U.S. military personnel in Iraq were required to complete a 15-6 investigation after engaging targets with weapons.
Posted by Unsubscribe Podcast, Checked
- Sources
- 1 contradict4 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 35%
Unsubscribe PodcastSep 13, 2026
The sources describe AR 15-6 as the Army's general procedure for administrative investigations, and say CENTCOM investigations of civilian-harm incidents were mostly conducted under it, but none establishes a requirement for a 15-6 investigation after every weapons engagement in Iraq.
What was said
… Completely. Trace. Eleven Bravo, eleven bang bang. Yeah, absolutely adds up, especially earlier in the war when there was a lot less paperwork. Well, let's talk about investigations. We've all probably been under the microscope at a certain point. A fifteen-six: "Why did you shoot at that car?" "I was in fear for military property and life." "Okay, have a nice day. Take care." Whoa. In the beginning, okay, and then around the end it was, it was different. It was a little different. They drop, they would just drop off stuff. That's guys went back on, like, 2010, and they got, when they got back from their one year deployment, a month, I was like, "How was it?" And I'm like, "Dude, we got one gunfight. We had to do paperwork. What is crazy?" …
Unsubscribe Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Contradicts. A war-on-the-rocks review of over 220 CENTCOM administrative investigations, mostly under AR 15-6, says commanders are not necessarily obliged to investigate accidental civilian casualties beyond suspected war crimes, which cuts against a blanket requirement.[3]
Context. AR 15-6 sets procedures for administrative investigations and boards, and the regulation says selecting a particular procedure is not mandatory unless other regulations or higher authority require it.[4][5]
Context. Sources on Iraq intelligence and the 800th MP Brigade 15-6 investigation describe specific 15-6 inquiries but do not address any general requirement tied to weapons engagements.[1][2]
Context. The podcast passage is the claimant's own account of one gunfight and a hypothetical 15-6 exchange; it is not evidence and departs from a general requirement by describing a single incident.
Sources
5 sources: 1 fact-checker, 1 primary, 3 not rated
- 1Iraq WMD failures shadow US intelligence 20 years laterapnews.com · fact-checker · cited for: context
- 2Hearing Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigadeciaotest.cc.columbia.edu · primary source · cited for: context
- 3U.S. Military Investigations and Civilian Harmwarontherocks.com · not rated · cited for: contradicts
- 4Army Regulation 15–6armypubs.army.mil · not rated · cited for: context
- 5ADMINSTRATIVE AND CIVIL LAWtjaglcs.army.mil · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- The U.S. military provided Glock handguns to Iraqi police officers as part of a training program.True
- In 2010, U.S. military personnel returning from a one-year deployment reported having only one gunfight during that period.Can’t tell
- In August 2025, the Department of Defense issued an execute order containing targeting instructions that required reasonable certainty rather than positive identification of a target.True
- In August 2025, the U.S. military issued an execute order requiring reasonable certainty that a target is affiliated with a drug trafficking organization to authorize a strike.True
- The U.S. military lost 12,000 Glock handguns that were intended for Iraqi police officers.Mixed