NYT Photog: Collateral Damage?

Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive points out that he's aiding the enemy. My question is -- if a third country national who is aiding and abetting Madhi operations in Iraq is killed, does that constitute collateral damage just because he happens to be a journalist employed by our domestic media? Or is it simply a righteous kill?

Second question: is there any good reason we shouldn't, the moment we encounter him in a non-firefight context, arrest him and extradite him to the Iraqi government, should they wish to consider charges?

C-802 missile strike on Saar 5

I just crawled out of a 96 hr+ info hole (not even a newspaper) and I miss all the fun. If you have not already, read and follow the links by Bubblehead and Eagle1 below. I'll put out more on CDR Salamander tomorrow (today being BlogSabbath and all...I cheat here) (UPDATE: here is the Monday AM quarterbacking....errr...report) but here is the Phibian Executive Summary:
1. This is not a "bolt out of the blue." The C-802 Daddy was the SS-N-2 Styx that took out a Israeli destroyer in '67 and that Israel learned how to defeat 50+ of in '73. The C-802 and its diverse family of variants, builders, and seeker heads are not the cutting edge of Anti-Surface Missiles (ASM). To the contrary, they are deadly (exploding warhead or not) but they are on the "easy" edge of the "hard to easy" world of ASMs. SS-N-22 is hard.
2. The most telling quote in this can be found over at Bubbleheads hovel (can't find the source link, but I can be blind, am in a hurry, and I trust Bubblehead),

Brigadier-General Noam Page of the Navy said in a press conference Saturday that the Navy was unaware that a missile threat existed in the sector, and that the boat's crew had acted accordingly.

Go to the jump for the rest of the ES.

Elsewhere in the Times..

..of London:

Paras storm town to lift siege by Taliban

BRITISH forces yesterday launched their biggest offensive yet in southern Afghanistan to relieve soldiers under siege in the Taliban stronghold of Sangin.

Three hundred members of 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, took part in the dawn raid, which started with Apache helicopter gunships securing a landing area so that five Chinooks could fly in troops.

Early reports suggested that they had taken the town with only minor casualties including one man shot in the shoulder, though fighting was continuing.

There was a great angle that could have been used to turn this story into one of defeat too:

The operation was launched as British soldiers holed up in a mud-walled compound in Sangin for the past three weeks were in danger of being over-run. Last week they spent five days without food because it had become too dangerous for helicopters to fly in.

Paratroopers under siege in the small compound made desperate satellite telephone calls last week to wives and parents, saying they were coming under Taliban attack twice a day and had run so low of supplies that they were “looking for scraps”.

Congressman Y is demanding a full investigation. "The Amercan people whose sons and daughters blah blah blah blah war based on a lie."

We got a Kinder, Gentler Machine Gun in Hand...

The headline on this London Sunday Times story certanly isn't an example of British understatement, but the story is worth noting: Hug An Insurgent: US's New Plan To Win In Iraq

Re: Iranian-made C-802 missile hits Israeli warship?

Over at Eagle1's place, there's lots of discussion on whether or not Iranian Revolutionary Guards were actively involved in firing the C802 missile that hit the Israeli ship (the Eilat-class corvette INS Ahi Hanit). I'm not so sure this is a smoking gun; there's no reason to believe that the Hezbollah terrorists couldn't have launched it themselves with training from the Iranians (especially since one of the two missiles missed, and hit an Egyptian ship further downrange). It looks to me like the Israelis got overconfident, which is why they didn't have their anti-missile systems turned on. Continuing to believe that their enemies don't have the technical sophistication to operate modern weapons could lead, IMHO, to further intelligence failures. I discuss this a little more at my home blog.

The Genevea Conventions Bind Whom?

Only the US and Israel, according to Cassandra -- who makes an excellent point...

Noncombatant Evacuation Operations

I don't have any inside information on this, but there are strong indications that the U.S. government is about to execute plans to evacuate non-essential personnel and other U.S. citizens from Lebanon.

From FOX News:

The United States estimates 25,000 Americans live or work in Lebanon, but officials assume far fewer would choose to leave if they could. The State Department said it was working with the Pentagon on a plan for helping American citizens leave.

From the State Department:

The Department of State continues to work with the Department of Defense on a plan to help American citizens depart Lebanon. As of the morning of July 15, we are looking at how we might transport Americans to Cyprus. Once in Cyprus, Americans can then board commercial aircraft for onward travel. Commercial airlines provide the safest and most efficient repatriation options to final destinations.

The most likely means of evacuation would be by helicopter from a pre-arranged location (the airport, the embassy, or a large athletic field) to ships waiting offshore (most likely the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group, currently in the Red Sea), and then further transport by ship or helicopter to Cyprus.

For more information on how Noncombatant Evacuation Operations are planned, organized, and executed, see Joint Warfighting Publication 3-07.5, "Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Noncombatant Evacuation Operations."

Noncombatant evacuation operations (NEOs) are conducted to assist the Department of State (DOS) in evacuating noncombatants, nonessential military personnel, selected host-nation citizens, and third country nationals whose lives are in danger from locations in a host foreign nation to an appropriate safe haven and/or the United States. NEOs usually involve swift insertions of a force, temporary occupation of an objective, and a planned withdrawal upon completion of the mission. During NEOs, the US Ambassador is the senior authority for the evacuation and is ultimately responsible for the successful completion of the NEO and the safety of the evacuees. The Ambassador speaks with the authority of the President and serves as direct representative on site.

Evacuation operations are characterized by uncertainty and may be directed without warning; situational awareness and correct appraisal of the changing political and military environment are key factors in noncombatant evacuation planning. Alternative plans should be developed for permissive, uncertain, and hostile environments. The geographic combatant commanders are responsible for planning and conducting NEOs to assist the DOS. Once requested, approved, and directed, the combatant commander will order supporting, assigned, and/or attached forces to conduct evacuation operations. It is imperative that the Ambassador’s evacuation plan and the joint force commander’s (JFC’s) plan for the NEO be supportive, coordinated, and fully integrated.

The military has "canned plans" for NEO from just about every location that you could imagine, but these situations are often fluid and require a great deal of flexibility and improvisation.

Interesting bit of trivia: one of the ships in the Iwo Jima ESG, which would likely provide support for this operation, is the USS Cole.