The sequence covering the casualties of OIF at the Palestine during tactical operations of April 7-8 of 2003 was pretty one sided. The events from a point of view of embedded reporters, specifically David Zucchino's "Thunder Run", Chapter 18, documents the confusion and the efforts made by the on-scene commander and the fire discipline exercised by the tank commander while other reporters were included in the target de-confliction. Basically, the elements of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division (mechanized) pausing under fire from the rooftops of high-rises in the area and the attempt to prevent firing on the reporters known to be in the area but their lack of knowledge of the specific building they were in. They did in fact hold fire while calls were made back to the US by the embedded reporters trying to provide a clearer image. This task, undertaken by Greg Kelly of Fox News for Colonel David Perkins, the on-scene commander, was not the only attempt [Zucchino, 2004, pg 299]. In fact, Chris Tomlinson of the Associate Press was also asked what the Palestine looked like and where it was located. He then attempted to contact his office by e-mail and satellite phone -- no luck. [Zucchino, 2004]. Only after the attack had finally taken place was the situation made clearer with the bad news.

My point here is that if you are going to let pissed off reporters spout about being targeted, how about discussing the situation with the alleged "war criminal" who ordered the attack and the fact that other reporters were providing a contrasting view that were privy of another point of view. Zhucchino did not spout such rubbish since he had to face the troops whom fought and died a proper fight and were guilty of trying to stay alive in the fog of war. It's a bit harder to claim conspiracies and hostile intent when you meet the people pulling the trigger and know them for what they are, humans trying to get back home in one piece. They did not set out to kill innocents. They did have a right to protect themselves and the actions taken that day by the casualties while benign to the troops, looked exactly like the hostile activities of a forward artillery spotter targeting the troops crossing the bridges over the Tigris. The troops did not have all the info and this concept that they have a perfect image of their environment under those conditions is giving a bit too much credit to US Forces. The editor should have provided the complete POV provided by other reporters since the reporter claiming this action a war crime obviously cared not to put on the boots of the soldiers for their POV. I an editor myself and would not feel honest with a cut of this sort.

Frank A.
Colorado Springs, Colorado

[This message was edited by frankarc on 08-04-04 at 12:51 AM.]