(Warning — video is pretty graphic and not for the faint of heart.)
For good commentary and coverage, check Greenwald (1, 2, 3), Fallows, and Al-Jazeera.
A few points:
(1) The video is nauseating to watch knowing that the men in the video are carrying cameras, not an RPG. I had difficulty sitting through it.
(2) These kinds of attacks happen all the time. Gen. McChrystal in Afghanistan highlights an unfortunate truth of waging war — there will be many, many civilian casualties, very few of whom actually constitute a threat. Acting as if we can wage war without civilian casualties is folly. The only reason this video seems painful is because we are forced to see what is done in our name. It is important to note that these soldiers are not “defending America”; they are protecting America’s interests.
(3) As has been noted elsewhere, the true scandal is not the shooting, which does follow the rules of engagement. A cameraman adjusting a telephoto lens looks a lot like an insurgent adjusting an RPG. Certainly the crew of Crazyhorse in the video assumed this to be the case. This was a mistake on their part, and the result is beyond horrific. If anything, we should not lay blame on the soldiers in the helicopter; we should instead reevaluate exactly what kind of threat constitutes enough cause to engage. If the current rules of engagement are producing unacceptable levels of casualties, then we should probably change the rules. The problem here is not the choice made by soldiers under duress in a combat zone, but the policies and procedures that brought them to that point.
(4) That said, “following orders” is not an acceptable defense for war crimes. If I kill someone I believe to be a threat, and it turns out he is not a threat at all, I am still responsible for the life that I have taken. We, as a nation, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. That is the burden of a failed war.
(5) The secrecy behind this only protects the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex from domestic criticism, not our troops. The notion that this video would be “dangerous” because our enemies would see our callous disregard for human life is absurd. I am pretty sure that our enemies already think that. This is as silly as not releasing the pictures from Abu Ghraib because they will endanger our troops abroad. They already know what’s in the photos! Why would it be so bad to release them? It’s not bad PR for our troops abroad; it’s bad PR for our generals and political leaders at home.
(6) Even considering civilian casualties shows how much our notions of war have changed. The idea of a major armed force going into a conflict with some notion of wanting to reduce civilian casualties seems rather demure, considering that our army once firebombed Dresden and Tokyo (not to mention dropping two atom bombs on civilians) during World War Two. My point is that civilian casualties were not unknown in previous wars; they were simply made unknown by the governments and propaganda machines covering the war. This is simply an extension of that urge.
There is a lot of interesting commentary on this video which, as a photographer, I have been reading with interest. I think the most cogent argument boils down to, essentially, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
Because war fucking sucks. It sucks for soldiers. It sucks for civilians. It sucks. I think this video is a particularly blunt and effective reminder of what everyone was protesting in 2003: war. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, but war. Anyone that watches this video and dislikes the actions of the soldiers is, as you were saying, not placing the blame in the right place.
One of the Economists posts (linked below) mentions that we only see this video because they were Reuters employees, which is worth paying attention to. This video is most likely one of thousands with people being shot at and pilots treating it the situation with such disdain, and we are only seeing it because of the special circumstance. Again, more reasons to be mad at the system than the participants.
Here’s some commentary from elsewhere:
Politics, Theory, and Photography:
“War is shitty. And the young men we send to fight are desensitized by the experience. War is kill or be killed. So we should be surprised not in the least about the crass attitude articulated by the American troops in the video sound track. In fact, this is precisely what you claim to be grateful for when you thank military men and women ‘for their service.'”
The Economist has two very good posts, from different authors.
The first:
“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?”
The second:
“…no matter how precise our weaponry gets, no matter how much information we feed into our targeting systems, the decision to fire will always be based on incomplete information and come down to fallible human judgment. So while it is normal to react to these tragedies with varying degrees of moral repugnance, let us not be shocked. This is the nature of war and there is only one truly effective way to avoid such incidents.”
Both the NYTimes Lens blog and The Online Photographer have thoughtful posts remembering Noor-Eldeen.
Recording war with the tools we use to wage it is incredibly ironic, when the videos are exactly what we need to turn people off of war. I look forward to watching the next video make its dent. Hopefully I’ll be smart enough not to actually watch it.
I’m not surprised by most people’s reactions to this story. Everyone seems to be playing their part. The mainstream whatever-it-is ignores the tough questions, and Stendhal makes some really thoughtful observations. But today Reddit did surprise me.
I don’t consider the soldier’s comments honorable, but I also think they’re too far down the totem pole to accept the blame. Unfortunately, this image tends to describe the applied rules of engagement as well as the technology as legitimate. It goes much further than defending the guys in the cockpit.
And this one casts WikiLeaks in a harshly negative light, insinuating 1) WikiLeaks had no reason to suggest the rules of engagement were not followed (when they do have a fair reading of the rules that many people are ignoring) and 2) WikiLeaks is out of line by reporting a narrative of any kind.
I hope those two links were popular because people are more inclined to vote something up than they are down.