Reuters: U.S. military in Iraq admit airstrike error

[Eugene]

U.S. military in Iraq admit airstrike error

Reuters
Monday, February 5, 2007; 7:14 AM

MAHMUDIYA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. military officers offered their condolences on Monday
to an Iraqi family south of Baghdad in a rare admission of error after killing two
innocent Iraqis in an airstrike last Tuesday.

A U.S. military statement released on January 31 said two "insurgents" out of a four-man
team were killed as they were trying to plant a roadside bomb in the town of Mahmudiya.

Calling the incident a "tragic accident," the officers on Monday handed out $2,500 to the
family for each man killed.

A small group of U.S. officers, accompanied by an Iraqi officer and Mahmudiya's mayor,
entered a tent with their weapons where mourners gathered to pay respect to the victims,
shaking hands with tribesman and drinking hot coffee.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500394.html

[hippiechick]

1. Disgusting.

" ... the officers on Monday handed out $2,500 to the family for each man killed ..."

So we finally admit to TWO, and buy them off, like cattle.
This country should be so ashamed of itself.

[Raydawg1234]

15. interestingly enough, In Vietnam, a waterbuffalo was worth more than a person.

heard that from a vet.

[Missy M]

2. How disgusting....

the US has decided an Iraqis life is worth $2500.00. They say sorry, we killed two of your family members, here's $2500.00 each, drink some coffee and shake hands. If that happened to my family I wouldn't be shaking hands, that's for sure.

[gratuitous]

3. Oopsie

Gee, the whole 9/11 aftermath could have been ended with a payoff of $7.5 million? I mean, 3,000 lives snuffed out at the going rate of $2,500 per would have avoided the entire global war on terror, right?

Or are lives in America worth more than lives in Iraq, Mr. Pro-Life President?

[HeeBGBz]

4. $2500. That was big of them

:sarcasm:

[vssmith]

5. Slaves went for $1000 per in the South before the Civil War

I would have thought that by now a human life would have been worth more.

[krispos42]

6. What the hell were they doing hanging out with a team planting an IED?

That's MY question. This doesn't look very innocent to me.

The Army blowing up or gunning down every group of people trying to plant something along side a road it a valid tactic to fight IEDs.

[gratuitous]

7. And you know this . . . how?

The same folks who blew those people into eternity from long range with the push of a button claimed that they did so because they were planting roadside bombs. I wonder what the folks who were killed might say they were doing? Well, dead men tell no tales, and the military would never, ever lie just to make an egregious error (or a war crime) look a little more palatable to the folks back home. Right?

[krispos42]

9. This is how

1) They were close enough to the 2 real IED planters to be considered a 'team' of 4 people.
2) They were in the location long enough to be considered part of the team.
3) They were in the location long enough for the military to spot the real 2-man team and the two innocents, observe what they are doing, call for and line up an air attack, and a bomb or missile to fly from the attacking aircraft to the ground.
4) They were near enough to real terrorist team to be caught in the blast radius, a few dozen yards.

The military must have had very definitive proof that the two innocents were NOT part of the IED team to reverse course, admit a mistake, and make a payout. Like maybe the two were informants or something. This would have come out AFTER the airstrike, not before.

This fits all the facts present in the story.

Whatever they were doing, they weren't just walking past when a Maverick missile explosed next to them.

[gratuitous]

10. Wow, you were there?

Or are you taking the military's word for what they "observed" after the fact in terms of what anyone might have been doing, where each individual was standing, and who got caught in the blast radius. Seems to me the military should be a bit more careful throwing its bang-bangs around if it's so easy to kill innocents along with the guilty.

Odd that the military would go to the extraordinary measure of issuing an apology and making a blood payment, then, if the folks they killed were originally "determined" to be part of the "team" "planting" "explosives."

Bottom line is that unless you were there (and you make no such assertion), you don't know what went on there any more than me or the man in the moon. And based on the military's track record thus far in Iraq, I'm not inclined to take their word for anything, especially pertaining to an incident where someone gets killed.

[krispos42]

11. Yup, you caught me. I was the 5th member of the team and they missed me

<sigh>If any of my conclusions are wrong, refute me. Tell me what you conclude from this. Tell me that the military KNEW that the four guys in a cluster, planting the IED, were really just 2 regular guys watching two insurgents. Explain to the whole forum why two non-insurgents were handing around two insurgents planting an IED long enough and close enough to get killed by a missile or bomb or strafing run.

I think my conclusion is reasonable, based on the story as presented. I also think the actions of the military were also reasonable, again, based on the story as presented.

The story may be bullshit, but if it is, they why did they apologize and make restitution?

If we're operating under the assumption that the story is total bullshit, then drawing conclusions is an exercise in futility. If that's where you are, then fine, say so and be done with it.

If we're going to draw conclusions based on the assumption that the story is fairly accurate, then I've done my part. If I'm wrong, point to something in the story that leads you to believe I'm wrong. If you can't do that, then simply say "The entire story is bullshit, so I don't believe any conclusions can be drawn from it." That is your opinion, and I will not argue with it.

[Nihil]

14. Having seen the photos of previous "smart bombing" ...

... the two completely innocent victims could have been at the other
end of the street but still hit by one of the high explosive toys
being thrown around. We have only a military spokesman's word to say
that the four were standing together (never mind the proposed reason
for why they were "standing together").

> The story may be bullshit, but if it is, they why did they apologize
> and make restitution?

As one of the other posters suggested, they apologised because of the
connections involved. You are quite right, it is not USAF or US Army
policy to apologise for killing or maiming innocent civilians (or even
their allies) and that fact is very well known in the world (outside
the USA).

You are welcome to your interpretation of the reports and the trust
you choose to put in them. Others may have a more jaundiced view of
the accuracy of both the US military and their PR department.

[daleo]

12. The Washington Post article doesn't say any of this

This is all just supposition. If the military apologized, it must have been a pretty egregious error (or the people killed were connected to somebody awfully important).

[Felinity]

13. Prepare to hear something else you don't like

But first, I totally agree that we must have been guilty as sin to proffer an apology. Hell, we shot a bunch of civilians in the head and tried to cover it up. Not to mention that "collateral damage" is an unfortunate consequence of all wars, not to mention the current circus of errors in Iraq.

Here's the bad part: Is it a good idea to hand people whose family you just murdered cash? Why not just bring a truckload of explosives and have them fill up a shopping cart? How do you think we created all this enmity, by passing out candy, offering free medical care, rebuilding their schools and hospitals, or GETTING THEIR ELECTRICITY BACK ON?

Despite the inconceivable disregard for the sanctity of life that seems widespread in their culture, these folks believe in vengeance when they've been wronged. I think it is highly likely that some of that $5,000 is going to cost us casualties.

Sorry, just harsh reality.

[krispos42]

16. Yes, reasoned supposition

Again, if there is a flaw in my logic or reasoning, feel free to correct me.

Fact: In an airstrike, four people were killed. Two were insurgents burying an IED, and two were innocents.

Fact: An airstrike consists of an airplane or helicopter firing a guided missile, unguided rocket, guided or unguided bomb, or machine-gun or cannon fire.

Fact: Despite the impressive visual effect, the lethal radius of a single bomb or missile is only a few dozen yards. Therefore, it follows that the two innocents were in fairly close proximity to the insurgents.

Fact: An airstrike only occurs after detection and observation. The time between the decision to fire and the airstrike itself could range from a few seconds to several minutes, so the innocents were in the vicinity long enough to be believed to the part of the insurgents AND to still be there when the airstrike rolled in.

This is why I'm not faulting the military for killing the innocents. Absent of other facts (like maybe the innocents were hiding nearby having sex or smoking pot and nobody saw them until it was too late), I'm not going to imply that the professional military of the United States are just gore-thirsty psychos.

This was an airstrike, not an infantry operation. It is much more clinical and removed than the intimacy, smells, and sights of close-quarters combat.

[daleo]

17. U.S. pilots killed 4 Canadians in Afghanistan

And also killed British soldiers in Iraq (its on the BBC website today), not to mention U.S. troops in both places. Mistakes can be made in all sorts of ways, for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes the mistakes are hard to avoid, sometimes you go "huh?" after the facts come out.

[Casablanca]

19. "Hey, my targeting computer told me it was safe to shoot."

Nintendo Pilot Technology as the new Nuremberg Defense.

The safer the shooter is and the farther away from the kill zone they can shoot, the less he/she has to care about things like innocence, and can know about the difference between friend and foe. They'll just blame the scope and and info chain, because that's the only way they can motivate themselves to continue the job the next day.

So I don't blame the pilot as much as the system that told him to only rely on transmitted nth-hand information about enemies that are well-trained (and getting better trained every day) to look and act like they are on "our side", and those who are actually are on "our side". I do blame the entire military system for knowing this "fog of war" battlefield dynamic and rationalizing the value of innocent lives away as collateral damage - for the sake of cash and politics.

[DrDan]

8. I think this will be greeted with flowers and candy

thrown in the street for our freedom fighters

we shall have friends forever as a result of our new-found strategy

junior will go down in history as a great peacemaker


(urp)

[Zhade]

18. "Error". Sure.

NT!