The "oh, well, that's what they get for being there" attitude is what disturbs me.

Tragic accidents will happen. Our response to them is what tells the world about our character.

Now, what was the cause of this accident? Are the troops fatigued from having been in the field too long and consequently having lapses in judgment? Are they adequately hydrated, and are their eyes being protected from the effects of sun and sand?

Have they been trained adequately on recognition of different types of equipment? Do they have regular refresher training sessions to keep them sharp?

Are they prepared for guerilla warfare? Are their reactions to perceived threats exaggerated because they have not been trained for the guerilla war that the Administration denied would occur? Do their commanders emphasize an approach that begins with defensive positions rather than one that begins with the use of deadly force?

Are there lapses in communication, so that troops are unaware of the presence of non-hostiles with special equipment in the area? How can this be improved?

Have the soldiers and their commanders been trained to understand what the effects on the people living in occupied areas will be if they use deadly force as a first resort? Do they understand that they are tools of foreign policy?

Do we demand examination of tragic accidents and remediation of procedures and conditions that led to them, to make them as rare as possible, or do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, well. It could have been worse"?

Maybe we should wait until it's a larger incident of "friendly fire" in which many American soldiers are killed. Maybe then, when a valuable person is killed or injured, it will matter more, and we will see the value of demanding investigation, accountability and remediation.

My guess, and my hope, is that the military already knows this. It would help if the people back home could support a similar ethic -- a non-punitive and corrective one.

Regards--
Mary Anne