http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/04/iraq_collateral_damageThe rules of engagement <snip>
For me, there are two essential points here. The first is that we have this video because two of the people who were killed were Reuters employees. How many other civilians were killed in similar circumstances whose names we will never know, because they had no powerful Western employers to publicise their deaths and file FOIA requests?
The second essential point is the moment at 15:29 of the Wikileaks video, when someone, a pilot, gunner, or controller, says, "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle." Another voice answers, "That's right." No. Nothing could be more wrong. When you see children being evacuated from a van you've just destroyed, the thought running through your mind should be: What did I just shoot at? Who was in that van? Acknowledging the possibility that you have just killed a party of civilians for no good reason is, of course, terrifying. That is why the soldiers leap to find an excuse to evade the guilt, to blame the parents for their children's deaths. And the military is more than happy to help them find an excuse. (In the after-action interviews, one soldier mentions a report, corroborated nowhere else, that a dark van had been dropping off militants in the area. The military interviewer replies: "That's good information." Good for what? Good for exonerating the military, of course.) Because, if soldiers were to accept the guilt for catastrophes like this one, they might be unable to continue to perform the mission at all.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
