The "Friendly Fire" Incident

You probably have read and heard about this incident: in Iraq, in the first days of the war in 2003, two US pilots shot at a UK convoy and killed Matty Hull. For almost 4 years, the US refused to release the video tape shot from one of the attacking planes. Now since a few days, this video is public, thanks to a "indiscretion" of the UK paper "Sun".

This story has so many facets, it is an interesting example to study. First of all, it shows how war is fought today. Lots of computer graphics which the pilot sees. Communication among pilots, back to the base. A fascinating insight into the business of professional killing. Very clean, like a surgical operation. The pilots' task is to kill people, to "eliminate" convoys. As the truth emerges that they hit a "friendly", the do have the natural reaction: they get sick, want to throw up, feel guilt. That is exactly the reaction that any human should have in such a situation. It actually shows that these two pilots still are humans, have human emotions. So why would they not have these emotions if the attacked convoy would have been Iraqi? This shows the whole dilemma and hypocracy of warfare: only the "own" people are good, are humans, are worth to be cried about. The "others" are the enemy, need to be killed.

There is no difference if the killed people are UK, US, or Iraqi - there is always someone who cries for them, their family, their loved ones. In this case, it is the widow of the killed UK soldier, Susan Hull. If this would not have been a "friendly fire" incident, then it might have been a woman with an Arabic name... and nobody would talk about her on the news now. In fact, several 10 thousand Iraqi soldiers got killed in this war, they are nameless now.

Only when the fire gets redirect to ourselves, then it becomes evident what a crime war is.

The 2nd issue that becomes evident in this case is how military always tries to hide the truth (well, if there is an institution which has killing as their profession, it is no surprise that they are lying too). Ok, they are rightfully embarrased. The US military hid the video tape, first denied its existence, then refused to release it. This is the natural reaction of a party guilty of something, so it is to be expected. And there is no exception, even towards a "special ally" which the UK supposedly is: the own well-being always comes first, the hiding from publication, the protection from punishment. In order not to demoralise their own military, the US has to protect them from prosecution, otherwise the soldiers would realise that fighting is a perverse and criminal activity, and that would be the end of using military for war.

There is a lot to be learned from this story, but I know that nothing will be learned. Never anything has been learned from past mistakes, ever....