Iraq: Civilian Deaths Need U.S. Investigation

[Dreamer128]

Iraq: Civilian Deaths Need U.S. Investigation
Report Tallies Civilian Toll in Baghdad

(New York, October 21, 2003) The U.S. military is failing to conduct proper investigations into civilian deaths resulting from the excessive or indiscriminate use of force in Baghdad, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report released today.

The 56-page report, Hearts and Minds: Post-War Civilian Casualties in Baghdad by U.S. Forces, confirms twenty deaths in the Iraqi capital alone between May 1 and September 30. In total, Human Rights Watch collected credible reports of 94 civilian deaths in Baghdad, involving questionable legal circumstances that warrant investigation. This number does not include civilians wounded by U.S. troops. The precise number of Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. soldiers since the end of major military operations is unknown, and the U.S. military told Human Rights Watch that it keeps no statistics on civilian deaths.
“It’s a tragedy that U.S. soldiers have killed so many civilians in Baghdad,” said Joe Stork, acting executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “But it’s really incredible that the U.S. military does not even count these deaths. Any time U.S. forces kill an Iraqi civilian in questionable circumstances, they should investigate the incident.”

Thus far, the military says it has concluded only five investigations above the division level, ordered by the deputy commanding general, into alleged unlawful deaths. Of these, soldiers were found to have operated “within the rules of engagement” in four cases. In the fifth case, a helicopter pilot and his commander face disciplinary action for trying to tear down a Shi`a banner in Sadr City in Baghdad, an incident that provoked a violent clash with demonstrators on August 13.

Human Rights Watch conducted its own investigation of two of these five cases, and found evidence to suggest that soldiers had used excessive force, including shooting a person who had his hands in the air and beating a detainee.

In some cases, U.S. forces faced a real threat, which gave them the right to respond with force. But that response was sometimes disproportionate or indiscriminate, harming civilians or putting them at risk.

“The cases we documented in this report reveal a pattern of over-aggressive tactics, excessive shooting in residential areas and hasty reliance on lethal force,” Stork said.

In compiling its report, Human Rights Watch conducted more than 60 interviews and gathered information from five sources: Iraqi witnesses and family members of victims, police records from all the police stations in Baghdad, local and international human rights groups, media accounts, and the U.S. military.

The Human Rights Watch report categorizes civilian deaths in Baghdad since May 1 in three basic groups: during raids, at checkpoints, and after ambushes on convoys. In all three circumstances, soldiers often quickly resorted to the use of lethal force. Their fire was not always directed at the intended target, or proportionate to the threat.

“Iraq is clearly a hostile environment for U.S. troops,” said Stork. “But that does not absolve the military from its legal obligations to use force in a restrained and proportionate manner – and only when necessary.”

Part of the problem is the deployment of combat troops, such as the 82nd Airborne Division and the 1st Armored Division, for essentially law enforcement tasks. Many of these soldiers fought their way into Iraq and were then asked to switch from acting as warriors to serving as policemen who must control crowds, pursue thieves and root out insurgents. For these policing tasks they are not properly trained, equipped or psychologically prepared.

In some cases, U.S. soldiers have behaved with unnecessary rudeness toward Iraqi civilians. Human Rights Watch strongly recommended that U.S. forces desist from the practice of putting their feet on the heads of Iraqis whom they have detained face-down on the ground. In Iraqi culture, the use of feet against another person is highly insulting and offensive.

U.S. military officials told Human Rights Watch they were providing extra training for U.S. forces. Human Rights Watch researchers met many U.S. military personnel who dealt respectfully with Iraqis and were working hard to train Iraqi police, guard facilities and pursue criminals. Some of these soldiers expressed frustration at the behavior of their colleagues.

“It takes a while to get the Rambo stuff out,” one officer told Human Rights Watch.

In the meantime, the lack of timely and high-level investigations into many questionable incidents has created an atmosphere of impunity.

“Soldiers must know they will be held accountable for the improper use of force,” Stork said. “Right now, soldiers feel they can pull the trigger without coming under review.”

The Human Rights Watch report proposed concrete ways to reduce civilian deaths in Iraq. Checkpoints should be better marked with signs in Arabic and lights, and interpreters should accompany all raids. The military’s rules of engagement are not made public due to security concerns, but Iraqi civilians have a right to know how they are expected to behave at checkpoints and during raids. Coalition forces should make such information available through the local media, Human Rights Watch urged.

Most importantly, U.S. military authorities should investigate all credible allegations of unlawful killings by coalition soldiers, and punish soldiers and commanders found to have used or tolerated the use of excessive or indiscriminate force.


Source: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/iraq102103.htm

[madjim]

yawn- old American saying: "Better tried by 12 than carried by six"

Somehow I think US troops are doing better than say, Dutch troops in the former Yugolslavia.

[Chewbacca]

Wait 30 or so years, maybe get an investigation, maybe not. The pentagon's stance is that collateral damage is regretable, but not worth keeping track of.

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by madjim: yawn- old American saying: "Better tried by 12 than carried by six" Somehow I think US troops are doing better than say, Dutch troops in the former Yugolslavia.

If you are refering to Screbrenica, that cannot be blamed on the Dutch alone. Nato as a whole failed there (where was the air support?).
Also, I do believe the Dutch troops in Iraq are doing an excellent job working together with the locals. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: quote: Originally posted by madjim: yawn- old American saying: "Better tried by 12 than carried by six" Somehow I think US troops are doing better than say, Dutch troops in the former Yugolslavia.

If you are refering to Screbrenica, that cannot be blamed on the Dutch alone. Nato as a whole failed there (where was the air support?).
Also, I do believe the Dutch troops in Iraq are doing an excellent job working together with the locals. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Air support (or lack of thereof) was besides the point - the orders were clear. As a soldier, you have to carry out your orders as best as you can - often you have to make do with a bad situation, and yes, bizarre as it may have seemed to the DutchBat commander, that means that you might have to lose your life in carrying out those orders.

Karreman himself called off the air-strikes because the serb commander threatened to kill 9 Dutch hostages. As terrible as the threat was, the reality is that Karreman had 10,000 people to protect and the loss of those nine troopers was a simple sacrifice that could have saved the 7,000 that eventually died.

In dealing with people like Mladic there is only one rule to follow: don't give ground and don't show fear. If he had refused to call off the airstrikes, he would have shown Mladic that he meant business - instead he gave him the (correct) impression that he was a coward - and that he was scared. So scared in fact that he was even filmed having a toast with the serb commander!

Later, after helping the serbs to load the civilians on to the buses that would carry them to their deaths he ordered his men to hand over their weapons to the serb commander without a single shot ever being fired.

The man was a coward: a disgrace to his uniform and his country.

Compare this behaviour to the that of the Canadians that he had replaced:
"They would fire back in self-defence; this included defence of their mission, i.e. they would use force if armed elements attempted by force to intrude into the demilitarized area. However, as you have also stressed to us, UNPROFOR has deployed in Srebrenica with the agreement of the parties and the threat of the use of force in this context is intended to apply in a situation where a small number of armed elements violate this agreement. We understand, of course, that 145 peace-keepers cannot be expected to resist a full-scale invasion by the Bosnian Serb Army; and that should heavy artillery shelling occur, UNPROFOR will take shelter like everyone else.
--Report on the Srebrenica Massacre, Nederlands Instituut Voor Oorlogsdocumentatie

Note that last line "they would take shelter like everyone else" not abandon their flamin' post!

[ 10-28-2003, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[johnny]

I don't know where you got the information that Karremans himself called off an airstrike, since everyone is giving different statements. I've heard that airsupport was denied by a French General named Janvier. Janvier himself put the blame on a British officer, and so everyone keeps pointing at eachother.

Although i agree that Karremans is a coward, you completely ignore the fact that Dutchbat was only equipped with handguns, while they were facing a heavily armed opponent including tanks. Opening fire on a tank with a handgun equals suicide, you know that don't you ? I think Karremans did what every other officer from whatever other nation would have done, knowing that noone was gonna cover his back. He made a deal with the enemy, and saved the life of all his troopers. That's his first and most important responsibility.

[ 10-28-2003, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: johnny ]

[Dreamer128]

I would like to add to this, that contrairy to populair believe, Dutch troops did engage the Serbs. A Dutch soldier who survived a lengthy fire fight with hostile forces, was baffled by all the all the accusations that he just 'stood aside and did nothing'.

[Ar-Cunin]

And this thread wins in the categori:

Fastest [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] ever [img]tongue.gif[/img]

and back on topic:

Hey - if no-one count the dead, then no-one can be held accountable for their deaths later.

Or perhaps they are too busy counting their own - and when your own men are dying, the others (even civilians) simply doesn't matter as much.

[ 10-28-2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by johnny: I don't know where you got the information that Karremans himself called off an airstrike, since everyone is giving different statements. I've heard that airsupport was denied by a French General named Janvier. Janvier himself put the blame on a British officer, and so everyone keeps pointing at eachother

Answer=Nederlands Instituut Voor Oorlogsdocumentatie

Originally posted by Johnny: I think Karremans did what every other officer from whatever other nation would have done, knowing that noone was gonna cover his back. He made a deal with the enemy, and saved the life of all his troopers. That's his first and most important responsibility.

Sorry Johnny, but similar situations occured with British, Canadians and yes even other Dutch soldiers - they opened fire and called the Serbs bluff - and won. Soldiers rarely fight under 'perfect' circumstances.
Look what happened in Iraq - *many* US troops divisions were constantly complaining that they didn't have the airpower that they needed. Did it stop them? NO - they carried out their orders and took the pain. How many soldiers were *slaughtered* in vietnam carrying out orders? What about in WWII when a few allied troops dropped into Arnhem and carried on fighting a hopeless cause?

When the Argentinians invaded the Falklands, 20 British soldiers held out for two days against the entire Argentine invasion force - because they were ordered to hold their ground!

I want to be *clear* here that Dutch soldiers are NOT cowards - the responsibility for what happened lay with the commanding officer - it was his decision and his decision alone. And this was *not* the first time that he did this. He did something cowardly before in the middle east, lying face down in the dirt in front of his men while he was disarmed. We know that story too, don't we?

Most Dutch servicemen are real solid blokes - anyone would be happy to have them covering your tail - but this guy, well, I would definately want to have him in front of me rather than behind - at least I'd know when he was going to run and get the option for a 'friendly fire' incident...

[johnny]

I'm not so sure if it was his decision alone Skunk, rumors are that it goes all the way up into the government, in which case we'll never know the truth, unless Karremans would somehow feel the need of speaking the truth. Which is also very doubtful, since our "heroe" gladly accepted a medal for his performance in Srebrenica.

Oh, and don't believe for one second that "het Nederlands instituut voor oorlogsdocumentatie" isn't being censored. What our government doesn't like, will NOT go in the records. They are just as reliable as our "Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst".