# Crap....and they let them get away.



## Franko (13 Sep 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14817922/



> *Army to probe unauthorized release of photo*
> *Purported spy plane picture of Taliban funeral in Afghanistan given to NBC*
> Image: Taliban funeral
> U.S. Army
> ...









*Here's the picture of the target:*







So what would you have done?


----------



## patrick666 (13 Sep 2006)

*press launch-button*


----------



## Magravan (13 Sep 2006)

Waited til they moved far enough away, then hit the target. Ignoring rules of engagement seems a slippery slope...


----------



## Blakey (13 Sep 2006)

They seem to be _fairly_ well organized, kind of like formed-up? I'm not an expert on Afghan Customs regarding funerals mind you, so this could be the norm. It just looks well, weird they way they are positioned.


Edited to add: I would have called for Arty to be on stand by, called the TOC (if that's who monitors the airspace) and asked who/what was on station flying CAP's in the area and if there were any FF's (ground units) nearby. Dependent on the avail. and pos. of those ground units, set them up in likely avenues of escape and had the drone monitor.

Once the "funeral" started breaking up and they were clear of the area (cemetery), release the hounds!

Of course, I have the added convenience of sitting here behind my computer with all the time in the world and type this out.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Sep 2006)

And we know they're Taliban how?  Where are the weapons?  It is rather difficult to second guess an ROE decision based on a single grainy photo...

IIRC, one would line up like this when at prayer.  Consider the impact of targeting this group while at prayer, only to discover that there's no evidence they're Taliban/AQ... Doesn't make for a very nice headline.


----------



## Blakey (13 Sep 2006)

TR: Good point, from that image you cant relay see any weapons.


----------



## Franko (13 Sep 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> And we know they're Taliban how?  Where are the weapons?  *It is rather difficult to second guess an ROE decision based on a single grainy photo...
> *
> IIRC, one would line up like this when at prayer.  Consider the impact of targeting this group while at prayer, only to discover that there's no evidence they're Taliban/AQ... Doesn't make for a very nice headline.



That's the entire purpose right there of this thread....

It's so easy to critisise the troops in the field, and plenty of members here have done it...to the glee no doubt of the media.

With the evidence before you what would you have done?

This is purely for discussion and nothing more than that.....let's not get into the ROEs in theater.       

Regards


----------



## GLOCK 31 (13 Sep 2006)

What about waiting till there done and using a drone to follow them?  Might lead you back to where there hiding, or even more.  Either that or launch when they leave the funeral.  Personally I never cared for the rules of engagement, when the other side doesn't respect them.  Seems like fighting with your hands tied behind your back.  You can bet if the tides were turned that they would launch in a second, whether we were armed or not. 

Robert

PS.  I am not in the military, just a civi.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Sep 2006)

GLOCK 31 said:
			
		

> What about waiting till there done and using a drone to follow them?  Might lead you back to where there hiding, or even more.  Either that or launch when they leave the funeral.  Personally I never cared for the rules of engagement, when the other side doesn't respect them.  Seems like fighting with your hands tied behind your back.  You can bet if the tides were turned that they would launch in a second, whether we were armed or not.
> 
> Robert
> 
> PS.  I am not in the military, just a civi.



I'll accept your Post Script, but you have made it sound like it was a video game.  It is not.  It has too many factors to make that next to impossible.  There is amount of fuel and time on target of the Drone.  Weather.  By the time the Target (all those guys) disperse, what is to say they all go to the same place?  How many of those there heard the Drone and took evaisive actions?  etc. etc.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Sep 2006)

> With the evidence before you what would you have done?



Check fire unless/until the target is positively identified as enemy.  This isn't an ROE issue, just common sense.



> You can bet if the tides were turned that they would launch in a second, whether we were armed or not.


  That's what separates us from them.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Sep 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> And we know they're Taliban how?  Where are the weapons?  It is rather difficult to second guess an ROE decision based on a single grainy photo...
> 
> IIRC, one would line up like this when at prayer.  Consider the impact of targeting this group while at prayer, only to discover that there's no evidence they're Taliban/AQ... Doesn't make for a very nice headline.



+1

I'm willing to bet my socks that there is at least one person in that group that can be regarded as "non-combatant"; instant -1 for us.

Even if they are Taliban, hammering them while at prayer probably wouldn't go over well amongst the average Muslim when Al-Jiz splashes it all over the world.  Hearts and minds, no?

You can probably use that UAV to see where they're going anyways....


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (13 Sep 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Check fire unless/until the target is positively identified as enemy.  This isn't an ROE issue, just common sense.
> *That's what separates us from them.*



I was thinking that will readin the post by Glock.  +1.


----------



## GLOCK 31 (13 Sep 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> That's what separates us from them.



True, your right man.


----------



## Rice0031 (13 Sep 2006)

Glock raises a valid point.
Say, by some circumstance or another, they manage to gain intel of some of our troops in the middle of a funeral/ceremony... would they attack, or would they respect it?
I am not trying to get flamed, I acknowledge the fact that they would most likely attack.

Say we had a bit more evidence, actually, say we had enough intel. to prove that they were indeed AQ/taleban, should we have attacked them in the middle of their ceremony? Now, being the guy that I am, I try to respect everyone and their beliefs, but if they would attack us in the same situation, does that mean we should reciprocate? Or should we stick to our values and let them slip away?

Just some musings...


----------



## GLOCK 31 (13 Sep 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I'll accept your Post Script, but you have made it sound like it was a video game.  It is not.  It has too many factors to make that next to impossible.  There is amount of fuel and time on target of the Drone.  Weather.  By the time the Target (all those guys) disperse, what is to say they all go to the same place?  How many of those there heard the Drone and took evaisive actions?  etc. etc.



Understood.  Just thinking, if they are Taliban, and you can't attack, it be a real shame to just let'em go to fight another day.  Without at least trying to get something more positive than a picture.  Just don't like seeing them get away, but your right sometimes theres nothing you can do.


----------



## on guard for thee (13 Sep 2006)

This is not an issue.

What we stand for (and why we are there) makes this a no-brainer.

The "they'd do it, so why don't we" arguement is fundementally wrong, and for the folks here who are in theatre (or on deck to go), please do the following:

1)  Suck back.

2)  Think of who you are, and what you represent.

3)  Ensure you have your head together, and act accordingly. 

The alternative is truly an ugly prospect.

2 cents from me


----------



## Rice0031 (13 Sep 2006)

I totally agree with you, OGFT, I am just trying to inspire somy philosophical debate. Though a 20 year-old computer studies student usually isn't the ideal candidate for such purposes.
If it was my call, because of what I believe in, what "we" believe, I would respect the fact that they are trying to honour their fallen, and an attack in the middle of that would be ... what's the word, indecent/unacceptable. I also agree that this is part of what makes the difference between "us" and "them".


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (13 Sep 2006)

Whats that old saying Mom used to say??

"2 wrongs don't make a right"?

Something like that.

 ;D


----------



## on guard for thee (13 Sep 2006)

Ack regarding the philosophical debate angle, but on this, there is only one angle.....

If we as a military (read representatives of the Crown) allow ourselves to believe there is "wiggle room" regarding our ethics, we will not be on a slippery slope....we'll be at the bottom of the hill.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Sep 2006)

The target needs positive ID before anything takes place. Just as an off side. Who decided it was a funeral? Maybe they were all lined up to hear old Osama speak from the back of the truck, maybe it was pay day. Who knows. Let's not let the moralists get our panties in a twist over religious ethics, without absolute proof. It still doesn't relieve us from id'ing the target first.


----------



## Magravan (13 Sep 2006)

Breaking the rules of engagement for the sake of taking out a nice target is not going to inspire trust in our troops, even if every one of those attendees was a die-hard killer who eats babies. And that is even assuming that they knew who each person was...

Do you really want to become the same as the enemy that you are helping the people of Afghanistan escape from? Do you think that they will support our forces with intelligence and aid if we show the same disregard for their persons, their beliefs and our own rules? We ask them to help us to rid themselves of the Taliban out of a moral high ground. A moral high ground that we have some claim to strictly because we are not willing to debase ourselves for the sake of an easy victory. 

We consider the civilian cost before choosing a target. We consider the values of the country and its people. The moment that we don't, what right do we have to be there?


----------



## Rice0031 (13 Sep 2006)

Magravan said:
			
		

> Do you really want to become the same as the enemy that you are helping the people of Afghanistan escape from? We ask them to help us to rid themselves of the Taliban out of a moral high ground. A moral high ground that we have some claim to strictly because we are not willing to debase ourselves for the sake of an easy victory.
> 
> We consider the values of the country and its people. The moment that we don't, what right do we have to be there?


+1


----------



## Remius (13 Sep 2006)

It really sucks, because we do seperate ourselves and our actions from theirs.  A burden that comes with being who we are and what we represent.  I applaud the decision not to fire on them because we actually hold firm on our values.  But it sucks to know that some of those nimrods will be responsible for sending some good men and women home in a casket. :rage:

I will admit though, there is a part of me that wouldn't have minded seeing that button pressed.... >


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Sep 2006)

Own 2 cents - in addition to the "we can't stoop to their level" argument, how about optics?

If the bomb had been dropped, how many of them would have become "innocent civilians slain by NATO bombs" in the media?  How long would it have taken to have the bad guys get that out there?  All it would take is one bad guy to say it was civvies, and once that story line takes hold, I think  it would be almost impossible to shake it off.

One step forward, three back...


----------



## Franko (14 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Own 2 cents - in addition to the "we can't stoop to their level" argument, how about optics?
> 
> If the bomb had been dropped, how many of them would have become "innocent civilians slain by NATO bombs" in the media?  How long would it have taken to have the bad guys get that out there?  All it would take is one bad guy to say it was civvies, and once that story line takes hold, I think  it would be almost impossible to shake it off.
> 
> One step forward, three back...



+1 Mil....

Geesh.....post a topic to get the grey matter going and it does!

Whoda thunk it?

Let's try this one on for size....purely hypothetical of course.      

All are identified as TB but not armed.

Thoughts?

Regards


----------



## Rice0031 (14 Sep 2006)

They forgot this rule: rifle always within arms reach.
That's their problem, not mine.

But then you get back to the part where, oh yea, we have values that we are trying to uphold.
Interesting spin.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (14 Sep 2006)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> +1 Mil....
> 
> Geesh.....post a topic to get the grey matter going and it does!
> 
> ...



...and later claimed to be "surrending in mass" when they were brutally attacked by...

how many spins are there are this one?


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2006)

The ideal solution would be to land an airmobile force at a choke point or points and gain control of all these people as they leave the funeral. You can process/interrogate these people to your heart's content, or if they come out shooting dump fast air and artillery on them.

Who knows, if you are there with the velvet glove (they already know you have the iron fist), you might be able to turn some or all of them, like that Taliban commander who defected to the Canadians a while ago after receiving medical attention.

We need to get away from single minded worship of "Kinetic Effects", and look for alternative ways to achieve our ends.


----------



## TCBF (14 Sep 2006)

It's a Course Photo - the photog is standing on the truck.  Let 'em have it.


----------



## Franko (14 Sep 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> It's a Course Photo - the photog is standing on the truck.  Let 'em have it.



 :rofl:

Damn it....got tea all over my key board.

Regards


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2006)

The Taliban seem great at trying to kill us then showing up at our bases with gunshot wounds seeking medical attention.


----------



## karl28 (14 Sep 2006)

> Here's the picture of the target:
> 
> 
> 
> So what would you have done?




We really don't know whats in the photo  for all we know it could be a town meeting .  I think getting more information would be the best bet


----------



## amberaston (14 Sep 2006)

I found this to be very interesting. At first I thought bomb em, then I thought now wait until after the funeral then it is fair game etc.... then I came to the conclusion that I am glad these decisions are not left up to me.  Thank God it wasn't the usaf who made the final decision. :tsktsk:


----------



## Infanteer (14 Sep 2006)

amberaston said:
			
		

> Thank God it wasn't the usaf who made the final decision. :tsktsk:



You can check that at the door, thank you....


----------



## Magravan (14 Sep 2006)

Even if they were well known agents, striking at a funeral is going to upset the beliefs of the people we are there for. I imagine that if they were all Taliban operatives, there would be some blood on their hands before they died, but I can just imagine how much more would be on the hands of those who switched sides... 

Liberators and Invaders are not far enough apart in the minds of some of the people there, and the less that we show respect and consideration for their belief system, the more that we risk appearing as the latter.

I say use the drone as survellience, get some intel, and go from there. If it were my call, I wouldn't authorize an attack under those circumstances.


----------



## mudeater (14 Sep 2006)

Since that's an American photo, it was probably a bunch of Canadians formed up for breakfast!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2006)

mudeater said:
			
		

> Since that's an American photo, it was probably a bunch of Canadians formed up for breakfast!



That's crass, undignified and uncalled for, juvenile and petty........should I go on? You just became a blip on our radar, along with amberaston. To anyone else that's thinks it's funny, you can keep the cheap shots at our allies out of the forums. There's no place for them here. There's lots of anti American forums. I'm sure you'll be more than welcome there, cause you won't be missed here.


----------



## Pte.Shrubb (14 Sep 2006)

I would have waited for the go ahead from higher


----------



## Magravan (14 Sep 2006)

Presumably, the original poster's intent was to put you in the hot seat, required to make the decision. Opting out by letting someone else make the decision seems to defeat the purpose of the thread, doesn't it? I mean, obviously if you're not in the particular position to make the call, you would follow that line of thinking. But, I highly doubt that there are enough qualified individuals frequenting this forum to make it a thread worth posting (particularly given that it is the US forces) if that were the case.


----------



## mudeater (14 Sep 2006)

I apologize for my earlier post. It was meant in jest. I mean no disrespect to our U.S. Brothers in Arms.


----------



## Trinity (14 Sep 2006)

mudeater said:
			
		

> I apologize for my earlier post. It was meant in jest. I mean no disrespect to our U.S. Brothers in Arms.



We are responsible for what we type and the tone in which is can be read into.
Even if in Jest, it may still be offensive to others, a painful lesson I have also learned 
in the last month (if anyone remembers my former blog).

Humour, no matter how good intended it may be, will usually take a parting shot or
offend the person it is directed at.  At best, if you are to mock someone, such as I just
did to MRM, ensure that the other party is willing to play along.  In your case, since many of
us have lost friend(s) to friendly fire by the Americans (myself included), your comment 
leaves a bitter remembrance that was not welcome.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Sep 2006)

Magravan said:
			
		

> But, I highly doubt that there are enough qualified individuals frequenting this forum to make it a thread worth posting (particularly given that it is the US forces) if that were the case.



It is definitely a thread to make you think though, and to highlight some of tough decisions that higher faces on a daily basis.

As for the photo, I have to wonder if there isn't more intel that we are not aware of that brought them to the conclusion that this is a gathering of Taliban.  I can only imagine that someone extremely reckless would come to that conclusion based on that image.

ROE's are there for a reason and are often based on lessons learned from past conflicts and cultural sensibilities.  Vietnam was a learning ground for US on this front.  Mistakes and perceived insults to culture did a lot to undermine the "hearts and mind" campaign.  Every accident like that sets back a mission.  As well we have already seen civilian casualties caused by the misinterpretation of intel.

As for what would I have done, unless I had assets that I could put on the ground to contain and confirm I would have done exactly as these people.  It would have been nice to gets some guys out there to surround the area and see but given the timeline it is doubtful they could have been in place quickly enough.  Better to let some bad guys get away and do what is right by the civilians we are there to help than to make mistakes that could turn the populace against us.  After all, we are there to win the war not just the battle.


----------



## Magravan (14 Sep 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> It is definitely a thread to make you think though, and to highlight some of tough decisions that higher faces on a daily basis.
> 
> As for the photo, I have to wonder if there isn't more intel that we are not aware of that brought them to the conclusion that this is a gathering of Taliban.  I can only imagine that someone extremely reckless would come to that conclusion based on that image.
> 
> ...



+1

I agree... And the war will not solely be won by making members of the Taliban dead. Keeping them from recruiting from the local populace will be an important part of it as well.


----------



## probum non poenitet (14 Sep 2006)

How about dropping leaflets ... we COULD have bombed you, but we are righteous, and have too much respect for your religion? etc. etc.

Little PSYOPS head game?

Probably a thick idea, but it wouldn't be great for morale.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2006)

Or dig up the grave and find out why such a large gathering for the fallen...must have been important


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Sep 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> How about dropping leaflets ... we COULD have bombed you, but we are righteous, and have too much respect for your religion? etc. etc.
> 
> Little PSYOPS head game?
> 
> Probably a thick idea, but it wouldn't be great for morale.


Could have been interesting to see the reaction though.


			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Or dig up the grave and find out why such a large gathering for the fallen...must have been important


That can lead into some dangerous religious/cultural territory not to mention public relations problems.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Could have been interesting to see the reaction though.That can lead into some dangerous religious/cultural territory not to mention public relations problems.



Don't think it's not done.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Sep 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Don't think it's not done.


I don't but I would hope the powers that be are very careful about it.  Violation of the dead can, and has, be a very powerful propaganda tool.


----------



## Magravan (14 Sep 2006)

Imagine a group offered to get the drug dealers and other ne'erdowells out of your neighbourhood (for those not living on base), and all that they required was that you looked the other way while they dug up your grandmother, and did something that you have no clue with her... I'm not religious, but I'd tell them to take a hike before I'd let them dig up my grandmother. She believed it, and I respected her.

The people of Afghanistan will likely be less inclined to allow such desecration, given that they have their own beliefs about the dead.


----------



## dglad (14 Sep 2006)

Assuming that the information in that photo is all that is available, there is no conceivable way that an application of lethal force would be justified.  One could get into the nitty-gritty of ROEs (I won't), but just based on the CF Code of Conduct, or even a very cursory application of the Laws of Armed Conflict, there's nothing to suggest that lethal force should be applied.  Doing so, and killing most or even all of those people (because, based on that photo, that's all we can say they are--people) may constitute a tactical success, but could easily become an operational or strategic disaster.  And that's assuming they ARE hostiles, ALL of them.

At best, if I had the assets available to do so, I'd investigate.  For instance, if there were ground forces nearby, I'd consider ordering them to get "eyes on".  Or, I might consider ordering the drone in close enough to be obvious, and just see what the reaction is.  I'd probably consider this location and its vicinity to be an area of interest for future investigation.  To me, this seems to be a potentially valuable source of intelligence information, if I'm able to exploit it properly, but little more.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (14 Sep 2006)

mudeater said:
			
		

> Since that's an American photo, it was probably a bunch of Canadians formed up for breakfast!



Man that is so not funny.

*edit - seen the other post, the apology one, and "_what Trinity said_" with a +1 to it.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Sep 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Man that is so not funny.
> 
> *edit - seen the other post, the apology one, and "_what Trinity said_" with a +1 to it.


+1


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2006)

I have little doubt that a team went into the area after and conducted an investigation (including a forensic investigation if at all possible. Ever wonder what happens on CSI between seasons?).

Going overt has a blend of possibilities and dangers; if they are not aware that we can track them (or don't know how we are doing it) then we should not reveal our hand. I would like a scenario where we can link going overt to some other event (hinting a rival Taliban cell shopped them out would be _so_ ideal). One fantastic article I read many years ago involved a US Marine team (Force Recon?) being inserted on a mountain top. They could observe the NVA, but higher would not release fast air or artillery until an OV-10 or similar spotter plane could be placed on station for a while. Eventually the NVA saw through the ruse, but suffered a severe drubbing in the process while trying to hide from the FAC.  

Of course once "they" figure out what is going on, they will take steps to neutralize whatever it is you are doing.


----------



## amberaston (21 Sep 2006)

This is in response to the reaction the comment I made on this post. I have already address the two individuals that took such an offence to what I had to say. But I know that many more people may come across this and I wanted to address being accused of being anti-American. This is the first time I have ever been accused of this and I have to sit it didn't sit well at all. First and foremost I love my country. The men and women fighting in the military have my full support. But what I don't support is the fatal errors that the USAF have been making. To find out it has happened once is bad enough, but this appears to have happened a few times now and as someone who has a respect for life to find out that due to errors we are responsible for the deaths of people who are supposed to be fighting with us is not acceptable. I was only appreciating the fact that we were not put in another position to make yet another fatal mistake. Many of the men from my family served in the past and my own sons will serve as well. The thought of them being killed in action is scary, but at least I will find a little comfort in knowing they died fighting for the freedom of my country and the freedom of other countries as well. I appreciate the defending of the USA, but to defend my own country against me is not necessary. I truly meant no disrespect to either your country or my own.  God Bless!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Sep 2006)

amberaston said:
			
		

> . But what I don't support is the fatal errors that the USAF have been making. To find out it has happened once is bad enough, but this appears to have happened a few times now and as someone who has a respect for life to find out that due to errors we are responsible for the deaths of people who are supposed to be fighting with us is not acceptable. I was only appreciating the fact that we were not put in another position to make yet another fatal mistake.



If we [ or anyone] had as much fast air as the US does there then we would have had our share of "mistakes" also.

Ever made a bad decision while driving at 60 miles an hour?.........Now multiply your speed by 10 and make that call.


----------



## Lockness (21 Sep 2006)

As a civvy, I often wonder what i can bring to a military discussion, there is so much to learn on this forum and I spend more time reading and absorbing information.  Let me add my two bits, if its in error please shut me down as I do not want to offend the brave men and women fighting in these far away lands.

From doing some research on a few of these tragic blue on blue events both in Afghanistan and Gulf War 1, there seems to be a whole series or chain of events that all seem to converge at once causing mistakes and tragedies to happen.  But the criticism from the media and outsiders is directed more often than not solely at the pilot for making the wrong decision.  The picture these critics paint is a pilot sporting a cowboy hat with a twitchy index finger.  When as far as I can tell from these incidents it is a whole chain of events leading up to the tragedy that is the fault.  

If only the plane's vector was a slightly different direction, if only the pilot could see the infared strobes(speculation: that is if the military had funding to buy them, troops had them and were deployed in anticipation of the airstrike), if only it wasn't 5:30am with troops breaking camp and burning garbage, if only the taliban weren't a few hundred yards away with a campfire of their own, if only, if only...

From the pilot's  perspective, he is forced to make split second decisions based on incomplete and sometimes faulty information.  From the numbers amount of close air support missions flown daily it is absolutely amazing to me that more mistakes don't happen. (Someone had a posting of the daily CAF mission logs on a thread somewhere on this site.)

But what do I know, they are well trained professionals with procedures in place to minimize the risk.  Unfortunately the risks are unable to be reduced to zero.  Have trust in the military to thoroughly investigate each and every incident so that something can be learned from the tragedy to hopefully prevent another one occurring.

One can only imagine the personal hell the pilot might be going through at this time. RIP Private Graham and heal up you's others.


----------



## amberaston (21 Sep 2006)

I agree with both, yes, I have made mistakes at going 60 mph, but none life threatening. Here in the USA it is  a big issue of military spending. I for one believe we should give the military what ever it needs to keep our men and women safe while doing what they are doing. Technology is advanced and correct me if I am wrong but any pilot must get the OK to shoot from whomever is in the authority to offer the go? So again, I would not be able to place any blame on any one person, my thought is that we need to tighten up in whatever area needed in order for this kind of thing not to happen ever again. I am sure that all who were involved were sickened at what happened as well, but we need to do what we can to correct and not repeat. GB


----------



## The Generals Son (21 Sep 2006)

I try to imagine what my viewpoint would be if a Canadian pilot made such a mistake.  I think I wouldn't be as fast to point fingers - maybe ask more questions...  But that's just a natural reaction, I mean - I would be slightly embarrassed of such mistake by my country.  

It happens, and it's horrible. But it may help to switch roles and think about how we would feel if places were reversed.


----------



## dglad (21 Sep 2006)

It's important, I think, to emphasize the volume of information in the modern battlespace (note, distinct from battlefield, which implies only two dimensions when the modern situation is very much 3D) and the rate it which it comes to an individual soldier or pilot.  This is often discussed but not widely appreciated; as a platoon commander, I typically had only the information available to me that came through my eyes and ears, or was transmitted to me by other members of my platoon or through the radio.  As a company commander, a wider span of influence across the battlespace, more subordinates and two radio nets mulitplied the information load, easily, by a factor of ten.  I've gone to command larger units (up to battlegroup) in simulation and have had the opportunity to work as Chief of Staff in an operational HQ; the information "flux" just keeps multiplying.  Now, I found it hard enough to deal with the rate of movement of myself on foot or in a wheeled or tracked vehicle; I can only begin to imagine what happens when I'm moving through 3 dimensions at hundreds of km per hour.

Frankly, the sheer volume of information sluicing into the military brain as it attempts to not only remain situationally aware, but also make rational decisions in a complex, multi-agency environment is staggering.  It doesn't surprise me that mistakes are occurring; if anything does surprise me, it's that there aren't more of them.  The fact that a perception develops that the US forces make more such mistakes is, I think, a function of the fact that their personnel, still faced with this amount of info-dump, are also often the ones deploying the greatest amount of immediately lethal force (fast air, attack aviation, PGMs that can target well beyond normal line of sight, fire and forget munitions, etc.).  I would suggest that any military personnel of any nation, given the same circumstances, would be just as vulnerable to these sorts of tragic errors.

The solution is better information management.  However, that simple statement hides a massive challenge, which is now being addressed by many greater minds than mine.  I wish them every success.


----------



## GAP (21 Sep 2006)

If anyone wants to see how different the perspectives are

    1. walk a piece of ground that has been video taped from any aircraft
    2. take a look at the topographic map of the same ground you walked over( seldom looks the same, but you can identify features)
    3. view the video from an aircraft that flew over the same ground (preferably from same approach).
       You recognize very little of what the person on the ground relates to


----------



## GAP (21 Sep 2006)

General Explains Decision to Refrain From Targeting Taliban Funeral
By John D. Banusiewicz American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2006 
http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1081

Much has been made in recent days of an aerial photograph taken in Afghanistan that reportedly shows hundreds of Taliban fighters attending a funeral and the decision to refrain from wiping out the gathering militarily. 
At a Pentagon news conference today, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan said the rules of engagement provide all the flexibility needed to take the fight to the enemy and to protect coalition forces, but the decision in this case was not as simple as it might appear to be. 

Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry said the intelligence available to the coalition commander on the ground did, indeed, support the belief that the gathering was for the funeral of a mid-level Taliban operative. “It was also reasonable to believe that, as he looked down at that photograph or looked down at the video, that a number of the people that were standing there at that funeral were Taliban fighters,” the general added. 

But it’s what the picture didn’t show that ultimately led to the decision not to strike, Eikenberry said. Just outside the frame, he said, was an Afghan village. 

“And it also was reasonable for the commander to conclude from that village that there were probably innocents -- maybe sympathetic to Taliban, but innocents, noncombatants -- that had moved to participate in that funeral,” the general said. And the photo couldn’t rule out the possible presence of women and children, he added. 

“So that commander made a decision, based upon our values as a people, based upon our values as a nation, that he would not strike,” Eikenberry said. 

The general noted that the enemy has no such values. 

“I would point out to everybody that (the coalition commander’s decision not to strike the funeral gathering) stands in very sharp contrast to an enemy that will kill religious leaders wantonly, that will kill teachers in order to intimidate parents to keep their children out of school houses, that will -- as they proved themselves last week -- throw a suicide-bomber at a patriotic governor of Afghanistan who came from his home in Australia to serve his nation. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy,” he said. 

“And with regard to our commanders' decisions, our commanders make decisions like this in the field every day, and I have complete confidence in my commanders that they always make the decision for the right -- for the right reasons and in the right way,” he added. 
End


----------



## dglad (21 Sep 2006)

Good decision--AND they get some decent info ops value out of it.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (21 Sep 2006)

Nice call, I'm sure a FAC was dissecting the Intel and deciding....generals don't make these decisions they just take the crap after it was made. Nice crap taking by the Gen for a good decision by his combat troops.


----------

