How the U.S. Killed the Wrong Soldiers
February 4, 2002 6:07 PM Subscribe
How the U.S. Killed the Wrong Soldiers I read the original report of this attack and discounted the possiblity that it was a major screw up but it looks like it was. The same story from Knight Ridder
"For the love of Allah, do not kill us. We surrender."
Assuming this is true, the U.S. troops should have stopped right then and there. I recall something about the U.S. not accepting Taliban prisoners directly a while back--can't find it in the archive--but this still seems to be a violation of international law.
Anyway, bullet holes in the back of people who were running away out to be easy enough to spot, as should blood splattering under beds that people were hiding in when they were shot by the fine folks from Damage, Inc..
If any of this is true, the military should be ashamed of themselves for doing it, of course, and doubly ashamed of themselves for not being willing to fess up to it. My Lai took years to sort out, but when all was said and done it contributed (I would wager) more than any other single event to the public perception of Viet Nam as a grade-a fuckup.
A comparison to the September attack that started this whole mess is roughly arguable, but most people would consider it trolling, so I will refrain. The important thing is that their reaction to the (alleged) slaughter of innocent civilians is typical and as justifiable as ours was.
Surveying the carnage, a Uruzgan elder said, "The U.S. must be punished for what they did in this room."
Mistake on our part or not, I'd sure like to see an argument against the validity of this statement.
posted by Hildago at 6:27 PM on February 4, 2002
Assuming this is true, the U.S. troops should have stopped right then and there. I recall something about the U.S. not accepting Taliban prisoners directly a while back--can't find it in the archive--but this still seems to be a violation of international law.
Anyway, bullet holes in the back of people who were running away out to be easy enough to spot, as should blood splattering under beds that people were hiding in when they were shot by the fine folks from Damage, Inc..
If any of this is true, the military should be ashamed of themselves for doing it, of course, and doubly ashamed of themselves for not being willing to fess up to it. My Lai took years to sort out, but when all was said and done it contributed (I would wager) more than any other single event to the public perception of Viet Nam as a grade-a fuckup.
A comparison to the September attack that started this whole mess is roughly arguable, but most people would consider it trolling, so I will refrain. The important thing is that their reaction to the (alleged) slaughter of innocent civilians is typical and as justifiable as ours was.
Surveying the carnage, a Uruzgan elder said, "The U.S. must be punished for what they did in this room."
Mistake on our part or not, I'd sure like to see an argument against the validity of this statement.
posted by Hildago at 6:27 PM on February 4, 2002
> Nevertheless, it was a screw-up.
You sir, are a fuckwit!
The justification quota alert, no more in this vein please.
posted by bittennails at 6:30 PM on February 4, 2002
You sir, are a fuckwit!
The justification quota alert, no more in this vein please.
posted by bittennails at 6:30 PM on February 4, 2002
The justification quota alert, no more in this vein please.
Huh?
posted by rushmc at 6:44 PM on February 4, 2002
Huh?
posted by rushmc at 6:44 PM on February 4, 2002
Sorry, on my way to the cups, but the level of justification taking place constantly has me kinda sick...with regard to a lot of stuff not just afghanistan, but mostly afghanistan and this psuedo-war.
posted by bittennails at 6:49 PM on February 4, 2002
posted by bittennails at 6:49 PM on February 4, 2002
Bittennails -- I'm not sure your explanation really cleared anything up. Where's the justification coming from? If they did kill a school full of friendly soldiers, how was it not a screw-up?
If we killed a battalion of our own soldiers, wouldn't that be a screw up? What's the difference?
posted by Hildago at 6:54 PM on February 4, 2002
If we killed a battalion of our own soldiers, wouldn't that be a screw up? What's the difference?
posted by Hildago at 6:54 PM on February 4, 2002
i think bittennails means like saying it was an accident, thus abrogating responsibility.
IIRC, wasn't there another "screw-up" where a convoy heading towards a loya jirga was blown up?
posted by kliuless at 6:59 PM on February 4, 2002
IIRC, wasn't there another "screw-up" where a convoy heading towards a loya jirga was blown up?
posted by kliuless at 6:59 PM on February 4, 2002
Well, justification as in: oh well wrong place wrong time, damn we shot the wrong guys, lets drink to them. I felt the "it was a screw up was condescending" like an excuse to explain away a lack of intelligence, which has been going on.
Stuff like this > "The Americans aren't ready to admit as much. But after initially dismissing the possibility that the U.S. had committed a colossal error, American military officials now concede that they may have attacked some anti-Taliban fighters. But they insist that Taliban soldiers were in the district as well."
It's the I know, I know aspect after these situations occur, theres enough in the article to suggest that initial opinion is to downplay it...?
posted by bittennails at 7:06 PM on February 4, 2002
Stuff like this > "The Americans aren't ready to admit as much. But after initially dismissing the possibility that the U.S. had committed a colossal error, American military officials now concede that they may have attacked some anti-Taliban fighters. But they insist that Taliban soldiers were in the district as well."
It's the I know, I know aspect after these situations occur, theres enough in the article to suggest that initial opinion is to downplay it...?
posted by bittennails at 7:06 PM on February 4, 2002
Yes, abrogating responsibility, better said than I could have kliuless...
posted by bittennails at 7:07 PM on February 4, 2002
posted by bittennails at 7:07 PM on February 4, 2002
better said than I could have kliuless
Dude, talk like Yoda you do.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:11 PM on February 4, 2002
Dude, talk like Yoda you do.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:11 PM on February 4, 2002
...and similar features have I.
posted by bittennails at 7:14 PM on February 4, 2002
posted by bittennails at 7:14 PM on February 4, 2002
Well, you're certainly a troll.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:32 PM on February 4, 2002
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:32 PM on February 4, 2002
So? ...dare I say, donkeyschlong!
posted by bittennails at 7:36 PM on February 4, 2002
posted by bittennails at 7:36 PM on February 4, 2002
Ahh, I see now. I took your message in the exact opposite way it was intended, Bittennails.
On that note, I would agree with you that there is no amount of justification that can cover up for killing innocent people. Ours or theirs.
posted by Hildago at 7:52 PM on February 4, 2002
On that note, I would agree with you that there is no amount of justification that can cover up for killing innocent people. Ours or theirs.
posted by Hildago at 7:52 PM on February 4, 2002
I don't understand why bittennails hurled an expletive at treywhit, however.
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:17 PM on February 4, 2002
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:17 PM on February 4, 2002
"For the love of Allah, do not kill us. We surrender."
Would the soldiers have understood the language?
posted by Tarrama at 8:19 PM on February 4, 2002
Would the soldiers have understood the language?
posted by Tarrama at 8:19 PM on February 4, 2002
Htuttle: they killed the people they were trying to kill.
We, on the other hand, managed to kill people helping avenge their death.
Obviously, the time for running into random buildings in Afghanistan is over.
Tarrama: During the press breifing after this, the speaker indicated that they always brought along translators
posted by delmoi at 9:09 PM on February 4, 2002
We, on the other hand, managed to kill people helping avenge their death.
Obviously, the time for running into random buildings in Afghanistan is over.
Tarrama: During the press breifing after this, the speaker indicated that they always brought along translators
posted by delmoi at 9:09 PM on February 4, 2002
Hildalgo, the problem with claiming a violation of international law in the case of specific individuals is that it's not generally practical for individual soldiers to surrender in the midst of a firefight. As long as any of the soldiers in the room are returning fire, or even merely brandishing weapons, the group cannot be said to have surrendered.
Since we did take over two dozen prisoners, about as many as were killed, that's a clear indication that we were accepting surrender. US forces are extensively trained in the laws of war and the use of appropriate force, and every single operation will be with rules of engagement set in advance by a commander in cooperation with his military law liaison.
The rules of engagement for working in civilian areas are much more difficult to manage, as you might expect; but when entering a combat situation soldiers are authorized to use anticipatory force up to and including deadly fire. In this case they clearly believed they would be attacking a violent al Qaeda cell that would be extremely unlikely to surrender, and if they did surrender, would remain dangerous. Acceptance of a surrender then would only be possible when sufficient US force had reached the location and could provide cover fire while the surrendering soldiers were disarmed and bound.
In the end this sounds more and more like a deadly blunder, but it should be understood more in the sense of a friendly fire incident rather than a deliberate attack on civilians. Comparisons to My Lai are disingenuous; Lt. Calley's orders were questioned by his own troops and other American soldiers eventually stopped it. It was an egregious and deliberate violation of normal treatment of civilians even in a war zone. In this case, the troops were acting on information that may have been deliberately erroneous. The Time article doesn't mention this, but other reports such as the Knight-Ridder article have indicated that there were two compounds in the town or general vicinity, and both were attacked. According to these other sources, they represented competing militias, and both may have "called in tips" on the other. Thus the bad information was inserted into the system and the decision to seize and destroy the compound was not itself an illegal or unprofessional action in any way, nor were the actions of the soldiers carrying out the attack.
It's a sad fact of war, but friendly fire incidents happen all the time, as our own soldiers' deaths have demonstrated. They're always regrettable, but they're never going to be wholly unavoidable.
posted by dhartung at 9:11 PM on February 4, 2002
Since we did take over two dozen prisoners, about as many as were killed, that's a clear indication that we were accepting surrender. US forces are extensively trained in the laws of war and the use of appropriate force, and every single operation will be with rules of engagement set in advance by a commander in cooperation with his military law liaison.
The rules of engagement for working in civilian areas are much more difficult to manage, as you might expect; but when entering a combat situation soldiers are authorized to use anticipatory force up to and including deadly fire. In this case they clearly believed they would be attacking a violent al Qaeda cell that would be extremely unlikely to surrender, and if they did surrender, would remain dangerous. Acceptance of a surrender then would only be possible when sufficient US force had reached the location and could provide cover fire while the surrendering soldiers were disarmed and bound.
In the end this sounds more and more like a deadly blunder, but it should be understood more in the sense of a friendly fire incident rather than a deliberate attack on civilians. Comparisons to My Lai are disingenuous; Lt. Calley's orders were questioned by his own troops and other American soldiers eventually stopped it. It was an egregious and deliberate violation of normal treatment of civilians even in a war zone. In this case, the troops were acting on information that may have been deliberately erroneous. The Time article doesn't mention this, but other reports such as the Knight-Ridder article have indicated that there were two compounds in the town or general vicinity, and both were attacked. According to these other sources, they represented competing militias, and both may have "called in tips" on the other. Thus the bad information was inserted into the system and the decision to seize and destroy the compound was not itself an illegal or unprofessional action in any way, nor were the actions of the soldiers carrying out the attack.
It's a sad fact of war, but friendly fire incidents happen all the time, as our own soldiers' deaths have demonstrated. They're always regrettable, but they're never going to be wholly unavoidable.
posted by dhartung at 9:11 PM on February 4, 2002
Check this out: "Report: U.S. paid villagers over raid"
posted by owillis at 10:57 PM on February 4, 2002
posted by owillis at 10:57 PM on February 4, 2002
Thus the bad information was inserted into the system and the decision to seize and destroy the compound was not itself an illegal or unprofessional action in any way, nor were the actions of the soldiers carrying out the attack.
Rationalization for murder never ceases to amaze.
It's a sad fact of war, but friendly fire incidents happen all the time, as our own soldiers' deaths have demonstrated. They're always regrettable, but they're never going to be wholly unavoidable.
Oh really? Here's a novel idea: stop killing people. I'll bet "friendly fire" incidents become immediately and magically completely unavoidable.
Killing people in order to prevent the killing of people doesn't work. It never has. The particular philosophy that violence somehow eliminates violence is the refuge of the craven. The idea that treating people inhumanely enhances their humanity is the result of a curious lunatic dislocation of the mind...brought on, I guess, by a visit to ...and a surrender within...a personal Room 101.
Stop killing people. Stop killing children in Baghdad and Jerusalem, stop flying jetliners into tall buildings, and stop shooting Afghanis in Afghanistan.
Just stop killing people. Just stop it. It's a relatively simple concept. I didn't actually think of it myself. I'm not sure who did, but these crazy fuckwits (to coin a phrase) like Christ and Buddha and Mohammad keep harping on it. But who are they compared to our glorious and righteous national leaders, eh?
Stop killing people. Then let me know how many "friendly fire" incidents you see. I suspect you'll find that they are indeed avoidable.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:19 AM on February 5, 2002
Rationalization for murder never ceases to amaze.
It's a sad fact of war, but friendly fire incidents happen all the time, as our own soldiers' deaths have demonstrated. They're always regrettable, but they're never going to be wholly unavoidable.
Oh really? Here's a novel idea: stop killing people. I'll bet "friendly fire" incidents become immediately and magically completely unavoidable.
Killing people in order to prevent the killing of people doesn't work. It never has. The particular philosophy that violence somehow eliminates violence is the refuge of the craven. The idea that treating people inhumanely enhances their humanity is the result of a curious lunatic dislocation of the mind...brought on, I guess, by a visit to ...and a surrender within...a personal Room 101.
Stop killing people. Stop killing children in Baghdad and Jerusalem, stop flying jetliners into tall buildings, and stop shooting Afghanis in Afghanistan.
Just stop killing people. Just stop it. It's a relatively simple concept. I didn't actually think of it myself. I'm not sure who did, but these crazy fuckwits (to coin a phrase) like Christ and Buddha and Mohammad keep harping on it. But who are they compared to our glorious and righteous national leaders, eh?
Stop killing people. Then let me know how many "friendly fire" incidents you see. I suspect you'll find that they are indeed avoidable.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:19 AM on February 5, 2002
Talking of fratricide ... here's a link to the ever-fascinating Friendly Fire Notebook.
posted by dlewis at 2:45 AM on February 5, 2002
posted by dlewis at 2:45 AM on February 5, 2002
I'm anti-war. My reaction to September 11th would have been a total reversal of foreign policy. Completely unpragmatic, as the corporations would not allow such a travesty.
Soldiers in Afghanistan are there to kill. Maybe capture, but first one would think their "job" is to kill. Hopefully to kill the "bad guys". I'm not sure how a Westerner can tell an Al Qaeda from a Taliban from a Northern Alliance type. I've been told the natives can tell the difference.
This was not the first case of individuals being found bound and shot dead, the same situation occurred at the jail "riot".
Soldiers kill. Some call it defending democracy & freedom. But really they kill the enemy. If the enemy is democractic & freedom loving, or if the enemy is totalitarian dictatorship. It is about friends & enemies. Many totalitarian dictatorships have been friends, and many democratically elected (read: leftist) guvmints have been enemies.
The soldiers did what they were paid to do. Anyone that supports the war should not complain about mistakes. Those opposed to the war can do little but sigh. There were a lot of deaths that weren't mistakes. Afghan families blown to bits.
posted by Mondo at 7:18 AM on February 5, 2002
Soldiers in Afghanistan are there to kill. Maybe capture, but first one would think their "job" is to kill. Hopefully to kill the "bad guys". I'm not sure how a Westerner can tell an Al Qaeda from a Taliban from a Northern Alliance type. I've been told the natives can tell the difference.
This was not the first case of individuals being found bound and shot dead, the same situation occurred at the jail "riot".
Soldiers kill. Some call it defending democracy & freedom. But really they kill the enemy. If the enemy is democractic & freedom loving, or if the enemy is totalitarian dictatorship. It is about friends & enemies. Many totalitarian dictatorships have been friends, and many democratically elected (read: leftist) guvmints have been enemies.
The soldiers did what they were paid to do. Anyone that supports the war should not complain about mistakes. Those opposed to the war can do little but sigh. There were a lot of deaths that weren't mistakes. Afghan families blown to bits.
posted by Mondo at 7:18 AM on February 5, 2002
Killing people in order to prevent the killing of people doesn't work. It never has.
Funny, I've yet to hear of a single case of recidivism in an executed (or gunned down) murderer.
posted by rushmc at 7:58 AM on February 5, 2002
Funny, I've yet to hear of a single case of recidivism in an executed (or gunned down) murderer.
posted by rushmc at 7:58 AM on February 5, 2002
Boy, I sure didn't know that killing was bad. I'm so happy we have fold_and_mutilate around to lecture let us know. And with a tiresome, gratuitous Orwell reference to boot!
Mondo: though bodies were found bound and shot, it is only a war crime if they are shot after they were bound. They may very easily have been grievously wounded in the firefight, bound, and died before evacuation. And the prisoner revolt at Mazar-i-Sharif -- why do you feel the need to put scare quotes around the word riot? -- which involved prisoners seizing light artillery and initially more firepower than their guards had access to was effectively a fighting force that had returned to combat in a well-defended fort. It was days before we could safely put people inside, yet you insinuate -- what? that in the middle of a firefight, our people chose to waste bullets on incapacitated prisoners, rather than armed fighters? That's nonsense.
I'm happy you feel comfortable with your extreme, implacable anti-war position. May I now begin driving my truck across your front yard? If I do, what response will you give? What if, for argument's sake, I begin shooting at your family?
posted by dhartung at 2:50 PM on February 5, 2002
Mondo: though bodies were found bound and shot, it is only a war crime if they are shot after they were bound. They may very easily have been grievously wounded in the firefight, bound, and died before evacuation. And the prisoner revolt at Mazar-i-Sharif -- why do you feel the need to put scare quotes around the word riot? -- which involved prisoners seizing light artillery and initially more firepower than their guards had access to was effectively a fighting force that had returned to combat in a well-defended fort. It was days before we could safely put people inside, yet you insinuate -- what? that in the middle of a firefight, our people chose to waste bullets on incapacitated prisoners, rather than armed fighters? That's nonsense.
I'm happy you feel comfortable with your extreme, implacable anti-war position. May I now begin driving my truck across your front yard? If I do, what response will you give? What if, for argument's sake, I begin shooting at your family?
posted by dhartung at 2:50 PM on February 5, 2002
Dhartung --
the problem with claiming a violation of international law in the case of specific individuals is that it's not generally practical for individual soldiers to surrender in the midst of a firefight. As long as any of the soldiers in the room are returning fire, or even merely brandishing weapons, the group cannot be said to have surrendered.
Salient point. However, we do not know that the return of fire did not take place after the soldiers' calls for surrender were ignored. Details will no doubt come out later.
But anyway, none of that provides an excuse for killing with one's own hands, so to speak, a group of people who have done nothing to you. That is something that our soldiers will never be able to forget they've done. Dismissing it so easily as "just part of war" implies that it is no big deal, which it is.
I'm happy you feel comfortable with your extreme, implacable anti-war position. May I now begin driving my truck across your front yard? If I do, what response will you give? What if, for argument's sake, I begin shooting at your family?
Your argument was just fine; why did you have to start with stuff like this? I'm not sure if it's a troll or an honest question, but if it's the latter, the simplest response is to point out that a principle is not unsound merely because it is difficult to follow.
posted by Hildago at 3:34 PM on February 5, 2002
the problem with claiming a violation of international law in the case of specific individuals is that it's not generally practical for individual soldiers to surrender in the midst of a firefight. As long as any of the soldiers in the room are returning fire, or even merely brandishing weapons, the group cannot be said to have surrendered.
Salient point. However, we do not know that the return of fire did not take place after the soldiers' calls for surrender were ignored. Details will no doubt come out later.
But anyway, none of that provides an excuse for killing with one's own hands, so to speak, a group of people who have done nothing to you. That is something that our soldiers will never be able to forget they've done. Dismissing it so easily as "just part of war" implies that it is no big deal, which it is.
I'm happy you feel comfortable with your extreme, implacable anti-war position. May I now begin driving my truck across your front yard? If I do, what response will you give? What if, for argument's sake, I begin shooting at your family?
Your argument was just fine; why did you have to start with stuff like this? I'm not sure if it's a troll or an honest question, but if it's the latter, the simplest response is to point out that a principle is not unsound merely because it is difficult to follow.
posted by Hildago at 3:34 PM on February 5, 2002
Pentagon Admits Afghan Raid Mistake . It seems to me that the US military is being used as a Cat's-paw for retribution in Afghanistan.
posted by Carol Anne at 7:40 AM on February 6, 2002
posted by Carol Anne at 7:40 AM on February 6, 2002
« Older | Fake profits are causing the stock market to... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by treywhit at 6:16 PM on February 4, 2002