US assesses Iraqi life and car at $2,500,-

[Lynch]

So the parents of a family of 6 get murdered, a son gets a bullet through his spine leaving him quadriplegic for the rest of his life and the kids remain traumatized for the rest of their lives, what would you think such an atrocity is worth to the liberators of Iraq?


His spine was pierced by a bullet, leaving him paralysed. His family was offered a total of $7,500 compensation by the US Army. This was calculated to compensate them for the loss of the two parents at $2,500 each and an extra $2,500 for damaging the car.

http://www.channel4.com/news/iraq-war-files-death-at-checkpoint

Fuck you.

[Tortilla]

So what's the right number Lynch?

[Lynch]

I've no idea but it should be at least 20 to 50 times the amount of a fucking wreck of a car. I also think the boy should get the exact same amount or even more for his massive injury.

Also the soldiers should see a war tribunal and the Iraqi family should be able to open a civil case in the US and get paid by US tax money to be able to do that.

[Jazar]

What is the SOP for civilian casualties during war? I haven't heard of the army just giving money to people for accidental death and destruction before.

You also didn't quote the previous paragraphs which explain why they were shot:


Under a special US rule of engagement for Iraq known as EOF "escalation of force", any vehicle approaching a military checkpoint was required to slow down and stop to be searched.

Translated from its original military code the war log says: "A Sedan sped toward the PTL (patrol) and failed to stop after visual signs were given.

"A shot was fired at the front tire but the VEH (vehicle) did not stop. The PTL engaged the VEH, killing 2X Civ (two civilians)".

[Lynch]

The family was in a rush. The army also said the kids weren't harmed. A shot and cut spine of an Iraqi boy is obviously not an injury according to the US Army.

So they have already proven they are fucking liars.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

Lynch, Lynch, Lynch ...

To make an omelet, you need to break eggs. You don't want an omelet?

Too bad. Participate in the political process, like the founding fathers intended, and prevent further omelettage.

[Anders Hallin]

Well, they don't say an age, but let's say the parents were 40 each. They'd then work for 15 more years - GDP per capita in Iraq is about $2000. The paralyzed boy was 11 and will probably never work, so that's circa 45 years of productive life he's robbed of.
So if we ignore the emotional trauma and compensate only for lost income, amoral though that may be, that's 150 000.
That's still only 5% of the cap of a wrongful death in the US.

[Tortilla]

Well sure, but if your rush a check point there's responsibility for the family that got shot up. It's not like it should have been a surprise that their country is currently being occupied by trigger happy Americans.

[Anders Hallin]

What is the SOP for civilian casualties during war? I haven't heard of the army just giving money to people for accidental death and destruction before.

You also didn't quote the previous paragraphs which explain why they were shot:
The SOP for countries that invades a country on trumped up pretences and occupies it for years while killing more civilians than they're killing the people they're supposedly fighting (which they generate by being there)? Well, most of them probably don't pay anything, so obviously there's no moral problem here.

[Rward]

kneejerk..

[Two Sheds]

How are Iraqis informed of these "rules" at checkpoints? It can't be done very well.


The TBIJ and Dispatches analysis reveals that between 2004 and 2009 a total of 834 people were killed in these escalation of force incidents. Of these some 80 per cent killed were civilians, totalling 681. There were a further 2,218 civilians wounded at checkpoints.

What if they didn't realize it was a patrol or a checkpoint? What if the driver didn't see the "visual signs?" We act like "duh, it's a warzone!" but people are still just trying to live there and go about their daily lives.

I understand the tough spot that soldiers are in with the threat of car-bombs, but that doesn't make that number of civilians killed and wounded any easier to swallow.

[Timex]

The family was in a rush.

LOL?

Turns out, you should stop and make time for guys with rifles.

[WarrenM]

Would need more info before really commenting but if they fired at the tires and the guy kept driving towards them ... what?

[Two Sheds]

"A shot was fired at the front tire"

From where? Did it hit? Did he notice?

[WarrenM]

Like I said, more info will be needed. But, it seems like if you live in a war zone, you might want to stay especially aware of your environment and not miss something like a gun shot in your direction.

[Timex]

I think that part of the problem here is that the Soldiers may not have done anything wrong, but the notion that human life can be translated into dollars (especially what we would consider a small sum of dollars) is offensive on some level.

But the flip side of the coin is that in most such cases, no one pays the families of the victims anything at all. I have no idea how much $7500 is worth where these people live, although I suspect it's worth a lot more than it is in the US.

[WarrenM]

At some point it comes down to money if compensation is required. What else is there? "Here, we'll shoot the soldier that shot your son - we're square now, right?"

Since it comes down to money, there will eventually be a number written down and it will invariably offend someone as behind too low or high.

[Lynch]

I think that part of the problem here is that the Soldiers may not have done anything wrong,[..]
They murdered and crippled civilians, in what fucked up world is that not doing anything wrong? I've watched footage of US convoys rushing through the streets of Iraq shooting at civilian pedestrians just because they were frightened.

I now know why, it's because an Iraqi life is only worth the amount of a wreck of a car. So if you can shot at a car, you surely can shot at civilians either.

Same fucking cost!

[Tortilla]

They murdered and crippled civilians, in what fucked up world is that not doing anything wrong?


Shooting in self defense is not typically considered murder.

[Brian Seiler]

Dude, seriously. You're equivocating on the word "wrong" and you're trying way too hard to be pissed off about this. Nobody's suggesting that it's not a terrible thing that people who didn't deserve to be shot with bullets were shot with bullets. However, from the few limited details we have with regard to the situation, the actions of the soldiers, in this case, may have been justified and in accordance with established procedures for the area.

Does that mean that the established procedures are right? Probably not. It's rare to find a thing that can't be improved with a little work. If, as appears to be the case, a random civilian went speeding toward a checkpoint even after his car had been fired upon, there's clearly something of a communication breakdown that needs to be addressed. Nobody WANTS to shoot civilians - there's no benefit to it, after all - so I should hope that if this was a case of the procedures for passing through not being clearly communicated, steps will be taken to improve that effort.

No amount of money can replace a dead person, but at some point you've got to put a number on it. I don't know enough about the economics of the region to say whether $2500 is generous, thrifty, or otherwise. Regardless, the fact that their justification for their valuation places the car's damage at approximately the same level as the damage to individuals by itself doesn't indicate anything - without understanding how much $2500 really is, that could be a REALLY generous payment for the damage to the car (in which case you might have an example of whatever local pencil pusher filled out all the forms trying to expand the compensation paid to the victims). I don't know one way or the other, but in the list of terrible things that have happened as a result of military occupation, I'm not sure this warrants the shrieking outrage you're trying to trot out here. Hell - at least the military is doing SOMETHING; you'd rather they didn't provide compensation at all? What number would be the right number? On what standard do you base that decision, and how effectively could you translate the method for generating that resulting value to an algorithm that multiple individuals, possibly without a lot of situational expertise, could also derive that value in similar situations?

[Uncle Larry]

but the notion that human life can be translated into dollars (especially what we would consider a small sum of dollars) is offensive on some level.


Which is SOP in the Middle East, apparently. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyya)

[Erlend Grefsrud]

Well, they don't say an age, but let's say the parents were 40 each. They'd then work for 15 more years - GDP per capita in Iraq is about $2000. The paralyzed boy was 11 and will probably never work, so that's circa 45 years of productive life he's robbed of.
So if we ignore the emotional trauma and compensate only for lost income, amoral though that may be, that's 150 000.
That's still only 5% of the cap of a wrongful death in the US.
This was what I was going to write, actually, but I figured most everyone realized that right off the bat and that this realization (the awereness of the process of reaching that conclusion) was what horrified everyone.

[Anders Hallin]

LOL?

Turns out, you should stop and make time for guys with rifles.
Like insurgents? I thought those guys were murderous madmen.

[Anders Hallin]

No amount of money can replace a dead person, but at some point you've got to put a number on it. I don't know enough about the economics of the region to say whether $2500 is generous, thrifty, or otherwise. Regardless, the fact that their justification for their valuation places the car's damage at approximately the same level as the damage to individuals by itself doesn't indicate anything - without understanding how much $2500 really is, that could be a REALLY generous payment for the damage to the car (in which case you might have an example of whatever local pencil pusher filled out all the forms trying to expand the compensation paid to the victims). I don't know one way or the other, but in the list of terrible things that have happened as a result of military occupation, I'm not sure this warrants the shrieking outrage you're trying to trot out here. Hell - at least the military is doing SOMETHING; you'd rather they didn't provide compensation at all? What number would be the right number? On what standard do you base that decision, and how effectively could you translate the method for generating that resulting value to an algorithm that multiple individuals, possibly without a lot of situational expertise, could also derive that value in similar situations?
I'll skip the whole "if the soldiers just followed SOP then nothing could have been wrong" which is SOP for Brian "following rules is always good" Seiler.
Anyway, the economy of things is not difficult to figure out! Looking up GDP per capita is blunt, but easy. Getting median income is a bit more difficult, but presumably not impossible for the army. Nor is treatment for paralysis difficult to figure out if you have people on the ground! This "oh, how could we possibly know/*shrug* at least they're doing something" is infuriating, because it's not fucking difficult to form an opinion in less time than you took in writing that post, if one cared about anything else but to gloss over or minimize the issue.

[Timex]

Like insurgents? I thought those guys were murderous madmen.

I probably wouldn't just keep driving at a group of armed insurgents either.

[Morberis]

Should the army be compensating the other 15,000 civilians killed? They're all unfortunate and ugly deaths, I'm sure alot of them could have been avoided as well.

I mean if you think that wounded and killed civilians in a war zone should compensated, how many billions do you think it would be appropriate to budget? Honestly I'd like to know.


Back to the incident itself, what do you think they could have done better. It seems they followed protocol, they had signs, they gave a warning shot and they had no idea whether the car was out to kill them or not. Given the same circumstances I might of shot as well. Car speeding towards you no obeying warning signs or shots, past incidents where soldiers get killed by car bombs at checkstops. You've got potentially a pretty dangerous situation for both parties. That's assuming parts of the log aren't fabrications and that there was appropriate signage.

[Brian Seiler]

I'll skip the whole "if the soldiers just followed SOP then nothing could have been wrong" which is SOP for Brian "following rules is always good" Seiler.
Anyway, the economy of things is not difficult to figure out! Looking up GDP per capita is blunt, but easy. Getting median income is a bit more difficult, but presumably not impossible for the army. Nor is treatment for paralysis difficult to figure out if you have people on the ground! This "oh, how could we possibly know/*shrug* at least they're doing something" is infuriating, because it's not fucking difficult to form an opinion in less time than you took in writing that post, if one cared about anything else but to gloss over or minimize the issue.

Maybe you should try reading it again, because I didn't say that it wasn't wrong. I said that according to everything we know at this point the action could very easily have been justified. I then went on to explain at length that hey, maybe that means there's something wrong with the rules over there, which I would think YOU WOULD AGREE WITH if you think that this is, you know, a wrong thing to happen. Hopping up and down and throwing a fit about a horrible PERSONAL tragedy that's fueled primarily by inadequate rules, however, is not in any way helpful.

And your analysis of the economy isn't to the depth necessary for me to form an opinion as to what is an adequate sum and what is not. I'm not willing to snap to judgment on the basis of a bunch of superficial facts without understanding things like the sorts of actions that are customary when this sort of thing happens, how the value was even determined in the first place (because it probably wasn't just some guy taking a look at a few pictures and scribbling down a number - I'm guessing they had to have SOME kind of procedural rule for how that gets figured out; hell, we don't even know with the information we have here what the standard practice with respect to these sorts of things is in the area - is there even an appeals process that the family can enter if they take issue with the amount? I don't know. Do you?), or any number of other issues that I would personally want to be familiar with before I start trying to parse the difference between right and wrong in a situation as complicated as a civilian fatality in an active conflict zone.

[Jason McCullough]

What if they didn't realize it was a patrol or a checkpoint?

They don't. From what I gather the checkpoint policies have been a clusterfuck.


But, it seems like if you live in a war zone, you might want to stay especially aware of your environment and not miss something like a gun shot in your direction.

Consider this for a second: do you actually know what it's like to live in a war zone?

[Morberis]

They don't. From what I gather the checkpoint policies have been a clusterfuck.

That's an entirely separate issue then isn't it?

[WarrenM]

Consider this for a second: do you actually know what it's like to live in a war zone?
No. You?

[Jason McCullough]

Well theoretically better policies would result in less of this sort of thing. I don't really know what's going on over there now; there's virtually no coverage anymore.

[Destarius]

The first casualty is the truth.

Someone should put cameras on those checkpoints. Fear and guns are a bad mix.

Also - if you're getting shot at, and you don't know why, and perhaps even by whom, do you speed up or slow down?

What if it is the Americans but for some reason they think you're Mehdi? Slow down and get killed? Speed up and get killed? Sounds like there's no right answer.

[Morberis]

The first casualty is the truth.

Someone should put cameras on those checkpoints. Fear and guns are a bad mix.

Also - if you're getting shot at, and you don't know why, and perhaps even by whom, do you speed up or slow down?

What if it is the Americans but for some reason they think you're Mehdi? Slow down and get killed? Speed up and get killed? Sounds like there's no right answer.

Well if they're doing their signage properly they should know they're entering a checkpoint and they have to slow down. If they know they're at a checkpoint it's pretty clear what they should do because they will be shot at if they don't. If your 30 seconds or even 5 minutes of time lost spent traveling at a slower speed is worth getting shot at, go ahead. But the signage should make that clear that that's what you're getting into if you don't slow down.

[Lizard_King]

Satisfying the rules of engagement does not mean that the action was ethical in a particular or general sense, but rather that it fit the definition of tactical prudence for that area of operation and the balance between threat level and public relations that has been assessed. In this case, you likely have a shooting that meets the minimum standards for an RoE approved engagement and is an undeniable tragedy, and unfortunately in terms of a military occupation I'm not sure that level of cognitive dissonance can be avoided beyond not being there in the first place.

From 2005 to 2007 I ran a variety of fixed and mobile vehicle checkpoints, always in a short-term capacity in Ramadi and Fallujah, at levels of responsibility that varied from being the searcher myself to being the sergeant of the guard. In addition, there were a number of route overwatch posts we were tasked with that also frequently engaged in escalation of force procedures, and patrols crossing intersections and major thoroughfares were always up for a sudden brush with vehicular homicide. In every case, I was fortunate to encounter neither a threat from the vehicle itself (although it's impossible to say with certainty about the vehicles that retreated) or a casualty from our our own actions. However, despite the strictness with which my squad leader and later I enforced escalation of force protocols, I understand that the key difference between myself and a soldier or Marine with the blood of civilian drivers and families on his hands in this context is luck. If the vehicle goes a little too fast, if the sun is in your eyes or his, if your point man is a little high with his aim, if, if, if; the potential for catastrophic error in the face of a split second decision involving concussion grenades and guns is astronomical. Even if as the checkpoint or patrol you obey the protocols to the letter and are a model of restraint simply causing a car accident can be enough to make it a tragedy; think of all the dumbass things you do in the car and multiply that by a flare shattering your windshield from a roadblock that wasn't there when you drove your loud carpool to work last Friday.

The latter episodes of Generation Kill do a fine job of recreating these moments from the serviceperson on the ground's perspective, and I recommend them to anyone trying to understand how this happens (and keep in mind they were essentially winging it, and what those Marines and soldiers in the early waves came up with was only codified and rehearsed much later).

At any rate, the 2500$ is a fairly standard rate throughout the occupation. It's grotesque as any consideration of these matters should be, but it's probably one of the least objectionable policies in place given the alternatives.

[Eric T Cheng]

$2500 for two civilians? Pffft. An American pilot only had to pay a fine of $5,700 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident#Disposition) for killing four Canadian soldiers with a laser-guided 227-kilogram (500 lb) bomb in Afghanistan back in 2002.

[Tortilla]

$2500 for two civilians? Pffft. An American pilot only had to pay a fine of $5,700 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident#Disposition) for killing four Canadian soldiers with a laser-guided 227-kilogram (500 lb) bomb in Afghanistan back in 2002.

Well if you shoot at an F-16, you probably get what's coming to you.

[Lizard_King]

Someone should put cameras on those checkpoints. Fear and guns are a bad mix.

In every case I witnessed, surveillance would have added nothing to the accountability already present in terms of a good chain of command with reasonably high quality leaders in place (or its opposite). It would have been useful from a "do this, don't do this" teaching perspective, but it would have likely been incompatible in many more dangerous areas with commanders who are trying to walk a very fine line between encouraging restraint and allowing their troops to be easy prey. If you look at the Beirut barracks bombing from 1983, there's the tactical lesson of not implementing RoEs in a manner incompatible with self-defense, and the strategic lesson of not provoking attacks needlessly (as the bombing is alleged to be a response to a completely unnecessary show-of-force US Naval bombing that had happened prior). Most commanders only have direct control over the former variable, and a big part of that is making it clear that without egregious error or misconduct there won't be Monday morning quarterbacking for decisions that are difficult to evaluate out of their context.

[Lynch]

Shooting in self defense is not typically considered murder.


However, from the few limited details we have with regard to the situation, the actions of the soldiers, in this case, may have been justified and in accordance with established procedures for the area.

So an occupation army which has aggressively invaded a foreign country is self defending and acting in accordance with mysterious, self-made procedures when it shots at harmless civilians at arbitrarily constructed checkpoints, killing and crippling them?

We should not forget that we are not talking about a legit war, but an aggressive invasion against UN conventions, based on faked evidence and acting against the wishes of a greater part of the rest of the world.


I mean if you think that wounded and killed civilians in a war zone should compensated, how many billions do you think it would be appropriate to budget?
How do you budget human life? I've said it earlier I've no idea but it certainly should not be limited to an amount equal to the cost of a used car. This is a terrible, terrible calculation. I don't care if the area is considered a war-zone according the words and world views of the aggressor.

[Lizard_King]

Right, you don't care about the details and are simply interested in arguing against the war which you disagree with in its totality. So why would you pretend to argue about its details?

[Jazar]

Thanks for the insight Lizard_King.


We should not forget that we are not talking about a legit war, but an aggressive invasion against UN conventions, based on faked evidence and acting against the wishes of a greater part of the rest of the world.

What does this have to do with the soldiers seeing a war tribunal and the low cost of war reparations? We can argue the rational behind entering Iraq in the first place but that's not really germane to the original topic.

[Morberis]

Well if you shoot at an F-16, you probably get what's coming to you.

They didn't. Also expect to see gunfire when you fly past a shooting range that has an active training exercise.


He received the response: "stand by" and less than two minutes later "hold fire." Four seconds after the hold fire order, Schmidt said he was "rolling in" He dropped a laser-guided bomb thirty-five seconds later. Schmidt then said "I hope I did the right thing." Minutes later, the AWACS responded with "Friendlies, Kandahar."

The Board found that the Canadian troops engaged in the night live-fire exercise had conducted their operations as authorized and in accordance with the established range procedures for the types of weapons fire. The Board concluded that the American F-16 pilots contravened established procedures and were the cause of the incident.

"You acted shamefully on 17 April 2002 over Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan, exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline. When your flight lead warned you to "make sure it's not friendlies" and the Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft controller directed you to "stand by" and later to "hold fire," you should have marked the location with your targeting pod. Thereafter, if you believed, as you stated, you and your leader were threatened, you should have taken a series of evasive actions and remained at a safe distance to await further instructions from AWACS. Instead, you closed on the target and blatantly disobeyed the direction to "hold fire." Your failure to follow that order is inexcusable. I do not believe you acted in defense of Major Umbach or yourself. Your actions indicate that you used your self-defense declaration as a pretext to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to engage. You used the inherent right of self-defense as an excuse to wage your own war





How do you budget human life? I've said it earlier I've no idea but it certainly should not be limited to an amount equal to the cost of a used car. This is a terrible, terrible calculation. I don't care if the area is considered a war-zone according the words and world views of the aggressor.

It's a legitimate question though, 1.5 billion at the current rates. I would have expected $0, or if you prefer they could not pay for the car and increase the pay per person. I mean that would make it appear to be a better calculation and that's all you seem to be after because no matter what you do it's going to be a terrible calculation.

[jason]

I have known a number of people in my life of whom I would say they are worth less than the cost of a used car.

[Morberis]

I have known a number of people in my life of whom I would say they are worth less than the cost of a used car.


.......

[Lynch]

Right, you don't care about the details and are simply interested in arguing against the war which you disagree with in its totality. So why would you pretend to argue about its details?
Details are great because they provide perspective. One of those great but sad and eyeopening details can be found in the article I linked: 681 harmless civilians and 30 children were killed at checkpoints but only 13 coalition force members.

[Tortilla]

They didn't. Also expect to see gunfire when you fly past a shooting range that has an active training exercise.


It was a probably a case of inadequate signage. We can't really expect F-16 pilots to be able to identify all friends from foes. Especially when doing barrel rolls.

[Eric T Cheng]

I have known a number of people in my life of whom I would say they are worth less than the cost of a used car.

Really? The Chinese government could use them...

[Anders Hallin]

In this case, you likely have a shooting that meets the minimum standards for an RoE approved engagement and is an undeniable tragedy, and unfortunately in terms of a military occupation I'm not sure that level of cognitive dissonance can be avoided beyond not being there in the first place.
Thanks for writing that post, LK. I guess the best hope is that in the future, people will consider how much war cheapens human life before rushing into it.
Hah.

[Morberis]

It was a probably a case of inadequate signage. We can't really expect F-16 pilots to be able to identify all friends from foes. Especially when doing barrel rolls.

There's a difference here. One followed protocol and the other did not. One was warned that there might be friendlies and could have responded in safety if they did turn hostile - as the wikipedia article states. One of the parties was warned multiple times, and the other was following approved protocol and had warned the US that they would be there and had received approval. It would be a better comparison if the car had slowed down, pulled up to the checkpoint and when asked for ID they were shot because they started riffling through a purse. One is a problem with the protocol and the other involved protocol being disobeyed.

The only similarities are that people died.

[Tortilla]

There's a difference here. One followed protocol and the other did not. One was warned that there might be friendlies and could have responded in safety if they did turn hostile - as the wikipedia article states. One of the parties was warned multiple times, and the other was following approved protocol and had warned the US that they would be there and had received approval. It would be a better comparison if the car had slowed down, pulled up to the checkpoint and when asked for ID they were shot because they started riffling through a purse. One is a problem with the protocol and the other involved protocol being disobeyed.

The only similarities are that people died.

First off, it's obvious that the government has edited that wikipedia article. I'm not suggesting that they deliberately put false information in there, I'm just asking the question.

Second, in a life or death situation a pilot has to respond with lightning ninja skills. The last time Canadians opened fire on me I didn't stop to phone home and see if they were shooting blanks, I responded with immediate lethal force. Of course it turned out they weren't Canadians, they were only boy scouts, but I still got cleared in the subsequent court martial.

[Morberis]

=P http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/yahoo.com

[Lynch]

It's a legitimate question though, 1.5 billion at the current rates. I would have expected $0, or if you prefer they could not pay for the car and increase the pay per person. I mean that would make it appear to be a better calculation and that's all you seem to be after because no matter what you do it's going to be a terrible calculation.
I've said it earlier, in a fair world they would be compensated according to US law and at least five-digit. Unfortunatelly we're not living in a fair world though and the "victors and liberators" obviously think that human life is not of the same value, a clear breach of their very own rules and laws. I would dispossess all the major criminal beneficiaries and share the money to the ones who suffer. Idealistic maybe but infeasible and fair.

[cliffski]

I guess the best hope is that in the future, people will consider how much war cheapens human life before rushing into it.
Hah.

Good luck with that.

I've always thought that no commander in chief should be able to order an armed engagement unless he had relatives who would serve in said engagement.

I'm not exactly keen on war anyway, but I know I'd go the extra thousand miles to prevent a war if I knew it meant sending my wife into a warzone to fight it.

[Destarius]

In every case I witnessed, surveillance would have added nothing to the accountability already present in terms of a good chain of command with reasonably high quality leaders in place (or its opposite). It would have been useful from a "do this, don't do this" teaching perspective, but it would have likely been incompatible in many more dangerous areas with commanders who are trying to walk a very fine line between encouraging restraint and allowing their troops to be easy prey. If you look at the Beirut barracks bombing from 1983, there's the tactical lesson of not implementing RoEs in a manner incompatible with self-defense, and the strategic lesson of not provoking attacks needlessly (as the bombing is alleged to be a response to a completely unnecessary show-of-force US Naval bombing that had happened prior). Most commanders only have direct control over the former variable, and a big part of that is making it clear that without egregious error or misconduct there won't be Monday morning quarterbacking for decisions that are difficult to evaluate out of their context.

Just as a clarification, is what you're saying that cameras would discourage soldiers from engaging in accordance with RoE?

I am quite sure that the internal accountability is by and large present - my angle is that it is very hard for the public to accept that they exist when the incidents are as tragic as they appear to be. Video surveillance footage would help to absolve some of these concerns, if not at least open for an independent Iraqi commission (if such a thing does/could exist) to look at. In that sense, while video evidence is not perfect, a large proportion of the fog, can be lifted - was the car really speeding toward the checkpoint and ignoring warnings, for example. Or, as you mentioned, maybe someone had his sights a little high.

[Lizard_King]

Just as a clarification, is what you're saying that cameras would discourage soldiers from engaging in accordance with RoE?

What I am saying is that the military is profoundly resistant to video recordings of routine military procedures, and while there are many problematic reasons for it, one of the least objectionable is that the supervision in this case would arguably add little in terms of practical accountability and greatly increase distrust between layers of command. That is, virtually every military engagement can be armchair quarterbacked into a better executed operation by cooler heads with plenty of time, and enough of that happens already with no video evidence necessary. If you implemented cameras with the primary goal of training, you might get them by. But if the primary goal is to establish a panopticon to observe the military for infractions, then you are implementing a system better suited to the realities of a conscript military than a volunteer one. Nobody likes being micromanaged, least of all those in life and death situations.

I'm not sure where you got the interpretation you suggest in your question. I think it would lead, at best, to Beirut barracks scenarios where inordinate restraint puts American troops past the point where they are able to reasonably defend themselves. Rules of Engagement as they currently stand represent a functional compromise that works because we entrust small unit leaders with a great deal of discretionary powers. I'm not sure there's an alternative to that within the framework of fourth generation warfare and modern distributed operations; without that trust in junior officers and ncos, we lose some of the greatest advantages of a volunteer military.



I am quite sure that the internal accountability is by and large present - my angle is that it is very hard for the public to accept that they exist when the incidents are as tragic as they appear to be.
Then call off the war. I believe your angle is in the minority since most civilians would prefer simply to ignore and talk past these undignified atrocities in the savage wars of choice the United States engages in, and I believe the public has precious little leverage in terms of enforcing its will on how a specific tactical situation should be handled. Enlistment is open to any who believe they can conduct the war in a more moral manner, but you'll find precious little support for a middle path where professionals are made to answer to amateurs on a routine basis. Reality TV should be all of the object lesson you need to see the unintended consequences of living in the panopticon.


Video surveillance footage would help to absolve some of these concerns, if not at least open for an independent Iraqi commission (if such a thing does/could exist) to look at.
It doesn't, and it won't. There will never be an Iraqi body capable of passing effective judgment on American troops. No American in uniform would stand for it. Surely you must be aware of that, and it has to factor into the rest of your idea.


In that sense, while video evidence is not perfect, a large proportion of the fog, can be lifted - was the car really speeding toward the checkpoint and ignoring warnings, for example. Or, as you mentioned, maybe someone had his sights a little high.You're distorting my words. First off, in combat everyone typically has their rifles set to a battlesight zero, which is typically an easily adapted >300 meter range, even easier with modern optics. That does not preclude accidentally hitting a windshield when you meant to hit a grille or a tire, because that is hard to do and mistakes happen. When that occurs, absent provable malice or negligence on the part of the shooter, it's an accident and you move on. Your "as you mentioned" already presumes negligence, malice or incompetence, and as you see your civilian oversight is off to a fine start as you are hardly the worst judge that could be put in charge of assessing the situation.

Your choices are to provide reasonable oversight via the chain of command, or end the war, or enlist yourself. Seeking to insert civilian oversight at whatever flashpoint is currently in a headline somewhere (these engagements have existed since 2001) via a camera is a recipe for disaster.

Now, that doesn't mean that transparency has no place in this process. I want Americans to know as much as possible about their wars, their diplomacy, and the way their government operates. But that is so they can function as informed citizens as voters and leaders and effect change as they see fit through a coherent political process, rather than through micromanaging whimsy designed to silence the latest outrage. The latter is a reactionary response that leads us to Reality TV vehicle checkpoints and another layer of bullshit in military-civilian relations.

[Xerapis]

It would probably be a good idea to check into the Status of Forces Agreement in relation to this also. That's what determines Iraqi judicial authority over American soldiers.

Generally speaking, though, we don't let the judicial body of another country have jurisdiction over our troops if they are in uniform and on duty at the time that whatever happens happens.