Girlene: NO, this would not serve the country’s interest. [] Haditha has happened, that bell can’t be unrung.
I would concur with Girlene. Pleading guilty, really, won't satisfy the bloodlust from the insurgents. The damage has already been done.
One of the accused young men in the Duke rape case made a wise prediction about the day he dies. He said, paraphrased, when I die, it will be noted that one of three men accused in the Duke LaCrosse Rape case died today. He will live with that title the rest of his life even though he was proclaimed innocent. The Haditha Marines can probably relate to this sentiment.
There's a critical difference between the Duke LAX case and the Haditha Marines. The Duke LAX case had no business being presented because there was no evidence an assault had even taken place, and the students had almost rock-solid alibis. In such a situation, you pretty much have no choice but to stand and fight. The Haditha Marines, on the other hand, indisputably killed civilians. The question is not whether they committed the underlying act, but whether they did so with a guilty mental state. Haditha is much trickier, because the conclusion largely hinges on a question of criminal intent versus lawful use of force. It's a much closer question, so the question of a plea is a utilitarian one - balancing their odds of acquittal (which are pretty good, but too close for my comfort) against the potential sentence (which would be fairly steep).
This was their training for clearing a house during combat.
This is a very important point - one which the defense would be well-served to consider making the center-piece of their defense. While in hindsight, it is clear that Haditha is an unmitigated disaster, a very good case can be made that they acted consistent with their training.
Suppose you were in a position of power over the Haditha Marines.
One night, President Bush calls you and says, "Those Marines in Haditha set us back in Iraq and in the WOT. I don't care if they're guilty or not, they have to be locked up so the Iraqis know we're on their side. If we don't take action, we could lose in Iraq."
What would you do?
“I would concur with Girlene.”
Jude24, well, I do declare, we have some agreement! I have seperated out this sentence above so you can copy and paste in all your replies to me. Just teasin’ ya. :-)
I was looking for a thread that Captains Journal had written about Marines’ room clearing training. The jist was that the Marines have no other training when it comes to “taking a house” and clearing it. I’ll keep looking. Anyway, during this process, I found a series of Captains Journal blogs I thought you might find interesting. Here is an excerpt from one that in my mind is quite relevant to the discussions about ROE, counterinsurgencies and Haditha.: http://www.captainsjournal.com/
....”Setting up the choice between Luttwak and FM 3-24 [counterinsurgency Field Manual] as the only alternatives is false. There is a middle ground that avoids intentional collateral damage while also encouraging robust offensive operations against the enemy. Security is more important in a counterinsurgency than winning hearts and minds. If the population knows that the U.S. forces will not shoot into a home (from which fire is coming) for fear of collateral damage, then they can never stand up to the insurgents, and the choice is clear. The U.S. cannot or will not protect them and they must submit to the insurgents. The presence of insurgents in their home or neighborhood becomes de facto security strictly because of the ROE.”....
The Captains Journal website is very thoughtful and thought provoking. He has written a lot about ROE and the fallout in the field with the latest versions. Now it looks like he’s tackling Counterinsurgencies and Just War issues.