I know there are some of you who do not like the YouTube diaries, and if you are one of those people you probably don't want to read any further. I have found what appears to be a video that documents the sniper "baiting" program. It was posted on the same day that Pentagon Sources would not comment on, or denied the existence of such a program. While it is always difficult to verify the authenticity of the video, and gather feedback from the actors in many of the online war videos, it is worth taking a look at the claim.
The video was posted by LiveVegan on YouTube and if you want to contact the user there he provides an email address for such inquiries. I am not going to embed the video, but will instead provide a link, and will also give a short synopsis of what happens in the video for those that don't like chasing links. I know some of you will warn me again about listening to people "chew the fat" about nonsense in online videos posted online. You might be right, but this is some guys chewing the fat on a Tank.
Video Synopsis and Analysis:
It opens with an American GI talking, while looking through a viewfinder on a military vehicle that later appears as a tank. The individual talking appears to be watching what he calls "a couple of holes" in the ground, and waiting for Iraqi nationals to become curious about what is in the holes. He later reveals that "Two 60 mm decoy mortars" have been placed in the pit. He goes on to act up for the camera, once he realizes he is being filmed, a long discussion of weapons, racial slurs, and swear words emerge. It is at this point that the everyday Military Vernacular outlives its usefulness.
What does the video show?
- A Clearly identifiable soldier from a certain division in the US Army.
- This puts the time frame of the video between June-September 2006. This is determined from the weather, and past history.
- A whole lot of EO complaints, but who cares about that when your life is on the line?
The individual on the tank does not appear to fit into the "typical" imagery that we generally associate with "snipers." This means he probably isn't a sniper, but it could provide us with a possible hint as to the width and depth of such a possible "baiting" program. If this is in fact footage, of someone engaged in the alleged "baiting" program I have to question the efficacy of the technique. Sending a crew out to watch two strategically placed items doesn't really do to well in the common sense department. I suspect that with the publicity that this story has achieved, we will probably change our tactics, and discontinue the program. (It probably should never have been started.) I suppose, if I was an Iraqi, and I saw things like an AK-47, or demolition materials lying about I probably would just let them be and not disturb them, as it wouldn't be long before word on the street started to spread about people being shot on the street. Having such a vehicle as an M-1 Tank nearby, also would kind of put my alarm bells up if I was an insurgent. "Gee, what is that tank doing over there?" I suppose for the most part the legal defense of the three snipers will revolve around the existence of such a program creating an ethical murky gray area. That seems an awful irony, as war with all of its organized ways of killing people seems to be at least an ethical gray area. The categorical shifting of blame that frequently occurs in these legal fiascoes is laid out pretty well in a forum by this unknown user. He clarifies the situation thus:
Now, as for the three Soldiers charged with murder...they were not members of the AWG nor where they following guide lines published by the AWG. For one, the AWG does not publish guidance. Commanders do that.
That fits nicely into a glove of plausible denial. Giving guidance to commanders, and then when publicity of a situation they helped create goes awry, then pin the blame and responsibility back on the local commanders. Shadowy advice givers can then return to their murky agency and plot new ways to kill the enemy. This highlights the importance of lawyers in a time of war, as someone regardless of rank, must be fully aware of the situation surrounding them and must not assume merely because someone comes from a 3 letter agency, or has a higher rank than them that such a person has legal authority automatically. This is a point commanders should emphasize to their soldiers since so much "murky" activity occurs in war. For those of you who have missed the legal significance of the story you can watch the CBS News snip.
At any rate, Evan Vela's Court Martial will be up next, and I believe that will be towards the end of the month. Last time, I asked a question a certain percentage of you thought it was a good idea to have such a "baiting" program. While I can't say I am entitled to agree with you, I am curious as to how some of you might think this is a good way to stabilize Iraq. I also have my doubts that such a program, if it exists, and I clearly believe that it does, or did will be discontinued.