|
I'm not at all trying to justify what happened, but for those of you who haven't been in these situations, let me try to give you an idea of what it's like:
You're on duty 24 hours a day. Being in a hostile military environment isn't a 9-5, 5 day a week job. It's 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You don't go to your supervisor and say, "Sir, I've been on duty 17 hours, I'm going to go get some sleep." You stay awake until you're relieved, which is whenever your commander damn well feels like it.
It's hot as fucking hell over there. These guys are wearing upwards of 50lbs of equipment in 100+ degree weather. Most of them are around 18-20 years old. They're tired, scared, pissed, hungry, thirsty and don't know when the next guerilla attack is coming. Anyone can be the enemy in this environment.
Now, see debaser's post for a detailed description of what happens next.
Had they not "engaged" the target and it <i>did</i> turn out to be an RPG, there could be many dead soldiers. If there were, we'd be bitching about more American soldiers dying.
As for the terminology used, military-speak is never emotional. For them to say "engaged" is not their attempt to sanitize what happened, it's just simply how they speak.
The person found to be responsible for this is fucked on top of what he's going through knowing he killed an innocent person. No matter how justified his actions (he did what he was supposed to do), the military will hang him out to dry to appease the public over a highly publicized event.
You don't have to like what's going on over there or even agree with it to cut the soldiers a little slack or appreciate that it was not their intent to kill a journalist.
__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses
|