NATO Helicopters Kill Nine Afghan Boys Collecting Firewood
This really confuses me and pisses me off.
Which nation's helicopters were responsible for this attack, and if American Apache gunships, where was the target discrimination? We've spent hundreds of millions for state-of-the-art sensors that can cut through darkness and fog, and none of that technology was able to tell that these children were carrying firewood, and not weapons? I don't need to be told there is a fog of war, but we seem to be repeating this kind of mistaken identity every few months. You can't win a counterinsurgency like this. Good grief.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:43 AM
Comments
You can't win anything like this. It accomplishes nothing. The rules of engagement are sup[posed to be much tighter than this. The gunships know they are operating in an area populated by civilians. They cannot assume every group of people carrying stuff are enemies.
Posted by: Professor hale at March 03, 2011 11:48 AM (FJTpO)
Posted by: Douglas at March 03, 2011 11:52 AM (YKOnu)
All that being said, this is a great tragedy and someone should pay.
Posted by: Mike at March 03, 2011 04:45 PM (7nc0l)
We ran into this problem in Vietnam. The answer was to move all people out of a region and sterilize the area. Then allow the people back once they were processed for views and adherence to our concepts. Otherwise, lets get out and leave the area to the Russians.
Posted by: david at March 03, 2011 06:28 PM (3zeJK)
Posted by: Earl T at March 03, 2011 11:54 PM (4mePW)
"Attack us and die" works so much better than "Kumbayah".
Posted by: SDN at March 04, 2011 07:12 AM (XXZMm)
That would be a sensible policy if we were at war against Afghanistan, but we are not. This is the nature of counterinsurgency and how it is defeated. We are at war against a few non-national groups who believe in the "all is fair" principle of war. We do not believe in that principle because we are both morally superior to our enemies and because we recognize the "kill them all" is counterproductive. The rules of engagement are not designed to hold us back, they are designed to help us win in the shortest time possible.
Posted by: Professor hale at March 04, 2011 01:27 PM (FJTpO)
Posted by: Will Smith at March 04, 2011 07:43 PM (J72gA)
Posted by: Professer Hale at March 05, 2011 04:04 PM (eDtjw)
We ran into this problem in Vietnam. The answer was to move all people out of a region and sterilize the area. Then allow the people back once they were processed for views and adherence to our concepts. Otherwise, lets get out and leave the area to the Russians."
Yeah, David. And look how well Viet Nam worked out.
Posted by: rhino at March 05, 2011 07:58 PM (DWO6x)
Is is a little known fact that after Tet 68 we had essentially won the war. When we left the country was in good order. However, thanks to our liberal friends, the country and our efforts were given away when the liberals failed to standup when it counted. So, yes, the policy worked. But you made the point in that no matter what we do, the left will back down and make any American deaths not worth the effort.
Will,
What is your point? The discussion is on a friendly fire issue. This is common in war. If you don't like it, lets get out of the country.
Posted by: david at March 05, 2011 11:03 PM (3zeJK)
Posted by: Graves at March 05, 2011 11:05 PM (bFMoy)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0176 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0149 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 10 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.