only in hindsight can we see what has happened.
The Etymology of the word “war” comes from varying sources as strife or conflict.
Agreed that an individual should not obey an illegal order. Who decides what is legal? When you join
Marine Corp enlistment oath
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
While being part of the Machine has drawbacks like the temporary loss of some liberties. The overwhelming portion of today’s military behave as professionals who understood and stand the consequences of taking that oath.
Bobbo who sometimes apparently doesn’t think with his words. Where did I say that attrition was an acceptable strategy or that murdering innocent civilians was acceptable? By the way I disagreed with Westmoreland then and now. Didn’t find McNamara, Kennedy, or Johnson all that convincing either.
@clancys_Daddy, #33
I see you didn’t answer the questions, “who is the enemy?” and “how are they supported?” Maybe it’s because poverty cannot be dealt with with a war mentality. Such is true with terrorism. Terrorists don’t have countries and bases and there is no endgame. In fact, the more you kill, the more terrorists join their ranks. This war is pointless as far as ending terrorism goes. It does help fund the military and contractors and gives politicians an excuse to tax and borrow money from foreign countries on the collateral of our children’s future income.
I don’t give a f*ck what the soldier sees in the 5” monitor. I don’t support the war. And I feel that I have the right to not fund a war I don’t support. A war that is going to put myself and my family in danger by creating more terrorists. If you support the war, then you pay for it, instead of mortgaging my children’s future to pay for it. I’m sick and tired of having to fund some sick politicians’ agendas.
There are better ways to deal with terrorists. There’s letters of mark and reprisal. There’s changing your foreign policy so you stop screwing foreign people over by supporting dictators. Warmongers, like the many on this forum, will always look for the slightest reason to go to war.
“Only half the world?”
I only mentioned the easiest half first and that would make war/peace equal. I also continued.
If you want to base it on conflict + deaths see: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars”
I was wrong about India by this definition.
“What if hitler was that child?”
No, I would not kill Hitler as a child.
“At what point does killing him become justified?”
When he becomes a combatant. I would kill Hitler the WWI soldier.
Also, I would rather arrest enemies, I would only kill them if I could not arrest them.
“Who decides what is legal?”
Society has laid out what is legal (and troops should be made aware of it before graduating) and in the moment they do. If you are wrong you are convicted for disobeying a lawful order, if not, you aren’t (hypothetically).
Clancy==you ask “Where did I say that attrition was an acceptable strategy or that murdering innocent civilians was acceptable?” /// Attrition was not mentioned nor raised in context.
“Murdering innocent civilians was acceptable” is what you said here: “My statement
“If this is not a war than this was cold blooded murder. If this is a war than this was the business of war.”
“War” does not include, condone, or imply “cold blooded murder.”
You set up too much of a head to head conflict. Even civilian murder allows for “heat of the moment” as an attenuating circumstance===but it is still murder.
Westmoreland did think he could attrit the enemy but he also defined “winning” by the body count separate from any overall attrition.
Actually I was asking you, since you brought up the parallel. Beyond that I really don’t have that much of a disagreement with your argument, or your right to make it. Isn’t free speech wonderful?