wikileaks iraq war logs

citizen_p

the whistleblowing website does it again, id say alot of people want to get rid of these guys. from banks to scientology

they released a gunship gun cam a few months ago with the killing of civilians and two rueters reporters during the occupation of baghdad, and now all this


the latest scandal of previously un released us documents

other Notable leaks


http://wikileaks.org/


I never actully looked at wikileaks before today but it has some interesting stuff. most (all) stuff is very anti establishmnet.
civilian casualties are an unavoidable cost of urban warfare, especially when facing un uniformed militias, where the only way to identify the enemy is if they have weapons/ shot first

mgmt

I now have over 66,000 reasons to confirm my opinion that the personnel and commanders of the US and British (et al) military are complete scum.

citizen_p

just seen an ad on channel 4, Dispatches have a show on during next week on it, the largest information leak in history apparently.

it mentions sectarian violence, on a massive scale compared to the north, which is hard for an army to control especially when most armys in iraq come from westren/christian culture.

tim_holsters

I don't think anybody is going to be too surprised by these revelations.

The war was an imperialistic one for the sole purpose of acquiring Iraq's oil everything else is subordinate to that. Mission accomplished as far as the Americans are concerned.

Manic Moran

mgmt wrote: »

I now have over 66,000 reasons to confirm my opinion that the personnel and commanders of the US and British (et al) military are complete scum.

No comment on the Iranian support of the militias which caused much of the destabilising and the vast majority of those 66,000?

NTM

tim_holsters

Manic Moran wrote: »

No comment on the Iranian support of the militias which caused much of the destabilising and the vast majority of those 66,000?

NTM

How many soverign governments have the Americans destablised down through the years? Quite a few I would imagine.

I acknowledge that the US has been a major force for good too by the way.

LionelNashe

tim_holsters wrote: »

How many soverign governments have the Americans destablised down through the years? Quite a few I would imagine.

I acknowledge that the US has been a major force for good too by the way.

They destabilised the Iranian government, for one, and installed the Shah.

mgmt

Manic Moran wrote: »

No comment on the Iranian support of the militias which caused much of the destabilising and the vast majority of those 66,000?

NTM

Whatever lets you sleep at night.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq-deaths-map

citizen_p

Nice link

Mahatma coat

Manic Moran wrote: »

No comment on the Iranian support of the militias which caused much of the destabilising and the vast majority of those 66,000?

NTM

Well, if you're gonna be an apologist for the Invasion and occupation thats fine, tis after all your Job.

However I Would like to know for the sake of Disclosure, How many of those 66,000 you are Directly or Indirectly responsible for???????
how many of the 20,000 in Afghanistan??

because if its Even one, you have no right to any form of Moral highground here.

BlaasForRafa

tim_holsters wrote: »

I don't think anybody is going to be too surprised by these revelations.

The war was an imperialistic one for the sole purpose of acquiring Iraq's oil everything else is subordinate to that. Mission accomplished as far as the Americans are concerned.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just BUY the oil if they wanted it that much?

Mahatma coat

Not if Sadam Was gonna be selling it in Euros.

goldie fish

They're all coming out of the woodwork tonight.

Manic Moran

Mahatma coat wrote: »

because if its Even one, you have no right to any form of Moral highground here.

Would depend on if I cared or not at the time, rather, doesn't it? There's being 'indiscriminate' and there's "Insh'Allah".

NTM

Turtwig

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well, if you're gonna be an apologist for the Invasion and occupation thats fine, tis after all your Job.

However I Would like to know for the sake of Disclosure, How many of those 66,000 you are Directly or Indirectly responsible for???????
how many of the 20,000 in Afghanistan??

because if its Even one, you have no right to any form of Moral highground here.

I'm not a mod, and I certainly hope this isn't seen as back seat modding. I just want to inform you of the general etiquette when talking to military personnel (I presume manic is, because of the manner in which you addressed him). You never EVER! ask them how many people they have killed. If they want to open up to you about it that's fine, but it should be on their own terms and in their own time, not yours. Some soldiers will openly talk about the amount of people they killed and that's fine, though it's worth remember those who normally talk the most crap about it probably haven't.

And just to debunk your argument, what if that person had his trigger on a button that would rain down the next nuclear apocalypse annihilating millions! Scale that argument down to just saving two for killing one and you see that the moral highground and morality aren't exactly as clear as your statement would like them to be.

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

No comment on the Iranian support of the militias which caused much of the destabilising and the vast majority of those 66,000?

NTM

The reports acknowledge the meddling of Iranian interests in Iraq. However, this is hardly surprising give that its a next door neighbour. The Iranian government should also be held to account for the activities.

One has to ask has the behaviour of AMerican troops been responsible for creating the militia.

The other key issue is that American troops are unable to hold the peace. They can invade a countrywith ease but seem incapable of holding it.

After installing a Government, training local army and police forces and having troops on the soil one has to wonder why there is is a justification of firing Hellfire missiles into civilian buildings. There's no justification and puts a big marker down that US forces in Iraq have no respect for local population. No wonder the ranks of the militia are swelling.

One of the interesting points raised in the Dispatches documentary tonight is the notion of "casualty miminalisation" which I have raised here before. The American military is under so much pressure to have mimimum casualties that the it seems to be at all costs. This pressure comes from an expectation created by media and government. On the ground, this seems to be shoot first or respond with ovewhelming firepower.

There were a lot of reasons given for the original invasion of Iraq, many of them false. There is also an underlying suggestion that the invasion was in the interests of those who uphold or Western society. The problem with this adventure is the US (and UK) have failed to deliver those promises and stabilty.

On thing is very notable, the US government condemns the leaks but isn't questioning the veracity of the documents.

citizen_p

malty T wrote:

And just to debunk your argument, what if that person had his trigger on a button that would rain down the next nuclear apocalypse annihilating millions! Scale that argument down to just saving two for killing one and you see that the moral highground and morality aren't exactly as clear as your statement would like them to be.

or even for saving yourself/your men/friends at a checkpoint from a car with 2 or 3 shady looking men/women in it. especially with warfare with groups famous for suicide bombings.



in the north the british didnt have the same problems at vehicular checkpoints as there was no suicide bomber ideology, where as anyone with a bulge under his/her jumper in iraq could be attempt a bombing.
iraq/middle east cant really be compared to the north except for religious division. its a society which torture is and was the norm and one which is completly diffrent socially and thus imo it cant really be compared to the wests way of thinking, laws are extreme as is the death toll in sectarian violence etc...

iraq is going to now be divided on religious lines and civil war along religious lines. (which has basically been going on anyway)

BrianD

Mousey- wrote: »

or even for saving yourself/your men/friends at a checkpoint from a car with 2 or 3 shady looking men/women in it. especially with warfare with groups famous for suicide bombings.



in the north the british didnt have the same problems at vehicular checkpoints as there was no suicide bomber ideology, where as anyone with a bulge under his/her jumper in iraq could be attempt a bombing.
iraq/middle east cant really be compared to the north except for religious division. its a society which torture is and was the norm and one which is completly diffrent socially and thus imo it cant really be compared to the wests way of thinking, laws are extreme as is the death toll in sectarian violence etc...

iraq is going to now be divided on religious lines and civil war along religious lines. (which has basically been going on anyway)

They did have the so called 'proxy' bombs where a civilian was forced to drive the car to a checkpoint and it was detonated remotely. However, many of the shootings in Iraq seem to be cars failing to stop at checkpoints.

At the same time, if you as a military force set yourself up as a liberating power with the objective of creating a peaceful society then you have to accept that this will come at a price. The benefit of the doubt has to be given to civilians even if your enemy hides among them.

Mahatma coat

Manic Moran wrote: »

Would depend on if I cared or not at the time, rather, doesn't it? There's being 'indiscriminate' and there's "Insh'Allah".

NTM

SO GOD :rolleyes: Wills it eh??

It was Gods will that ye invade and Destroy two countries.

SO you would have no problem accepting it as Insh'Allah if you or your Friends are Killed or Mutilated by an IED tomorrow?

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not a mod, and I certainly hope this isn't seen as back seat modding. I just want to inform you of the general etiquette when talking to military personnel (I presume manic is, because of the manner in which you addressed him). You never EVER! ask them how many people they have killed.

What, I will ASK whatever I want, After all he's there 'defending' my Freedom to ask those questions, if Soldiers are as squeamish as you suggest, then maybe they should consider a different career, like floristry or somesuch.

If they want to open up to you about it that's fine, but it should be on their own terms and in their own time, not yours. Some soldiers will openly talk about the amount of people they killed and that's fine, though it's worth remember those who normally talk the most crap about it probably haven't.

And if they clam up and refuse to answer questions, I'm gonna presume that their silence is due to guilt, and I am gonna presume unless corrected that these Soldiers are the Indiscrinminate BabyKilling type.

And just to debunk your argument, what if that person had his trigger on a button that would rain down the next nuclear apocalypse annihilating millions!

And yet no one put a Bullet in GWB's Head when he had his finger on theat button :rolleyes:

Scale that argument down to just saving two for killing one and you see that the moral highground and morality aren't exactly as clear as your statement would like them to be.

I didnt advocate the Killing of anyone, thats the difference here, and I most certainly didnt try to excuse myself and my Buddies conduct in the Iraq War with a bit of Whataboutery.

Manic Moran

SO GOD Wills it eh??

That's their point of view. The American version is 'Sh*t happens.'

If someone decides to drive right through an already on-going firefight with their family, there's not a hell of a lot anyone can do about it, for example.

SO you would have no problem accepting it as Insh'Allah if you or your Friends are Killed or Mutilated by an IED tomorrow?

The phrase in this case is "There but for the grace of God go I." IEDs are a bit of an occupational hazard for us. I've had to counsel some of my troopers on 'Survivor's Guilt.', especially one who was replaced on one mission and the chap who replaced him lost his leg.

What, I will ASK whatever I want, After all he's there 'defending' my Freedom to ask those questions, if Soldiers are as squeamish as you suggest, then maybe they should consider a different career, like floristry or somesuch.

He's entitled to ask, if he wishes to be insensitve at least. I've cautioned people in the past that it's not something which one should routinely ask of servicemen, as killing people affects people in different ways and it may bring on bad memories or worse. Of course, there's no guarantee he'll get an answer. In my case, the answer has been provided on this board before.

NTM

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's their point of view. The American version is 'Sh*t happens.'

If someone decides to drive right through an already on-going firefight with their family, there's not a hell of a lot anyone can do about it, for example.

This is the root of the problem. It's not a war zone. It's a city where the US Army is supposed to be maintaining law and order, not firing missiles into buildings. Your response is unacceptable as clearly people in a city can drive into a fire fight and won't know it till they are there. With people like Crazy Horse 18 flying above they don't really stand a chance (as clearly demonstrated through video footage).

The unfortunate problem is that the attitude of US forces that it is a free fire war zone where maximum response should be applied in all cases to minimise casualties. This can be traced right back to the American media who are checking casualty counts which in turn puts pressure on the politicians and administration and that pressure goes back down the ranks to the front line. Therefore, it is really those at the top of the chain that are answerable. If you are going to claim the just right to invade a nation and impose a new regime then you have to accept that that will come at a price - often lives. The actions of US forces in Iraq are just simply unacceptable.

Manic Moran

BrianD wrote: »

This is the root of the problem. It's not a war zone. It's a city where the US Army is supposed to be maintaining law and order, not firing missiles into buildings.

The two are not mutually exclusive. We'd like to be maintaining law and order and not shooting at people. Bullets go both ways in gunfights, after all. But we won't shy from a fight if it comes to us.

The unfortunate problem is that the attitude of US forces that it is a free fire war zone where maximum response should be applied in all cases to minimise casualties.

Well, I'm sorry, but if someone shoots an RPG at one of our tanks, we're going to shoot back. Someone careening around the corner in an SUV who isn't seen until he enters the gunsight simply cannot be accounted for, for example.

If there is a response to such an attack which does not involve shooting back (and for the record, it wasn't maximum response as the main gun wasn't used), I'm curious to hear it.

NTM

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

The two are not mutually exclusive. We'd like to be maintaining law and order and not shooting at people. Bullets go both ways in gunfights, after all. But we won't shy from a fight if it comes to us.

Wow! What a stunning response. No wonder you're in the sh*t. American forces are clearly incapable of operating in this environment. You won't shy away from a fight. Sometimes you will have to when you are operating in a city.

Well, I'm sorry, but if someone shoots an RPG at one of our tanks, we're going to shoot back. Someone careening around the corner in an SUV who isn't seen until he enters the gunsight simply cannot be accounted for, for example.

That's an invaders line. If someone shoots at you, you may not be able to respond at all. That's the reality. If someone shoots at you from a block of flats that houses civilians then the only response open to you is to move off without firing a shot. That's your response.

If there is a response to such an attack which does not involve shooting back (and for the record, it wasn't maximum response as the main gun wasn't used), I'm curious to hear it.

NTM

What main gun are you referring to?

harmoniums

BrianD wrote: »

Wow! What a stunning response. No wonder you're in the sh*t. American forces are clearly incapable of operating in this environment. You won't shy away from a fight. Sometimes you will have to when you are operating in a city.




That's an invaders line. If someone shoots at you, you may not be able to respond at all. That's the reality. If someone shoots at you from a block of flats that houses civilians then the only response open to you is to move off without firing a shot. That's your response.


What main gun are you referring to?

Manic drives a big M1 Abrams Tank, the main gun is the big turrent gun.
He's saying they would usually respond with the 50 cal machine gun on top of the turret

Manic Moran

BrianD wrote: »

Wow! What a stunning response. No wonder you're in the sh*t. American forces are clearly incapable of operating in this environment. You won't shy away from a fight. Sometimes you will have to when you are operating in a city.

Not at all. The only thing that may have to change is the manner in which you respond. But failing to respond to an attack in any way is simply going to encourage further attack.

If someone shoots at you from a block of flats that houses civilians then the only response open to you is to move off without firing a shot. That's your response.

Which achieves what, exactly? The psychological effect that we can't create security for ourselves, let alone for anyone else in the city? That we are so scared of a single guy with an RPG that we can't provide faith to the population that we will be there for them in the long run and that they should take the risk of helping the nascant government? The big, powerful US Army has the option of driving back into base into their forts, whilst relatively unarmed locals don't have that option. Great way of providing an example to the Iraqi security forces. Find me a cop in any country (except Ireland and UK, maybe) that doesn't run to the sound of the guns.

We may not be able to level the block of flats with artillery, but a tank's coax machinegun will keep its round dispersal to the size of a window at 500m, which will have one of three effects. (1) It will kill him. (2) It will keep his head down until the infantry can get up there and speak with him in person, or (3) At least force him to reconsider his close brush with death. Response does not mean launch everything in the military arsenal, it means making a judgement call on the ground.

What main gun are you referring to?

120mm cannon. In my month in Mosul I was engaged in an environment in which I deemed it suitable to use it precisely once; the attack was strong enough to warrant the response and it was a relatively open industrial area so the effects on third parties would have been relatively limited.

Interestingly, though we had been attacked on a pretty much daily basis for about two weeks prior to that engagement, once we used main gun, nobody went near us again for a month. It became much quieter, there was much less shooting going on after that.

NTM

LionelNashe

Manic Moran wrote: »

We may not be able to level the block of flats with artillery, but a tank's coax machinegun will keep its round dispersal to the size of a window at 500m, which will have one of three effects.

Surely it would go right through the walls and ceilings and into other apartments?

mgmt

LionelNashe wrote: »

Surely it would go right through the walls and ceilings and into other apartments?

I doubt the US military cares.


The problem with the USA is that have placed the military on a pedestal. It has turned into a jingoistic monster society where everyone has to "support our troops", no matter how dispicable their crimes they commit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGGhY46vGn4

citizen_p

if no response action is taken when a person fires from a house/building/pedestrianised area in a city, (which i assume is the vast majority of the time in urban warfare) they will begin to realise that the person they are shooting at wont shoot back and will become even more aggressive using hiding amongst civilains to a much grater advantage.

basically they can shoot at coaliton forces from any apartment block and they wont be shot back at, which means any coalition force convoy will be riddled as it passes with no response available. making much of a city unaccesible

war is messy, but urban warfare against ununiformed militias is alot more grusome

America is very patriotic, at least where i was every house had a flag outside etc... on the extreme in some cases.


id say when the americans move out (there will be advisors and small scale units there for a good few years but besides them) it will be alot more grusome , the iraqi goverment will be alot more heavy handed on rebels.

Manic Moran

LionelNashe wrote: »

Surely it would go right through the walls and ceilings and into other apartments?

Much less so than the .50 cal or the 120mm. At that point, you have to play 'big city, little bullet'.

Local construction seems to make up with brute force what it lacks in finesse. The .50 can barely go through the mud huts!

I doubt the US military cares.

Believe me, if we didn't care, there would be a lot fewer buildings standing. We could always take the Russian approach to a city fight, direct fire howitzers and AA vehicles.

NTM

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not at all. The only thing that may have to change is the manner in which you respond. But failing to respond to an attack in any way is simply going to encourage further attack.



Which achieves what, exactly? The psychological effect that we can't create security for ourselves, let alone for anyone else in the city? That we are so scared of a single guy with an RPG that we can't provide faith to the population that we will be there for them in the long run and that they should take the risk of helping the nascant government? The big, powerful US Army has the option of driving back into base into their forts, whilst relatively unarmed locals don't have that option. Great way of providing an example to the Iraqi security forces. Find me a cop in any country (except Ireland and UK, maybe) that doesn't run to the sound of the guns.

We may not be able to level the block of flats with artillery, but a tank's coax machinegun will keep its round dispersal to the size of a window at 500m, which will have one of three effects. (1) It will kill him. (2) It will keep his head down until the infantry can get up there and speak with him in person, or (3) At least force him to reconsider his close brush with death. Response does not mean launch everything in the military arsenal, it means making a judgement call on the ground.



120mm cannon. In my month in Mosul I was engaged in an environment in which I deemed it suitable to use it precisely once; the attack was strong enough to warrant the response and it was a relatively open industrial area so the effects on third parties would have been relatively limited.

Interestingly, though we had been attacked on a pretty much daily basis for about two weeks prior to that engagement, once we used main gun, nobody went near us again for a month. It became much quieter, there was much less shooting going on after that.

NTM

It seems that your judgement calls are unique and an exception to the norm. It's no wonder the US military is goosed and is effectively withdrawing from Iraq (Vietnam all over again).

It is quite obvious that US forces respond with overwhelming firepower for the sake of response and casualtly minimisation. It would seem to me that most irregulars tend to be hit and run so are unlikely to hang around waiting for a hellfire missile to come in the window.

Unfortunately, the US forces don't seem to value the lives of innocent civilians over those of irregular forces so its no wonder they don't command the respect of the civilian population. When excessive forces was used by the British Army in Northern Ireland (nothing compared with US firepower in 2010) in turned out to be the greatest recruiting call the IRA could have ever got. One would have thought that the US Army would have learned the lessons of other forces elsewhere.

RMD

There certainly has been some sickening events in Iraq, but there is in every war, and it's a small minority who do them. Viewing the whole as scum because of a tiny percentage is ignorant and unfair to those who go about their job with care and diligence.

Not every person in the armed forces wants to be there, they're there under orders. I respect to every soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan who has done their job the right way. Some of the suggestions here of how the armies should have acted are just fúcking retarded.