Wikileaks, security of our forces and why do we do it? (Merged)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Wholigan
Sorry if my post above raised a hackle because of excessive brevity. When I used the word "indefensible" I was taking a short cut - having been in forward area service during the Suez crisis I recognised the same kind of high-volume, high speed "spin" before the Iraq/Afghan operations were embarked on, and having also had some involvement with intelligence, I felt that there was some degree of disagreement (perhaps about details) between the providers and users of what intelligence there was. Being long retired from the military, I have/had of course nothing other than "the media" (British/US/French & German - tks to the internet) to go on, but enough to make me feel that something nasty was in the woodshed.
"Indefensible" was perhaps too strong for some, and in any case I certainly don't feel I side with the more vociferous opponents anyway: just that the case for "going in" wasn't made in a way which persuaded me personally.
PS. I'm not for Wikileakery either ...
"Indefensible" was perhaps too strong for some, and in any case I certainly don't feel I side with the more vociferous opponents anyway: just that the case for "going in" wasn't made in a way which persuaded me personally.
PS. I'm not for Wikileakery either ...
Last edited by Jig Peter; 25th Oct 2010 at 15:55. Reason: Add PS
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watched it all. Noted that the ground forces say they found a suspected RPG round. Was that indeed the case ? What was the determination of those individuals ? Was the Reuters cameraman following insurgents at the time or were they all civilians in the wrong place, wrong time ?
No doubt that the attack on the van was regrettable IN HINDSIGHT, but if the guys had just engaged insurgents and this van rolls up, their actions seem justifiable (and I don't know the ROE's they were working to, so I standby to be corrected if someone can come at it from that angle)
I'll edit to say that on the face of it, the van is posing no threat and would not seem to be a viable target, but again, what were the ROE's they were working to ? Do you let the van go with the driver being an insurgent that is tomorrow's RPG firer ? In this case it was coincident that an unrelated (was he ?) driver pulls up to help, but isn't the presumption that the vehicle is connected with the group that had just been targeted ?
I noted that the brother talks of insurgent activity in the area at the time, but does not elaborate. Again, was there any connection ?
No easy answers and certainly not for the crew in the heat of the moment...Any loss of civilian life is a tragedy. Period. But that crew believed they were engaging legitimate targets (again, holding judgement on the status of the van until I know the ROE's....) and that's a tough spot to be in, for sure....
No doubt that the attack on the van was regrettable IN HINDSIGHT, but if the guys had just engaged insurgents and this van rolls up, their actions seem justifiable (and I don't know the ROE's they were working to, so I standby to be corrected if someone can come at it from that angle)
I'll edit to say that on the face of it, the van is posing no threat and would not seem to be a viable target, but again, what were the ROE's they were working to ? Do you let the van go with the driver being an insurgent that is tomorrow's RPG firer ? In this case it was coincident that an unrelated (was he ?) driver pulls up to help, but isn't the presumption that the vehicle is connected with the group that had just been targeted ?
I noted that the brother talks of insurgent activity in the area at the time, but does not elaborate. Again, was there any connection ?
No easy answers and certainly not for the crew in the heat of the moment...Any loss of civilian life is a tragedy. Period. But that crew believed they were engaging legitimate targets (again, holding judgement on the status of the van until I know the ROE's....) and that's a tough spot to be in, for sure....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were Rules in that Engagement? Hoping the guy picks up a weapon so they can make another notch on the headpost of 'kills from a safe distance'. We're the good guys, right?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJR
Without me passing a judgement, can you expand on this comment:
No it is not. Shooting a van that is evacuating an incapacitated person (even if it were an ex combatant) - is Murder....
Are you referring to your own personal view, the view of the Geneva convention, or the rules the insurgents use, the ROE of the Apache crew (assuming you know them) or anyone else's rules?
The idea of rules of who to kill or not are a very modern addition the the battle field, and not something a lot of sides adhere to or recognise.
In some ways, I hope the idea of not being able to kill civilians does not catch on (anymore than it already is, re: combatants dropping weapons and lifting dish dash to kill another day), bearing in mind the insurgents in Afghanistan are civilians...armed, hostile, or otherwise!
Just my two penneth, while sat safe and sound at home.
Without me passing a judgement, can you expand on this comment:
No it is not. Shooting a van that is evacuating an incapacitated person (even if it were an ex combatant) - is Murder....
Are you referring to your own personal view, the view of the Geneva convention, or the rules the insurgents use, the ROE of the Apache crew (assuming you know them) or anyone else's rules?
The idea of rules of who to kill or not are a very modern addition the the battle field, and not something a lot of sides adhere to or recognise.
In some ways, I hope the idea of not being able to kill civilians does not catch on (anymore than it already is, re: combatants dropping weapons and lifting dish dash to kill another day), bearing in mind the insurgents in Afghanistan are civilians...armed, hostile, or otherwise!
Just my two penneth, while sat safe and sound at home.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's my take on that "comment" Vie.......
They believe that they have just targeted a group of insurgents. In their ROE, it must mention "holding a weapon" to show credible danger. Having injured him, they refrain from shooting again because he doesn't hold a weapon. But an insurgent targeted but not killed comes back another day and remains a threat to the guys on the ground (or the chopper in the air....?)
Now you could view it as "I want to kill more people" or as I described it above. I'm not going to pass judgement and say which way I think they meant it, as I wasn't there. Maybe it was a bit of both ?
There's 2 things I do know. The injuring of kids and innocent civilians is an awful thing. And secondly, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, circling above all this, any day of the week.
They believe that they have just targeted a group of insurgents. In their ROE, it must mention "holding a weapon" to show credible danger. Having injured him, they refrain from shooting again because he doesn't hold a weapon. But an insurgent targeted but not killed comes back another day and remains a threat to the guys on the ground (or the chopper in the air....?)
Now you could view it as "I want to kill more people" or as I described it above. I'm not going to pass judgement and say which way I think they meant it, as I wasn't there. Maybe it was a bit of both ?
There's 2 things I do know. The injuring of kids and innocent civilians is an awful thing. And secondly, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, circling above all this, any day of the week.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iraq: Firstly, to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein
Here's my take on the Wikileaks. I do agree that transparency is a good thing (and BOAC you are right, our enemies probably know more than we'd like them to about our procedures) but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for them. Publishing hundreds of MISREPS can reveal more than the MISREPS themselves.
Finally, the list of documents requested by Wiki Leaks (they have a huge list of what they "need") is a bit much. I know of some of those documents and can honestly say that what's in them is of no concern to Wiki Leaks (and certainly does not need to be in the public domain)
It's a bit like the ingredients of Coke. I believe there was a push at some stage to have it revealed so that it could be determined kosher / vegetarian / etc . Coke had the right attitude. They took all of the inputs, checked it against the ingredients and said "You're fine. It's all good. But you still don't need to know what's in it"
Maybe not the best example......
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were pumped up because they were in the thick of it doing their job. They believe that their actions (or indeed, inaction) has a direct effect on the lives of allied troops on the ground. I'm not standing up for them, but I am cutting them a little latitude given the situation.
Between a rock and a hard place. Inaction may have meant them returning to base to the news that X soldiers had been killed in an ambush underneath them.....
Between a rock and a hard place. Inaction may have meant them returning to base to the news that X soldiers had been killed in an ambush underneath them.....
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I shudder to think what would have happened during WW2 had this attitude had manifested it's self. War is war, if the insurgents deliberately choose to fight in an area full of civilians then there will be civilian casualties no matter how careful troops are, this is why the insurgents choose to fight there so as they get the max advantage of the troops hesitating before shooting, as well as the propaganda value they get from the accidental death of a civilian, which judging from the reactions of some people on here is certainly succeeding.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice bit of empathy there from one of the people who is not living under threat of being shot indiscriminately and "legally" due to "fog of war"
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its combat.
Look, either we are in this to win this, or we are not. Its a nasty business. We should be going out there and smashing any individual or group that is a threat to our people or the mission. We know what the ttp's of these ****ers are.
Quite frankly, Fallujah was a success. It is only bleading heart guardian readers that cry crocodile tears for bad people that see it "the other way". The simple fact is war is a nasty, nasty business, innocents get caught up and this is exactly why entering these sorts of situations should only be entered into as an absolute last resort.
If the GC gets in the way of winning the battle, bearing in mind our enemy has used chlorine bombs on schools, used dows victims as suicide bombers and carried out some absolutely horrific acts, I am sorry, but thats what needs to happen. Either we have the appetite to do bad things to meet our objectives or we dont.
And that includes shooting a retreating enemy combatant that may go on to kill our troops in the future, and all those that are supporting him/her. We should be shooting anyone that engages us with a weapon then drops it to avoid contact. we should be shooting anyone observing falling fire and using a radio to adjust to point of impact, even if the only "weapon" they hold is a radio. To suggest our boys need to operate under card A whilst out there is lunacy.
On the other hand, I have to question our involvement full stop in a ground war. Why we are in these sh*t holes, when we could quite simply control these animals from above on the recieving end of a 500 pounder into a terrorist training camp every now and then is beyond me. These animals need to know that wherever they sleep, we will find them. We wont put troops on the ground to kill them, at least not in numbers or footprint they become an easy target. They must know that when we find them, we will not hesitate in destroying them.
Air power is characterised with flexibility and reach, 2 elements that could quite easily get around their ttps and worldwide basing. If they live in civilised nations, we will use civilian forces to combat them. Live in some dirty little dust bowl in some third world nation, 500 pounder every time.
Look, either we are in this to win this, or we are not. Its a nasty business. We should be going out there and smashing any individual or group that is a threat to our people or the mission. We know what the ttp's of these ****ers are.
Quite frankly, Fallujah was a success. It is only bleading heart guardian readers that cry crocodile tears for bad people that see it "the other way". The simple fact is war is a nasty, nasty business, innocents get caught up and this is exactly why entering these sorts of situations should only be entered into as an absolute last resort.
If the GC gets in the way of winning the battle, bearing in mind our enemy has used chlorine bombs on schools, used dows victims as suicide bombers and carried out some absolutely horrific acts, I am sorry, but thats what needs to happen. Either we have the appetite to do bad things to meet our objectives or we dont.
And that includes shooting a retreating enemy combatant that may go on to kill our troops in the future, and all those that are supporting him/her. We should be shooting anyone that engages us with a weapon then drops it to avoid contact. we should be shooting anyone observing falling fire and using a radio to adjust to point of impact, even if the only "weapon" they hold is a radio. To suggest our boys need to operate under card A whilst out there is lunacy.
On the other hand, I have to question our involvement full stop in a ground war. Why we are in these sh*t holes, when we could quite simply control these animals from above on the recieving end of a 500 pounder into a terrorist training camp every now and then is beyond me. These animals need to know that wherever they sleep, we will find them. We wont put troops on the ground to kill them, at least not in numbers or footprint they become an easy target. They must know that when we find them, we will not hesitate in destroying them.
Air power is characterised with flexibility and reach, 2 elements that could quite easily get around their ttps and worldwide basing. If they live in civilised nations, we will use civilian forces to combat them. Live in some dirty little dust bowl in some third world nation, 500 pounder every time.
Last edited by VinRouge; 25th Oct 2010 at 17:45.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different age, different fight, different reasons
What has that got to do with anything, has death suddenly become less permanent so that solders no longer need to worry about being shot?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There should be a difference between the actions of an immoral enemy and a moral force for good. It is almost impossible to restrain forces all fired up and motivated to survive and win but that is what wartime leaders must do - nowadays, in this type of warfare, at all costs.
In my opinion, the americans do not achieve this - even our own troops are at risk when they are deployed in the vicinity. Trigger happy is the expression that springs to mind.
Our own philosphy last time I checked was that if there is any doubt there is no doubt.
Having said that, I am grateful for all those who put their lives at risk for our freedom.
In my opinion, the americans do not achieve this - even our own troops are at risk when they are deployed in the vicinity. Trigger happy is the expression that springs to mind.
Our own philosphy last time I checked was that if there is any doubt there is no doubt.
Having said that, I am grateful for all those who put their lives at risk for our freedom.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There should be a difference between the actions of an immoral enemy and a moral force for good.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jig Peter - the words in my post were actually addressed to the writers of the 6 posts after your post that I deleted (and which you thus can't see), not at you.