Wikileaks: Monday Morning Quarterbacking

GREAT article, Bill. Welcome aboard.

I remember a conversation that you had with me when you were still in Iraq. Some soldier had done something terrible (there were a few bad incidents when you were there) and you spoke about how lack of restraint in combat was greatly adding to the danger for U.S. servicemen. I think you draw a good distinction here between recklessness and self-defense. War is hell, and the soldiers weren’t the ones that got us into the war. We shouldn’t attack the soldiers, even when mistakes are made, when the fog of war is that bad.

It is also important to remember that the Apache pilots have an obligation to the troops on the ground whom they are supporting. Self defense isn’t the only consideration, and thanks to Somalia we have a pretty good idea of what a downed helicopter can do to the initiative in the heat of battle.

I also agree with your comment about the cover-up. I’m not sure what the military thought it would be accomplishing by hiding this. I think that the cover-up will make this worse, in the long run. This was a tragedy, but by hiding it the military has suggested that there was wrongdoing in the incident. I think that there is enough evidence, as you point out, to dispute this.

GREAT article, Bill. Welcome aboard.

I remember a conversation that you had with me when you were still in Iraq. Some soldier had done something terrible (there were a few bad incidents when you were there) and you spoke about how lack of restraint in combat was greatly adding to the danger for U.S. servicemen. I think you draw a good distinction here between recklessness and self-defense. War is hell, and the soldiers weren’t the ones that got us into the war. We shouldn’t attack the soldiers, even when mistakes are made, when the fog of war is that bad.

It is also important to remember that the Apache pilots have an obligation to the troops on the ground whom they are supporting. Self defense isn’t the only consideration, and thanks to Somalia we have a pretty good idea of what a downed helicopter can do to the initiative in the heat of battle.

I also agree with your comment about the cover-up. I’m not sure what the military thought it would be accomplishing by hiding this. I think that the cover-up will make this worse, in the long run. This was a tragedy, but by hiding it the military has suggested that there was wrongdoing in the incident. I think that there is enough evidence, as you point out, to dispute this.

you can have it both ways.
one minute the helicopter is too far away to see clearly , the next second its within range of a deadly RPG.
doesn’t sound like a reasoned argument, more like an excuse.

you can have it both ways.
one minute the helicopter is too far away to see clearly , the next second its within range of a deadly RPG.
doesn’t sound like a reasoned argument, more like an excuse.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/rpg-7.htm

Effective range on a moving target with an RPG-7 is 300 meters (roughly 900 ft.). Can you pinpoint the difference at 900 ft?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/rpg-7.htm

Effective range on a moving target with an RPG-7 is 300 meters (roughly 900 ft.). Can you pinpoint the difference at 900 ft?

I think criticism of the war, the U.S. military, and the cover-up are being confused with criticism of the soldiers who fight the war. It is what happened in Vietnam, too, and I think it detracts from the credibility of the people making the criticism.

The real story should be the cover-up. By not making this public, the military has brought this storm upon itself.

I think criticism of the war, the U.S. military, and the cover-up are being confused with criticism of the soldiers who fight the war. It is what happened in Vietnam, too, and I think it detracts from the credibility of the people making the criticism.

The real story should be the cover-up. By not making this public, the military has brought this storm upon itself.

Well written article.

Well written article.

James, I totally agree. It seems like soldiers become the scapegoat for either side of the argument which is unfair. Personally, I would not be able to trust myself to make the correct decision in a situation like this and have utmost respect for the soldiers who make those decisions on a daily basis. I think people are too quick to pass judgments without really caring to try to understand what it is they do.

James, I totally agree. It seems like soldiers become the scapegoat for either side of the argument which is unfair. Personally, I would not be able to trust myself to make the correct decision in a situation like this and have utmost respect for the soldiers who make those decisions on a daily basis. I think people are too quick to pass judgments without really caring to try to understand what it is they do.

“There is a common assumption by people who have not been to Iraq that insurgents, terrorists, freedom fighters, or whatever your preferred name is for people who engage in acts of violence against US soldiers, play by the rules.”

Regardless of whether they play by the rules or not, we have to if we want to pretend like we’re the good guys. While you certainly raise some good points, I don’t believe the actions of the soldiers were completely justified. There was no reason to shoot at the van, even if they didn’t see the children. There was no reason to beg for an excuse to murder an unarmed, wounded man crawling away as he dies.

Then there is the fact that the military covered this up and flat out lied in their investigation. If we can’t trust the military to be honest, we simply can’t trust the military. That is a horrible, dangerous situation for a country, where it can’t trust the people who are supposed to be defending it.

“There is a common assumption by people who have not been to Iraq that insurgents, terrorists, freedom fighters, or whatever your preferred name is for people who engage in acts of violence against US soldiers, play by the rules.”

Regardless of whether they play by the rules or not, we have to if we want to pretend like we’re the good guys. While you certainly raise some good points, I don’t believe the actions of the soldiers were completely justified. There was no reason to shoot at the van, even if they didn’t see the children. There was no reason to beg for an excuse to murder an unarmed, wounded man crawling away as he dies.

Then there is the fact that the military covered this up and flat out lied in their investigation. If we can’t trust the military to be honest, we simply can’t trust the military. That is a horrible, dangerous situation for a country, where it can’t trust the people who are supposed to be defending it.

Good piece by the NY Times on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?src=tptw

Good piece by the NY Times on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?src=tptw

Wikipedia states, “The Hughes M230 Chain Gun is the Area Weapon System on the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter…”

And “Muzzle velocity 805 m/s (2,641 ft/s)
Effective range 1,500 m (1,640 yd)
Maximum range 4,500 m (4,920 yd)”

From the time the gun first fired until first impact was 2-2.5 seconds. Therefore the copter was 1600-2000 meters away. Over a mile away! What threat was an AK-47 or even an RPG at that range?

Wikipedia states, “The Hughes M230 Chain Gun is the Area Weapon System on the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter…”

And “Muzzle velocity 805 m/s (2,641 ft/s)
Effective range 1,500 m (1,640 yd)
Maximum range 4,500 m (4,920 yd)”

From the time the gun first fired until first impact was 2-2.5 seconds. Therefore the copter was 1600-2000 meters away. Over a mile away! What threat was an AK-47 or even an RPG at that range?

Excellent article.

I’ve never been in the military, but I was in both police and security work a number of years, and quite a few times I found myself in hot situations. Fortunately, I never harmed or killed any innocent people — in fact, I was lucky to never have to fire at all.

But there were PLENTY of times I came THA-A-A-T close to squeezing off in our equivalent of “the heat of battle.” While it’s entirely possible I would have been cleared of any wrongdoing, even if an innocent person had been hurt or killed, I’m *awfully* thankful I don’t have that on my head. And I imagine the Apache crew probably feel the same.

And I want to add my support on another aspect of this. I had and still have, in some cases, friends and acquaintances who served in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in the latter some still serving. Maybe all three wars were and are completely wrong — but that’s not the fault of some grunt in a foxhole or any other uniformed serviceman (or woman). Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our highest uniformed officer, doesn’t make the final decision, though of course he advises the Secretary of Defense and the President, testifies to Congress, etc.

But the uniforms don’t pick the wars. The politicians pick them — then the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines go fight them, just like they were told to do. (Conversely, there are a few bad apples in the ranks; if one murders some innocent civilian, for example, nail his butt to the nearest cross — but don’t fault, say, the Chairman of the JCS, the President, etc. over one murderer they never even heard of — until now. And don’t judge the rightness or wrongness of the entire war based on that murderer’s actions.)

While I appreciate the stated goal of Wikileaks to expose wrongdoing, I *don’t* appreciate their editorializing and judging. If they were ever to be demonstrably and beyond any reasonable doubt to have caused the injury or death of even a single member of our armed forces, I’d support the government going after them — with a vengeance. Whistleblowing’s one thing; spilling legitimate classified information, such as battle plans, is not.

They’re not going to find a new set of Pentagon Papers every day, are they? (Though I’m convinced they’d love to do so.)

Excellent article.

I’ve never been in the military, but I was in both police and security work a number of years, and quite a few times I found myself in hot situations. Fortunately, I never harmed or killed any innocent people — in fact, I was lucky to never have to fire at all.

But there were PLENTY of times I came THA-A-A-T close to squeezing off in our equivalent of “the heat of battle.” While it’s entirely possible I would have been cleared of any wrongdoing, even if an innocent person had been hurt or killed, I’m *awfully* thankful I don’t have that on my head. And I imagine the Apache crew probably feel the same.

And I want to add my support on another aspect of this. I had and still have, in some cases, friends and acquaintances who served in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in the latter some still serving. Maybe all three wars were and are completely wrong — but that’s not the fault of some grunt in a foxhole or any other uniformed serviceman (or woman). Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our highest uniformed officer, doesn’t make the final decision, though of course he advises the Secretary of Defense and the President, testifies to Congress, etc.

But the uniforms don’t pick the wars. The politicians pick them — then the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines go fight them, just like they were told to do. (Conversely, there are a few bad apples in the ranks; if one murders some innocent civilian, for example, nail his butt to the nearest cross — but don’t fault, say, the Chairman of the JCS, the President, etc. over one murderer they never even heard of — until now. And don’t judge the rightness or wrongness of the entire war based on that murderer’s actions.)

While I appreciate the stated goal of Wikileaks to expose wrongdoing, I *don’t* appreciate their editorializing and judging. If they were ever to be demonstrably and beyond any reasonable doubt to have caused the injury or death of even a single member of our armed forces, I’d support the government going after them — with a vengeance. Whistleblowing’s one thing; spilling legitimate classified information, such as battle plans, is not.

They’re not going to find a new set of Pentagon Papers every day, are they? (Though I’m convinced they’d love to do so.)

Dear MEKHONG KURT,

Thanks for the insightful comment. I think you’re dead on here. What’s really interesting is that this Israel/Gaza flotilla mess has brought this example back into the media.

The catalyst to the American Revolutionary War, arguably, was the Boston Massacre. Lots of Americans, now and at the time, forget that those troops were acquitted of all major charges (with the help of John Adams). Does that matter? Nope. The soldiers and the protesters were present because a set of external circumstances put them there. And things got out of hand. When one puts an army into these types of situations, one has to accept the consequences, which is why it is important that the policies are sound.

I would argue that in all three examples there were overarching problems in the policy of the super power in question (Britain, America, and Israel, respectively), which led to disastrous results. I would also argue that if the overarching policies were sound, then the collateral damage, though tragic, would not have played out the way that it did in the court of public opinion.

Frankly, history continues to point out that soldiers don’t make good peace makers, through no fault of the particular soldiers themselves. They either invite one sided deaths of relatively weakly/unarmed civilians (Boston Massacre, the killing of the Reuters reporters, the flotilla event) or they invite civilians to take up arms (insurgencies, Somalia, Lexington and Concord) in order to even the odds. Following Sun Tzu’s teachings, both results are disastrous and both are the product of and result in the loss of initiative.

And that’s just a losing strategy.

Read my analysis of the Flotilla conflict here – http://www.dissectednews.com/2010/06/time-to-evolve.html

Dear MEKHONG KURT,

Thanks for the insightful comment. I think you’re dead on here. What’s really interesting is that this Israel/Gaza flotilla mess has brought this example back into the media.

The catalyst to the American Revolutionary War, arguably, was the Boston Massacre. Lots of Americans, now and at the time, forget that those troops were acquitted of all major charges (with the help of John Adams). Does that matter? Nope. The soldiers and the protesters were present because a set of external circumstances put them there. And things got out of hand. When one puts an army into these types of situations, one has to accept the consequences, which is why it is important that the policies are sound.

I would argue that in all three examples there were overarching problems in the policy of the super power in question (Britain, America, and Israel, respectively), which led to disastrous results. I would also argue that if the overarching policies were sound, then the collateral damage, though tragic, would not have played out the way that it did in the court of public opinion.

Frankly, history continues to point out that soldiers don’t make good peace makers, through no fault of the particular soldiers themselves. They either invite one sided deaths of relatively weakly/unarmed civilians (Boston Massacre, the killing of the Reuters reporters, the flotilla event) or they invite civilians to take up arms (insurgencies, Somalia, Lexington and Concord) in order to even the odds. Following Sun Tzu’s teachings, both results are disastrous and both are the product of and result in the loss of initiative.

And that’s just a losing strategy.

Read my analysis of the Flotilla conflict here – http://www.dissectednews.com/2010/06/time-to-evolve.html

[...] Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is VERY good at making headlines.  The last two leaks, however, have resulted in the publishing of classified information from inside the U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  (read an Iraq War vet’s analysis of leaked video showing the killing of two reporters in Iraq) [...]

[...] of classified information from inside the U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  (Read an Iraq War veteran’s analysis of the leaked video showing the killing of two reporters in [...]