QUOTE
"Accidents happen," said the London Independent in an editorial. In any war, some soldiers will be killed mistakenly by their own side. And after such a tragedy, "the relevant military bodies" have a moral, as well as legal, duty to "be honest with the bereaved family." The U.S. and British governments have failed to do so. In the first weeks of the Iraq war, Lance Cpl. Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry Regiment was killed when a U.S. aircraft mistakenly fired on this tank. Yet for four years, the U.S. refused to release the cockpit video of its pilots, and Britain didn't press it. It was only after someone leaked the video to the London Sun, which has been running it relentlessly on its Web site since last week, that the Americans conceded. And now that we've all seen the video, it's obvious that the U.S. was "citing legality and national security to cloak what looks rather more like national embarrassment."
The video documents stereotypical U.S. arrogance, said the London Daily Telegraph. "The decision to attack the British convoy was taken with frightening casualness," the two pilots gleeful in their location of a target and perfunctory in their inquiries about possible "friendlies" in the area. And then it was bombs away. Granted, the pilots were immediately appalled by their mistake: One began to weep, while the other actually vomited. But the incident only bolsters the prevailing British view that,” while the U.S. has the best kit, it does not necessarily have the best training.
Who are you to pass judgment on these soldiers" asked Magnus Linklater in the London Times. None of us should have seen this footage. The British press has been nearly unanimous in scolding the Americans for withholding the tape, mocking their national security considerations. But how can we be so sure that releasing the video doesn't harm U.S. security? It certainly shows "pilot-to-pilot exchanges, the identification of targets, operational details of the A-10 tankbuster communications system, and evidence of what it can deliver at 12,000 feet." I'm sure the enemy is happy to know those things. Cavalierly posting such information for the world to see "breaks all the rules that govern exchanges of intelligence between British and American forces." The Sun may have scored one by embarrassing the Americans, but it may also have "put lives at risk."
If we really want to protect innocent lives, said Simon Jenkins in the London Guardian, we should rethink our reliance on aerial bombing. The bomb that killed Matty Hull was surely not the only one to go astray in Iraq. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Iraqi families have been killed by U.S. and British forces that thought they were targeting insurgents or terrorists. That's what we really should be investigating. Isn't the incidental killing of civilians "far more damaging to the cause of victory than friendly-fire casualties?"
The video documents stereotypical U.S. arrogance, said the London Daily Telegraph. "The decision to attack the British convoy was taken with frightening casualness," the two pilots gleeful in their location of a target and perfunctory in their inquiries about possible "friendlies" in the area. And then it was bombs away. Granted, the pilots were immediately appalled by their mistake: One began to weep, while the other actually vomited. But the incident only bolsters the prevailing British view that,” while the U.S. has the best kit, it does not necessarily have the best training.
Who are you to pass judgment on these soldiers" asked Magnus Linklater in the London Times. None of us should have seen this footage. The British press has been nearly unanimous in scolding the Americans for withholding the tape, mocking their national security considerations. But how can we be so sure that releasing the video doesn't harm U.S. security? It certainly shows "pilot-to-pilot exchanges, the identification of targets, operational details of the A-10 tankbuster communications system, and evidence of what it can deliver at 12,000 feet." I'm sure the enemy is happy to know those things. Cavalierly posting such information for the world to see "breaks all the rules that govern exchanges of intelligence between British and American forces." The Sun may have scored one by embarrassing the Americans, but it may also have "put lives at risk."
If we really want to protect innocent lives, said Simon Jenkins in the London Guardian, we should rethink our reliance on aerial bombing. The bomb that killed Matty Hull was surely not the only one to go astray in Iraq. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Iraqi families have been killed by U.S. and British forces that thought they were targeting insurgents or terrorists. That's what we really should be investigating. Isn't the incidental killing of civilians "far more damaging to the cause of victory than friendly-fire casualties?"
