Just when you think they can’t come up with a way to become even more unpopular…

I can understand that you want to destroy military hardware to avoid it being gutted and used against you one way or the other. However, firing on a crowd sends the clear message that even the possibility of whatever is salvageable in that Bradley being used against US troops outweighs the potential cost in Iraqi lives.

I wonder what, if any, precendents there are in previous engagements. E.g., would the US have destroyed a Bradley when surrounded by a Serbian crowd?

Am I to understand that this did not make the national news? Like EVERYWHERE else in the world?

Am I to understand that this did not make the national news? Like EVERYWHERE else in the world?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Anybody see the irony of this posted on SEB, where the tagline is “what the fuck is wrong with you people”? 
WTF is wrong with people that flock to warzones and don’t wear flak jackets and helmets?
WTF is wrong with people that crowd around car bomb sites, don’t they know about secondary explosions?
How do we know the people jumping on the Bradley were not trying to remove weapons?

You ficking luberals are a trip

Dave -

Let’s see if I can break this down for you.

WTF is wrong with people that flock to warzones and don’t wear flak jackets and helmets?

Um, their home is the war zone.  They don’t have to flock.  This makes about as much sense as asking ‘What the fuck was wrong with the people killed by the falling South Tower.‘  They new it was hit, why didn’t they go get their hardhats and battle gear?

WTF is wrong with people that crowd around car bomb sites, don’t they know about secondary explosions?

It was a disabled fighting vehicle and they were doing a news broadcast.  It’s not like they were trying to disarm a dud missile.  They most certainly know about secondary explosions now, that’s what a second anti-tank missile causes when fired from an Apache helicopter.

How do we know the people jumping on the Bradley were not trying to remove weapons?

On national television?  Do you have any idea on what type of armament a Bradley is equipped with?  It’s not as if they could have just snuck off camera with anything.  My guess is that the US wanted to ensure that the .50 cal hard mount was destroyed.  Using an Apache to completely destroy an already disabled Bradley would be like hunting rabbits with hand grenades.

Here’s some irony for you.  A few people jumping up and down on the fighting vehicle that liberated them from an oppressive dictator are blown to pieces because we’re really not there to liberate them but to fight a war on terror.

Dave,

I have to agree with deadscot on this one.  This has nothing to do with liberalism it has to do with you shouldn’t fire anti-tank missiles on unarmed crowds.  Also I don’t think that a flak jacket would do a helluva lot to keep you safe from an exploding hellfire missile.  Anything that puts holes in tanks will put holes in you no matter what you’re wearing.  Also as deadscot pointed out firing a missile at something doesn’t really count as a secondary explosion.  If it was that the ammo cooked off inside the Bradley, that would have been a secondary explosion, being fired upon by an Apache is something that I don’t expect that most unarmed civilians should consider when making their day to day decisions.  At least it shouldn’t be.

Golix,

Apparently it hasn’t hit the news here in Canada yet either.

You know just occurred to me, why didn’t they fire some warning shots first to clear the crowd before they launched a missile at the Bradley.  No offense deadscot, but it makes me wonder about the underlying mentality of the US military.

but it makes me wonder about the underlying mentality of the US military.

I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of this, but what I can piece together from disjointed sources is the following.

It seems like the overriding principle is that US casualties are politically unsustainable and must be avoided at all cost. There are two ways to achieve this in an occupation scenario. You can establish a rapport with the population, which implies you literally stick your neck out in a gesture of good faith. In return, you get more breaks, like fewer people wanting to harm your troops in the first place and if they do, a chance of getting advance warning. My understanding is that e.g. the Brits play it like this - a lesson learned in Northern Ireland.

Since the above implies training cultural sensitivity to your troops, the US opts for the other way. They rely on overwhelming force and intimidation to scare the hostiles away. It doesn’t seem to work too well in Iraq, though. Since the US troops seem to operate in isolation, they seem to get blindsided by every attack and have to use disproportionate force to suppress anythings untowards. As a result, even US peacekeeping forces are apparently perceived as armed thugs by the locals, instead of somebody that’s supposed to help them.

If the above is halfway accurate, it makes perfect sense why US troops would fire antitank weapons into a crowd. It’s all about neutralizing the potential threat from looted weapons; killing citizens of their “host country” is not a consideration.

The underlying mentality of the US military?  You find it clearly spelled out in this paper.

American military leaders have been very successful in their task to create combat-effective units.  In response to the War Department’s World War II research that revealed that less than 25% of riflemen fired their weapons in combat, the military instituted training techniques—such as fire commands, battle drills, and realistic marksmanship ranges—that resulted in much improved combat firing rates.  In the Korean War, 55% of the riflemen fired their weapons at the enemy, and by the Vietnam War that rate had increased to 90%.

decrepit,

However, unarmed civilians aren’t the enemy.  I thought the idea behind the Iraq war (in addition to getting rid of the “WMDs”) was to liberate the Iraqi populace from the oppressive regime of Sadam Hussein.  I thought the war was supposedly about helping the very same people that are getting hit with missiles.  I’m fully aware that there is a war going on in Iraq, and as with any war there will be “collateral damage” however, it just seems excessive and egregious to shoot anti-tank missiles into an unarmed crowd without warning.  Even if those people are dumb enough to climb onto a burning tank.

Anyone who believes this war is about anything other than oil, money and W.‘s Holy Christian Crusade in the Middle East are just fooling themselves…If you ask me, Halliburton, Cheney and Bush are Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Deadscot,

I was referring to _journalists_ flocking to war zones.  He was not on the vehicle, and may have survived if he was better protected.

I haven’t lived in a war zone, but my parents lived in England during WW2, they headed to shelters when bombs went off.  The Bradley was initially disabled by a bomb, as it was heading to assist another group that was under attack.  If I were there and heard battle sounds and a helicopter, I’d be haulin ass out of there.

I don’t think you know what type of armament is on the Bradley, its not a Humvee.  They were after the Bushmaster 7.62 Chain Gun, ammunition, or possibly the TOW missiles it can carry; to make more bombs.

If you didn’t want any salvageable parts off a rabbit, then a grenade is appropriate.

You’re right, Stink; civillians aren’t the enemy.  But If I got jerked out of my happy life in America to go spend “x” number of months expecting a bullet in the neck at any moment from any direction, I might be a trifle paranoid and cease to care exactly who the enemy is.  Bad and wrong, true, but human.

Another good reason we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place…

Deadscott, is that a Holy Hand Grenade and a killer rabbit with SHARP POINTY TEETH ?!!

Uh, I meant Dave.  OK, I’m going to bed now.

Fool,

I agree we should get out of there, never should have sent an occupying force, although I did support taking out Saddam.

It time to put the war dogs back in the kennel.

Not exactly a way to win friends and influence people by any means.

No offense deadscot, but it makes me wonder about the underlying mentality of the US military.

None taken.  My best guess goes right along with Elwed’s theory.  Right now the US mission is to avoid taking causalities at all costs.  Of course, that’s always the goal but when you’re trying to win the hearts and minds of an occupied country this is a step in the wrong direction.

I was referring to _journalists_ flocking to war zones.  He was not on the vehicle, and may have survived if he was better protected.

Maybe so, since it was shrapnel that did the trick, but what I find especially disturbing is that this man was there with camera crew and still fired upon.  There’s no excuse for that given the technology available in the Apache helicopter.  It’s not like it was take out by mortar fire from 10 km away.  This was simply inexcusable.

If I were there and heard battle sounds and a helicopter, I’d be haulin ass out of there.

Do tell.  Are these people ever supposed to come outside?  So, since they stayed outside the Apache was justified in firing upon them?  That sounds so much like a bad scene out of Apocalypse Now.

I don’t think you know what type of armament is on the Bradley, its not a Humvee.  They were after the Bushmaster 7.62 Chain Gun, ammunition, or possibly the TOW missiles it can carry; to make more bombs.

Interesting, and I thought Bradley was a retired General.  Seriously though.  When the Bradley was introduced in Europe the Blackhorse Regiment were equipped with the Bushmaster and a .50 cal hard-mount.  BTW,  The Bushmaster is a .25mm gun.  Now the Bradley also has 7.62 mm machine gun which is more in keeping with field ammunition and troop support.

Back to the point, these people were not about to sneak away with any bomb building ordnance.  There was ample opportunity to move the civilians out of the area and then completely disable the vehicle.  Had this been carried out during war-time it would qualify as a war crime.  Since we are merely an

occupying

er..

peace-keeping

oil protecting, nation building force, we can do pretty much whatever the fuck we want.

I strongly support the invasion of Iraq, but (like Kerry) would have done it quite differently.

But, that’s besides the point…
[] Anyone sitting in an Apache could have seen the crowd of humans, and their general ages and types (e.g., kids vs. teenagers vs. adults vs. journalists w/camera man)
[] the Apache is equipped with video, so this should be born out in the investigation
[] someone mentioned warning shots; Yes, there was no reason not to do so—but, we’re assuming they did not (again, video will show).  If they didn’t, the gunners should were negligent (at best) and motivated by emotions (at worse)

Personally, and again we don’t know all the facts yet, i tend to side with the idea that the gunner was acting on emotions and (1) probably didn’t fire warning shots and (2) should be courtmartialed due to the quantity of civilian lives lost.

That all said, it is not beyond teenagers and kids to scavange recently attacked convoy vehicles or armoured units in hopes of grabbing ordinance or other material that can be sold to in-the-market insurgents.  But, that’s no reason to fire upon (or deathly near) an unarmed (and otherwise peaceful) group of civilians, no matter their politics.

I’m going to have to break with my fellow “luberals” here and say that the crowd was more or less fair game; any person of normal intelligence can figure out that hanging out near military equipment in a warzone (especially with air cover overhead) is liable to get you killed and they should stand clear.  I’d be hiding under my bed taking cover.

Additionally, the US doesn’t do itself any favors by allowing Iraqis to throw rocks at them and their vehicles.  I would issue a nationwide warning and after that start firing on crowds that are throwing rocks. 

If anything, we should have learned by now that the people of the ME do not respect the “nice” approach.  I don’t agree that the “hearts and minds” approach is effective, certainly not now.  I don’t think we should just blast them to bits, we should still try to be humane, but the Muslim culture (especially in the ME) seems to lose respect very quickly if you show weakness. 

That said, I think that if we can actually hold elections that are perceived (more or less) as being free from American influence (other than setting them up to begin with), and we can manage to leave Iraq gradually and the Iraqis can learn to take care of their own country without plunging back into despotism…then Iraq might work out and might actually be viewed as a “good thing” (though there were a lot of “ifs” in that list.)  And, I do have to say that I think it’s better to flush out would-be terrorists in the ME and get them to engage the US Army than it is to have them training and plotting attacks against US population centers (though who’s to say they can’t do both?)

However, Bush lied—very, very big time—about Iraq to get Congress and the American people to back a war that was really unrelated to the WOT.  And that hurts us because now the next president (god help us if Kerry doesn’t win) and the future presidents will have an uphill battle:  It will be a tough job to convince anyone that we need to go to war after Bush got us into this mess in Iraq.

...the crowd was more or less fair game;

This is one of the most myopic, sanguinary comments that I’ve seen here in a long time.

For some reason the United States continues to be a slow study of history when it comes to the effects of aggression.  After 9/11 we had the majority of the world on our side and I would argue that pursuing an avenue self-restraint, core discipline, prudent understanding and cooperation would serve us much better than assuming a bully pulpit in the Middle East.

The Vietnamese people deeply love independence, freedom and peace. But in the face of United States aggression they have risen up, united as one man. - Ho Chi Minh

Chris,

“any person of normal intelligence can figure out that hanging out near military equipment in a warzone (especially with air cover overhead) is liable to get you killed and they should stand clear.“

I agree with you on this claim, but I still don’t think that being stupid is enough of an offense to merit getting a missile fired at you.  The people gathered around the Bradley, if the reports are accurate were not throwing stones or in any other way attacking the American troops, they were just dumb enough to congregate in a very bad spot.  It wouldn’t have taken much effort to disperse the crowd.  Also, it’s not a matter of “hearts and minds” as far as I’m concerned, it’s a matter of legitimate targets versus committing atrocities. 

However, there are some underlying issues regarding “hearts and minds” as well (though I think these are secondary to what I mentioned above).  If the United States does want to be seen as liberators and not occupiers by the locals, they can’t go around killing unarmed people.  If history has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated that inhabitants of middle eastern regions respond very poorly to intimidation, consider how effective the Afghans were against the Soviets.  The United States doesn’t need to get into a similar position and should make every effort to avoid making the situation any more unstable.

This is one of the most myopic, sanguinary comments that I’ve seen here in a long time.

I agree. Worse, there is a strong possibility that the comment accurately reflects the mentality of US policy makers and service members at the triggers alike. If so, it’s a very concise summary of why the occupation of Iraq is doomed.

Here’s a gem -

“The helicopter fired on the Bradley to destroy it after it had been hit earlier and it was on fire,“ said Major Phil Smith of the 1st Cavalry Division. “It was for the safety of the people around it.“ The Independent

I have followed the whole “Invade Iraq” thing quite closely from the start. I agree that going in was the right thing to do under the right set of circumstances.  No matter who wins the election I cannot see a “rebuilding Iraq” scenario working with the current force pool deployed.  news reports of the last several days site the military as estimating 5000 insurgants last year and 20000+ now. Does that mean 80000+ next year?  The dead civilians scenario will continue to be playes out over the next few months/years.  Does anyone see a “clean way out” for the U.S. at this point?