Just Gets Worse
by sarabeth at 5:00 pm on May 29th, 2006 in Iraq WarThis doesn’t seem to have made a splash in the U.S. media yet, but a large number of international newspapers are reporting that a U.S. military intelligence photographer arrived on the scene of the Haditha massacre “moments after the shootings”. Those photographs unambiguously document that the marines of Kilo Company went on a murderous rampage, and butchered Iraqi civilians in cold blood.
How does one begin to make sense of the Marine Corps possessing this evidence, and still choosing to connive at the fabrication and propagation of the two whitewashed versions of events they put out before the NCIS investigation was announced:
Version 1.0 – Fifteen Iraqi civilians were killed by the roadside bomb that killed Cpl. Terrazas, and eight insurgents were killed in a gunfight.
Version 2.0 – The civilians were killed in the crossfire as the marines battled insurgents.
Photographs taken by US military intelligence have provided crucial evidence that up to 24 Iraqis were massacred by marines in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha.
One photograph shows an Iraqi mother and young child, kneeling on the floor as if in prayer. They have both been shot dead at close range.
The pictures also show other Iraqi victims, shot execution-style in the head and chest in their own homes.
A US government official said the marines involved had “suffered a total breakdown in morality and leadership”.
[…]
The pictures of the dead, which are being closely guarded by the US military criminal investigation service, were taken by a military photographer who is believed to have arrived on the scene moments after the shootings.Many US forces are accompanied by photographers to gather intelligence and to shield soldiers from accusations of torture, intimidation and violence.
But the evidence in this case points to a murder rampage by the US marines.
** UPDATE **, 8 pm
It has only just struck me that the marines of Kilo Company knew perfectly well that they were accompanied by the military intelligence photographer. They knew he would arrive on the scene of the shootings moments after they occurred. Yet, they went ahead and did what they did.
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? It’s almost as if they fully expected to get away with it, the evidence of the military intelligence photographer notwithstanding.
Now, what on earth could cause our soldiers in Iraq to develop such beliefs?
And while we are posing questions that we can’t answer, how about this one: between November 19, when the Haditha killings occurred, and early March, when the military finally turned the matter over to NCIS to conduct the first real investigation, what would all the marines stationed at Haditha have been thinking about the probable consequences, in the Bush-Rumsfeld-Pace military, of slaughtering innocent civilians?
sac wrote:
More likely they were in a murderous rage and were not thinking of the consequences. I can understand that rage, when you get so worked up over a situation you end up doing something you later regret or are at least embarrassed by. In the context of combat, I’m guessing those impulses are amplified. This does not excuse these soldiers from what they did, I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent, etc. But I don’t believe they were thinking they would get away with it. I believe they weren’t thinking at all when they did this. I also don’t think the incident is an indictment of the military. The cover-up, on the other hand, most certainly is.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 9:02 am ¶
matt wrote:
maybe, maybe not. but they certainly weren’t listening to what was going on there.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 9:15 am ¶
sac wrote:
That ariticle is compelling, but I’m guessing the conditions it describes are fairly typical of warfare from 1950 on. That is, HIGHLY intense and dangerous and uncertain. I would also guess that soldiers in any war could crack under the pressure at any moment. This story is all about how the military handled the situation after it happened.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 9:27 am ¶
matt wrote:
your comment about whether it was an indictment of the military opens it up a bit, no?
if a reporter can expose those kinds of conditions, shouldn’t their commanders? or are their hands so tied by the policy of “the generals have everything they need” that they just keep trucking with burned out soldiers?
this war isn’t typical of any other war. it was pre-emptive. when what supposedly needed pre-empting wasn’t there, and the mission became un-winable, the frustration became apparent.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 9:37 am ¶
sac wrote:
I agree the pre-emptive aspect is unprecedented, but does that change the conditions of combat? Maybe, I’m not sure. I’m willing to bet that incidents like the one at Haditha have happened in all wars, with perpetrators on all sides, including our own. WWII was the first war to be truly documented, and the media was highly censored, so who knows what really happened? And that was the “good” war. Of course, it was also the occasion for the two largest incidents of civilian casualties in the history of mankind. What I’m getting at is Haditha doesn’t seem to be a unique or unprecedented incident, nor does it seem to indict the way military is engaging this war. The cover-up, as I’ve mentioned, is another story, although only because of the transparency we now expect from the military. This was not always the case. I’d say it wasn’t the case until Vietnam.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 10:18 am ¶
JimC wrote:
This is the crux of it. That Bush is forcing these soldiers to kill civilians…sac is absolutely correct. These kinds of atrocities have existed since war began. The stress of combat is unlike anything we can comprehend, I was not in combat during my service but I trained for it and even in training you do get just a glimpse of what it could be like. The only thing I can say that may even come close is the time at basic training were at night they had us crawl under m60 machine gun fire at night with the tracers going overhead. Now granted we were relatively certain that we would not be harmed but the fear and anxiety was there. Now picture actually being in a fire fight, with insurgents using civilian houses as a base of attack, I can’t even begin to imagine who it would be to move into the houses afterwards. They may have illegally killed civilians but they may have also done it without thinking and truly believed they were in danger. Combat is ugly and when an enemy uses civilians as human shields, it is almost certain that this kind of event would occur.
So is this incident unique in the history of combat? During WWII, incidents like this most certainly happened, but like sac said, the news was censored then. So to claim that this war and this President are causing unique atrocities is self serving for opponents of the war. Lets hope that these soldiers are given a fair trial and not made into the anti-war movements poster children….
Posted 30 May 2006 at 11:40 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
This blind, unreasoning, murderous rage went on for three to five hours?
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:31 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You don’t think a cover-up encourages those who know about it to believe that they too would get away with it if they shot up a bunch of civilians in a fit of rage?
Yes, war is a bitch, and war is a strain, and any soldier could crack at any point. Isn’t the whole point that a major part of what keep soldiers from snapping like this is the certain knowledge that it will not be tolerated, and it constitutes an offense that carries the death penalty?
So when you advertise that you are now in the business of looking the other way, and actively covering up incidents like this, do you not make it more likely that others will snap?
Is that not an indictment of the military’s conduct of the war?
Think about what Gen. Hagee’s going around preaching in Iraq now. And think hard about why it’s necessary. Because marines from Kilo Copany butchered 24 Iraqi civilians? Or because the whole military establishment connived to cover it up for more than two months, and now everyone has to be unambiuously conveyed the message that an incident like this will not be tolerated again, the way it unfortunately was in Haditha?
If the military establishment had told the truth about Haditha from the very beginning — and they did know right away that the Iraqi civilians had been butchered — there would be no need for Hagee to make his Iraq pilgrimage now.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:49 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I said right there in the passage you quoted that I think the way the military covered up the incident is unacceptable.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 3:00 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You also said:
I guess I’m trying to argue that the incident itself, the fact that it occurred, is an indictment of the way the Bush-Rumsfled-Pace military is conducting this war, if the military’s covering up of past incidents is partly why Haditha happened.
After all, the question everyone is asking is: why did the legendary military discipline of the Marines break down in this case? Could it have been due to the way the war has been and is being conducted?
“A murderous rage in which they were not thinking of the consequences” is a convenient story because then no one has to look for any answers. But the fact that the killing went on for three to five hours makes words like “systematic” and “cold-blooded” and “pre-meditated” much more plausible than “murderous rage” and “not thinking at all”.
They knew what they were doing. And they didn’t expect to be brought to account. And they very nearly weren’t.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 3:27 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I get what you’re saying, and the fact that it went on for hours is awful. I’m just saying it is almost certainly not unique to this war, therefore the Bush administration is no different than any other in this regard. Bush and Co. are incompetent in so many other ways, why choose to focus on something that really is not their fault, unless you count the fact that we are in Iraq because of them? Ha.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 3:59 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Are we to beleive that these marines for 3-5 hours commited unprovoked brutality against unarmed civilians? Or did the firefight last 3-5 hours and ended with civilian deaths? Where are you getting your facts from?
Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:05 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Why choose to believe that something that may well be their fault really isn’t their fault?
That’s just dodging the question. If it went on for hours, it wasn’t blind murderous rage. If it wasn’t blind murderous rage, can there be any doubt that they expected to get away with it? And if they expected to get away with it, isn’t that an indictment of the Bush-Rumsfeld-Pace military?
And how is it any consolation if the Nazis committed worse atrocities in World War 2, or the Japanese, or anybody else in any other war? We’re not responsible for them. We certainly are responsible for ourselves. And we pride ourselves precisely on not pulling this stuff.
So if it happens, the one thing we cannot do, mustn’t do, is minimize what happened, and dismiss it as the stuff that happens in any war.
Posted 30 May 2006 at 5:44 pm ¶
Ken wrote:
As a former Army brat, I have profound respect for those who serve in the military. Like Jim, I doubt that what occured in Haditha was all that unique, in the universe of war.
However, using the argument that “bad things happen in war” to deflect criticism and prosecution of inhuman and illegal acts by military personnel is not only appalling, it is a direct threat to the honor of those who serve. The psychological state of soldiers is a separate question (which should still be addressed), but the idea that there are limits to what is acceptable - even in war - is deeply ingrained in military training, discipline, and law.
Indeed, I believe it is as much a part of the reason great warriors are celebrated as any prowess in combat.
Posted 31 May 2006 at 7:36 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
This is the kind of incident that qualifies to be filed under “Shit happens in war”, not Haditha:
Assuming, of course, that version 1.0 of this incident is in fact the whole truth and nothing but.
Posted 31 May 2006 at 7:59 am ¶
sac wrote:
Ken, I agree. My beef with this post is that Haditha is being positioned as an indictment on how the Bush administration is running the war, and I’m saying this shit has happened, whether it came to light or not, under every administration. I agree these soldiers should be prosecuted. I also agree the cover-up was wrong.
Posted 31 May 2006 at 8:32 am ¶
matt t wrote:
Dude, this is this administration and it’s this war. Anything that goes wrong in this war is an indictment of the Bush administration, because it’s their fucking war. Is that somehow a radical concept?
Posted 31 May 2006 at 9:52 am ¶
sac wrote:
Good point.
Posted 31 May 2006 at 9:59 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
And why does that matter in the least? Whether or not it happened in every other war, we still need to ask whether the Bush-Rumsfled-Pace military is running the war in a manner that deserves to be criticized.
Continuing to say it happened in every other war is just continuing to dodge that question.
Like I asked before:
You seem to be saying that because this happened in every other war too, there’s no point criticizing the Bush regime.
It doesn’t seem to me that you are agreeing with Ken at all, who said among other things:
Posted 31 May 2006 at 10:00 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I think I know what sac is saying. The fact that some soldier in the line of duty stubs his toe does not automatically mean Bush is to be implicated for the act. Now this is a war initiated by W and it is his war to win or lose right now and everything that happens is under the his umbrella of its success or failure, however, these Marines committing these acts are not a direct result of Bush’s actions or orders. These Marines have orders and code of conduct to follow. If these soldiers committed a crime and the immediate officers failed to apply appropriate actions then the appropriate chain of command will eventually come to someone who will administer appropriate corrective actions under the UCMJ against those involved. Bush is at the very top of this tree. So it is a *huge* leap to go from these Marines to Bush, but many don’t care to know the details as long as it sounds good as an attack on Bush.
Posted 31 May 2006 at 10:59 am ¶
Ken wrote:
sac (and possibly Jim, though one never knows), I agree that it may be inappropriate to use Haditha to damn the current Administration’s handling of the war in Iraq - unless it turns out that a cover-up (higher up the ladder than the field officers) occurred.
It is painfully clear that this Administration has a pathological aversion to bad news, even when (or perhaps especially when) it’s the truth. From planting fake news stories to fake teleconferences with the troops (not to mention pushing WMD claims they knew to be false, we are long past the point where anyone should be giving this Administration the benefit of the doubt.
It is clearly unrealistic to claim that President Bush (or Donald Rumsfeld) had a direct hand in the acts in Haditha, but it is not unrealistic to point out that this Administration’s pathologies may well have contributed to a cover-up.
When will this Administration begin to manage itself (or the war) based on merit, rather than loyalty (or cronyism)?
Posted 31 May 2006 at 11:50 am ¶
JimC wrote:
C’mon Ken, this quote from your “pushing WMD claims they knew to be false” link is clearly a misrepresentation of what Powell said…
This isn’t an admission of a preconceived lie, it was an admission of a mistake…please….
Posted 31 May 2006 at 12:19 pm ¶
Ken wrote:
Alright then, how about this one? Or this? While we’re on the point, what about this? Or perhaps this?
Posted 31 May 2006 at 1:51 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Ken, each one of those is someone’s opinion or assumption or wishful thinking. I have argued over and over here that to claim that Bush lied based on assumptions he knew that WMD’s did not exist prior to the War began requires evidence that existed before the war began that Bush knowingly engaged the war effort knowing without a doubt that there were no WMD’s or even suspected that there were none. This cannot be done unless such evidence emerges.
I have shown over and over about how all intel pointed towards Saddam having WMD’s and this is what Bush believed. Believing something and being wrong is not lying.
Try as you might but until you can prove an intentional deception by the administration to hide the fact that they *knew* there were no WMD’s, the lying game belongs in the realm of left wing impeachment fantasies….
Posted 31 May 2006 at 2:42 pm ¶
matt wrote:
yeah, you’ve shown. you’ve shown your ass is about all. nullus.
the choice is lying or incompetence on a scale never even considered before. take your pick, i’ll deal either way.
Posted 31 May 2006 at 3:00 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Like I’ve stated before, hindsight commandos are always the ones calling for the heads of those who actually had to make the hard descisions…
You ignore all the foreign intel (Russians even told us of Saddam’s weapons)…
You ignore the our own intel…
You ignore Saddam’s own suspicious actions…
You ignore foreign warnings to our commanders…
You ignore the general world consensus that Saddam was a threat (except not all agreed we needed to go to war over it)…
You ignore all this and assume Bush lied…ok, as long as we are clear.
Posted 31 May 2006 at 3:05 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i’m not going to get into this again. when you decide to go to war, everything is all in the game.
they’d have been doing victory laps around the mall had they won the war or found wmd. there has to be a price for being wrong whether they lied or not.
Posted 31 May 2006 at 3:14 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I hope there’s no implication that I claimed this…
Posted 31 May 2006 at 5:44 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Interestingly, the Army itself doesn’t seem to regard Haditha as an isolated breakdown. They seem to view it as a symptom of systemic failures in training. In short, the Bush-Rumsfeld-Pace military itself has concluded that it is an indictment of how they have been waging the war so far:
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 5:24 am ¶
Ken wrote:
Jim, I’m not sure of the distinction you’re drawing between “to lie” and “to mislead.” The Administration consistently acted as if their case was a “slam dunk,” while it has been clearly documented that the intelligence was much more ambivalent.
If I convince you to get on a plane by claiming that the fuel tanks are full (even though my ground crew has told me they are uncertain whether this is indeed true), who are you going to blame when the plane runs out of gas and crashes? Are you going to believe I acted in good faith?
Again, this Administration has a pathological aversion to the truth, except as they see it (remember the snipe about reality-based politics?). Whether you call it an outright lie, or just denial, the Administration is not trustworthy.
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 6:06 am ¶
Ken wrote:
Oh, Sarabeth - I don’t believe you did either. Jim’s favorite tactic is to make people look as if they’re saying things much more ludicrous than they are, which is what I was responding to:
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 6:10 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Yes, and then he compliments himself on winning arguments. When most of his arguments are with himself, because no one else ever said what he first says and then shoots down (or thinks he has shot down, might be more accurate).
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 6:39 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Where did this quote come from, George Tenet, CIA Head man carried over from the Clinton admin, yes the very intelligence agency responsible for making recomendations about foreign threats.
Like matt likes to point out, this analogy is not accurate. When considering a threat that has very real and credible sources of intel, remember, it was not jsut our Intel organizations that beleived Saddam had WMD’s, Brittish Intel, Russian Intel, Jordanian, Egyptian, Israeli, and more. So as the PResident of the United States, you have a very bad man who has been a thorn in security for decades and ever since the Gulf War ended has challenged the UN sanctions, defied them, kciked out UN weapons inspectors, financing terror attacks against Israel, and much more, all this in front of you with your own Intel telling you it is a slam dunk, do you
A) Ignore all these compelling warnings and hope Saddam is really the nice guy Sean Penn says he is or…
B) Force Saddam to comply and back it up with real force not just threats.
Everyone seems to forget that we didn’t start a new war, the Gulf War, like Korea today, never finished. Saddam has just been operating on a continuing degrading set of sanctions, and was getting good at thriving under them.
So, like I have argued before, the recently captured Iraqi Documents appear to be painting a picture that actually supports our prewar intel, that Saddam did in fact have communications with Bin Laden, was seeking secreat WMD programs, etc etc…these are silver bullets but they do support the case….as more are translated, more information about what happened to the WMD’s may come out…
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 8:56 am ¶
matt wrote:
who could have been replaced just like every other administration official. that bush kept him transfers ownership.
actually it’s deadly accurate. and seriously “we got fooled like everyone else” really puts a pin in the american exceptionalism argument that is pretty much essential to defending things like the iraq war.
saddam was complying. we’ve been over this before. bush removed the weapons inspectors. go ahead, mention 1998 again.
yeah. i can’t even think of the proper joke for this situation.
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 9:05 am ¶
JimC wrote:
He was complying??? Really, which version of history are you reading??? Saddam did kick out inspectors in 1998, that’s a fact. The only reason they were allowed back in was the threat of war made by Bush, that’s a fact. The were then ordered out because Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors, e.g. delaying them, hidnering their efforts, etc etc. Saddam had every cahnce to comply to the letter of the sanctions and at each turn he tried to bend them or break them to probe the resolve of the UN and those who would enforce them…
Saddam was NOT complying….unbelievable….that is the first time I’ve ever heard even someone on the left actually try to make that claim other than of course the rosey picture painted by Michael Moore….
Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 9:15 am ¶