| Right, because photo stills from "collateralmurder.com" are intended to convey the ease of identification from a moving helicopter during a live situation? There are other form factors for RPGs: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg22-2.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg26-1.jpg http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rshg2-1.jpg I wouldn't want to be wrong on the fly about whether it was an RPG or a black telephoto barrel that's sticking around the corner aiming at my crew. Presumably I'd use other cues to help decide. The site leaves out stills showing the key decision-triggering factor - surreptitious behavioral cues. Here is one they left out: http://imgur.com/PjolB.jpg The site talks about the cameraman shooting a picture of "whatever is occurring further down the street" but the video, even in slow replay (that the airmen didn't have in the moment), suggests the man is taking cover then popping out to aim at the helicopter. The man appears to "engage" the helicopter. Thinking in context of 2007, that was incredibly dumb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=4m14s Want a picture of an American chopper while you're walking in a hostile zone with militia carrying what even "collateralmurder.com" admits "might be a weapon" and "appears to be a weapon" -- ok, stand in the middle of the street with your camera, wave your obvious press card while wearing your obvious press jacket, and take your picture. Don't duck around corners then share the intel with your gun carrying group. Troops made a call about the RPG vs camera (though certainly doesn't look like a white Canon lens as shown in the website, looks black, and that tube and the way he aims it sure looks like bazooka or anti-tank RPG considering troops can't see around the corner). After that judgment call was based on behavior more than identifying the weapon, what happened after that could have been interpreted as combatants feigning nonchalance until their next chance to ambush from behind cover. Even assuming it's an unmarked photographer, presence of a war correspondent in a hostile zone does not mean the armed men with him are not combatants, that they should be immune from attack, or that they should be free to wander around armed studying long distance photo intel of their enemy to better plan an ambush. |
The whole reason this stuff happens is because at 'stand-off' range the person in the chopper might be safe but those on the ground are no longer to be identified. It's the doctrine of force protection that is the cause here, not some hyped up kid with a trigger happy finger. He shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Helicopters are not good at police work, they're good for killing people long distance without too much discrimination. Better zoom lenses would be a mixed bag, it would give you even less field-of-view with a more jittery aim.
Choppers are great at evacuation and for killing people and destroying stuff.
Boots on the ground are better at identifying friend-or-foe (and even then there are plenty of mistakes) but are more vulnerable.