For one thing, these crimes are being committed by a small handful of otherwise honorable troopers. For another, I don't want Kiko's House to be portrayed as an angry left-wing blog. You know, the image thing. For yet another, the Iraq war has spiraled so far out of control that there is a numbing sameness about blogging on individual events, so I've tried to stay above the fray and focus on the big picture.
All that said, it's time to break my own rules of engagement rules because of a gruesome Washington Post story on the opening act of the Haditha massacre, a horrid incident on November 19, 2005 that left 24 unarmed Iraqis dead, many of them women and children. (Sorry, but repeated efforts to link to the story were unsuccessful.)
According to a lengthy Marine Corps investigative report obtained by the Post that included eyewitness accounts, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the squad's leader, shot five Iraqi men one by one after Marines ordered them out of a taxi (see photo) in the moments following a roadside bombing that killed one Marine and injured two others. Another Marine fired rounds into their bodies as they lay on the ground.
Says the Post:
"One of the witnesses, Sgt. Asad Amer Mashoot, a 26-year-old Iraqi soldier who was in the Marine convoy, told investigators he watched in horror as the four students and the taxi driver fell. 'They didn't even try to run away,' he said. 'We were afraid from Marines and we saw them behaving like crazy. They were yelling and screaming.'
". . . The report, which relied on hundreds of interviews with Marines, Iraqi soldiers and civilian survivors conducted months after the incident, presents a fragmented and sometimes conflicting chronicle of the violence that day. But taken together, the accounts provide evidence that as the Marines came under attack, they responded in ways that are difficult to reconcile with their rules of engagement."
Wuterich and three other Marines have been charged with murder. Each faces the possibility of life in prison if convicted. Through their lawyers, three have argued that they behaved appropriately while taking fire on a chaotic battlefield, and that the civilian deaths were a regrettable but unavoidable part of warfare in an especially dangerous area.
Four officers, including a lieutenant colonel, are charged with failing to investigate and fully report the slayings. No higher ups have been charged, but the investigation continues.
But unlike some other societies, we are able to recognize our occasional barbarity, as painful as that can be, and we have a free press (in this case Time magazine, which broken the Haditha story and the story of the cover-up) to let us know when things go awry.
The cardinal rule of counterinsurgency warfare is to separate enemy combatants from the general population, but it seems clear that some -- and perhaps many -- American troops have come to see Iraqis themselves as the enemy and a consequence is a predictable uptick in brutality that can lead to incidents like Haditha.
And for every Iraqi who is killed, justifiably or not, the American mission is further set back.
Roughly 40 percent of the 3,000-plus American troops killed and 25,000-plus wounded are Marines, who at no time have comprised more than 25 percent of the total number of American troops.
Additionally, the Marines are being asked to fight a kind of war -- involving insurgents and urban combat -- that was never intended to be their primary mission.
President Bush and his neocon brain trust made the chances of a Haditha massacre occuring greater by deliberately blurring the rules of conduct. Under the Bush calculus, torture is officially sanctioned and the Geneva Conventions are treated with disdain.
Marines responded to the insurgency by abandoning their make-nice strategy in Haditha. They isolated the city and blew up most of its bridges. They were driven out of Haditha, but later retook it. Haditha's only hospital was destroyed in the fighting. Some 20 Marines have been killed in and near the city in insurgent attacks primarily launched from mosques, including a Marine whose disemboweling was videotaped. Copies of the tape can be bought at Haditha's central market.
As a result of the occupation, Haditha is in worse shape today than it was when the newly martyred Saddam Hussein was still in power.
The invasion went like clockwork. Mission Accomplished! But what has happened since has been an unrelenting nightmare in large part because the White House and Pentagon spent 59 minutes planning the war and 1 minute, if that, on planning the occupation. There is no more damning indictment of Bush's lack of leadership -- as president and commander in chief -- than the mess he has made in Iraq. He has failed America and he has failed our troops.
Bush has all but said that he will dump that mess on the next president, and was an open secret through 2006 that the administration's top priority was not to try to redeem its failed Iraq policy, let alone cobble together an exit strategy, but to retain power in Congress. Yet again, politics trumped policy.
Imposing democratic values at point of gun on a society where many people devalue human life and covet martyrdom was going to be problematic, so there is a hollowness to Iraqi leaders' condemnations of the Haditha massacre.
These leaders are complicitous in the massacre. They are good at nothing except bickering. They still have not been able to form a government with teeth. They have been incapable of pushing back against the orgy of sectarian violence that has overrun the country.
Times like these demand belt tightening, but Americans have been urged to spend and there have been tax cuts -- at least for the wealthy -- despite a war costing hundreds of billions of dollars that is feeding an enormous budget deficit that future generations will have to pay for.
Following the Haditha massacre, a Marine spokesman said that 15 Iraqis had been killed in the roadside bombing and that the others who died were insurgents caught up in a subsequent firefight. There was no significant challenge to that account within the military until Time magazine broke the story.
The White House claims that even the most senior military ranks will not be protected in the Haditha investigation, but it is difficult to take that assertion seriously when the president and his own advisors refuse to be accountable themselves.
The triumphalism and "baby killer" rhetoric of some of its members concerning the war in general and Haditha massacre in particular is deeply offensive. The war may be wrong, but blaming the kids sent to fight it is obscene.
8 comments:
"But unlike some other societies, we are able to recognize our occasional barbarity"
And again the uusual 'hloier than thou!' attitude of the US! Stop it altogether! You're using 'straw societies' here, name then, so that we can make a real comparison. And aren't there some nations that have a better record than the US in dealing with atrocities? The initial hesitation of the US military to investigate the incident wasn't very convincing...
Caffeine Soldier:
Societies that are unable to recognize their occasional barbarity? Russia. China. Sudan. Somalia. India. And I could go on and on.
Many nations have better human-rights records than the U.S. (and I didn't even get into the culture of violence, abuse and neglect on the homefront), but this isn't about who is holier. While cover-ups delayed investigations and legal action in both the Mahmudiya and Haditha massacres and that granddaddy of all modern massacres -- My Lai -- the truth did eventually out, although in all three instances higher ups did or will get off the hook, so the cover-up culture certainly will continue.
"Many nations have better human-rights records than the U.S. (and I didn't even get into the culture of violence, abuse and neglect on the homefront), but this isn't about who is holier."
Ah, ok, seems like I have been mislead by the wording. Like most of the rest of the world, I'm a bit finicky about phrases that may imply a statement of US supremacy. :)
Btw, it's me, Gray. Caffeine Soldier is just my blog's name, Shaun.
Now to the second lesson:
"The cardinal rule of counterinsurgency warfare is to separate enemy combatants from the general population"
Well, Vietnam showed this is an almost impossible task once the insurgency has gained widespread support in the population. And regular troops are ill prepared to fulfill this duty. This is a sure route towards masacres.
Hello again, Gray:
Vietnam did indeed reveal that separating the baddies from the goodies when they look and pretty much act alike is indeed extremely difficult. But that does not forgive the Pentagon command from ignoring or shunting aside studies by its own experts that revealed that it was imperative that sufficient numbers of Army and Marine ground forces be indoctrinated and trained in counterinsurgency warfare. That shortcoming was revealed in Somalia and again in Bosnia.
The need for counterinsurgency-trained troops was again ignored in the run-up to the Iraq war because it's just not as sexy as modern warfare with all its fancy gadgets, and there was the hubristic view of the war's primary planners that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. From the opening hours of the invasion and the ambushes and pitched battles that U.S. troopers fought with Saddam's feyadeen, it was obvious that the war was not going to go as planned, but still there was a top-down reticence to include counterinsurgency in the playbook.
The U.S. failed to understand its enemy and how to fight it until well into the Vietnam War. History has repeated itself in Iraq.
What kind of coffee is Caffeine Soldier drinking this morning? I'm sipping on a very nice shade-grown Costa Rican.
"What kind of coffee is Caffeine Soldier drinking this morning? I'm sipping on a very nice shade-grown Costa Rican."
Hehe, good stuff, Shaun. But my Italian Cafe Crema isn't bad, either :)
As for Rummys failure to create an army for the 21st century, good points. He was almost on the right course with his insistence on mobile, fast moving units. But he didn't see the need for equipping and training the troops for peacekeeping nd anti-insurgency missions, and this seems to be the most important task nowadays.
Regarding your other lessons, I'm D'accord with almost all of them. Sure, the Iraqis are to blame, too, but they didn't chose to get rid of Saddam and to be forced to cope with democracy enforced on them in such a way. There were lots of warning voices that the neocons' scenario of Iraqis enthusiastically embracing the new rules, provided by the US, was overly optimistic. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain now that the people didn't quite live up to this unrealisitc ideal?
And I have to protest the way you picture the anti-war left. It's not a homogenous group, and Sheehan surely isn't it's poster child. Hence, the only coherent message about the Iraq war is: Get out as fast as you can.
And where are those who cry 'baby killer', like you suggest? Even Sheehan doesn't blame the troops, quite to the contrary. It's only a very miniscule part of this broad movement that is against everything Army. Honestly, I think you complain about 'triumphalism' (where? the anti-war movement hasn't won yet!) because of a guilty conscience of not having opposed this tragic loonacy from the start. Well, some on the left did, when it wasn't popular. There may be lots of weird people in the anti-war movement, but by opposing sending US troops into the Iraq quagmire, they did fulfill their patriotic duty better than all hawks on the left, right, and center. They deserve Kudos for that, not more of the same dishonest accusations from those who have been desastrously wrong.
Caffeine Soldier, er . . . Gray:
You bet that I have a guilty conscience.
Hey, Shaun, didn't want to make that sound like an accusation. Nobody's perfect. You believed Colin Powell making the case against Iraq, and I followed my overly cautious instincts when I was against Gulf War I. Only good that neither of us was involved in the decision...
:-/
Caffeine Soldier:
Nah, I didn't take it as an accusation. But neither am I going to hide my guilt.
Post a Comment