Redstate

We certainly need to wait for information to come out; it's important that there be no (continuing) cover-up. You ought to have given proper credit to Seymour Hersh, bane of the right, for breaking the My Lai story. And to say that there is no evidence of a cover-up may be premature: it's my understanding that the company commander and the brigade commander have been relieved of command--this is not a trivial, or lightly-taken matter, as I can attest from my 36 years in the military. So there may well have been command influence in a cover-up. We'll see.

I gave Seymour Hersh exactly the credit I think he deserves.

If it turns out there really was a horrible atrocity, where would you like us to send your champagne?

More generally, the Haditha-as-My Lai babblers, exemplified by Mr. Murtha, are saddled with the Leftist Lens.  Through it, every current event is seen as a repeat of some moment in history.  Typically the lesson they learned from the bit of history they misapply is "Left good, Right bad".  

He marginalized himself with that stretch.

who's military?

There MIGHT actually be an isolated incident involving the Marines, so I would expect you to be overjoyed should that be the case.

Hersch, Woodward and Bernstein and you are very similar. To him everything is My Lai, to them, everything is Watergate,  and to you , everything is Vietnam. Idiots.

any more than an American catharsis for the nastiness of a war like Viet Nam.  Viet Nam was a dirty, dirty war; there were no uniforms, flags, or bugles.  The enemy was among the civilians; the enemy was the civilians.  Some American soldiers got ambushed and did the "kill them all, let God sort it out" thing.  I'm not justifying it, but it think it explains it.  It is easy to see how it would not be a conscious coverup as a politician might stonewall some accusation, it was just the kind of thing that happened and people didn't talk about it.  Eventually, it came out because there were people in this country that had an agenda that wanted things like that to come out.  They didn't want things to come out like how the NVA had whole armored divisions in the south; the legend was the mighty Americans were fighting pajama-clad peasants with old French rifles.  The first casualty of war is truth, and that is especially true when a large part of your country is actively supporting the enemy.

Fast forward to Haditha.  In a country where the enemy is among the civilians and often is the civilians, a group of twenty-somethings gets ambushed and just shoots; let God sort it out.  I'm not going to defend it or say it is right, but I'm D**med well not going to let some over toilet trained, over educated so-called journalist put his opinion above that of the guy who just got shot at.

If it went down badly, some scared, just attacked Marines violated their rules of engagement and broke their training.  You get disciplined for that, but you don't get accused of murder, and you certainly did not commit an atrocity.  You were just a part of the horrible fog of war.

The Left's new mantra.

This is probably one of those times when you should have withheld judgment for a little longer, so that you don't run the risk of having your own words shoved back down your throat.  It could happen.

And I object to using the word "tragedy."  An earthquake or a plane crash is a tragedy.  An intentional massacre of unarmed civilians is not a tragedy.  It's a war crime.  Did you describe 9/11 as a tragedy?  I'm guessing that's not the word you used.

As cadets, we all had to watch a video (well, it was a movie back then) of a simulated combat "vignette".  In it, a distraught LT tells his SGT to "take care" of the prisoners his platoon just captured.  

Instead of locking/loading on the prisoners, the SGT asked the LT "Sir, I'm not sure what you mean.  What EXACTLY do you want me to do with the prisoners."

The LT took the chance the SGT had just given him--to rethink what he'd just said in the heat of the moment--and replied that he'd meant for the prisoners to be taken to the rear under guard.

I recall several similar lessons in ROTC, on how we could defuse the tensions war creates, and thus perhaps avoid the mistakes (and occasional tragedies) caused when people act under extreme tension.  This was the Army's way of trying to learn from its Vietnam experiences.

We'll soon see what (if anything) the media learned from its My Lai experience

I wasn't blogging in 2001 and so I don't have a linkable record, but I do consider the events of that day tragic.

And what part of "heinous crime" do you not understand?  Where in the course of this post do I try to excuse or minimize what happened?  As far as I can tell, the main impetus in that department is coming from the camp that wants to blame the civilian and military top leaders or Haditha.

I stand by my words.  You may shove yours where ever you please.

I didn't know that Maryscott O'Connor gave lessons on "How to Win Friends And Influence People On The Internet."

I hope you're ready to finish what you start.

so that you don't run the risk of having your own words shoved back down your throat.  It could happen.

So could being banned.

:)

I think a coverup is a good thing in this case. As long as the perpetrators are severly punished, why should the entire war effort suffer as a result of the actions of a few criminals?

The left likes to ignore this but winning the propganda war is crucial to winning the overall war.  If news of this crime (if it's true) gets out, and emboldens the enemy, demoralizes the troops, causes the American people to lose heart, then in the interest of national security, it should be kept quiet.Whe don't allow state secrets to be publicized, why should we allow such an incident to cause damage more severe then leaking half our state secrets would? And make no mistake about it, this is incredibly damaging, as President Bush recently noted.

And for what? For the action of a few criminals? If that the standard, what should our opinion of Muslims be? They have quite a few people who give their religion a bad name, should we brand them all as terrorists and beheaders?

The left likes to proclaim that dissent is patriotism, but the facts are quite different. Dissent as practiced by todays leading liberals and Democrat politicians is what is causing this war to drag out.Period. End of story. The terrorists' only hope is that we'll lose our will. By harping on such unfotunate incidents and painting them as endemic to our military and reaching all the way to the top, the "dissenters" have given the enemy more ammunition then a dozen tanks would. Once upon a time there was a name for such behavior. But let me stop while I'm ahead.

Again, on the condition that such crimes are not widespread and are being dealt with.

paint an entire generation of military personnel as murders and war criminals.  The left learned the same lesson.

So far we've seen the left - in the person of John Murtha - rattle skeletons in the hope of resurrecting MyLai and discrediting the military.  The NYT, WaPo, and the Networks will not be far behind.

...the language from someone posting articles to this site.  Especially a tenured academic.

Since you use the term incorrectly here, it's not a stretch to assume you would have used it in reference to 9-11.

"Tragedy" absolves the protagonist from responsibility for his actions, or inactions.

"Tragedy" suggests that the victims suffer at the hands of a random, moral or pitiless cosomos rather than at those of active, responsbile moral agents.  

"Tragedy" infantilizes everyone involved, victims and victimizers alike.  I've had a gutful of it from John Murtha and Cindy Sheehan, please, none from you, here, thank you.

"Tragedy" implies that there is no recourse for the victims, no reckoning for the victimizers, and no way of preventing what happened.  True in the case of the Indian Ocean tsunami, false in the case of 9-11, or, if the worst proves true, of Haditha.

I suggest you reconsider your words, and in future avoid the macho rejoinders.  I'm sure no one else was impressed, either.

--furious

AcheyPachy...

You...

I've read lots of AcheyPachy.  I've read lots of you...

No.  My bad.  I've read too much of you.

And FWIW, our feminine AcheyPachy doesn't do macho.  I do macho.  You do whining.

So, go find some cheese to go with your whine.  You're out of your league.

tragedy

One entry found for tragedy.

Main Entry: trag·e·dy

Pronunciation: 'tra-j&-dE

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -dies

Etymology: Middle English tragedie, from Middle French, from Latin tragoedia, from Greek tragOidia, from tragos goat (akin to Greek trOgein to gnaw) + aeidein to sing -- more at TROGLODYTE, ODE

1 a : a medieval narrative poem or tale typically describing the downfall of a great man b : a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion that excites pity or terror c : the literary genre of tragic dramas

2 a : a disastrous event : CALAMITY b : MISFORTUNE

3 : tragic quality or element

If 9-11 wasn't a disastrous event, then I don't know what is.

It may not be your choice of words to describe 9-11 or Haditha, but it would definitely fit in mine.

Perhaps you need to climb off of your high horse and defer to the author of the story to choose which words best exemplify her point.  

that you take your arrogant, high-handed act and play somewhere else.

I'm sure no one else was impressed, either.

Oh, don't be so sure, Einstein

You have a extra 'perhaps' in your last sentence.

"Macho" is not a word that has been used to describe me in the past, and for that I thank you.

I reiterate--I would use the word "tragic" to describe 9/11.  I used it here to descibe the larger ramifications of this issue--I chose it carefully and I think it's appropriate in the context of that sentence.

If you read the post, I argue that if indeed an "atrocity" was committed at Haditha, it is extremely important that the protagonists take responsibility for their actions.  It is not I that believes they are absolved of such responsibility, and I would recommend following the links for added clarification.

I would be interested in your views on how Oedipus or Hamlet avoid taking responsibility for their actions (even when some might argue that their actions are justified by circumstance), but it is of course reality that we're talking about in this case so perhaps that discussion would be best saved for another venue.

Not just no; h*ll, no.  Men are not angels; and even an angel can fall.  Secret punishments for secret crimes sounds pragmatic, but the former will disappear long before the latter will.

Haditha is a sh*t sandwich, and we're all going to have to take a bite from it.  Let those who will rejoice from it rejoice, and be d*mned to them.

If it went down badly, some scared, just attacked Marines violated their rules of engagement and broke their training.  You get disciplined for that, but you don't get accused of murder, and you certainly did not commit an atrocity.  You were just a part of the horrible fog of war.

You need to hang out with Marines more.  Bland "mistakes were made" statements are not what they are about.

There's a separate question, of course: whether Marines are the proper tool to accomplish any particular goal.  In my experience, their officers are more than willing to advocate for the best means they should be employed.  However, the big bold text up there says "Profanity is not tolerated", which prevents me from providing any direct quotations at length.

We need to quit a war and accept defeat because some Marines got ticked off after one of their own was killed by an IED and shot up some people they should not have shot?

booster of Marines and of the Corps than yours truly.  That said, sunlight is not only the best disinfectant, it's the only disinfectant.

The difference between the United States Military, all branches thank you very much, and the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq will be shown clearly by this incident.

Terrorists, insurgents to you Mr. Murtha, target civilians.  They plan elaborately, build fairly sophisticated explosive devices, locate them in places where they will do the most possible CIVILIAN damage (schools, hospitals, police stations, etc) and detonate them to maximize CIVILIAN casualties.

The US military has executed a war plan that went to extra ordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties.  We have fought terrorists who live and who hide among civilians and our ROE are such that our soldiers and Marines are at added risk so as to protect the civilian population.  Our military finds and risks their lives defusing explosives meant for Iraqi civilians.

If it is proven that some Marines did in fact murder Iraqi civilians, it is important to our effort in Iraq and around the world that they be held to account.  That is the difference between Marines and Islamofacists, we hold ours to a high standard and prosecute them when they don't live up to it.  No excuses.

That is not a standard the Islamofacisists, or Jack Murtha for that matter, will ever understand.

a bit more.

"He whome the gods would destroy, they first make angry." Or furious, in your case.

At Haditha you apparently have some Marines who snapped after an IED exploded and killed at least one of the members of the unit.  The behavior isn't excusable but that is a LOT different than an entire unit being ordered to burn a village and kill all 500 or so villagers as happened at My Lai.

The purpose of the Marine unit being in Haditha was not to kill the civilians, the purpose of the unit in My Lai was to kill the population and destroy the village.

To draw a comparison between the two beyond the fact that both acts are wrong is idiotic and displays a belief that the people of this country are idiots and can't tell the difference between the two events.

Can you identify who you're arguing with?

That's the difference.  Intent is everything.  Intent is the difference between a corrupt individual and a corrupt organization (such as the one John "Winter Soldier" Kerry described our armed forces as).

even if you are a Marine; mistakes ARE made, even by Marines.  All conflict, armed or otherwise, is decided by who makes the fewest or at least the least significant mistakes.

A quick search turns up a damning article regarding insurgent activity in Hadatha, pre-dating the incident by about 3 months.

Published in The Guardian, it details a city that is under the complete control of insurgent authority.

• Regular public beheadings, mostly for the crime of not resisting the Iraqi government.
  
• Daily floggings, and public punishment of amazing intense brutality such as having ones arms and legs broken for theft.
  
• DVD's of the beheadings are distributed free to the population, including school children daily for their viewing pleasure.
  
• One DVD included a disembowled blond man supposedly a member of an American sniper team.

In short, it talks about a city where the population fully and openly supports the "mujahadeen", made up of two groups: Ansar al-Sunna and Tawhid al-Jihad (another name for the group we know as Al-Qaida.) A brutal, violent place, where any other then medical personal who accept an Iraqi paycheck find themselves the star on the latest DVD from Haqlania bridge, body and head given separate billing.

This is place where everybody, openly knows and supports the insurgents. After all they run the government. A place where young men advise visitors where to report their arrival so that the Mujahideen knows everyone that comes and goes.

Certainly a place where even an 80 year old man would know where to find the local authority.

Certainly a place where the witnesses would lie.

This doesn't excuse bad behavior, but it may put a little perspective on the subject. After all, anyone that didn't lie about what happened, would find themselves as entertainment for school children on DVD.

Sounds like this Haditha thing is more than anything else a propaganda stunt by the enemy.

It might be the simple over reaction of angry young men. Then again, in a country overflowing with assualt rifles, it might be some kid, thrilled with the idea of being a hero and having a DVD made of his exploits, picked up one of the ubiqitous AK Assualt rifles a fired off a few rounds.

I'm waiting for the Marine version of what happen. Most liberals and the world won't believe it, even if they hang somebody, but I know one thing. You can't believe anything anyone in Haditha says, if they keep their head.

- Disclaimer: I am not familiar with The Guardian, a UK publication. For all I know it is an unreliable source of any information. The kind of paper that might make up an anti-American story just for politcal points. But then that describes most of the main stream media outlets in America too.

Read the article yourself:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1553969,00.html

Seymour Hersh uncovered My Lai in exactly the same way that he "uncovered" Abu Ghraib: he didn't. In both cases he became privy to ongoing high level investigations and leaked them. There is a difference between investigating and snitching.

A battalion commander and two company commanders were relieved, true enough. Lieutenant colonels and captains don't have the juice to cover up anything. I say this having been one of both.

"intentional massacre"? Where do you get this?

Seems to me that withholding judgment only applies to the extent that the Marines are painted as murderers.

And I second AE's suggestion on the shoving of words.

to a lot more details than those of us not involved in the investigation, it seems to me you are taking a page out of Murtha's playbook here.

There are a lot of circumstances where the killing of unarmed civilians is a tragedy and not a crime. It is curious how the immediate default so far has been to declare the Marines murderers without having heard their side of the story, or indeed any side of the story.

In this respect, it is obvious that AE's story should probably have run last week as Marines-are-murderers has become the accepted TRUTH.

when I was on a couple of high level staffs that was used as shorthand to stop silly things from happening. If a seemingly stupid directive came down it was inevitably greeted by a phone call to the author asking "are we about to "take care of the prisoners"?"

cover it up.

As they say, "bad news, unlike a fine wine, does not improve with age."

in the story, that's why they're there, not just to add nice touches of red to the text.

you haven't done?

36 years in the military (4-stars are required to retire at 35), practiced medicine in military and civilian facilities as well as in several European hospitals.

So pardon the bluntness of the challenge but if you aren't Connor MacLeod I don't see how all this can be accomplished.

From www.michellemalkin.com

Haditha does not compare to My Lai in raw numbers, but raw numbers have meant next to nothing in this war. By historic standards, Iraq has been a low-level insurgency occassionally flaring up into a mid-level one. But by press accounts, Iraq is the apocalypse and the End of Days all rolled into one. Likewise, Haditha will join Abu Ghraib if not surpass it as the enemy's rallying cry and the left's beating stick. That's just a fact. This is a post-modern war, and these Marines (should they turn out to be as guilty as they presently seem) have handed the enemy a major victory they could not have won in straight up battle. Their crime makes the war harder to win. Some folks writing here need to understand that.

There is no excusing this. It's not Hiroshima, a justified destruction to end a war and prevent much greater loss of life. Haditha appears to be a crime, and should be treated as such. It resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians and will hurt the war effort. It's unfair, of course-the enemy targets civilians as a central part of his strategy. But it is the reality of this war and those Marines knew that.

As a former military man, this saddens and sickens me. Every time a crime is committed by one or more of our troops, it reflects on all of us. Two or three sailors commit crimes off-base in Korea and the thousands who stand ready to protect that country get smeared for it. A small group of Marines commits very serious crimes in Iraq, and their actions will be used to smear the noble work and sacrifice being done throughout that country. But that, too, is the reality of this post-modern war, and those Marines knew that. The bottom line is or should be, they killed innocent civilians and made the war harder to win.

"I meant to post about this last week when Murtha was making the rounds but I got caught up in other things. Yeah, it's awful and par for the course that he'd pronounce the Marines guilty before the investigation is complete; and yeah, no one's surprised that he'd exploit the incident to promote a pullout. But it rubbed me the wrong way to watch righty bloggers go ballistic on Murtha while dismissing the underlying allegations with a perfunctory "these are serious charges." I'm not accusing anyone of not caring, mind you; this is Hot Air, not the Daily Dish. I'm just saying that it's bad form to kill the messenger when serious malfeasance might be afoot. Not unlike how lefties reacted to the Swift Vets, to take a more benign example."

stupid.

All there are at this moment is allegations, not even charges. And the allegations are serious.

The messenger, in this case, is saying that it was a deliberate killing of civilians. There is no evidence to support this.

As to the Swifties, I can only assume the author was comatose from May 2004 through today as, despite a lot of evidence, not a single person on the left has even doubted Kerry's Amazing Cambodian Adventure or his fraudulent decorations much less admitting the allegations were serious.

You can't have it both ways. Whan the messenger lies there killing him is no-harm-no-foul.

Is the part of our public citizenry holding this out as an example of the endemic problems with Iraq does not seen the frailty of that argument. In the case of Haditha, as with Abu Gharaib, the military investigation is way out front on this. So what is to gain from this exposure and examination before all the facts come out? Has this population bothered to ask themselves that question? Do they actually believe the Democrats are some type of cognoscenti?

I understand that intellectual curiosity is a somewhat lost art amongst the anti-war left. However, this behavior is just inexcusable and lazy. The propagation of Haditha as a cause-celebre, should be seen for what it is; a profound distraction from the fact that our policy in Iraq is succeeding. Their only obvious intention is to create a convenient, timely political obscurity to benefit the Democrat party. To the marginal believers, ask yourselves; is that the party you want in majority?

Every day, our men and women in the military prove themselves as the next "greatest generation". They are helping to create a democracy in a region of the world that presents the most danger to our country. The mission has been long, hard and complex. That is what our President has said it would be from the beginning. Yet, we have Murtha, deliberately call a press conference to announce this event already under investigation? With all the good missions continually occurring, that action is just disingenuous and unforgivable. Furthermore, probe some other simple evaluative questions; what is his motivation? Is that the way you would support the troops; by finding an issue that least represents their good work and pointing it out as symbolic and archetypal of their "stress"? To the good people of Pennsylvania, point out your rejection of this irresponsible and insulting behavior by voting for Diana Irey

The proliferation of this government amongst the Middle Eastern autocratic regimes is a danger to their hegemony. Why else would Al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria and other nefarious forces be meddling? That conclusion should be foremost in your mind every day when you hear the MSM-Democrat drone about bombings. The Iraq policy detractors do not want you to make that evaluative, logical denouement. Why? Because it takes away from the fallacy of civil war and brings you closer to understanding the Middle Eastern geopolitical realities.

By the way, as an editorial comment to some of the personal attacks in this thread, I give you a quote from Shakespeare:

"A tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing"

.

The allegations are that there were deliberate killing of civilians. The messenger repeated these allegations. However, the focus of Allahpundits post is to say that with allegations these serious, it's "bad form" to attack the messenger. It simply looks bad to question the messengers obvious political intent. It dimishes the seriousness of the allegations.

It's demonstrated even in your post, streiff. One line about the allegations, 2 on Murtha and 3 on Kerry and the "lefties".

just because he said so doesn't make it right.

This type of relentless toadying to the left on the altar of "fairness" is just grotesque.

And in fact, you and he are both wrong and are carrying the water for the left by buying into it. The allegations are that civilians were killed. Murtha and you are claiming they were deliberate.

Simply being a messanger does not protect you from being shot if you're a bad messanger.  The point of my original post was not to debate the allegations themselves because we do not know all the facts yet--and neither does John Murtha.  He is not "speaking truth to power."  He's "rushing to judgment."  He is being rightly, in my opinion, criticized for exploiting what he does know for his own political advantage--to heck with the Marines, to heck with the UMCJ, to heck with the officers like Pete Pace that he's accusing of cover-ups.

The civilians were killed. That much is known. What is not known is how they were killed. Originally, it was reported that they were killed by an Iraqi IED, or from the crossfire between soldiers and terrorists/insurgents.

The allegations now are that the civilians were deliberately killed by rogue soldiers.

Yes and today there are new reports that the Marines were indeed under small arms fire.  Are they true?  Do you know?  Does Jack Murtha?  No.  We don't know.  And that's the point, unless you would prefer to do away with that pesky "judicial process" thing.

The criticism of Murtha is accurate in the domain of politicizing the event. While the criticism may be accurate, I believe it's inappropriate. The general critique is that he has not only rushed to judgement, but his rushing to judgement has had a negative impact on our armed forces.

I believe that the very vocal criticism of Murtha causes more harm to the image of our country and our war effort than Murtha's words. In criticising Murtha, we belittle the allegations.We should be so outraged at the thought that we shouldn't be comfortable with simply knowing that an investigation is occuring. We should be actively pursuing this and demanding information.

The sensation you are feeling is the quickening. -Ramirez

I am glad you cleared that up Streiff, after reading Joe's posts I had this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that I thought was caused by disgust.

What exactly do you think our active participation and demands will contribute to an ongoing military investigation?

we know the professionalism of the military and understand the how and why of the sacrifices they have made in Iraq.  We do not need an Inquisition, the military will handle this and administer swift justice if necessary.

We make assumptions off of the information that we know(or that we think we know). The judicial process hasn't even began in this scenario, so we have nothing to look for in that regard. All we have is reports. Some are comflicting. Some will be more accurate than others.

It's interesting that when judging reports on the Iraqi WMD possession, we are willing to accept the worse possible scenario while with this we are content with "let's wait and see". I am not suggesting that we hang people or even name name as Murtha may has(with Pete Pace?), but the level that some has disregarded(or at worst, justify) the allergations are disturbing.

Justice should be free of general public opinion, but before we can seek justice, we need to find truth.

Public scrutiny assists in finding truth. That much is being seen with the unfortunate Pat Tillman "investigation".

". . . the purpose of the unit in My Lai was to kill the population and destroy the village . . ."

The purpose of the unit at My Lai was to sweep and clear an area known to be held by both VC and NVA.  The same unit had been ordered to the same mission in the same place on numerous occassions, and had repeatedly taken casualties. The civilians were perpetually hostile, supported the enemy, help set and reset the demolitions, and did nothing to forewarn American soldiers even as they walked right into their deaths and maiming.

After having passed through the area over and over again and clearing bobby traps, mines, etc. the SAME unit was STILL taking casualites (KIAs as recently as that day - If memory serves).  Areas once cleared of demolitions were now repleat with them and they were hurting GIs.

It all became too much for Calley (not built for supersonic thought), a fairly young, uncomplicated - and inept - platoon leader.

I am not certain how the slaughter began at My Lai - before or after Calley's order (but, order he did). Over 100 were killed (not 500) quickly - and then it was over.

The action was, in my opinion, the result of a spontaneous mass hysteria sometimes noted on battlefields when fear, frustration, panic, remorse over the loss of buddies, hate and a whole array of other emotions collide.

Nobody went to My Lai to kill civilians.  It just happened, and became an atrocity.

My Lai was not another Malmedy.  It was a collective, near spontaneous act of murderous barabrism that could and should have been controlled (not inflamed) by the officer in command. Also, not all soldiers present participated in the act.

Calley failed to prevent My Lai - even participated in the killing.

There is NO reason why he should not have been executed decades ago.

Meanwhile, not too long in the future, mass graves (3000[+]) in some cases would be found filled with the lime-covered, bound-together bodies of South Vietnaese teachers, doctors, military, attornies and other professionals.  All were purposely murdered by the communists who had earlier compiled lists of names of those to be herded for mass execution.  Several of these sites were found throughout Vietnam - much like Saddam's Iraq today.

How does a professional differ from a practioner?

Accountability. A professional is accountable for his or her actions, and takes the negative actions of their peers personally.

A practitioner, in this situation, would be more akin to a mercenary. By dismissing such an 'inquisition', we reduce our soldiers to mere mercenaries. That would be the ultimate disrespect.

Your tag states:

I never questioned the orders or the intelligence of any representative of the Federation. Until now.~James T. Kirk

Should we be questioning?

I cant remember where I read it (maybe here).. but Murtha initially said that there was no IED involved at all.. apparently there was.. that is not to excuse the murders that may have been committed.

What concerns me more, though, is the timing of this. We are at a critical juncture in Iraq when things are beginning to cement and potentially good news might start arriving (I never under estimate the media's ability to silence or snuff out good or truthful reports, though).

So, what was the media do? They take Murtha's allegations and run with it - potentially crumbling what good has been done recently.

My guess is that it is Murtha's bid to make his prediction that we will be out by the end of 2006 true.

In the mean time our media and Murtha are both acting as agents of al Qeada.

I honest to God have no idea how these people can sleep at night. The only thing I can think of is that their hatered for this nation and Bush is so strong, that they are blind to the results of what they report.

How many people have died as a result of the report about Abu Grahib? Things were going pretty good until that report - that is when we lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people...

How many more people will die as a result of this report? How many more terrorist attacks will be spawned by Murtha and the MSM's power grab?

I guess it will be worth it when they retake power at all cost during the mid term elections, right? /sarc

And Murtha by accusing the Marines or murdering people in cold blood, is saying one thing happened.  There's an investigation going on, and people ought to wait for the conclusions.

 

I have confidence that our military will take the appropriate actions regardless of what events truly took place.  

You on the other hand, obviously have a rather negative opinion of our military and think differently.

What actions of our military in Iraq and their internal investigations have made you doubt that they are not qualified to handle this?

are what?

You are willing to question my intentions so quickly, yet you refuse to even voice concern that these alleged events may have occurred.

You confidence in the military is a moot point, yet the fact that you feel the need to defend the entire military demonstrates the impact that these allegations have had.

Since they have had such an impact, we should be eagerly and actively awaiting the results of the investigation rather than taking a simpler laisser faire approach.

You allege that I have a negative view of the military, which is inaccurate. I believe that with any organization, public scrunity helps enable full disclosure. This phenomenom has been shown recently with the reported death of Pat Tillman compared to the actual death of Pat Tillman. Military public relations was less than truthful in that situation.

I have not said that they are unqualified.  

 it is not just moral and right to make these pronouncements about Murtha's inscrutable behavior. It helps separates fact and truth from intent of his message.

Murtha exposed his own bias by talking about motivational drivers such as how this was endemic of the stress our troops are facing. He also gratuitously pointed out how this was symptomatic of why our troops should come home.

Tell me, how does questioning the veracity of his statements belittle the allegations? There are currently no absolutes in this ongoing investigation. So Murtha regurgitates statements about the allegations intertwined with editorial comments and parochial platitudes. We (collectively) read the same content that is currently available, analyze his statement and point out the inconsistencies. That's called intellectual evaluation.

Tell me, when has the military not shown they can not handle these situations under the UCMJ with the highest standard of professionalism? I will answer rhetorically, never. Furthermore, there is indeed a negative impact to our armed forces. Is it coincidental propagation and elevation to the highest levels of exposure only comes from negative stories on incomplete investigations? I dare say, no.

Let the investigation be completed and truth be known. But do not insult the intelligent by using this incident to talk about endemic failures. There is much more to prove the prolific success of the mission and our soldiers. That is supported by the facts.  

for your post Yahuti.   In Vietnam most often the mine fields were planted outside villages by the women and children.  The Company had been caught in these fields and had to freeze while their mutilated buddies, the ones who were alive, lay on the ground screaming,those who were conscious.

      You might imagine the feelings of the survivors as they went thru the villages after such an experience.  But many of us don't have to or want to imagine that.

     I don't suggest total innocence on the part of men who have done this, but My Lai was a situation where at least the zealous and smug moralizing could have been restrained.  This is still a lot to ask for  however.

Tell me, when has the military not shown they can not handle these situations under the UCMJ with the highest standard of professionalism? I will answer rhetorically, never.

To say "never" is idealistic. Realistically, however, we have a specific example to point to:

From CNN:

"In part because of the family's anger and disillusionment, the Pentagon has launched a fourth investigation -- a criminal probe into whether Tillman's death was negligent homicide -- as well as a separate review of whether the Army engaged in any intentional deception."

-http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/27/pat.tillman/index.html?section=cnn_latest

A fourth investigation. What about the first three? The first two? Or the first one that found that Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire. Not the first report, but the first investigation that supported the report.

Investigators are not infallible. Public scrutiny helps assure that the investigations are done honestly and properly. Without public scruntiny, there would have been no further Tillman death investigations and we may have never found out the truth.

To put it simply, just because an investigation was complete did not mean the truth was known. You are wrong in that assertion that the latter always follows the former.

Do you agree that we would not have found out the truth about Pat Tillman's death unless his death was investigated independent of the military?

Furthermore, I have not said anything about our military failing in Iraq. You are painting me with a stereotype seemingly held for those that simply disagree with you.

out to dry as scapegoats. This is a crying shame, because given the situation, I am not surprised that civilians were killed. I am frequently surprised that more civilians aren't killed, given the fact that the insurgency deliberately uses civilians as shields.

Three points. First, Marines are trained to 'seek out, close with, and destroy the enemy.' They are not policemen. They are not occupation troops. Their current mission in Iraq is to root out a low-level insurgency that hides among the civilian population. It is to collaterally bring law and order, to enforce laws, and to supervise the re-building of critical infrastructure while providing emergency services of all types.

In other words, they are 'beat cops' meet 'meals on wheels.' This is not a mission set that the U.S. Marine Corps was intended to handle. In fact, we don't have units that are trained in this kind of service. Our units are staffed and trained to seek out and destroy the enemy during combat operations. Civilians get killed in those operations, and that is a regrettable fact of life. The U.S. military is not staffed or trained to fight a war in the middle of a civilian population and to do so with the kind of regard for civilian casualties that is required to 'win hearts and minds.'

This is not a criticism of the U.S. military, this is a statement of fact. The U.S. military is designed to destroy, not to build. It is really, really good at what it does, but the basic execution of its combat operations is going to kill civilians as a by-product.

If civilian deaths are so detrimental to the overall 'political mission' (which they are) that they can't be tolerated, then the mission parameters need to be changed. Hanging these Marines isn't the answer to this problem. Either we must be willing to accept civilian casualties, or we need a new method of deploying our troops or we need to go home.

Second point, we need to revisit staffing levels. If the current mission of using U.S. military forces for combined policing and reconstruction efforts is to continue, then the U.S. force has to be expanded. You can hate him or not, but General Batiste has to be taken seriously:

The critique outlined by General Batiste, the son of a colonel who fought in the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam, is all the more potent because before observing Rumsfeld's policies in practice in Iraq he served alongside him in the Pentagon.

As the senior military aide to Paul Wolfowitz, the then deputy Pentagon chief, he experienced Rumsfeld's abrasive style first-hand.

"You can't tell that man anything because he knows it all," he said. It is, however, his allegation that Rumsfeld has wasted the lives of soldiers that will hit home hardest. "There were insufficient troops on the ground by a factor of two-and-a-half to three," said General Batiste.

If you can't politically commit sufficient forces to actually pacify the country, then you are going to keep getting these kinds of results. Insurgents can create news at will by launching attacks and hiding behind civilians and awaiting the counter-attack. If the strategy is to await the build-up of Iraqi forces, then we had best resign ourselves to additional stories of dead civilians while that ramp-up is taking place. We can't go into a snit and prosecute every single U.S. Marine or soldier that kills women and children in a firefight, especially given the fact that we have little or no control over certain provinces, plus an Iranian-backed militia issue in the South.

Either the U.S. has the political will to win or it doesn't. Better to get that on the table now, in my opinion, than to die a slow death and send a lot of good men to jail down the road. If you can't politically commit the forces you need, then you are going to have to make up the difference using more vigorous combat action and heavy weapons. That's where we are now. Deal with it, or change the parameters to reduce the likelihood.

Final point, Murtha's sin is that he is using this situation to grandstand politically. As a former combat Marine, he knows everything that I've said here is true, but he is beating his chest in a way that is making the future prosecution of these men almost inevitable. I doubt seriously that they deserve prosecution. The civilians were most likely caught in the middle of on-going operations, and were killed as a by-product of that fact. If Murtha is unhappy with the current mission, then he can criticize that all he wants. Nothing will be served by taking these men down for murder.

You were a light bird? Guess I'm gonna have to start calling you Sir!

I believe that the very vocal criticism of Murtha causes more harm to the image of our country and our war effort than Murtha's words. In criticizing Murtha, we belittle the allegations.We should be so outraged at the thought that we shouldn't be comfortable with simply knowing that an investigation is occurring. We should be actively pursuing this and demanding information.

I am not belittling the allegations, I take them very seriously.  I am belittling Murtha and any forum that allows him to get away with this:

May 28, 2006 -- Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" in an exclusive appearance that reports a group of U.S. Marines may have killed 24 Iraqi civilians following an IED explosion in Haditha, Iraq, was "worse than Abu Ghraib," calling their actions war crimes committed "in cold blood."...

"I will not excuse murder and that what's happened," Murtha told ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos.-ABC News

We both agree that these are allegations yet we have a US Congressman stating these are truths to further his political agenda.  My intentions are to give the military time address the situation appropriately and to classify Murtha appropriately...  A jackass traitor using an alleged isolated event to further his own political agenda regardless of the truth or the consequences of his actions to the Marines he once belonged.

I apologize that I assumed your intentions were to denigrate the military. I just had a hard time believing that you would give a pass to Murtha's fabrication or guesswork yet actively demand the truth from the group that was already actively seeking it.

The Pat Tillman issue of the military informing his family a month after the fact that he was the victim of friendly fire is not a good example for this situation.  Critics allege this was done to protect the good image of the military, my thoughts are that this was done initially to protect the family or to lessen the media backlash during a time of mourning.  Regardless of what happened, the military did disclose the facts of the events and in a relatively short span of time.  Friendly fire is far different from "cold-blooded murder".

No, matter the reason, is a tragedy.

You make a very good point about what has happened to My Lai--it's become a symbol.  Every time I hear Chris Matthews say the words I cringe--he's not talking about the incident, he's talking about the cultural movement it has come to represent if you see what I mean.  I think it is very much in all of our best interest to wait to judge Haditha until we have all the information, and then to judge the incident on its own terms, not in the terms My Lai has come to represent.

This is verging on the nonsensical--of course there were not official military reports on Saddam's WMD or lack thereof--how on earth would we have gotten them?  There were of course intelligence reports, which are rather a different things.  Furthermore, we gathered that intelligence for more than a decade.  And you're howling for information and rolling heads after a few months in this case?

Yes we have conflicting reports on this and we will have the official reports over the next few weeks--one in a few days, I think.  Would it kill you to not rush to the worst possible conclusion--or perhaps any conclusion at all--until we have the report?  And would it kill Murtha to not make political hay out of innuendo?  I strongly disagree with your point about dignifying Murtha with too much attention--his suggestion that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was somehow complicit in a what may well be a non-existant cover up was over the top.  You can't let statements like that stand--especially when they're not true.

vs. a possible war crime by a small number of Marines.

So you are saying that it's inappropriate to assume the worst when our national security is potentially at risk, but it 's OK to make any assumption you want to when essentially nothing is at risk but the freedom of a few Marines?

You have just drawn the dumbest comparison I've seen this year.

I think it's unrealistic to not have an opinion(or judgement) despite the limited information.

To not have a judgement is to ignore what information is available. It's a conscious blinding of the facts that is akin to one covering their ears and closing their eyes.

I suggest that we accept that information that we have available, but keep in mind who is providing the information and we all must make a value judgement on the accuracy of the information provided.

So yes, I am howling for more information so I can better form an opinion and judgement. You have made the inaccurate assumption that I feel that someone should "pay" for this, that "heads should roll". I have said nothing of the sort or have even supported Murtha's position. I have repeatidly said that we should want to be informed, and because of that desire, should not sit around and idlely hope information will eventually reach us.

except the people making the newest allegations are Murtha and you. Those allegations are quite simply outside the realm of any fact yet established in the case.

At some point in the future that may be the allegation. At this instant it is merely a cheap libel.

you have that says it is perfectly okay to use the Marines involved, and the military in general, as pinatas and it diminishes the allegations by pointing out that to date those allegations are pretty much fact-free.

Ah but you miss the point of the quote.  You're supposed to engage your brain first--then start spouting off.  Which is the point of this post about the rush to compare Haditha to My Lai before the facts are in.  And while the brain is engaged and you are forming your opinion, you can object to other people like Jack Murtha trying to shape the way you think and undermining national security for personal political gain.  There's no shame is reserving judgment until all the facts are in, friend.

If it were merely the freedom of a few marines in the balance, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You fail to see the potential for outrage, which we a point of contention in the initial My Lai comparison.

Furthermore, you reference to scale is inaccurate.

My comment has nothing to do with scale.

I am saying that it's inconsistent to believe the worst case scenario only when it's convinient.  To believe allegations of the worst case scenario about Iraq and their cache of WMDs while dismissing worst case scenario allegations about this situation is inconsistent, or at the very least, biased.

and to deny that either means you haven't bothered reading your own posts which state the Marines have deliberately killed civilians or that you are fine with Marines killing innocent civilians.

Is that some civilians died. EVERYTHING else is speculative at best. A smear at worst.

Sensationalizing and saturation reporting this only helps the enemy. It does not help the alleged victims.

There was obviously not a coverup, since the MSM/murtha/poltroonery are getting this from the on going military invesitgation.

The only reason to obsess onthis in the midst of war is to help the enemy and to undermine our side.

I see--your point is that since we believed the worst about Saddam based on his own behavior and ten years of international intellegence reports we should now, in order to be intellectually consistent, believe the worst about the behavior of the Marines at Haditha based on three months of Time magazine stories and leaks by Jack Murtha.

That's clever.

and the facts, neither of which have anything to do with Murtha's statement.

Military and civilian cooperation is a pillar of our government. Therefore, it would be inconceivable to imagine either operating without each other. However, what you suggest is the military can not be trusted to perform an investigation. In fact, you go further to state that independent investigation of Tillman's death was the reason the "facts" were discovered. That's just fallacious and we are nowhere close to agreement.

I suggest you actually read the reports and understand by whom and why they were prepared (CNN is hardly a good independent source). This would include General Jones' report. You will find an initial Army investigation discovered the actual circumstances that led to disciplining of all involved. If anything, the cursory report of situational circumstances surrounding his death was sloppy and led to the current atmosphere of distrust. No argument, the Army must do better under these circumstances (and has admitted so). However, that is not criminal nor reason for questioning their entire operational credibility or modus operandi.

By the way, I also carefully reread my remarks and do not find a basis in fact for your statement about stereotypes. My response was purposely drafted to specifically redress your points.  

It was over 500 dead.  At least I have it from several different sources.  Here is the BBC article on the story but there are many other sources for the over 500 number.

It certainly WAS NOT 100.  Also, that Calley ordered the deaths was a completely different situation that Haditha.  As far as I know, nobody ordered the Haditha incident and we are talking only a few few individuals running amok after a bomb blew up.  I don't know what happened to prompt their reaction but I could imagine a civilian celebrating the explosion might have done it.

From the BBC article:

In the course of three hours more than 500 Vietnamese civilians were killed in cold blood at the hands of US troops. The soldiers had been on a "search and destroy" mission to root out communist fighters in what was fertile Viet Cong territory.

Yet there had been no firefight with the enemy - not a single shot was fired at the soldiers of Charlie Company, a unit of the Americal Division's 11th Infantry Brigade.

The 48th Viet Cong Battalion - the intended target of the mission - was nowhere to be seen.

Sayin that we believe the WMD worst cae scenario is based on a decade's worth of intelligence from nearly every major ally we have. You know the laundry list by now; UN, UK, Germany, France, Russia, etc

The only info we have on the current situation is from Murtha and, apparently, you.

on the numbers of civilians murdered by Calley.  Here are some sources other than the BBS (suggest you look beyond that source for slightly more reality and truth).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/my_lai.html    This source quotes the numbered murdered at around 300.

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war-crimes/my-lai-massacre/ This source quotes about 500 murdered.

http://www.vvawai.org/sw/sw31/pgs_03-14/my_lai.html  This source quotes 450 -500 murdered.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0834642.html This source quotes 347 murdered.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usamhi/usarsa/HUMANRT/Human%20Rights%202000/my
-lai.htm  This source quotes 400 - 500 murdered, and is by far one of the best accounts of those four hours that I have read.

I was wrong about the total number of murdered. You were less in err than I. It seems credible sources quote anywhere from 300 - 500 civilians murdered that day; far more than the 100 I stated.

However, the number murdered was not my point. My point was directed toward the comment made that soldiers went into My Lai that morning to kill civilians.  That is completely incorrect, and remains part of the Left mantra. We're going to hear a lot more about that with this new incident.

I am going to make a statement here for the record. It is an observation and RedStaters and others can take it as they find it:  

Any line soldier, American soldiers included, must have a hard heart to kill in a combat situation - especially close combat.  They are trained to react lethally and near automatically to lethal situations.  That makes them killers - as they should be.  It does not make them murders as many would have us believe in this case as well as the My Lai episode.

A universe of differences exists between the motivation to pull a trigger to kill an enemy, and in pulling a trigger to kill an innocent.

The former is a soldier, the latter is a murderer. And, like My Lai, no amount of media spin, leftist incantations, political correctness or any other means is going to induce me to believe that the troops at My Lai or the Marines in this situation, went into Indian Country with murder in their hearts. Yet, some soldiers at My Lai did become murders that morning. And, it might be that some Marines might have become murders in this recent event.

Who knows what really occurred in each instance other than a breakdown of command and official and individual discipline on the ground and at the spot of the event. Either way, if atrocities were committed there is no way they should not be punished to the full extent of the UCMJ.  But, use caution before villifying these young men, and making moral equivalencies between them and people who randomly slaughter scores of civilians each week in Iraq.  They are not similar people..

The unit went to My Lai on a "search and destroy" mission.  The unit in Haditha was, as far as I can tell, on a routine patrol. At some point the unit was ordered by Lt. Calley to destroy the population.  As far as I can tell, nobody was ordered to murder civilians at Haditha.  At My Lai the death toll was in the hundreds, at Haditha it was less than two dozen.  Given the firepower these troops carried, if there was a deliberate aim to wipe out the civilian population of Haditha, they could have done so.

My point is that the two events are completely different.  Haditha was not a My Lai.  It was more likely, and this is my own personal opinion, a couple of individuals who briefly broke discipline for some reason.

The overall truth to the matter is that once operations at My Lai got underway, the aim was to destroy the entire population of the village. There were no shots fired at the My Lai troops, there had been no bombs, no indirect fire. At no point do I think the aim at Haditha was to destroy the population of the town.  

What I think is more likely, and this is pure speculation on my part, is that there was a bomb, there was gunfire, and someone did something stupid like a civilian celebrating the IED explosion and that set someone or some small set of the people involved off and they lost control and acted out of rage. They apparently regained their composure at some point because only 15 were killed.  I don't have the figures handy for the population of Haditha but I am assuming it is much bigger than 15.