Collateral Murder

(Update)

Once is all i needed. Once is all i can bear. I am referring to the horrifying video footage of Iraqi civilians being gunned down by a pair of U.S. Apache attack helicopters in 2007. Among the 12 civilians killed were Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh. The extremely graphic and disturbing video was very difficult for me to watch. It showed a group of Iraqi men milling about on the street casually, along with the two Reuters’ employee. A couple of them appeared to be carrying AK-47s and a third person was carrying either a tripod or a RPG. They were not engaged in attacking the Coalition Forces.

At some point, the Apache pilots requested permission to engage the Iraqis and that was granted soon after. The first burst of cannon fire from the Apache helicopters killed most of them. Two unarmed Iraqis, including journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, attempted to run away but was tracked and gunned down. The only survivor, who appeared to be seriously injured, from the initial attack was Saeed Chmagh. As he was desperately trying to crawl his way to safety, one of the pilots could be heard baiting him on (from the air) to pick up a weapon so that they could finish him off. At that moment, a black Kia minivan showed up. Two guys got off the van to carry the injured Saeed into the van. From the conversation between the pilots and the command, it was very clear that they were inching to kill everyone in the van. After finally receiving the permission to engage the minivan, the helicopters fired at the van, almost completely obliterating it. The two guys who were carrying Saeed thought they found shelter behind a wall but were gunned down. When the CF (Coalition Forces) ground troops showed up, they found two injured children in the minivan.

After watching the disturbing 18-minute video, i was literally shaking. The only thing that came to my mind was how callously these people were killed. The Apache helicopter pilots seemed to take pleasure in making sure that they targeted and killed everyone, including unarmed people in the group. In several instances, they were even laughing as they were firing on the people, completely desensitized from the fact that they were taking lives. According to the US Rules of Engagement for Iraq in 2007,

1. You may engage the following individuals based on their conduct:
a. Persons who are committing hostile acts against CF.
b. Persons who are exhibiting hostile intent towards CF.

It was evident in the video before the initial fire from the helicopters that they were not committing hostile acts against CF. It is not clear to me what “exhibiting hostile intent” means. Does carrying a AK-47, which was a very common sight in Baghdad, imply exhibiting hostile intent? The helicopter pilots, which were under absolutely no threat while flying quite some distance away, made no attempt to distinguish between suspected armed insurgents and unarmed civilians. ROE Rule 2f stressed to “ALWAYS minimize incidental injury, loss of life, and collateral damage“. By engaging the Iraqis with the 30-mm cannon on the Apache helicopters, it was impossible to minimize incidental injury, loss of life and collateral damage. ROE Rule 2c prohibited the targeting or striking of “anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds.” The pilots completely ignored this rule when it gunned down the good samaritans who were trying to carry the mortally wounded Saeed into the black minivan.

Until the publication of the video by WikiLeaks, Reuters had been seeking for the release of the video using Freedom of Information Act since 2007 but to no avail. It took the effort of several whistleblowers in the U.S. military and the courageous folks at WikiLeaks.org to allow this video to see the living daylight. After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own “Rules of Engagement”. This begs the question: if actions of the pilots were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and our own ROE, how many more incidents like this were not reported? This incident involved the deaths of two Reuters employees and even though Reuters was unsuccessful in their attempt to get the video released, they were able to force CENTCOM to investigate. How many other incidents involving the killing and maiming of unamed Iraqis in similar manner were investigated? The CENTCOM investigation cleared the Apache pilots of any wrongdoing and insisted that they were following standard operating procedures. If that was the case, why was there a need to cover up the tragedy? After the video was made available to the public yesterday, CENTCOM suddenly had a change of heart and posted the outcome of their “investigation” online. According to Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, “those formal investigations not only found that every action taken by those soldiers was completely justified — including the firing on the unarmed civilian rescuers — but also found that there’s no need for any remedial steps to be taken to prevent future re-occurence.” In another word, it is business as usual when it comes to targeting “insurgents” – or who we think are insurgents – who are not posing any threat to our Servicemen and women. There is something deeply and profoundly wrong with our standard operating procedures when it allowed the atrocious targeting of unarmed men who came out from the minivan to assist the gravely injured Reuter employee.

Update
Upon reviewing the released sworn testimony from the pilots, the Economist noted the irrelevance of them mistaking Noor-Eldeen’s camera as a RPG (my emphasis):

I was looking at Capt. [redacted]‘s video at that point and I saw the guy crouch behind the corner which now, what I hear was a camera. But, yes sir, we came around the corner, Capt. [redacted] had his TADS on that and I was watching. I think I even made the comment…I can’t remember if I said he’s firing, or I saw a flash. I think you can probably hear it on the tape and what caught my concern was at the end of the alley that he was peaking [sic] around was a HMMWV, so I think that’s when I called [redacted] and he said yea they saw the same thing. Both aircraft decided when we got around the corner we would engage in that direction.

The focus on Mr Noor-Eldeen and his camera is misleading. The helicopters had already decided to attack the group of men on the ground well before the photographer peeked around the corner. Watching the video released by Wikileaks, we hear the pilots request permission to engage at 3:48. Their perception of a threat, at that point, is that several men they see are carrying weapons. (Two of the men, the Reuters staff, are in fact carrying camera bags, but two or perhaps three others appear to be carrying assault rifles or an RPG.) The pilots are granted permission to engage at 3:55. They do not begin shooting immediately, not because they are unsure they are looking at enemy combatants, but because the men on the ground move behind a building. Then, at 4:09, 20 seconds after requesting permission to start shooting, a pilot spots Namir Noor-Eldeen apparently assembling his camera at the corner of the building, and says hurriedly “He’s got an RPG!” When the helicopters circle 90 degrees and have an angle on the group from behind, they begin firing, killing everyone in the group.