[CaptainHaplo]

Catfish - it seems that your objection is not so much the "how" or "why" of this situation - but the "how" and "why" of the war - or perhaps all wars. I understand that - but you cannot take an isolated incident and turn it into a generalization of the entire conflict.

After reviewing the video again, let me make a couple of observations.....

The camera's were misidentified as weapons - yet other weapons were correctly identified. Having sat in that CPG seat a few times (worked on that armament system) that initial RPG call was one I am totally ok with. That was a "textbook" (if such a thing existed) look of a what combatant holding a RPG looking around a corner for a target appears like in a TADS/PNVS system. So the question becomes - was the misidentification INTENTIONAL? Given the chatter - absolutely not. Had they wanted to - they could have just said "Hey an RPG" and called that in. No RPG call was made until a rather damning (though incorrect) visual cue was noted. So the idea that the strike was just to "take out a few sand ******s" for jollies - as some want to imply (or just outright state) - doesn't hold water. Note that weapons were identified - and a request at that point made for engagement permission.

I am going to break this down using the vid from Neal's post.

2:50 is the first "weapon call" - its a wrong call - but understandable.
3:13 you have a second set of eyes on the same person - and the wrong call is confirmed....
3:20 you have the second weapon call - angle and shadow make the call reasonable - but its still wrong...
3:34 - "Individuals with weapons" call goes out. At this moment - no actual weapon has CLEARLY or INDISPUTABLY been captured in view.
3:39 - first confirmed correct sighting of a weapon.

Here there is one problem I have with the following call:

3:47 - "we have five to six" weapon toting people.... This call is factually in error. At this point in the video - only 3 individuals have been specifically noted (thought) to be carrying weapons. The call is made based on the assumption that others in the group are likely armed as well.

This is the same time that the first request to engage is made.... This call - because of the assumption - is a bad one. Its a crappy situation - but the decisions made are at this point in accordance with the ROE. Recall that the fact is that being armed in such a group was a violation of Iraqi goverment directives. So the ROE was defined in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqi government. Permission is granted but the engagement is delayed due to buildings in the way.

4:07 - RPG call - and this one was the clincher for me. OK - maybe just maybe the exaggeration on the number of armed people was over the top (I don't think so - I feel it was reasonable given the operational area and situation) - but this shot totally clears the aircrew. No way in hell they could know it was a camera and not an RPG. It looked like an RPG without a doubt - and the posture of the holder was entirely consistent with a person looking to take a quick shot.

4:17-4:18 The "RPG" guy comes around and as he leaves the FOV due to the building - looks to be aiming a shot. This is when you get the "we got a guy firing". Again - the appearance is entirely consistent with an RPG being aimed to fire. Nothing wrong with the call made as it is based of visual cues and are reasonable.

6:30 "Look at those dead bastards".... Is this cold and callous? Maybe so - but considering that those dead bastards were - in the mind of the aircrew - people who were part of a group that just took a shot at someone else - whether civvies, Iraqi or US military forces - with the intent to kill whoever the targets where - I fail to see a problem here.

6:31-6:34 "Nice, Nice" and "Good Shooting" - A job well done - you in all likelyhood just saved the lives of some friends. Nobody in their right mind wants to kill, but if you do it - at least you can take pride in a job well done when that job was to protect others. Entirely understandable.

Its important to remember that part of what allows men to perform their duty is rationalization - and the "dehumanizing" of the enemy. Submarines sank ships - not sailors - for example. You never try to think of the person - and when you have to - its natural to push the human side away. It keeps you sane.

Now to the van episode. It made me damn near sick (literally) to see how Wikileaks slowed down and blew up the video to show the kids. Tell me - did ANYONE watching that the first time honestly see kids in that van? Hell no they didn't. But somehow - the guy responsible for watching all the moving - potentially armed adults running around not only the van but the entire scene - was supposed to see em at the outset? What utter bull$hit! Again - unmarked vehicle rendering aid on a battlefield - falls under the Geneva convention as a non-protected target.

Oh - and one other little tidbit the wikileaks vid leaves out - you had at least 8 fatalities confirmed. 2 were reporters - but the other 6 - notice they don't talk about what affiliations they were found to have had. Being presented with such an anti-war bias - the absence of that information being provided is rather telling. Had they had no insurgent/militia ties, that piece of propaganda would have been trumpeting it.... It didn't....

War absolutely sucks. But the investigation into this returned the right outcome by clearing the aircrew. For those who don't think so - break down the video as I and others have done - and give reasons why - based on the directive from the Iraqi NSC that defined the ROE - this was wrong.

Don't just spew out the "war is bad and killing civilians is wrong". We can all agree that collateral damage is horrible. Make a reasoned case for why the actions taken - from the calls made by the aircrew, to the strike authorizations by ground commanders, were intentionally in error based on the situation. When you do this - make sure you lay out the reasons this was a bad call when during the video one RPG can be identified (though after the fact) as well as when all was done - multiple AK's and at least 3 RPG's were found at the scene.

Multiple AK's and 3 RPG's = good strike under the ROE and the Iraqi mandate. Doesn't make it nice or pretty - but combat never is.