The guy will be raked over the coals for this most likely when the dust settles, either that or he'll be well hidden when the reporters come knocking.
The problem with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is that every single civilian is a potential combatant. There are no uniforms, the only difference between a civilian and a combatant is that one is holding a gun and one isn't, and the time it takes for you to ascertain this fact is time that the combatant (if he or she is a combatant) can use to either cover their tracks or move out of line of sight into cover if they become aware that a gunship is monitoring them.
I would believe the reason they engaged the van is that they were under the impression it was picking up the bodies and the weapons, now, although that video is bloody clear, and objects like AKs and that would stand out like a sore thumb, would explosives? Would a pistol or a small SMG like an Uzi? I dunno, I'm not there so I could not say. However, one thing to be said in the defence of the gunner, he was champing at the bit to engage (he thought they were hostiles) however he did not defy the chain of command, he obtained clearance to engage the van.
This sort of thing happens a fair deal, and it will continue to happen a fair deal in an environment where the only uniforms are worn by the coalition forces (and even then you have the problem of infiltrators) and the enemy does not play by the rules that you are forced to.
It's even worse for the guys who have the feet on the deck, at least the Apache drivers have the benefit of height, face to face though, the moment you realise that that civilian is actually a combatant could very well be your last.
So, I'm not going to condemn them, chances are, as Jim says, there are many in other armies who are as 'bloodthirsty' (to use a crude term) as the Apache gunner. I'm not serving in Iraqi or Afghanistan, I have never served in any of the armed forces, so I do not judge myself as able to fully understand the situation that the gunner and pilot were in. It's not good for public relations, this is certain, but public relations over the 'War on Terror' are so abysmal anyway that I doubt this will do much more damage than has already been done.
Another telling point is the footnote at the end which I wonder how many here have noticed that states that the soldiers who found the wounded children sent them to a US base hospital, but were then ordered by the Higher ups to turn them over to Iraqi police who would take them to an Iraqi hospital, eventually. I would say that if any blame were to be delivered, it should be from the top down, not from the bottom up. The United States Armed Forces, and the NATO forces involved in the 'War on Terror' were never designed for a 'War on Terror' they were designed for a war on the Soviet Union and that is what they have been geared to for the past five decades, it's taken until now to adjust to this new way of fighting and many groups and branches of the military are still adjusting, some, the 'old guard' may never adjust and will attempt to use tactics that were developed against the Soviet forces against insurgent forces which differ in many, many ways. However, this is me rambling and not a coherent response to this thread.
TLDR?
It's a disturbing video yes, but war is disturbing. One cannot be at war without accepting that such incidences may occur. Training and technology help to cut down on the amount of times that such events occur, but they will still occur so long as humans are brought into contact with weaponry and told to kill other humans. After all, remember the Polish pilots in the Battle of Britain who used to strafe Germans who had bailed out of their shot down planes? Or the strafing runs on villages in Kent and France? People and war never mix, and as long as they do, people will die.
|