Aussie troops shoot man in Iraq
Aussie Troops fire rounds in anger….
Pictured is digger contemplating loss of Mil Skills portion of his pay for not killing a terrorist when he had the chance.
The spokesman said the troops had acted within their rules of engagement, but an investigation into the incident would be carried out. I trust the investigation looks into why the Iraqi was only wounded and why the killing zone wasn’t secured.
The man, whose nationality is not known, did not respond to signals to stop as he drove “in an erratic manner” towards an Australian patrol in Baghdad, a defence public affairs spokesman said last night. The Australian troops opened fire on the vehicle, which they felt presented a threat to the patrol, injuring one of its occupants.…and miss!
This person was later seen to be taken away in another vehicle by Iraqi civilians and the extent of his injury was not known to the Australian troops, the spokesman said.
Pictured is digger contemplating loss of Mil Skills portion of his pay for not killing a terrorist when he had the chance.
The spokesman said the troops had acted within their rules of engagement, but an investigation into the incident would be carried out. I trust the investigation looks into why the Iraqi was only wounded and why the killing zone wasn’t secured.
Facebook
Twitter
Saints preserve them.
If they injured him, they didn’t miss.
(in such a media filled environment, shooting the wounded is hardly an option).
A later report states that he was killed or injured (the body was removed by other Iraqis).
re securing the site, I’m not sure that approaching a suicide bomb, with the suicide bomber still in it and probably able to initiate it, isn’t helping the enemy complete his mission.
I like a lot of your work Kev, but I think you might want to consider how much you would have enjoyed being monday morning quarterbacked on the tactical level, by people with no access to the facts of what actually happened.
I would think that when confronted with an approaching vehicle that may or may not be a suicide bomber, the first priority, in the absence of rockets, would be to immobilize the driver and or pax with rifle fire. Surely then all available riflemen and machine gunners would be targeting same.
I am therefore surprised that the guy/s got away. Ie. weren’t shattered with hundreds of rounds in the centre of the seen mass.
I would further consider that letting the bad guys remove a bombed up vehicle for later re-use is not sound tactics. Thus, securing the killing zone doesn’t mean sitting on top of a bomb but setting up a perimeter that precludes removing the vehicle until EOD arrive.
the body was removed by Iraqis to me is reminiscent of all the VC we allowed back into the battle by not securing the killing zone. Yes, it was difficult at times but it was the aim.
I should feel free to comment on matters that are, after all, within my field of expertize and even though I’m not aware of all of the RsOE and am thus now only a monday morning Quarterback…oops, Full Back, I know we always critisised our actions in after-action reports and I assume the new army still does.
These are some of the questions the patrol commander could be asking.
Maybe a younger soldier could comment but I still think my comments, even though given lightly, are relevant
I’m afraid I disagree, you don’t even know the size of the patrol, the specifics of terrain, let alone the tactical situation.
It may have been impossible to secure the site.
You also seem to be forgetting the fact that by being wounded he has taken quite a few people out of the battle as well.
Patrol size is max rifle company minus, terrain is urban and tactics are MOUT or today’s equivalent.
I’m not forgetting – being wounded…etc. The bad guy is not being evacuated back to Jordan by four stretcher bearers. He is just being dragged to cover. The ideal infantry situation is the guys doing the dragging are taken out as well.
… Ah, what the heck – Harry, my post wasn’t the first paragrap of a TEWT solution – it was an aside comment on a clash and I actuallyintended it to be interpreted in a light hearted vein.
You don’t know patrol size, you guess it.
Terrain is urban, but you don’t know any of the details.
Tactics, you don’t know.
Enemy force, you don’t know.
ROE you don’t know.
The guy is being dragged to cover, then he needs to be transported, treated and concealed during the whole process, all the time his wounds and failure demoralising his comrades.
It may have been intended to be light hearted, but it certainly didn’t come across that way.
They hit their target and obeyed their ROE. they won the fight.