New Rules of Engagement Needed in Iraq?

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday. Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday.

Jassim, the mother of two children, and her 57-year-old cousin, Saliha Mohammed Hassan, were killed by the U.S. forces, according to police Capt. Laith Mohammed and witnesses.

The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.

"Shots were fired to disable the vehicle," the military said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press. "Coalition forces later received reports from Iraqi police that two women had died from gunshot wounds ... and one of the females may have been pregnant."

Jassim's brother, who was wounded by broken glass, said he did not see any warnings as he sped his sister to the hospital. Her husband was waiting for her there.

"I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives."

Source

So, given this tremendously tragic accident and many others like it, is there any need to revise the American rules of engagement in Iraq, especially given that accidents like these are almost entirely in American occupied sectors of the country?

[Hub'ite]

Who do you believe? The soldiers or the Iraqis? Who says that he just didn't ignore the warnings by the Americans. Why should he take responsibility when he can just blame America?

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Who do you believe? The soldiers or the Iraqis? Who says that he just didn't ignore the warnings by the Americans. Why should he take responsibility when he can just blame America?

Well, I believe that women in labor are usually sped to the hospital so they don't die during labor. I believe that in this instance, the man had no responsibility to take, he was driving his sister, who was giving birth, to the hospital. He was not paying attention to signs. Who else is there to blame?? His pregnant sister, for being insolent enough to need medical attention quickly? Himself, for trying to get her to where she could receive medical attention?

Please, stop trying to shift blame off the Americans here. It was clearly a case of mistaken identity, and the Americans decided to shoot first and ask questions later. Just look in the article at the Army's reponse. They know they did something stupid. "Shooting to disable the vehicle" my ass. If you are shooting to disable the vehicle, you shoot the tires, the engine block, or the driver. They shot none of the above. Now, I can understand their concerns, but the fact is that in the British occupied parts of Iraq, this scarcely ever happens.

I wonder then, should we not adopt a less trigger happy stance when incidents such as this happen?

[Farnan]

Please, stop trying to shift blame off the Americans here. It was clearly a case of mistaken identity, and the Americans decided to shoot first and ask questions later. Just look in the article at the Army's reponse. They know they did something stupid. "Shooting to disable the vehicle" my ass. If you are shooting to disable the vehicle, you shoot the tires, the engine block, or the driver. They shot none of the above. Now, I can understand their concerns, but the fact is that in the British occupied parts of Iraq, this scarcely ever happens.

How do you know they shot none of the above?

A stray bullet could of caused the unfortunate civilian casaulties.

[Revan The Great]

It was clearly a case of mistaken identity, and the Americans decided to shoot first and ask questions later.

I wonder then, should we not adopt a less trigger happy stance when incidents such as this happen?

Just to add my two cents. That'll get you killed by a suicide bomber, if you do not "Shoot first and ask questions later"

[SovietDoom]

the fact is that in the British occupied parts of Iraq, this scarcely ever happens.

Well duh. The British have the lowest number of problems, not because of their ability, but because they occupy a very small part, and it is the least dangerous.

[MasterAdnin]

Who do you believe? The soldiers or the Iraqis? Who says that he just didn't ignore the warnings by the Americans. Why should he take responsibility when he can just blame America?

No offence, but I feel this statement was unecessary. He was rushing his sister to the hospital, so he's obviously not going to pay attention to the signals, and just try to get to the damn hospital.

As for the rules of engagement, I believe they should be revised, but I'm not the one to talk to on this subject, for I don't know much about the topic of rules of engagement and other military concepts and ideas.

PEace,
Adnan

[danzig]

No offence, but I feel this statement was unecessary. He was rushing his sister to the hospital, so he's obviously not going to pay attention to the signals, and just try to get to the damn hospital.

That is why this is a tragic accident, soldiers have no way of knowing this and the guy is just worried about getting her to the hospital creating a horrible event that the blame for it doesnt fall on the soldiers, rule of enagements or the people in the car but on nutjobs in Iraq who use car bombs. You cant even fault the guy and his anger, its understandable from his point of view and cant imagine how soldiers feel knowing they killed a pregnant woman.

[Red Harvest]

No offence, but I feel this statement was unecessary. He was rushing his sister to the hospital, so he's obviously not going to pay attention to the signals, and just try to get to the damn hospital.

Why the hell was he rushing like a fool in a city on the look out for car bombers? Pregnancy itself doesn't demand that. My wife's labors were quick, but we still had plenty of time. And unless there is a complication, there is no need to actually be in a hospital anyway. No, this sounds like an idiot who lost control of his senses and got his sister killed, and is trying to shift the blame elsewhere.

Iraq is a war zone. I don't deny that. Lose your head like that in a war zone and someone is likely to get killed. "I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives." Does that sound like someone who had any clue what he was doing? Without that statement (the first part, not the 2nd) I would be hesitant to take sides on this.

[danzig]

Why the hell was he rushing like a fool in a city on the look out for car bombers? Pregnancy itself doesn't demand that. My wife's labors were quick, but we still had plenty of time. And unless there is a complication, there is no need to actually be in a hospital anyway. No, this sounds like an idiot who lost control of his senses and got his sister killed, and is trying to shift the blame elsewhere.

Maybe but not everyone reacts the same way, I was a basketcase when my wife went into labor hell if it wasnt for my wife's calm attitude thru it all we'd have probably never gotten to the hospital at all Reason just went out the window for me, thinking somehow she'd give birth in the car and we wouldnt make it to the hospital.

[Hader]

Well I dont think that new rules of engagement are really needed. If I were the American soldier(s), I would probably shoot too. After entering a prohibited zone and not stopping, I would think that they were suicide bombers, and I would surely protect my self and the guys with me.

It is more than likely that these Iraqi people were in the prohibited zone, and were repeatedly told to stop. It isnt like the soldiers (or anyone for that matter) would be looking for an excuse to kill these people.

So I really see no need to change the rules of engagement, at least from this article.

[Ahlerich]

a tragic accident. unfortunately its not possible to tell who screwed up with the info given.

soldiers are udner pressure and shoot first usually. it all depends on if the situation has been estimated wrong by those who fired and also if they fired at tires or just lost it and fired at the vehicle without aiming at the tires.
it also could be that really somebody got an F in aiming and shot them by accident.

but it is all those accidents during an occupations that create hate for the coalition forces and make their work harder and success impossible.

its a jacked situation...pull out not possible now because the threat of a civil war and each day longer they are staying in makes things worse too.

somebody did not brain something through. i doubt though that new rules laws or whatever will improve the situation. human failure will prevail

[Dreygon]

I thought I would add my 2 cents to this one. Im currently down here in Iraq. While this incident is tragic, I want to remind everyone out there that the SINGLE MAIN threat the insurgents use is IEDs and VBIEDs. The province this happend in is one of 4 main that are still rooted with terroist and sectarian violence, EVERYDAY.
Now, you are a soldier assigned to a checkpoint that has been established for a good solid 2 weeks. The checkpoint is clearly marked, no soldiers laying in ambush to spring a surprise on unsuspecting population. You see a car, much like all the other cars and pickups you see exploding into coalition forces, speeding your way. Several attempts to halt the vehicle are not working, the car is still coming...
Your telling me, with all of your solid experience in the matter, you would let it just pass by?
Even if you waited to visually ID the pregnant woman in the car, whos to say that she isnt there to play to your kindness? There have been plenty of cases where pregnant women are suicide bombers and many soldiers have lost thier lives because they didnt think a pregnant woman could ever pose a threat. I could give examples of this but I think you understand my point.
Terroists have one mission. Inflicting damage. We as soldiers on the ground have to make quick decisions, life and death decisions.
Changing the ROE would not better or worsen situations like this.
Try to put yourself in these situations and then formulate your oppinion.
On a side note, British forces are not as numerous as the US forces. US forces are what, 132k and Britian has 8k? Just something to think about there...

[The Alcotroll]

Part of the problem could be the way the American forces are setting up their check-points. A static check-point that's been in place for weeks is a terrorist's wet dream. He can spend a few lazy days eying up the mark, assessing the alertness and morale of the men at the position, their equipment, how long their shifts are, how they deal wth suspicious occurrences etc, etc. Once he's got all the intelligence he needs, he can plant bombs, snipe at the men on the checkpoint, drive truck-bombs at it or just drive down a different road and carry on with his business. The British learned that one the hard way in NI, and what has started to happen in Basra are heliborne road-blocks placed at random, or as a result of local intelligence.
A chopper-load of squaddies lands at a road, flags down a few cars, then flies away. Simple as that. Why the Yanks aren't doing that sort of thing more often, I don't know.

As for the matter in hand, well that's what's guaranteed to happen in this sort of warfare. The simple fact is that the Coallition forces don't know who the enemy are until they explode or start shooting. In a country where VBIEDs (Car bombs to you and me) are a daily occurrence, a speeding car carrying a pregnant civilian is just an accident waiting to happen.

[Dreygon]

Part of the problem could be the way the American forces are setting up their check-points. A static check-point that's been in place for weeks is a terrorist's wet dream. He can spend a few lazy days eying up the mark, assessing the alertness and morale of the men at the position, their equipment, how long their shifts are, how they deal wth suspicious occurrences etc, etc. Once he's got all the intelligence he needs, he can plant bombs, snipe at the men on the checkpoint, drive truck-bombs at it or just drive down a different road and carry on with his business. The British learned that one the hard way in NI, and what has started to happen in Basra are heliborne road-blocks placed at random, or as a result of local intelligence.
A chopper-load of squaddies lands at a road, flags down a few cars, then flies away. Simple as that. Why the Yanks aren't doing that sort of thing more often, I don't know.

As for the matter in hand, well that's what's guaranteed to happen in this sort of warfare. The simple fact is that the Coallition forces don't know who the enemy are until they explode or start shooting. In a country where VBIEDs (Car bombs to you and me) are a daily occurrence, a speeding car carrying a pregnant civilian is just an accident waiting to happen.

Also some good points

[sephodwyrm]

My idea of the best occupation rules would be strict martial law. Unfortunately the administration didn't have the stomach to do so and when they messed up it was even worse.

A bit too late to impose martial law. Martial law should be implemented in 2003, not 2006.

[Red Harvest]

Legio XX Valeria Victrix,

I don't see what rule of engagement could/should be changed. There have been quite a few vehicle bomb attacks, and they play out much like the above. In the same situation I would have fired on the car, attempting to kill the driver.

Unless you have a 50 caliber armour piercing weapon/round in auto fire mode, shooting at the engine is unlikely to be effective in the distance needed. If you change the rules of engagement to make situations like this "no fire", you will likely greatly increase the number of suicide vehicle bomb attacks--because they will become more effective.

This is a tragic awful thing, but the driver screwed up big time. Everyone else performed as expected. The driver did not. Driving at full speed in a civilian vehicle in Baghdad with its check points? And he didn't see the signs? Why am I not surprised? Really poor judgement.

It there was not a serious problem with car bombs, the rules of engagement probably would likely not have resulted in this shooting.

By the way, rushing to the hospital during labor is a rather stupid thing to begin with...illustrates a lack of any planning. Labor isn't here an over in 5 minutes. Hell, it isn't even necessary to be in a hospital for most child birth. (And yes, I do have kids, and yes I did drive my wife to the hospital for each.)

[internationalist]

Legio XX Valeria Victrix,

I don't see what rule of engagement could/should be changed. There have been quite a few vehicle bomb attacks, and they play out much like the above. In the same situation I would have fired on the car, attempting to kill the driver.

Unless you have a 50 caliber armour piercing weapon/round in auto fire mode, shooting at the engine is unlikely to be effective in the distance needed. If you change the rules of engagement to make situations like this "no fire", you will likely greatly increase the number of suicide vehicle bomb attacks--because they will become more effective.

This is a tragic awful thing, but the driver screwed up big time. Everyone else performed as expected. The driver did not. Driving at full speed in a civilian vehicle in Baghdad with its check points? And he didn't see the signs? Why am I not surprised? Really poor judgement.

It there was not a serious problem with car bombs, the rules of engagement probably would likely not have resulted in this shooting.

By the way, rushing to the hospital during labor is a rather stupid thing to begin with...illustrates a lack of any planning. Labor isn't here an over in 5 minutes. Hell, it isn't even necessary to be in a hospital for most child birth. (And yes, I do have kids, and yes I did drive my wife to the hospital for each.)

I believe a single 50 cal bullet to an engine block will disable a vehicle, hence 50 cal sniper rifles.

[Red Harvest]

I believe a single 50 cal bullet to an engine block will disable a vehicle, hence 50 cal sniper rifles.

No, it would have to hit it in the right place too. If you think it is easy to actually take out an engine with a bullet you might want to study air warfare. Many aircraft were bristling with 50 caliber machine guns, and rounds into the cowling were not uncommon. Yet shot up engines were often still flyable for quite a time before they siezed. The main concern was fire.

If you've ever worked on engines you would understand that there is a lot you could hit without immediately disabling the vehicle. And there are things in the way, even if the aim is true so there is a good chance that even a well aimed shot would be deflected.

Shooting at the engine also has a substantial risk of producing a fuel fire under the hood by severing a fuel line. It's surprising how quickly a car can burn. A friend in high school lost his father to a vehicle fire.

EDIT: I would not change the rules of engagement to something I myself would not want to abide by. In an area where vehicle bombings do occur (Iraq for example) I would not want to be prevented from firing at vehicles that ignored warnings.

[Farnan]

You ever try to fire a single shot rifle at a target moving >60mph?