When Context is Collateral Damage
Many people wonder if the future of journalism is represented by small independent bloggers and advocacy groups… and some might be tempted to point to a recent posting by the WikiLeaks Web site as an example.
The website released a cockpit video Monday from a 2007 engagement in Iraq, in which an Apache helicopter crew fires on a group of unidentified men, and then a passer-by driving a van who attempts to rescue the wounded.
The resulting carnage is devastating, especially because after-the-fact, it appears the crew mistook the telephoto lens of a Reuters cameraman for a rocket-launcher, and that many, if not all, of the victims may have been noncombatants. (It’s not clear to me from watching the video, if anyone was actually carrying a weapon, although some may have.)
The video graphically demonstrates two key points: Mistakes in war (and in journalism for that matter) are often made because someone becomes convinced early on of one explanation for events, and then disregards all evidence to the contrary. Sometimes they don’t see the alternate possibilities right in front of them because they are so fixated on their initial perception of reality.
This happened back in April of 1994, when two U.S. F-15 pilots shot down two American Blackhawk helicopters over Iraq, convinced they were Iraqi Hinds violating the no-fly zone. The Blackhawk looks a lot different than a Soviet-made Hind, but the pilots didn’t really see that. Because they had no reason to think American helicopters would be flying in that area, they were predisposed to believe any helicopters they saw would have to be Iraqi. They SAW what they expected to see, not what was really there, right in front of their eyes.
So it appears to be with the Apache pilots in 2007. There is really very little indication of possible weapons, being carried, certainly nothing unambiguous, but after they reach the initial conclusion the men are “bad guys” no one seems to have a second thought. All actions by the group of targeted men are interpreted as potentially hostile.
This episode seems to represent a clear failure, a failure of the crew to properly confirm and identify their target as hostile, before opening fire. But it does not necessarily show a band of careless trigger-happy, cowboys. Convinced they are dealing with enemy fighters, not innocent civilians, the pilots bristle as they try to follow the laws of war. They don’t shoot a wounded man on the street because they can’t see a weapon. They wait. When they see what they erroneously conclude is an armed insurgent vehicle trying to rescue the wounded man, they fire only after getting permission. Granted that permission is given on the apparently inaccurate report that the van was filled with armed fighters.
The second major point the WikiLeaks web site makes — dramatically I might add — is it illustrates why you don’t want to get your news from advocacy groups, who only want to present events in the light that best advances their cause. In this case the apparent agenda is to show that the U.S. military are “murderers” who have no regard for human life, and who lie routinely to cover-up the truth.
The truth is lots of bad things happen in war. That includes a fair share of lying, and covering up. But by labeling this video “Collateral Murder” WikiLeaks makes clear it’s not interested in understanding the nuances of the complex battle environment.
Let me add one more point about the term “collateral damage.” Collateral damage is what occurs when a legitimate target is hit, in accordance with the laws of war, and unavoidably someone or something not part of the target is also hit. It’s regrettable and unavoidable. It is not the same thing as “unintended or mistaken civilian casualties” that result from a mistakenly identified target. Innocent Iraqis walking down a street who are mistaken for armed combatants and killed are NOT collateral damage. They are unintended civilian casualties. That is unless the forces who fired on them KNEW they were non-combatants, which WOULD be a war crime. The term “collateral damage” is often bandied about pejoratively by critics to imply a culture of callousness and carelessness among the U.S. military.
While there are exceptions, most American military I know, hold innocent civilian life in high regard. When the U.S. soldiers in the video discover there are wounded children in the van, (something that could NOT be seen by the Apache crew from the air) they order immediate evacuation to a hospital. The helicopter gunship crews are still under the impression they killed bad guys, and so naturally want to shift the blame to them. “It’s their fault for bringing their kids to a battle,” one is heard to say on the video.
Before condemning U.S. troops as wanton, cold-blooded child-killers, try for a moment to understand the deadly, dangerous mission America has given them, and how even the best people can make terrible mistakes in the heat of battle and the fog of war.
There are still some facts we don’t know. How many wepaons, if any where found at the scene? Were any of the victims, in fact, insurgents. Jad there been fighting nearby before the attack?
I do think this incident was a failure to follow the best ROE, and I applaud the measured statement given by Reuters, who lost a photographer and a driver that day. The statement appropriately notes the dangers of war zone coverage, without the vitriolic overtones of the WikiLeak web page:
“The deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh three years ago were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. We continue to work for journalist safety and call on all involved parties to recognise the important work that journalists do and the extreme danger that photographers and video journalists face in particular. The video released today via WikiLeaks is graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result,” David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters news said in a statement.
Tags: Collateral Murder, WikiLeaks
Comments (6)
0
Jeremy · 166 weeks ago
Thank you. Its good to see some objectivity on this topic for once.
0
Steve Valley · 166 weeks ago
You make valid points that people should consider before coming out
with outrageous statements like WikiLeaks.org did this week. You're spot
on. War sucks and we're all human and unintentional mistakes are made
quite often. Show me a man that's never made a mistake (be it this one
caused loss of life during war) and I'll show you a liar.
0
peter m herford · 166 weeks ago
Truth is the first casualty in war. This column and the incident it deals with are perfect examples of truth lost.
When war starts, civilization ends; ask any combat veteran from grunt to General. Generals will add that when war stars control ends and chaos ensues.
The definition of "collateral damage" as "when a legitimate target is hit" is a legal argument that presumably removes the label from the 2007 incident.
If this is such a regrettable accident that can be explained by the tortuous explanations and possibilities this piece raises, then why was the video not released by the Pentagon when it happened?
The video "does not necessarily show a bunch of trigger-happy cowboys". Then what do you make of the audio that revels in the kill and hopes for someone to reach for a weapon that will permit the airborne crew to fire again? What the video does not necessarily show may also be exactly what the video shows.
Soldiers are taught to kill, that is their job. "The object is not to die for your country, the object is to make the other guy die for his country." There is many lessons in this video. The least of them is rationalizing what happened. In almost every war civilian victims far outnumber military casualties. In most wars military casualties of 40% and higher are attributed to friendly fire. The video is the ultimate reality show and no barrage of words, least of all the corporate speak from Reuters, can lessen the ugliness of this incident. It is far too common, an everyday occurence. The only difference here is that we found out about it.
When war starts, civilization ends; ask any combat veteran from grunt to General. Generals will add that when war stars control ends and chaos ensues.
The definition of "collateral damage" as "when a legitimate target is hit" is a legal argument that presumably removes the label from the 2007 incident.
If this is such a regrettable accident that can be explained by the tortuous explanations and possibilities this piece raises, then why was the video not released by the Pentagon when it happened?
The video "does not necessarily show a bunch of trigger-happy cowboys". Then what do you make of the audio that revels in the kill and hopes for someone to reach for a weapon that will permit the airborne crew to fire again? What the video does not necessarily show may also be exactly what the video shows.
Soldiers are taught to kill, that is their job. "The object is not to die for your country, the object is to make the other guy die for his country." There is many lessons in this video. The least of them is rationalizing what happened. In almost every war civilian victims far outnumber military casualties. In most wars military casualties of 40% and higher are attributed to friendly fire. The video is the ultimate reality show and no barrage of words, least of all the corporate speak from Reuters, can lessen the ugliness of this incident. It is far too common, an everyday occurence. The only difference here is that we found out about it.
0
Bill Cannon · 151 weeks ago
nothing ever changes. Ya got house cats and boonie rats and you always will.
0
Eric B. · 145 weeks ago
I want to be somewhere in that picture on the left, maybe naked
No comments:
Post a Comment