What's interesting is that this leak sure brings out all the liberals from their holes. It's like a rotting buffalo to a pack of hyenas.
Let's study the following article, published in
The Guardian:
The title does not leave much room for imagination, claiming "Iraq war logs: Apache crew killed insurgents who tried to surrender"
Then we start reading. The opening paragraph:
A US gunship crew was cleared to attack two insurgents on the ground even though the pilots had reported that the men were trying to surrender, the leaked Iraq war logs reveal.
Oh, them vile Americans!
Moving on to the second paragraph, it becomes more interesting:
The Apache helicopter pilots killed both Iraqi men after being advised by a US military lawyer that they could not surrender to an aircraft and therefore remained valid targets. A leading military law expert consulted by the Guardian has questioned this legal advice.
Wow, real time advice from lawyers? Has warfare really degenerated to this? Where were the lawyers when the allied bombed German cities in WWII? What kind of legal advice was received before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? This is pathetic.
Moving on:
According to the account of the earlier incident in the leaked logs, the insurgents had jumped out of their truck after it came under fire from the Apache. "They came out wanting to surrender," Crazyhorse 18 signalled.
Clearance to kill came back from an unnamed lawyer at the nearby Taji airbase. "Lawyer states they can not surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets," the log entry says.
Murderers, right? Well, read the following, you'll need this later:
After receiving the lawyer's advice, the pilots reported that the men had by now got back into their truck and were attempting to drive on. The gunship made two attempts to kill the fleeing men, launching a Hellfire missile at the truck.
So they attempted to run off with a truck full of weapons. That's much more interesting. Let's refer to that Guardian expert on wartime law:
One of Britain's foremost experts on the subject, Professor Sir Adam Roberts, cast doubt on the legal advice given to the Crazyhorse 18 crew. "Surrender is not always a simple matter," Roberts, emeritus professor of international relations at Oxford University and joint editor of Documents on the Laws of War, told the Guardian. But the reasoning given by the US military lawyer was "dogmatic and wrong".
"The issue is not that ground forces simply cannot surrender to aircraft," he said. "The issue is that ground forces in such circumstances need to surrender in ways that are clear and unequivocal."
However, he added: "If the insurgents did indeed get back into the truck and drove off in the same direction as previously, then they probably acted unwisely, in a way that called into question their act of surrender … The US airmen might legitimately reckon that the truck contained weapons and that the men could be intending to rejoin the fight sooner or later."
Wait. So they actually weren't surrendering? Could it be that by fleeing, the crew should have engaged them again?
The article about closes with some background of the incident:
The detailed account of events on that February morning begins with a common occurrence: insurgents near the huge Taji airbase start lobbing rockets and mortar shells, in the hope of killing Americans. US troops return the shelling, and Crazyhorse 18 is dispatched on a mission to see whether the retaliation has had any effect. At 11.34am, three minutes after takeoff, the crew spot the insurgents fleeing their launch site with a mortar and tripod on the back of a Bongo – a light truck manufactured by Kia.
The crew confirm a "positive identification" of the enemy. But it is 13 minutes before the pilots are officially "cleared to engage" with automatic cannonfire by their headquarters.
The Apache opens fire, and two Iraqis fling themselves out of the Bongo as the heavy shells blast the truck and cause its stock of mortar ammunition to "cook off".
Seems like they had some toys.
So lets recap:
1. Insurgents shell US bases
2. An Apache is scrambled to the location
3. Insurgents attempt to flee, in a truck carrying mortar and rounds
4. The Apache identify them, opening fire
5. The insurgents surrender, at which point some military lawyer authorizes engagement
6. While the pilots work their way up the bureaucracy, the insurgents attempt to flee
7. The Apache is ordered to open fire from the squadron command
8. The insurgents are engaged again, this time taken out in a spectacular show of ordnance exploding
9. The Guardian publishes an article how US pilots killed insurgents who tried to surrender
Pretty awesome chain of events, don't you think.
Facebook
Twitter