Reasons? Absolutely. Valid reasons? I doubt it. If it were a valid engagement, no one would have tried to cover it up. A fully automatic ANTI-MATERIEL weapon was discharged into a crowd. Anti-materiel weapons are designed to attack buildings, vehicles, etc.; it's not illegal to use them against personnel but it's definitely overkill, especially when all you have are some guys wandering around with shoulder-slung weapons (?). The weapons aren't in their hands, the men aren't preparing to fire, and some guy in a helicopter takes them down anyway. The Rules of Engagement do not permit unprovoked attacks on civilians, even if the civilians have weapons slung on their shoulders. Note, "slung", not "in their hands". In case there's any doubt, I want to emphasize that I'm agreeing with you, not disagreeing. :)

I think you make a good argument. I would respond by pointing out that the Rules of Engagement (Iraq, 2007) are violated at least three times in that video. If you want a copy of the ROE, I'll dig it out of my tuffbox and post a copy. They're FOUO (For Office Use Only) but they're not Classified. People tell you they are but they're not.

The ROE exist for many reasons, one of which being to stop troops from doing boneheaded things. The man behind the trigger was far too enthusiastic (even swearing when he wasn't given permission to fire); his Higher finally relented, figuring the man was swearing because he had a target and wanted to take it down, not because he was an over-zealous cherry who wanted to make his dick feel bigger.

I respectfully disagree. If your country is at war, you have the option to join the military and make sure that it is fought honorably (I'm talking about "jus in bello", not "jus ad bellum"; I accept that the war in Iraq was and is illegally started).

The tape is, in my opinion, authentic. I was serving in the area at the time. I note four things in the tape:-

1. Double-tap --- engaging an individual or individuals after the threat has been eliminated.

2. Engaging personnel with anti-material weaponry; this isn't illegal but it looks bad. :-p

3. Failing to establish PID (Positive Identification of a threat) before engaging the "bongo truck" full of injured individuals.

4. Failing to establish PID before engaging what is, basically, a group of civilians wandering around the streets.

In essence, they shot some people for carrying weapons, then shot up the ambulance. I'm very saddened by this, since it's not the first violation of the ROE that I've encountered. The last one wasn't caught on tape. I had to put a stop to it myself.