Short answer: the type of groupthink that encourages a 'shoot first, ask questions later' type of attitude. That emphasizessnap judgments. Is this kind of culture necessary in environments such as Iraq? Maybe. I lean towards 'yes;' I don't think there's any other realistic choice, and a shift in group mindset would probably bring more harm than good in the way of casualties. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides, which should be seriously weighed and considered.
I can agree, the shoot first, ask questions later attitude is very dangerous. But I don't even know why you are bringing that up in this debate. In that video I saw a helicopter pilot potentially identify a threat, radio to his HQ to get permission to fire, waited until HQ gave permission, then shot. I can see what you are saying in that maybe the pilot was a little quick to decide what was and what wasn't. But did you see the resolution on those camera's? Do you know how many helicopters have been shot down by RPG's lately? Did you not understand that he has a responsibility to not only protect the helicopter he is flying but the troops on the ground he is supporting? I'm with Sam N though, wars cannot be won because of a popular opinion, it is the interesting thing about our country in that our public largely decides the decisions of our government. But I'm a firm believer of each having its own place. With all of the in depth coverage that is shown today, how could the public not see the tragedies of war? Unfortunate, but why was there so much support behind our boys fighting over in Europe and the Pacific during WW2? I'd say because the Japanese pissed us off, and the only sort of visual media we were seeing of the war was pretty much propaganda.
The snap decision wasn't should I fire or not, it was is that an rpg? Shoot first ask questions later was probably not the most apt descriptor for the point morecowbell was making. It was more a comment about behavioral psychology and how when we make snap intuitive decisions (in this case 'is that an rpg?') our decision is shaped by our training and life experiences. Here the experience of the piliot said that the way this guy was acting and what it looked like he was pointing the only possible scenario was he was holding an RPG and setting an ambush. The pilots experiences had taught him that there was really only one scenario. The question that should be asked is could training be made better so that less weighting was given to experience and more to training? What should be the mix of the two?
Like toddus said, the attitude leads to making snap judgments on sub-par information. "Is that a gun?" or "That looks like a gun" becomes "That is a gun. I should shoot." I mentioned the case of Amadou Diallo in my first post. There was a reason for this. The NYPD fired over 40 rounds into Amadou Diallo because they thought he had a gun. Turns out, he had his wallet. The post-mortum analysis of the situation basically concluded that a bunch of factors led the police to make a quick judgment that turned disastrous. While there are some differences, replace 'Diallo' with 'Iraqis,' 'NYPD' with 'soldiers', and 'wallet' with 'camera.' It's not about blaming the soldiers. It's about questioning the cognitive training and culture that leads to this sort of snap judgment. It has advantages and disadvantages. Yes, the soldiers are probably safer. On the other hand, sometimes when you have a hammer, the world starts looking like it's full of nails.
I don't think it is overly fair to compare police with soldiers, rules of engagement are and should be very different. But the broader issue is an important one. Does training need to be readdressed for situations of urban warfare to adequately factor in civillians? A police officer will not often encounter a scenario where they need to identify the need to shoot or not. They rely on training. A soldier however is the opposite and reliant on experience. Both may deliver very different outcomes when dealing with snap decisions. Does urban warfare and the multitude of civiillans it involves require the balance between training and experience to be addressed? I don't know the answer, but for me this is one of the biggest questions that should come out of this tragic event.
In my Journalism school, the elective Liberal Arts courses we could take were mostly Sociology, some kind of identity politics related course, women's studies, post-colonial etc. We also had to take a course called "Critical Issues in Journalism", which was mandatory, and described as You can look through the courses, read the descriptions and see how they're clearly some kind of radical-politics infused soapbox for a six-figure professor still stuck in the 60's. Note the stunning lack of scientific, economic or similar courses. http://www.ryerson.ca/calendar/2008-2009/pg2205.html#161880 http://www.ryerson.ca/calendar/2008-2009/pg1341.html http://www.ryerson.ca/calendar/2008-2009/pg653.html I could seriously write a book about this shit, and I would like to at some point. People might laugh at the notion of a "liberal media" but believe me, there is something to it, at least on an unconscious level. Or that's just my crackhead ramblings.