From the Washington Post:
A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his attorney said.
Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.
“It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines,” said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. “He’s really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians.”
Wuterich’s detailed version of what happened in the Haditha neighborhood is the first public account from a Marine who was on the ground when the shootings occurred. As the leader of 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, Wuterich was in the convoy of Humvees that was hit by a roadside bomb. He entered the house from which the Marines believed enemy fire was originating and made the initial radio reports to his company headquarters about what was going on, Puckett said.
The reports that Marines wantonly shot unarmed civilians in Haditha, including women and children, allege one of the most shocking, and potentially damaging, incidents of the Iraq war. A criminal investigation looking into possible charges of murder against half a dozen Marines is underway. A separate probe is examining whether Marines tried to cover up the shootings, and whether commanders were negligent in failing to investigate the deaths.
Three Marine officers have been relieved of command. In the absence of a public response from Marine Corps officials—who are declining to comment to preserve the integrity of the investigation—reports of what happened in the western Iraqi town have been leaking out piecemeal from the Haditha neighborhood and in Washington.
Murtha must be so proud!
Wuterich’s version contradicts that of the Iraqis, who described a massacre of men, women and children after a bomb killed a Marine. Haditha residents have said that innocent civilians were executed, that some begged for their lives before being shot and that children were killed indiscriminately.
Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich’s account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients.
[…]
The defense attorneys said the rules of engagement—which vary depending on the mission, level of danger and other factors—are likely to become a central element of their cases because those rules guide how troops can use deadly force on the battlefield. One Marine official said such rules usually require positive identification of a target before shooting but noted that the rules are often circumstantial.
“Once you go back over it, you have to determine if they applied the rules,” the Marine official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the Marine Corps does not discuss rules of engagement. “Did they feel threatened? Did they perceive hostile intent or hostile action?”
[…]
Wuterich told Puckett that no one was emotionally rattled by Terrazas’s death because everyone had a job to do, and everyone was concerned about further casualties.
I have yet to comment much on the Haditha “massacre,” because so far, there isn’t proof that what took place in Haditha was a massacre, and with investigations ongoing, it seems prudent to hold off on passing judgment.
But there are troubling spots in the narrative of Haditha as it has been crafted to this point—including what seems a rather unfortunate rush to judgment on the part of our own press and (perhaps more surprisingly) certain members of Congress, who not only got out in front of the news cycle in some cases, but actually themselves became the news thanks to a willingness to declare the Marines guilty of both atrocities and a cover-up.
Clarice Feldman and Sweetness and Light have both been doing yeoman’s work picking out inconsistencies in the media-sanctioned narrative. And here, Allah compares the info from the WaPo story to the Time account by Tim McGirk, which relied heavily on a particularly dubious source whose motives have since been examined more carefully.
Writes Allah:
NCIS’s investigation of the incident itself isn’t due for awhile yet but at least it’s clear now why they’re so keen to exhume the bodies. According to Time’s original story about Haditha, the Iraqi child who survived the assault on the first house and the military sources with whom Time spoke say it was all gunfire; Wuterich, however, tells WaPo that they threw a frag grenade into the room first, then opened fire through the smoke after it went off. The presence or absence of grenade shrapnel in the bodies (and the walls of the room) obviously would say a lot about who’s telling the truth here. […]
[…]
A few other things to look out for as you’re reading the story in the Post. First, Time noted in its initial story that there were no gunshots in the outside walls of the houses, which it cited as evidence that the Marines were lying when they claimed to have been in a firefight with insurgents located inside. But Wuterich never says the Marines returned fire at the houses from the street; he says they took cover when the shots rang out, then launched a raid on the first house.
Second, Time quotes military officials as saying the various raids took place over the course of five hours. Wuterich doesn’t say how long it took, but my impression is that the first two houses were cleared within minutes of each other. Read the description and judge for yourself. There does appear to be a delay between the raids on the second and third houses, but five hours?
Finally, perhaps the most tantalizing detail of all from WaPo:
After going through the houses, Wuterich moved a small group of Marines to the roof of a nearby building to watch the area, Puckett said. At one point, they saw a man in all-black clothing running from one of the houses they had searched. The Marines killed him, Puckett said.
They then noticed another man in all black scurrying between two houses across the street. When they went to investigate, the Marines found a courtyard filled with women and children and asked where the man was, Puckett said.
When the civilians pointed to a third house, the Marines attempted to enter and found a man with an AK-47 inside, flanked by three other men; the first Marine to enter tried to fire his weapon, but it jammed, Puckett said. The Marines then killed those four men.
If they really had “snapped†and were on a killing spree to avenge Terrazas, why didn’t they shoot the people in the courtyard? Assuming NCIS can corroborate that there were civilians there and the Marines encountered them and let them be, I don’t see how the rampage theory holds up.
The “rampage” theory is the part of this story that I think always rang false to many of us, particularly insofar as it tacks so closely with the stereotypical depictions of soldiers those who think them no more than thugs with the (“illegal”) license to kill are always quick to trot out at the first revelation of civilian casualties.
Me, I’ve always found this particular trope troublesome because it seems so self-evident that when soldiers in close quarters are engaging (or are engaged by) an enemy that hides among civilians, civilians are almost certain to be killed. But rather than attribute that tragic fact to the methods of the insurgents—who, make no mistake, are fighting against the legitimate government of Iraq—many in the western media are quick to look for ways to turn these deaths into indictments of our soldiers.
Which leads to suggestions of “massacres” and “cover-ups” where perhaps accidents resulting from the nature of urban warfare are the more likely explanations.
But because it is unlikely that reporting on “accidents” will gin up the kind of controversy and outrage among the American people that can weaken the war effort, ideologically driven reporters like McGirk (or, ironically, noted defense attorneys like Jeralyn Merritt, who in other circumstances would most certainly be aggrieved at how the presumption of innocence here has been so horribly subverted) seem bent on presenting soldiers in the worst possible light, even if to do so they are required to act less critically than perhaps they should in vetting their sources and in gathering their information and shaping their final narrative.
I suppose it is easy enough to see soldiers as emblematic of the war you despise, and so to forget that they are individual Americans whose lives hang in the balance. But the ease of such politically-charged boundary blurring between the individual and what the individual represents to you does not excuse it. These soldiers are not simply ribbing on the condom that lubricates what many in the anti-war crowd have come to think of as President Bush’s imperialistic war penis; and so their actions are not “proof” that the neocon oil-worshipers have “raped” a sovereign nation simply because asserting such matches your preconceived notion of the war and its “legality.” Unless, that is, you are one of those people who believes it is okay to sacrifice the individual at the altar of a highly-contested “greater good.”
Such arrogance is more than unbecoming, however: it is anathema to the very idea of individual rights.
Interestingly, the delay in this story getting out may prove to be more damaging to the antagonists (MSM, Murtha, etc.) that the Bush TANG story.
With the Bush papers, their authenticity were essentially questioned almost before the show was over, preventing other news outlets and bloggers from “getting too far out in front of the story”. Here we see a story where the usual suspects have much more at stake in the story.
If it turns out that these people were essentially taken in by a few shady characters, what happens to them?
I agree that outsiders like me are not in a position to pass judgment on the Haditha incident itself, so I won’t do it. But I have to say, the accusations seem to have hit a nerve in certain parts of the blogosphere. The phrase “rush to judgment” doesn’t really sound like a plea for objectivity. It sounds more like Johnnie Cochran defending OJ Simpson, since after all it was exactly Cochran’s words when he defended Simpson. Phrases like that sound great to friends and supporters of all criminal suspects, whether or not they are innocent. Of course what Cochran really meant is that you shouldn’t rush to a judgment of guilt. Rushing to a judgment of innocence is just fine.
Which does sound like what “Allahpundit” is doing. He argues that it isn’t so likely that the Marines in Haditha murdered Iraqi women and children, because they also met Iraqi women and children during the incident that they didn’t murder. So see, see, they weren’t on a “rampage”.
You would do better to stick to the “bad apples” theory. It allows that there really are some bad-apple soldiers who are capable of reprisal killings — but of course American justice will catch up to them. If you instead resort to Cochran-speak for every last applethat could be rotten, then people will start to wonder about the condition of the whole barrel.
You know, like someone who could vote to disarm South Vietnam after we pulled out, or a feminist group that could endorse serial sexual predators for public office…
Oh, they’ll probably face the same professional ruin and public shame that Mike Isikoff faced over the Koran toilets story…
If you haven’t read Michael Yon, you should.
TomB,
Uh, probably nothing. They would still have the time-honored fallback that the “official story” is a lie and a coverup.
i just can’t believe that united states marines lined innocent people…men, women and children, up against a wall and executed them. no way. no effing way. these are devildogs, the baddest of the bad, but they don’t execute innocent people.
“… regardless of whether it’s actually been… y’know… proven or not.”
Pretty slipshod (not to mention intellectually indefensible) “logic” for a mathematics instructor, I must say.
If that is all you got from his post, I suggest you read it again.
Thank you so much, Jeff.
I very much appreciate this post. It’s very enlightening and informative. The comment on Time‘s story is also appreciated. I was wondering what people were saying about Time‘s coverage of this incident. I haven’t read their story nor will I.
Kent: As I said, I won’t rush to judgment either way on Haditha in particular are bad apples. My real point is that there really are bad apples in the Marines. I can’t say how many there are, but there are some. Do you think that that needs to be proved? I would say that it already has been.
Lee Harvey Oswald, for example, was a Marine. I hope we can agree that he was a bad apple.
BTW Greg, the rest of your post sure does sound like you’re passing judgement.
You know, OJ and all that…
…just sayin’
And they all just happened to end up in the same platoon, enlisted, NCOs, officers all.
Wow, what are the odds?
Don’t get too far out in thinking what happened wasn’t bad. I agree with the whole rush to judgement aspect of this, but everybody should take a deep breath about this.
Don’t worry.
I won’t.
I’ve already got ‘em convicted…
This is the important thing.
Just a little living and observing is enough to teach anyone that no press-mediated story whose characters act in conformance with press-class stereotypeâ€â€Haditha, Duke Lacrosse, Jenin, [server-cripplingly long list redacted]â€â€can even possibly be true as first (or second, or hundredth) told.
And the ever-re-evidenced fact that the perfect suckers for such prejudice-comforting lies are leftoids who parade themselves as above-it-all de-spinners and media-savvy truth-diviners is not ironicâ€â€at all.
(They’d know that themselves if they read their own holy books. Too bad they can’t.)
TomB having artfully rapiered your manifest falsehood, re: not want to “rush to judgment either way on Haditha in particular… I’ll simply point out that which has already been even more demonstrably proven: there really are bad apples within the Muslim community, the mainstream media and the American left. And not necessarily in that order of magnitude.
This requires infinitely less in the way of fresh supporting evidence than your own proffered theory; odd, off-the-point Oswald references notwithstanding.
One hopes, for their sake, that you’re instructing your students to do as you say, and not as you do.
Should have read: “not wantING to,” obviously.
What is your point then, Greg? There are fry cooks who are bad apples. And cops, and TV repairmen.
Assuming there are bad apples, like the ones in prison for crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, what of it? What does it mean? And howw do we know who’s a bad apple before we’ve got all the facts?
OJ was on trial when Johnny rhymed that jury up. This isn’t a trial.
“The Worst of Them’s Jack Murtha”
(to the tune of “They Call The Wind Mariah” from the musical “Paint Your Wagon”)
Up on the Hill, in Washington,
appeasers there’s no dearth of,
Kucinich, Woolsey, Barbara Lee,
but the worst of them’s Jack Murtha
Murtha once was a Marine,
now he’s a politician.
His attacks upon our troops,
border on sedition.
(chorus)
Murtha, Oh Murtha
The worst of them’s Jack Murtha
The media, oh they love Jack
cause he’ll criticize the war.
Of course if he supported Bush,
him, they would ignore
To most veterans, the media
won’t give the time of day.
But Jack they love, especially when
he sounds like Saddam Hussien.
(chorus)
Murtha, Oh Murtha,
the worst of them’s Jack Murtha
Jack is now a media star,
although he’s somewhat chunky,
the ex-Marine has become
a French surrender monkey
Oh Murtha, Oh Murtha,
The worst appeaser’s Murtha
I was just rereading Jeff’s post (I’m slow that way, those intentionalism threads were hell) and realized he wasn’t making a plea for no “rush to judgement”, he was accusing other of it. IOW, the deed’s been done. And if the accusations are indeed untrue, they’re Rather-bait.
”[A]s Stephen Colbert said, reality has a liberal bias. In particular, everyone who sees the writing on the wall in Iraq has cast his lot with the liberals, regardless of his Republican, conservative, or military credentials. Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Pat Robertson, etc. are all liberals on the issue of Iraq. Having concluded that the war in Iraq is illogical and unwinnable, they imply (despite themselves) that Bush’s foreign policy is somewhere between incompetent and impeachable. The implication is sufficiently anti-Bush that it can only be called liberal.”
God help this asshat’s poor students.
Greyhawk at Mudville gazette just posted a nice timeline of this story.
Assuming there are bad apples, like the ones in prison for crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, what of it? What does it mean?
If the story stopped there, it might not mean much, at least not to me. Every army in the world has some amoral troops; as long as they are punished in proportion to their crimes, that is the most that you can ask.
But the story does not stop there. The continuing question is whether all of the bad apples truly are punished, or whether the system lets some of them off. Abu Ghraib is a good example. You imply that all of the bad apples at Abu Ghraib are in prison, but that’s just not true. Sgt. Santo Cardona was convicted of having his Army dog maul a naked Iraqi detainee, but he was not sentenced to any prison time, only to three months hard labor. If it had happened in an American prison, the sentence would have been a lot more than three months.
For that matter, Cardona is not the most extreme example, just the most obvious one because he was actually convicted of what he did. Pentagon investigators concluded that Manadel al-Jamadi, whose body is in the Abu Ghraib photo set, was murdered by one or more Americans at Abu Ghraib. Some Navy SEALs were tried for that crime, and even they didn’t argue that he wasn’t murdered, only that they didn’t do it. They argued, and other accounts support this, that he was tortured to death by a CIA agent. But the CIA agent who was in the room when he died, allegedly Mark Swanner, has not been charged with a crime. There is no official explanation for this.
So that is the real question, whether the second half of the bad appletheory is really correct. Because if it isn’t, hostile reporters, who a lot of folks here detest, will have to stay in the loop in order to bring bad apples to justice. (Even that might not be good enough in the case of al-Jamadi.) Which brings the discussion back to the Haditha. According to this timeline, the Haditha incident was actually closed, with the official conclusion that the Iraqi victims were killed by a roadside bomb, until a journalism student passed a contradicting video to Time Magazine.
Here’s what I think:
A squad of Marines, armed to the teeth, go on a mind-numbed killbot killing spreee, and murder 24 people.
Sorry, folks, if the Marine killbots had really gotten pissed off, Haidaitha would have been a smoking crater and the death toll would have been in the hundreds.
How many Somolis were killed in the “Blackhawk Down” incident? Are Marine killbots any less efficient thatn Army Rangers? Against UNARMED opposition?
The whole thing stinks like a bad carp on ice.
and just who was this “journalism student”?
Who are these people?
DAYummm!!! That one’s gonna raise a welt, Maggie—!
eh, it was fresh in my mind Kent, thank Greyhawkand the others that have done the leg work.
Unless, that is, you are one of those people who believes it is okay to sacrifice the individual at the alter of a highly-contested “greater good.â€Â
Jeff, was it okay to sacrifice the individual women and children in Haditha for the “greater good” of winning the war? Were their lives less important or valuable than the lives of the Marines who killed them?
well, this just goes back to the recent theme doesn’t it? To suggest that they did this on purpose, with nothing to back up your accusations is reprehensible Kathy.
So what you’re saying is that we don’t yet have enough facts to know what happened, right? Contradictions, open questions, context lacking.
In which case, what you’re doing is what, exactly?
You can get this one, Greg.
And just who was this “journalism student�
For the purpose of the Haditha investigation, it doesn’t matter who he is. The Haditha incident had been closed with the conclusion that the Iraqi civilians had been killed by the same roadside bomb that hit the Marines. In other words, that the insurgents killed the Iraqis. Now the Marines’ own lawyers say that actually the Marines killed them, but it was an accident. The story has changed because of attention from Time Magazine.
Let’s suppose that the al-Hadithi, who passed the video to Time, is a dishonest Sunni Islamist scumbag. I have no idea whether that is true, but let’s just suppose. Does the Pentagon need him and Time Magazine to get to the truth?
Uh Kathy, I believe that the entire point of Jeff’s post was that it is too early to say that they were “sacrificed”.
But if you want to assume that, hey, have at it.
Mr. Kuperberg,
Your falacious account of the sentencing of Sgt. Cardona is a prefect example of the left’s seemingly consistent habit of lying, misstating or exaggerating FACTS to make their points.
Sgt. Cardona wasn’t convicted of using his dog to “maul” prisoners. In FACT, he got a serious slap on the wrist for allowing his dog to lick peanut butter off prisoners and letting it bark in close proximity to prisoners.
Where the hell do you get off calling either of those acts “mauling”?
Go back to your friends at the “alternate reality” websites like TalkLeft. where your lies and exaggerations will go unchallenged.
Why aren’t you asking about the jihadis value, Kathy? You can’t forget about the bad guys.
Oh wait, the Marines are the bad guys in Kathy’s world, no?
I thought it interesting that when they reached the courtyard in search of the one who brought death to his three terrorist AK-47 packin’ pals, it was the un”murdered” crowd that pointed to door number three. Hat tip to the Iraqi civilian populace and that BTW for the unseeing, non-hearing is called progress.
Kuperberg looks at Oswald and sees a Marine. I look at Oswald and see a traitor, a Marxist, and a murderer. YMMV.
… and that’s twice, now—in the space of a mere twenty minutes, mind!—that kindly, avuncular old Professor “Chips” Kuperberg has found himself righteously BUSTED for, ah, “rearranging” the facts in order to sex up his US-soldiers-as-soulless-slayerbots narrative!
Lay off the digging… oh, he linked his own webpage.
Alright, but there’s no sense in making Kuperberg’s personal webpage and real life stuff into insults, no matter how completely wrong he is.
no, but if they can get that piece of information wrong (and there’s more at the link) then maybe it’s best to go with the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty”?
Abso-freaking-lutely, brother.
I stand corrected on one point. Cardona was charged with having his dog maul a naked Iraq detainee, but he was acquitted on that charge. So as far as I know, no one has been held to account for that particular incident.
For some reason the URL for the photo doesn’t work with this site’s software, but if anyone wants to see what I refer to as getting mauled by a dog, the URL is
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/images3/reagan/bellaciao_cr.jpg
(Clicking on the URL also doesn’t work, but cutting and pasting it is okay.)
Bland disclaimers nothwithstanding, Greg is not rushing to judgement; he has already reached judgement and is just waiting for the rest of us to catch up. It it clear he regards our military as inherently evil.
Ponder this, Greg: If we make the US military pawns in a game of political chess and they are unfairly condemned–and their job criminalized–the day will soon arrive when no one in their right mind will want to serve in the military. I suggest that that day is fast approaching.
You forget that one day the admininstration you and your fellow travellers vote into office will be at the helm. At that point, I suppose, you will all regard our military as a wonderful organization–what remains of it. And what remains of it will be demoralized and confused, afraid to act decisively on our behalf, leery of politicians and their egos and their lies and their cheap machinations.
And the whole country will be the worse for it.
Just so we’re clear then Greg-the “mauling by a dog” that you decry above as evidenced by the link you provide, doesn’t include any pictures of anyone being actually bitten by a dog?
Are you daft? Cardona was held to account, and was acquitted.
Did you mean to say that no one was punished? Is that really your heart’s desire?
no, but if they can get that piece of information wrong (and there’s more at the link) then maybe it’s best to go with the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty�
The point is that when the Pentagon first concluded that Iraqis in Haditha had been killed by a roadside bomb, they started with the Marines’ own account. Now those Marines are under investigation.
But there is a more conceptual issue here. It is true that American due process requires courts to presume that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. That doesn’t mean that we all have to actually believe that they are innocent, or even talk as if they are. You are free to believe that OJ Simpson is actually guilty even though he was convicted; or that Frank Lee Smith was guilty even though he was convicted (and executed).
It seems to me that the Haditha case could fall either way. I would even say that it is partly a distraction from much larger issues. The real issue is that the “legitimate government” theory is wrong. the United States is actually defending an semi-Islamist semi-democracy, and ultra-Islamist shadow governments, not a pro-American democracy. American troops have overstayed their welcome in Iraq because of incidents like Haditha, even if many of the accusations are distorted and hypocritical; and defending the Iraqi government does nothing to help the war on Islamic terrorism.
Did you mean to say that no one was punished?
Yes, I think that mauling a naked captive with a dog is a crime and that the perpetrator should be punished for it. It would even be a crime if the victim were a terrorist, although in this case I have seen no explanation that Mohammed Bollendia actually is a terrorist. Maybe he is, who knows, but I have not seen any account from the government of this. You would think that they could step forward with an explanation after Bollendia’s naked figure was all over the world news.
If Bollendia was not a terrorist, then he was one of the Iraqis that we are supposed to be liberating. If so, then mauling him with a dog would not only be a crime against his person; it would also undermine American security.
Subject: War
Please take the time to read the attached essay by Dr. Chong. It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War in Iraq. If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give a fair evaluation.
I had no idea who Dr. Chong is or the source of these thoughts… so when I received them, I almost deleted them – as well-written as they are. But then I did a “Google search” on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California, and these are his thoughts.
They are worth reading and thinking about. The same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.
Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA. A different spin on Iraq war.
This WAR is for REAL!
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let’s examine a few basics:1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York attack 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
5. Isn’t the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). See: http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm (Mass extermination – to Purify Aryan blood – Louis L. Snyder’s Historical guide)
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world – German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way—their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing—by their own pronouncements—killing all of us “infidels.” I don’t blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with. There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don’t clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question – What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn’t matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don’t win, they are finished too, in that they can’t resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by “imploding.” That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don’t comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don’t worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn’t because they are disloyal. It is because they just don’t recognize what losing means. nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners—not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them.
Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn’t show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned –totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists’ stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims—not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being ‘arrogant.’ That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can’t! If we don’t recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone—let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don’t win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.
Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don’t have their freedoms taken away from them external by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the “peaceful Muslims”?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the politicians and media of our country and the free world!
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our “leaders” in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
Biography in AIR FORCE LINK: MAJOR GENERAL (DR.) VERNON CHONG Retired Nov. 1, 1994. Major General (Dr.) Vernon Chong is the command surgeon, Headquarters U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany. He advises the commander in chief on all medical matters and health issues that may affect the readiness of military forces in the command. He is responsible for establishing policies for the employment of theater medical resources during crisis, contingency and humanitarian relief operations. Also, he coordinates and integrates medical support activities and develops theater medical plans.
The general entered the Air Force in October 1963 following the completion of a residency in general surgery. He was certified by the American Board of Surgery in April 1964. He has commanded three Air Force medical centers, served as command surgeon of two major air commands, and was commander of the Joint Military Medical Command, San Antonio. The general is a chief flight surgeon, and was a surgeon/flight surgeon member of the DOD launch site recovery team for 15 space launches during the Apollo, Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz programs.
EDUCATION
1955 Bachelor of arts degree in basic medical sciences, Stanford University
1958 Doctor of medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine
1963 Board qualification in general surgery, General Hospital of Fresno County ASSIGNMENTS
1 October 1963 – June 1965, staff general surgeon and chief of general surgery service, USAF Hospital Scott, Scott Air Force Base, Ill.
2. June 1965 – June 1968, staff general surgeon, later director of intern and resident education, USAF Hospital Tachikawa, Tachikawa Air Base, Japan
3. June 1968 – June 1970, staff general surgeon and instructor in general surgery residency, David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
4. June 1970 – June 1974, staff general surgeon, chairman department of surgery, and director of hospital services, USAF Academy Hospital, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo.
5. June 1974 – August 1976, staff general surgeon, director of hospital services, and deputy commander, USAF Regional Hospital March. March Air Force Base, Calif.
6. September 1976 – October 1978, staff general surgeon, director of hospital services, and deputy commander, David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
7. October 1978 – November 1981, commander, David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
8. November 1981 – March 1985, commander, Malcolm Grow USAF Medical Center, Andrews Air Force Base, Md
9. March 1985 – February 1987, command surgeon, Headquarters Military Airlift Command, Scott Air Force Base, Calif.
10. February 1987 – May 1990, commander, Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas
11. May 1990 – August 1991, command surgeon, Headquarters Air Training Command, and commander, Joint Military Medical Command, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas
12. August 1991 – present, command surgeon, Headquarters U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany
FLIGHT INFORMATION Rating: Chief flight surgeon Flight hours: More than 1,600 Aircraft flown: C-141, KC-135, C-130, T-29, C-5, T-39, C-21, C-
12, C9A, T33, T38, H- 53, H-3, UH-1
MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS Distinguished Service Medal Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster Meritorious Service Medal Air Force Commendation Medal National Defense Service Medal Vietnam Service Medal Order of Merit-Brazil Gold Cross of Honor-Germany
OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS Order of the Sword – bestowed by enlisted personnel of AirTraining Command Clinical professor of surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio Ira C. Eaker fellow – Air Force Association, Aerospace Education Foundation Board of Governors, American College of Surgeons Board of Regents, National Library of Medicine Board of Regents, adviser, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Board of Trustees, Air Force Village Foundation Board of Directors, Alamo Chapter, American Red Cross, San Antonio
EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION Captain Oct 14, 1963 Major Dec 15, 1966 Lieutenant Colonel Aug 8, 1968 Colonel Jun 15, 1973 Brigadier General Oct 1, 1982 Major General Apr 15, 1987
That is not the case, according to the article in Jeff’s post. That is not what the Marines reported, and if I’m not mistaken, there are recordings of their chatter and their reports to superiors.
We don’t know what the contents of such might be. We don’t know what happened. That’s why there’s an ongoing investigation.
Stop speculating.
Sorry everyone! I got the wrong thingymajiggy poked in the wrong doomisary. Sorry Jeff!
Mr. Kuperberg,
Geez, I could spend my whole day pointing out the lies and misrepresentations you spew, but since I do have a life, let’s just start with the easy ones.
FRANK LEE SMITH WASN’T EXECUTED! Sorry if that little fact ruins your day and your narrative.
Lee actually died of cancer while on death row.
Now, why might Mr. Lee have been found guilty of a crime for which DNA later cleared him, albeit posthumously?
How about the fact that he’d already been incarcerated TWICE before for killing two other people? Do you think his manslaughter conviction in 1963 and the murder conviction he received in 1966 might have left a few jurors of the opinion that he had a history of violent, lethal behavior?
Greg, as I said earlier, take your sorry ass, your lies, your misrepresentation and exaggerations and the horse you rode in on somewhere else where your “narrative” won’t be challenged and proven fallacious. Cause that shit won’t cut the mustard at PW.
Oh, does it?!
It seems to me you’ve pretty much convicted the marines, you know, OJ, bad apples and all.
Notice how he doggedly (no pun intended) retraces his own rote, intellectually clubfooted steps back to the comfortably worn “mauled by an evil, vicious killer poochie” meme… mere moments after its being resoundingly discredited?
“Reality has a liberal bias.” Pfeh—!
You forget that one day the admininstration you and your fellow travellers vote into office will be at the helm.
Well, I am used to voting with the minority in elections and I have no particular feeling that my views will be popular in 2006 or 2008. Even when the guy I vote for does get elected, I usually don’t agree with the reasons.
Either way, I have the feeling that (1) Bush will enjoy a same-party majority in Congress until the end and will basically get what he wants for the war in Iraq; but (2) the next president will be blamed for losing that war. That will especially be so if it’s a Democrat; but even if it’s a Republican, I can’t imagine that the endless “we’re winning, we’re winning, we’re winning” chant will go on until January 2013. I would once have been surprised if it could last until January 2009, but now I think that Bush might just make it to the end.
And as I said, it’s fundamentally not because of scandals and contentions like Haditha. The fundamental problem is that the Army is fighting for Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq as well as against it, regardless of what Bush claims or thinks that it fights for. The US has been sawing at its own limb the whole time. That something like Haditha could come up three years and $300 billion after the beginning is just a tiny, ambiguous symptom of the larger disease.
No, mauling a clothed captive is a crime. The nekkid ones enjoy it too much.
And is there no justice for the poor pooch?
Professor Kuperberg, I’ve been looking for the loyal oppositon for years. Please link some of your writings from after 9/11 about how to fight the war on Islamic terrorism. I’d hate to think you were just another govt. employee suffering from BDS because Bush cut taxes.
My tactical training/experience is twenty years out of date, but the tactics described in the body of the post –
cause me to wonder if there’s not a vital piece of info missing from the timeline.
You are caught in an ongoing ambush and are in the process of assaulting through the attack. You identify a specific building as one source of fire. The immediate action is to establish a base of fire to suppress the attacker in the building, coupled with detailing an assault team to eliminate the threat.
I assume that the Marines clearing houses were supported by the other Marines still operating in the kill zone, those wounded in the initial attack , helping the wounded, or pinned down by fire.
The assaulting squad preps the room with a frag. This is exactly where I think there may be a missing fact: Why the smoke unless they still hear fire from within the house? Not killing someone within the room with the first frag means that the target has some sort of cover; the option of attacking IN A CLOSED ROOM THROUGH SMOKE is not a high-return option for the point man leading the assault. But it’s necessary: the target is still a lethal threat, his general location is known, and better to go in and kill him with fire or close combat immediately rather than take the chance he will improve his own situation or escape. I don’t see where an intent to kill non-combatants exists.
The sergeant’s account reeks of doctrinal response to a situation in that his actions were controlled – hell, the unit’s actions were controlled – throughout the event. Jihadis routinely target civilians or use them to screen their attacks. I don’t know who killed the civilians in question – I too am awaiting facts – but the media/Left’s sprint to conviction/execution of the Marines involved is both transparent… and typical.
I don’t blog much these days, nor post comments much. (Wait for hoots and wails of thanks to die down). The opposition continues to demand sole right to define reality on their template and I don’t see much reason to cater to their delusions.
I predict that in five years the Iraqis will be second only to Israel as a political and economic power in the mideast unless the Iranians recover from the mullahs faster than I think they can.
And the Left will still be on the wrong side then, too.
Oh GOODY:
TW = “run”.
RUN, Murtha, RUN!
Of course. Don’t worry about disproving any accusations, we’ll make more!
Shame this one doesn’t yet have the impact that the one about Korans being flushed down the toilets did. Now that was a good one.
Ok, Haditha could go either way you say? So all your buddies on the left who have convicted these guys and moved on to the always over the horizon “larger issue” of how you can use Haditha to paint the war as a disaster and use it to discredit Bush and republicans in general may have been slandering innocent men. No matter if the greater good can be served by furthering the left wing agenda.
Wait a minute, I thought you just said that Haditha may or may not have been an example of US soldier malfeasance yet you are already using it to give undeserved weight to your call for the US to leave Iraq (in the same paragraph). I see right through your bullshit friend, because it’s clear as day.
You don’t fucking care what happened in Haditha and probably realize it’s 50/50 whether the Marines did anything wrong. That’s why you need to get on to the larger point of troop stress and us wearing out our welcome and corruption in our military because you need to score your political points before the facts are in. After all the facts may not advance your agenda. Literally anything to get Bush and the Republicans. It’s pathetic.
FRANK LEE SMITH WASN’T EXECUTED!
Okay, sorry, I misread the web page; it was just a quick side example anyway. Smith wasn’t executed; he died of cancer in prison.
My point was that “presumed innocent until proven guilty” is a court rule, not a law or moral obligation for every American at all times. You are free to believe that Smith was innocent even though he was convicted; or that he was guilty even though he was exonerated. Or Cory Maye or Robert Blake or anyone else like that.
And my narrow point about Haditha is that the Cochran-speak on this page doesn’t make them seem more innocent, whether they actually are innocent or guilty. Those who talk that way may think that they are only preaching to the choir, but the audience is actually larger than that.
Why did you waste so much time trying to say that? What bloody difference does it make at this point?
We. Don’t. Know.
Professor Kuperberg, I’ve been looking for the loyal oppositon for years. Please link some of your writings from after 9/11 about how to fight the war on Islamic terrorism. I’d hate to think you were just another govt. employee suffering from BDS because Bush cut taxes.
I was about to say that I wasn’t discussing it much right after 9/11, because I agreed with almost everyone else in the country. As this chart shows, Bush had 90% approval rating in fall 2001, and I remember listening to his speeches and being among the 90%.
But it’s actually not true that I said nothing about it. I commented on it here on September 20. And I haven’t changed my mind. The war in Afghanistan is necessary and winnable, but it’s not easy. The war in Iraq is unnecessary and unwinnable, and may lead to the US losing both countries. (Okay, I changed my mind some. For some months in 2003, I personally didn’t know whether the war in Iraq was unwinnable. Now it’s clear.)
Anyway, since you mention it, tax postponement is no way to win a war. I know that it’s usually called a tax cut, but that is misleading terminology, because the bills will come due eventually. And I concede that the Bush tax postponement is about as bad for America as the war in Iraq. A tax cut might have been okay, but that is not what he did.
And my point Mr. Kuperberg, and you’ve proven it repeatedly in this post, is that you’ll misrepresent any facts, misstate any circumstance
and lie out your ass so long as it fits your narrative, which is a pathological need to hate President Bush, slander our military and demean America.
FOAD Mr. Kuperberg, FOAD.
Mr. Kuperberg:
The war is unwinnable? What would you consider a victory in the Iraq War? Also, since you are not ready to concede Victory in the Afganistan War what would constitute victory there.
I’m guessing that among the conditions for victory will be: Allowance of gay marraige, abortion on demand, government planning of the economy, complete removal of religion from the public square and a government that bitterly opposes US foreign policy at every turn.
Saddam shouldn’t have started it, then.
Kuperberg,
Given your lack of any substantive knowledge on the subject, and your history of getting things completely wrong, your conclusion that the Iraq war is unwinnable is a great moral booster for those of us still interested in winning it.
God, what a miserable month this has been for the moonbats
The much-touted Killbot MacBeth turns out to be a total fraud,a gang of islamocrazies get caught by phone and internet surveilance in Canada, the Z-man dies in glorious pain and now the prize Haditha story looks set to unravel. And Rove is still not under indictment.
No wonder they seem more batshit-crazy than usual. Tighten down you tinfoil creeps, it’s going to be a long summer!
… and neither Chomsky-chatter nor Sheehan-spew, conversely, renders them any more guilty.
You’d think a public humiliation as devastating as that one genuinely was to the continued efficacy of their communal bleat du jour—i.e., “SLAVERING, BLOOD-CRAZED RED STATE SLAYERBOTS! RUN! RUNNNNNNNNNN—!!!”—would, at the absolute least, teach them some little something regarding the dangers of looking prior to leaping, wouldn’t you…?
Thanks for the response Professor. I see you do agree that it is necessary to fight. We differ on where to take take the fight. I’ll give our boys the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
I’m going to help you out, Professor. I originally wrote:
I’d like to change that, for your benefit, to this:
Don’t let the Cochran stuff take you off point too far, sir.
Er, Jeff, the Cochran stuff was his point…
Barbary Pirates?
well, this just goes back to the recent theme doesn’t it? To suggest that they did this on purpose, with nothing to back up your accusations is reprehensible Kathy.
I did not say they did it on purpose, Maggie. I’m talking about the marine sergeant Wuterlich saying the Marines followed the rules of engagement, which allow them to throw a fragmentation bomb into a room when they think there are insurgents inside and then sweep the room with gunfire before the smoke clears. That was what the SERGEANT said they did. Apparently that is in accordance with the rules of engagement. And the article quoted another Marine (not present at Haditha) who said that it may be a bad way of doing things, but it keeps American soldiers alive.
So what I was asking Jeff, maggie, is whether it’s okay to sacrifice individual Iraqis for the “greater good” of saving Americans. Because, to remind you, Jeff said that it was not okay to sacrifice the individual “at the altar of the greater good.”
War sucks. I find it amusing that some people seem to think there are rules involved. There is in reality only one rule.More of an imperative really. Survive.
It is a credit to our civilization that our military would investigate a Hidatha.It is absolutely certain that the forces that oppose the marines inflict as much civilian casualties as they possibly can. In fact it is their strategy.The silence from the left in such instances is deafening.
I like Kuperberg. He actually took the time to answer some of the questions he was asked. He also came back to the main topic (for a while anyway). My rush to judgement: Kuperberg is not a troll.
well, kathy, maybe you’d like to tell us how you would act in that situation? you going to sacrifice yourself? is your life more important than a few people that would kill you?
Part of the reason for the Geneva Conventions was a desire to protect civilians. Parties were given an incentive to wear uniforms and not hide amongst civilians. Wearing civilian clothes to conduct military operations is effectively using civilians as camouflage. The incentive has been removed (combatants in civilian clothes aren’t executed) and the enemy has taken advantage of that, resulting in increased civilian deaths. Who is in the wrong? The enemy or the ones who bray for illegal combatants rights at the cost of civilian lives? For sure it is not our soldiers.
And so, a couple of our friends on the left appear to remind us all that they don’t support Islamic-terrorism. They just oppose all those who oppose Islamic-terrorism. And that, of course, American soldiers are the true terrorists.
I suspect Karl Rove is smiling…and awating his pending indictment.
TW member, as in I have yet to read a comment from a single member of the reality based community that had anything to do with reality.
So there is another way to ask “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”.
ACTUS, YOU’RE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT!!
Uh Kathy, I believe that the entire point of Jeff’s post was that it is too early to say that they were “sacrificedâ€Â.
Tom B, obviously they were “sacrificed,” in the sense that Sgt. Wuterich told his attorney that someone inside one of the houses fired at the marines, and that was why the marines threw frag grenades into a room full of women and children and then sprayed the room with gunfire before the smoke cleared. In this narrative, they didn’t know the room was full of women and children—but they didn’t know for certain that it wasn’t, either. Afterward, according to the sergeant, they discovered that the room was full of women and children. Wuterich claims the above account is in accordance with the rules of engagement, the purpose of which is to save the lives of American marines.
So, since Jeff said that it was not okay to sacrifice individuals on the altar of the greater good, my question to him is this: Is saving American lives a greater good than protecting innocent Iraqi lives by not allowing rules of engagement that are overly aggressive, which one could say that kicking down a door and throwing a frag grenade in w/o seeing who’s in there, and then following up by sweeping the room with gunfire before the smoke clears, is.
Jeff wrote that individual lives should not be sacrificed at the “altar of the greater good.” So if saving American lives is the “greater good,” is it okay to sacrifice individual Iraqi lives to that greater good?
Greg, I think you’re being short-sighted.
True, Professor, yet we have the moral obligation to examine the fact before passing judgment. It is evident that there are competing versions of what happened, and it would be irresponsible, not to mention highly immoral, to jump to any conclusion of guilt, innocence, or assigning motivation before the facts have been examined. Until a full official report is issued, frankly, it will be impossible to review all of the pertinent facts.
You mention the fact that this issue rose because it was brought to the media’s attention by a reporter. Now, just because a reporter says something doesn’t mean that he is correct. What he says has to be verifiable. So far this has only been partially the case.
If what the Marines did was unauthorized, then what they did was wrong. They must be punished accordingly.
If what they did was in lines of expectable ROE, then we must act accordingly.
As you said, there is enough chatter about this incident that one cannot make up one’s mind at this time. Thus, those rushing to hold the Marines culpable are wrong. Those who say the Marines are innocent may be wrong as well. However, we are forced into a position that we have to explain how exactly the Marines may have acted in accordance with their ROE, to a number of people who seem to have no understanding of this concept.
Two points are most important in my mind with regard to what the Marines may have done:
1. They are fighting a very different war, a war in which the enemy does not hesitate to use civilians for cover or collateral damage. (Indeed, the enemy goes so far as to deliberately attack civilians in terrorist attacks.) With such an enemy, the presence of collateral damage is inevitable. All the Marines can do is ensure they as minimal as possible.
2. ROE and protocols notwithstanding, the conditions on the ground are extremely perilous for all soldiers. Mistakes may be made. This is most pertinent when it comes to perception. Soldiers in a firefight and/or hunting terrorists do not have the luxury of determining whether every single person they meet is a civilian or a terrorist, especially when terrorists use civilians and when they look like civilians. If civilians are taken out by mistake because they are perceived to be terrorists or working with/for terrorists, then such mistakes must be forgiven. It is unpleasant but unavoidable.
The entire onus of this involvement of civilians falls squarely into the lap of the terrorists. If they did not use such nefarious techniques as they are wont to, then our soldiers would not have to act so assertively.
In addition, the report that a group of civilians were in a room who were not shot dead by the Marines also casts suspicion on the characterization of the Marines as enraged massacrists.
Furthermore, I cannot accept your comment on the US troops working for Islamists. Unfortunately, one needs to be acutely aware of what exactly is happening in Iraq on a variety of issues involving a number of groups before one can say definitively whether the war is winnable or unwinnable. The only reason why it seems that the war is unwinnable is because we are being exposed to only a small fraction of what’s going on in Iraq. Bad news sells, good news doesn’t. There is more to Iraq than fighting. The fact that the government is making strides in its formation, and that Iraqi defense forces are taking a larger role in law enforcement and security, and are successful, speaks volumes about how successful the campaign in Iraq is going.
It is now no longer a matter of whether the war is winnable or unwinnable but a matter of letting things settle down before a properly executed, timed, and phased withdrawal begins.
Greg Kuperburg:
The contexts are disimilar and the phrases mean entirely different things: (1) Haditha consists of lack of prior criminal intent or result—people die in war. In the Simpson case, the clear evidence of a crime predated any speak of who committed it.
(2) War dead in the framework of a pending military investigation by perhaps the most introspect justice system on earth does not resemble a henious domestic crime for which a single suspect of dubious integrity emerged immediately.
(3) Cochrain was motivated by profit to adopt a highly rhetorical tone. Let’s not equate military justice during war with the court he appeared in. There’s nobody going to rule on these Marines with a tenth the apparent bias that set Simpson free.
Pragmatically, talk of killer Marines (talk which began prior to evidence of a clear criminal event) harms the effort while speak of a killer civilian after clear evidence of a murder have entirely different intents and outcomes. Words have both meaning and repercussions that differ depending on the scenario.
Equating Haditha to the OJ mess by way of comparing similar phrases used to mean entirely different things based on context and outcome is therefore a non starter. Dissimilar events, dissimilar context for the events, and only a prior moral parallel that’s tenous and vague at best.
I see. We now jump from a specific incident to the even vaguer truth that each segmented compartment of society is capable of harboring a few “bad apples.”
Let me tell you what I read in your words. I read floating a likely canard intended to impugne by association: Civilian deaths > possible criminal military behavior > bad Marines/apples > let’s question such authority > doubt is cool.
The problem is, Greg, that this isn’t the cover of National Inquirer. It’s not entertainment. It’s not some cheap college course in situational ethics and the mind-blowing first go by 19 yr olds at the notion that The Man can be and is corrupt.
In a likely, domestic sense, The Man is indeed damn corrupt—witness the Democrats. So what’s your point about the military if not to try on a vague, adolescent, preemptive guilt-by-association? The problem is that the military is still a necessary and vital entity—perhaps one of just a few that government should undertake legitimately—and that making comparisons that only sound like justice, light, and reason accomplish nothing.
The armed forces will undoubtedly serve justice in a way that the OJ trial only dreamed of, the latter being an obvious sham of political correctness. Inferring that those broken ethics and the phrasiology to describe them harms a military investigation is hogwash. The onus is the other way around; on Cochrain and you for making the inelegant comparison.
Let’s call such talk what it really is: Poking the tiger of world balance with a stick just to see what happens.
Indeed it is, Greg, indeed it is. Thankfully. The “Cochrain speak” occurs in your mind and it does so for a reason.
Yep. A war against muslims who posed no direct threat to the United States started by a Democrat without the authorization of Congress for the express purpose of protecting nobody but big business.
Uh, and your point was?
So there is another way to ask “have you stopped beating your wife yet?â€Â.
JDM, is it okay to sacrifice the individual at the altar of the greater good? Yes or no?
If that is your definition of sacrificed, then it was the terrorists who hid among women and children who did the sacrificing.
Kathy supports the troops…so long as they do not return fire when they are fired upon, or attempt to apprehend, kill, or incovenience Islamic terrorists. If they do any of those things they should be prosecuted within an inch of their thick-necked, grunt lives.
War sucks. I find it amusing that some people seem to think there are rules involved. There is in reality only one rule.More of an imperative really. Survive.
Shouldn’t that go both ways, though?
It is absolutely certain that the forces that oppose the marines inflict as much civilian casualties as they possibly can. In fact it is their strategy.
Well, maybe the “forces that oppose the marines” are trying to follow the one rule that is more of an imperative, too.
Kathy, would it be OK to execute captured combatants not in uniform? If you say no, you’re consigning some civilians to death.
Do the Marines use women and children as human shields?
Yes or no?
“So that is the real question, whether the second half of the bad appletheory is really correct. Because if it isn’t, hostile reporters, who a lot of folks here detest, will have to stay in the loop in order to bring bad apples to justice.”
This an astounding statement. Nowhere in civil or military law is an investigative role assigned to “hostile reporters”. The fact that we have a free press means that there is no officially assigned societal role for the press. It can be held to no standard—other than libel, a few antique national secrets laws, and sometimes the marketplace—which does not originate with itself.
The awarding of a liberal arts degree does not also confer the tile “guardian of truth and justice”. The performance of every person involved in the Haditha investigation will be measured against professional and legal standards—except for the journalists. Tim McGirk is answerable only to his bosses at Time magazine.
Let me get this straight… you are criticizing the US for not imposing American democracy on Iraq and instead allowing various and sundry forms of Islamist rule to exist within their government structure.
OK.
So most of the world doesn’t do our strict seperation of church and state… are we to impose that?
Hasn’t that been the liberal knock on the US in the past… thatwe are trying to impose our culture upon others and destroying theirs?
Brief lesson: Iraq is made up of deeply religious people who cannot fathom that ther religion should be permanently and totally removed from government.
jeez. You might as well try to remove the Catholic church from every public plaza in Latin America.
Democracy in the end bows to the wishes of the people. If the Iraqis want to vote religion into the arena they can.
It is a risk that comes in free elections… look at Venezuela. They could have voted themselves into a dictatorship… it happens.
Phrases like “rush to judgement” and “innocent until proven guilty” are useful as sorts of speed limit signs. Or.. Slow. Curves Ahead. That type of thing.
Sure everyone gets to hold theeir own opinion however early they may be to the process, but as one exonerated man said “where do I go to get my reputation back?”
Decent people wait. Nothing is lost by waiting.
If the evidence comes out that Marines are guilty they will be punished as surely then as now. If they are innocent, Murtha’s statements and charges will have destroyed their reputations irredeemably.
What is it about you and friends that makes you so quick to stain the reputations of the Marines involved (partisan politics? Wouldn’t that be an odious indecency?) in this inquiry?
Why can’t you wait?
You don’t have to wait… its just the right thing to do, the decent thing to do.
Of course you are free to act like a jackal, but when called out for the behavior, have the decency to just own it… don’t obfuscate, be honest… partisan politics is more important to you than the lives and reputations of these warbots.
Stand for what you believe.
Greg said:
And just who was this “journalism student�
For the purpose of the Haditha investigation, it doesn’t matter who he is.
Yes, it does. It goes to the credibility of the witness, as to whether the witness is telling the truth or not, because, just to let you know, there are some people who think frames look better around living marines than dead terrorists.
Just sayin’.
Barbary Pirates?
“Where have you gone Edward Preble, our nation turns its lonly-”
Nevermind, we have Stephen Decatur.
Kathy supports the troops…so long as they do not return fire when they are fired upon, or attempt to apprehend, kill, or incovenience Islamic terrorists. If they do any of those things they should be prosecuted within an inch of their thick-necked, grunt lives.
Corvan: The Iraqis in those houses were not Islamic terrorists. They were ordinary Iraqis, mostly women and children, some under the age of one year. Was it okay that the marines threw frag grenades into rooms in two or three houses and sprayed them with gunfire because they had been shot at from the direction of the houses and, although they didn’t know for sure where the gunfire originated, they thought it might be from the rooms in those houses? Is it okay to toss a frag bomb in a room and then spray it with gunfire before you know for sure who is in the room? Yes. Or no.
Cut the crap, Kathy. You don’t actually care about my answer; you don’t even care about the question.
You are simply looking for a rhetorical victory with which to prance around as your contribution to your ilk’s war on Bush and the neo-conservatives.
Given the situation the Marines were in, if the facts remain as they are revealing themselves, I see little wrong with their actions. Rules of Engagement are intended to reduce the casualties of everyone involved, except the enemy. With luck they may even be reduced to zero.
Perfection is the enemy of the good.
One must understand Kathy’s position. If the mutant, red-state, trailer-park trash that makes up the American military is allowed to defend itself they might surivive. And though Kathy supports them without reservation, the last thing she really needs coming back to foul up her country is mutant, red-state, trailer-park trash who might vote Republican.
Therefore the glorious Islamic-facist freedom fighters, who Kathy doesn’t support, but certainly understands (And in a deeply human way that only a truly great human being such as Kathy can) must be encouraged to dress as civilians, hide among civilans, plant bombs near civilians and fire on American soliders from the cover of children. And while allowing American soliders to return fire on people who are trying to kill them might seem unfair it’s not. Becuase some times the mutant trailer part trash simply has to take one for the team.
Kathy: Yes. It is okay. As I said above, soldiers do not have the luxury of determining whether everyone around them is a civilian or terrorist. Unless you’d like the soldiers to engage in activity that would put them and their fellow troops in danger.
Remember, shots are being fired. It’s the terrorists’ fault for hiding and firing near civilians.
If there are terrorists who just detonated an IED in there? Unequivocally yes.
Do the questions get any harder?
well, kathy, maybe you’d like to tell us how you would act in that situation? you going to sacrifice yourself? is your life more important than a few people that would kill you?
First, I would never be in that situation because I would never volunteer to fight in a war.
That said, we’re not talking about “a few people who would kill me.” We’re talking about over two dozen Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children, who were not trying or intending to kill anyone. The question is: Is it okay to blindly throw frag grenades into rooms and then spray the room with gunfire, thus killing over two dozen innocent people, mostly women and children, without checking first to see who is in the room?