Page 1 of 1

U. S. Troops Take Risks to Avoid Civilian Deaths

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:25 pm
by John Galt
Islamo-Facists target civilians and US forces take risks to save civilians.
We have a great country and wonderful troops.

Wall Street Journal

After U.S. Air Strike, Fear of Casualties
At Afghan Bazaar

By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS

November 16, 2007

ORGUN-E, Afghanistan -- Dustin Hatfield's first thought after the U.S. jet strafed the ridge was, that's perfect. Minutes later, his confidence gave way to alarm.

Initially, the air strike on a Taliban fighting position looked flawless. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Hatfield had confirmed the precise location of the target and passed word to the pilot circling in the night sky: "You're cleared hot." The jet pointed its nose down and let loose a barrage of cannon fire. Geysers of dirt erupted along the ridge, as if the ground itself had been put to a boil. In a bunker-like command post 20 miles away, Sgt. Hatfield watched the attack unfold via spy-plane video on a giant flat-screen TV.

Then U.S. soldiers at the scene radioed an urgent message, the kind a front-line air controller fears the most: Some rounds had landed near a marketplace below.

Afghanistan's war has become a struggle for popular support, and nothing does worse damage to the U.S.-led coalition's reputation -- or provides better fodder for insurgent propaganda -- than an air strike that kills civilians. Coalition forces and insurgents were each responsible for about half of the 680 war-related civilian deaths during the first half of this year, according to an estimate by the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, a European Union-funded organization that advises charities on security issues. "The patience of the Afghan people is wearing thin with the continued killing of innocent civilians," Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office warned this spring.

Air Force controllers, who go into combat with the infantry, share the prime responsibility for making sure airborne munitions hit their targets. Sgt. Hatfield is on his third tour in Afghanistan. In his first two, he guided 300 aerial missions, but never ordered an actual strike.

With insurgent attacks on the rise, this tour has been tougher. In 130 missions since May, on 19 occasions he has relayed orders to drop bombs, fire rockets or strafe enemy positions. Sgt. Hatfield tries not to dwell on the implications of his work. "There will be time to think about it when we get home," says the 27-year-old Alaskan.

But sometimes after directing an air strike, he will sit on the steps outside his barracks, smoke a cigar, and think about the lives he helped save and those he helped end. "I don't have any problem pulling the trigger" to kill enemy attackers, he says. Then he adds, "I think sometimes there's a little regret that my job has to exist."

Sgt. Hatfield is air liaison for First Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, an 800-man unit that operates in Paktika Province, a hotly contested area on the Pakistani border. A big man with reddish-blond hair and a superhero-style cleft chin, he almost always speaks in calm, measured tones. In his small plywood barracks room, he is teaching himself to play Bach melodies on a mandolin, although he finds it difficult to work the small frets with his thick fingers. He is taking online classes in physiology and the philosophy of law, although he sometimes drops his books to call in an air strike.

American commanders say they go to great lengths to avoid civilian deaths, euphemistically called collateral damage. But when U.S. or allied troops are under attack, those commanders decide whether the risk to civilian lives is acceptable. Sgt. Hatfield offers a range of firing options to his commander, Lt. Col. Michael Fenzel, from a relatively mild show of force -- buzzing a village or dropping harmless flares -- to a full attack with 2,000-pound bombs. The air strike last week was only the second in which the sergeant has choreographed a strafing run.

Events began to unfold at 8:11 p.m., in the battalion's command post, or tactical-operations center, at its main base in Orgun-E. The TOC, as it's known, is the size of a large living room. Facing rows of long desks, flat-screen TVs show battle updates and live video feeds from unmanned spy planes that circle the battlefield.

"Attention in the TOC," said First Lt. Matthew Svensson, a 24-year-old from Mission Viejo, Calif. The battalion's outpost at Margah -- a small base close to the village bazaar -- was taking rifle and rocket-propelled grenade fire, he said.

Sgt. Hatfield sat with radios at his side to connect him to a pair of Navy pilots in the air on a routine patrol. An unmanned spy plane hovered over a low, two-humped ridge, just over half a mile from the outpost. Between the peaks was a smooth saddle, almost barren of trees.

The drone's infrared technology lit up the scene: Anything warm, including a person, would glow either ghostly white against the dark background, or the opposite, depending on the settings. "We have hotspots running across the base of the hill," said First Lt. Seth Parker, 25, of Williamsburg, Va. He asked whether close-air support was on the way. "Working on it," Sgt. Hatfield responded.

Soldiers at the outpost began pounding the ridge with mortars, and on the TV screen black flashes glowed, then faded.

In twenty minutes, Sgt. Hatfield had the two Navy jets approaching the site, but he didn't want the planes accidentally shot down by U.S. artillery or mortar rounds being lobbed at the Taliban positions. "Let me know when you're guns cold," he said to the soldier monitoring ground fire.

At 8:35 p.m., the jets arrived on the scene. The outpost reported that an insurgent grenade had slammed into a guard tower, wounding one of the soldiers.

Over the radio, the outpost commander asked for artillery, powerful explosive rounds fired from howitzers many miles away. "We've got something nicer for them," said Lt. Col. Fenzel. He pointed to the mountain peaks and told Sgt. Hatfield that he wanted to drop two 500-pound bombs on the saddle between them. Sgt. Hatfield passed the target coordinates to the first pilot.

"Bring him in," the colonel told Sgt. Hatfield.

"You're cleared hot," the sergeant said.

There was a minute of watchful silence in the command post. Then the big screen flashed white until a thick smoke column rose from the saddle. Moments later the second bomb hit.


Lt. Col. Fenzel stood close to the screen and pointed to small, white figures apparently fleeing the scene. "I'd like an immediate re-attack with guns," the colonel said. Sgt. Hatfield relayed the new coordinates and told the pilots to start strafing. He knew there were buildings below the ridge, but was confident they were a safe distance away.

The outpost commander radioed that his men had seen secondary explosions on the ridge, a sign that the bombs had hit a stash of insurgent rockets, mortars or grenades.

At 9:17 p.m., the first jet spat cannon fire into a site about 150 yards east of the original bombing targets. The rounds were tipped with explosives, so each bullet hit like a high-speed hand grenade. Soon another line of flashing bullets sprayed the ridge. Sgt. Hatfield ordered a third strafing run, "as quick as possible," and the side of the ridge blistered with exploding shells. In three minutes, the planes had fired 400 rounds.

Less than two minutes later, the outpost commander radioed with the news that his men thought the planes had hit the market. The colonel immediately cut off the attack. "That's it," he said. He turned to the officer manning the radio. "Is there any chance of collateral damage?" the colonel asked. He ordered the outpost commander to send a foot patrol to see if anyone there was hurt.

Sgt. Hatfield watched the colonel uneasily. On the big screen, he could see the market. It was now 9:26 pm. and the bazaar had closed at 6 p.m., but at least eight trucks were parked nearby alongside the loose rectangle of low buildings, suggesting people could be around.

On a laptop, the sergeant called up a satellite view that included both the ridge and the bazaar below it. Clicking on the target and stretching a line to the corner of the bazaar, Sgt. Hatfield measured three-tenths of a mile between the two. "It's way too far" to have been hit by the cannon fire, he said. Strafing "is the most accurate thing they have. ... It doesn't make sense," he muttered. But, as 20 more minutes passed without word from the outpost, he worried that he might have missed something.

"When is this ground patrol ready to go?" he asked Lt. Parker. "Why?" the lieutenant asked. "I want to know what they find," Sgt. Hatfield responded, his quiet voice turned emphatic. "It's my ass."

Just after 10 p.m., Lt. Col. Fenzel stared at the view of the bazaar from the spy drone. "You guys haven't seen any movement at all?" he asked everyone. They hadn't, which either meant there was nobody there, or those who were there were dead, wounded or hiding.

The colonel suspected a pilot had pulled up too soon, while his gun was still firing, and that about a quarter of the rounds had hit beyond the target area. He hoped they hadn't hit the market. Either way, he said, the fault wasn't Sgt. Hatfield's.

Lt. Col. Fenzel then called the governor of Paktika Province, Akram Khapalwak, and warned him that the strafing run might have gone awry. "Right now we don't believe there's any collateral damage, but I wanted to call right away to let you know there is the possibility of collateral damage," he said through an interpreter.

Meanwhile, the outpost commander called back with the report of the patrol to the bazaar. Lt. Col. Fenzel repeated the report aloud. "You went through the entire area where you observed rounds, and there's no damage you could see," he said.

The colonel shared the news with the governor, hung up and let out an audible sigh. The next day, soldiers from the outpost held a meeting with village elders, and nobody reported any damage. The colonel says the battalion has caused no civilian deaths in its six months of duty.

After ending his conversation with the governor, he walked back into the command post. "Hattie?" he said.

"Yes, sir," the sergeant responded.

"No collateral damage."

Sgt. Hatfield walked to his room. He tried to do some school work, but found he couldn't concentrate. He soon fell asleep. The next day he had more planes in the air.

Re: U. S. Troops Take Risks to Avoid Civilian Deaths

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:37 pm
by Dardedar
John Galt wrote:Islamo-Facists target civilians and US forces take risks to save civilians.
We have a great country and wonderful troops.
DAR
So glad you're here John.
GALT article above:
Coalition forces and insurgents were each responsible for about half of the 680 war-related civilian deaths during the first half of this year,...
DAR
So US troops are able to kill by accident as many innocents as the insurgents are able to kill on purpose. If that's "wonderful" what would be poor?

Bush admits to killing 30,000 people just on his way into Iraq.

D.
----------------------------
Pentagon: US Troops Shot 429 Iraqi Civilians at Checkpoints

Nancy A. Youssef reports US soldiers have killed or wounded 429 Iraqi
civilians at checkpoints or near patrols and convoys during the past
year, according to military statistics compiled in Iraq and obtained by
McClatchy Newspapers.

LINK

etc.

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:47 pm
by LaWood
Iraqi Death Estimator



The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it
is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion
of March 2003.

That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that
over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006.
Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The graphic above provides a rough
daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body
Count. (See the complete explanation.)

The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan
genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly
cite it. Here is simple HTML code to post the counter to your website and help spread
the word.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Pass that kool-aid John Galt

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:00 am
by Dardedar
LaWood wrote:That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet...
DAR
After this came out I had heard different things about this study and was determined to get to the bottom of it. One evening I spent an hour or two reading a very extensive and in depth article about it. It is rock solid. In fact they have death certificates for most of them. It's incredible how the extent of this huge massacre isn't covered and instead extreme significance is given to a careful daily tally of the tiny (comparatively) US deaths. Probably because people like Galt are not comfortable having their belief that their country is so "wonderful and great" challenged with the harsh reality of piles of dead innocents. Maybe someday people will grow up and evolve past this pep rally "your team v. my team" approach to humanity.

D.

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:02 pm
by Barbara Fitzpatrick
"Collateral damage" is what modern weaponry is all about. Prior to WWI - as comparatively "low-tech" as that war was, except for cities under siege, causalties were 10% civilian and 90% military. Since WWI, it's been the reverse. As long as the "enemy" are counters in a box or figures in a video game - or considered "evil" - this evil will continue. As long as people continue to act as if killing people somehow solved an argument or problem, this evil will continue. (It's also why the Civil War is still considered the worst war we've ever had. There's something about brother against brother that keeps disrupting the "enemy = evil" meme.) Human beans are still tribal, and anybody who isn't "us" is a "them" - I don't know if we'll ever, as a species, outgrow that, but we will have war until we do.

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:25 am
by Doug
"US forces take risks to save civilians"? I guess the Murdock influence on the Wall Street Journal is being felt already. They are already publishing right-wing spin. Not they hadn't done that already, though.

I wonder what kind of "risks" our wonderful troops were taking when they intentionally kidnapped Iraqis and tortured them. With the blessing from our Justice Department. Only now is the truth finally coming out, but it is not in the realm of speculation that our troops have tortured innocent civilians. And even killed innocent civilians.

And we know that torture is not the best means of getting information from POW's. That has been known for decades by the CIA and many other intelligence agencies. But the GOP wants torture just to satisfy their sadism, pure and simple.

Bush takes the moral high ground after 9/11 and flushes it down the toilet, disgraces our troops by having them torture people, and we are supposed to think that our troops are still on the moral high ground because they "take risks"? Sorry, Bush made sure to get rid of that moral high ground. YOU support him, you go ask him why he has disgraced our country on purpose.

(And Blackwater's people--not our troops but still working for our government--intentionally gunned down over a dozen people a few weeks ago, remember? And our government protects them and lets them get away with it.)

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:44 am
by Doug
Oh, and should we feel proud that military officials in Gitmo had a policy of denying some detainees access to Red Cross monitors.

This was discovered when the 2003 manual for officers at Guantanamo Bay was leaked onto the Internet recently.

Gee, remember the good old days when the bad guys were the ones who invaded countries based on lies, tortured POW's, hired mercenaries who gunned down civilians with impunity, made their political friends rich on the blood of others, and denied POW's access to the Red Cross? Remember the good old days when we could feel proud that WE didn't do stuff like that?

And do you feel proud about the fact that Bush cares so little about our men and women in uniform that 25% of military veterans are homeless? You knew that, right?

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:21 am
by Dardedar
Doug wrote:...25% of military veterans are homeless...
DAR
Keith Olbermann misstated this one night and corrected himself the next (and made him self one of the "worst people" for it). It's actually 25% of the homeless are veterans.

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:29 pm
by Barbara Fitzpatrick
25% of homeless being vets (and a sizeable chunk of homeless vets are female - I don't remember the exact number) is way over the statistical average of any other group.

If you want to see Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) practically foam at the mouth, mention Blackwater to him. He's ex-military. The RW spin on Kos is he hates the troops, because he said "screw 'em" about those 4 Blackwater guys who were sent out in an unarmoured, unarmed vehicle to prove that shooting up the place really does subdue the population. (They seriously proved it doesn't, but facts have never interferred with policy in the Bush Administration.) What the RW spin (or the MSM, of course) doesn't tell you is that a Marine unit was sent in to try and save them and 5 Marines died in the attempt. As far as Kos is concerned, every time Blackwater does something like they did a few weeks back (randomly shooting civilians), some of the kids "wearing the flag patches" are going to pay for it. (I've just sent in a letter to the Gazette, have no idea if they'll print it, of course, in response to Secretary Gates saying he'll have to start laying off contractors if Congress doesn't pony up another blank check for Iraq. Basically I said, "Great - start with Blackwater.")