Thread: Badass Apache Combat Footage!

Why should it have been classified?

Originally Posted by Mr_Blonde_OPS

You obviously don't know how to debate like an adult then.





I don't know when you learned that it was ok to talk to someone like this in a debate, but you are wrong in thinking so. No one else has posted these kinds of remarks and this is the kind of stuff that can be left out all together. There was no need for these extra little "jabs".

It's speculation that in a hostile environment, the situation can go from calm to "chaotic" in a fraction of a second? I would bet that this statement is pretty spot on, especially dealing with the guerrilla type enemy we are fighting. We don't know the difference between a civilian and a insurgent, so the soldiers have to be on high alert at all times.

I believe this proves that as a valid point.

The entire operation was estimated to take no longer than 30 minutes. During the first moments of the operation, PFC Todd Blackburn fell while fast-roping from his Black Hawk while it was hovering 70 feet (21 m) above the streets. Minutes later, one of the Black Hawk helicopters, callsign Super 6-1 piloted by CW3 Cliff "Elvis" Wolcott, was shot down by a rocket propelled grenade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

ROE is not based on fear for your life.

The first sentence in every ROE statement and pocket reference in the form of a card or guide I have ever seen either contains the phrase "threat to your life" or "reasonably suspicion of immediate hostile intent" or "reasonable fear for the lives of..." But I barely trust my memory so I would not ask you to do so either, here is a ROE card (for you non military types good commanders give one of these to every soldier and good NCO's ask situational questions based on these rules and critique the answers given) More on why this point is important in a moment,

Roe card

This one happens to be a scan of one from 2005, doesn't look very different from the one I had in 2003 or in 2009. I am not going to go all out and lay out everything because its pointless to do so now that the Army has decided that its image is more important then justice, but there were leadership elements in that unit that new what the the American Army's ROE was and did not follow it, gave orders that contradicted it and basically broke the law a whole bunch, repeatedly and often. They sucked at being soldiers, they sucked at leading and the combination of those two points made were more then just "bad acts" or "o shit we screwed that up sorry" type of things it was criminal. It never really was about this one video for the unit in question, it was about all the things that happened that were not caught on tape, that you only get to hear about from the soldiers who witnessed them, by covering up this one thing they successfully covered up a pattern of leadership misconduct. I would never make such an accusation from a position of ignorance. I have heard things second hand from my brothers and sisters who were there, during this time frame, things that should a real investigation of happened and a third of them proven to be credible would of even changed your mind.

Dont kid yourself because you sure aren't kidding me.

Don't pretend for a moment that you are any more knowledgeable then any other poster on this thread, you are coming across as someone who would defend a serviceman in any situation. This might seem honorable to some, but not to me. Should a serviceman or woman act in a fashion that brings shame to my country, my military, my army or my self. I say fuck them. I have no compassion for the actions of soldiers, and especially not leaders, that do not have the character to do my job when they have the fucking rules in their back pocket. And neither should you. Shame on you for not holding our military to the professional standards that gave it the reputation for character worthy of emulation while still being feared on the field.

If it makes you feel any better about it while you guys are talking about the ROE should be more strict our government and military leaders have been relaxing it.

Right because a 'loose' interpretation really worked out well here!

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

This is where having some military experience would help you out.

Why? It hasn't shown to improve your ignorant and credulous opinion any.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

This is prime example of why classified material should not get leaked.

It is a prime example why it should be public knowledge. So incompetent commanders and incompetent gunners have a reason to do their best. And when they refuse or fall short of the rules receive ridicule from an informed public.

This is a ROE for low intensity conflict.


ROE—when to use force
The key question ROE are supposed to answer is—when force can be
used? In theory, this question is easy to answer. For U.S. forces, the
answer centers on three distinct concepts: hostile act, hostile intent,
and hostile force.
In peacetime and wartime, a soldier can use force when faced with a
hostile act or hostile intent. The CINC defines both hostile act and
hostile intent depending on the unique circumstances of the operating area or the mission.
The use of deadly force against a hostile actis straightforward: if being
attacked, soldiers can use deadly force to protect themselves.
The use of force against hostile intent—which is called anticipatory
self-defense—is more complex. A soldier does not have to be fired
upon before he can use force. Instead, he is allowed to use force when
he expects he will be attacked. But several conditions are attached to
anticipatory self-defense. The threat of attack must be imminent, and
the use offeree must be immediate,
6
proportionate, and necessary.
6. The rule that the use offeree must be immediate means that a soldier
can only use the force necessary to defend himself; this does not include
launching a counterattack well after the initial attack is over. This summary of requirements is derived from several sources, including RAND
Note N-2963-CC, Bradd C. Hayes, Naval Rules ofEngagement: Management
Tools for Crises, Jul 1989, Unclassified, and Department of the Navy,
Office of the Judge Advocate General, The Commander's Handbook on the
Law of Naval Operations, Unclassified, pp. 4-12 to 4-13,1987.
7. Within the concept that force must be proportionate one might also
include that it must not be indiscriminate. That is, the force used to
repel an attack must be targeted at the attacker, and should not unnecessarily endanger the lives of non-combatants.Under wartime ROE, a command may define a farce as hostile. If so,
soldiers are allowed to use deadly force against it regardless of
whether or not the force is engaging in a hostile act or showing hostile intent. Although these phrases were not used at the time, in the
Second World War Japanese and German soldiers were defined as
hostile forces; thus, American soldiers could fire upon them whenever possible.

http://www.fieldex.org/wp-content/up...tervention.pdf

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You might want to take a step back and at least read that card. This isuue is covered in the very first section. Let me help you locate it on the card section 1, subsection A, third sentence. Also check Section 2 first example.

How i come across is completely irrelivant to this situation. The facts are the facts. ROE was followed, no laws were violated, and no charges filed because of the previous. If you guys can't handle them feel free to not watch videos like this when they are posted.

Just so you know though the ROE didn't get loosened until over half way thru 2010. This happened in 2007.

LOL informed public? Like the ones in here that look over everything? Yeah great idea.

So eight men. A couple Ak's and one RPG. That leaves 5 unarmed. Strolling down the street in about as untactical a manner as you could manage, making no effort to hide their weapons. That is positive identification of a legitimate military target? The best you could do is claim that obviously the enemy tried to appear nonthreatening on purpose. You are still failing to understand what positive identification means. Your ignoring the underlined part, its underlined for a reason so people read it. If we had a professional in that bird it would of gone like this, "8 dismounts two blocks north of you, I see 3 weapons, I have eyes on and will notify if they approach." unit on ground, "roger, are they advancing on us?" "no, looks like they are strolling in a gaggle, movement is non-tactical, could be any local friendly element or neighborhood militia doing a patrol, no PID" ground "roger keep us informed"

Your making it obvious that positive identification for you means not from Kansas and that threat means armed. Or the proximity to either one of those. Thankfully for the Iraqi police and locals who band together for self protection from the real bad guys they can expect better from us 99.999999% of the time. The part with the van does nothing but nullify any sensible argument that the gunner and pilot had any sense of professionalism, or any intent to follow the ROE at any point in this engagement. I will say it again just so no one thinks I am solely blaming the gunner and pilot, they were trained by inept leadership that woefully disregarded the ROE and escalation of force procedures as habit, the gunner should of been retrained at best or warmed a bunk for a while in Leavenworth if the evidence bore that punishment out. The commander on the other hand was criminally negligent in duty for the entire tour, not just what this incident covers. The Army will scape goat a helicopter gunner to save face, but it has a harder time explaining a rogue field grade officer and a complacent NCO core that failed to bring him to check. A real investigation would of made the second part something it would of had to explain in detail. It did no wrong, just ask em.