You did a good job on the transcript. Thanks!! I did manage to pull it up late last night on my husband's computer.
If I were able to get it broadband, or capture the stream, I might have been able to catch some other comments. The on-screen text has most of it correct, though, I think.
The other unit they met, who went in because the tanks told them to, found and shot TWO guys, so it was apparently NOT the exact same place they next go into on the video. One of the written reports said Marines were clearing the mosque AND an adjacent bldg. So maybe those two enemy were found in the other bldg.
Exactly my point. It's unclear. :-/
Perhaps they meant two were active (those sitting against wall?), and they assumed the other three were dead--so when they re-entered, they were surprised to see the one "dead" one move. OR it could have been a different room/building. As you say, this unclear point shows that the Marines were confused about the situation.
The Marines (told by tank) were either a different unit, or they were the same unit simply re-entering now that the lieutenant was going in.
After all, if the other Marines had just cleared it, why would they go into the mosque right then?
Lieutenant was going in for first-hand look and they accompanied him?
The part about the Marines talking about "yesterday" does seem to refer to the wounded men, although I can't tell for sure. The one doing the shooting did not KNOW.
Right. That's my point... It seems many people think I'm a troll for saying that, when I think it is support of the shooting Marine's mindset. However, as you point out later, that doesn't exonerate us overall.
OTOH, at Command and General Staff College we read and discussed a study comparing the percent of Infantry who actually fired their rifles AT ALL during combat
That was the work of army historian Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall. There's a lot of dispute about his work, but there's a lot of support, too.
Anyway, they compared Viet Nam and WW II and tried to discover why so few combat soldiers were actually were able to shoot AT the enemy at all . . .
Well, he looked at WWII numbers, and others, and then convinced the Army to implement training to raise these rates. They went up in Korea slightly, and were reportedly very high in Vietnam.
If you believe the jump by Vietnam, then it shows that densensitizing our troops worked very well.
SO under that situation, maybe the quicker-acting Marine is what IS needed in that kind of situation
The key is that training must be not only to desensitize, but also to react to non-kill situations. If this were a case of "Marine is trigger-happy since he's unreasonably worried about a gredade going off with an active combatant" then that's one thing. But I think we've established that he didn't know this man presented no threat.
... who is HE to assume moral superiority and hand the video over to broadcast around the world to friend AND FOE alike?
He documented something that actually happened and turned it over to his employer, in accordance with military's procedures. I don't think Sites was expecting the Marine to shoot, and he wasn't sitting there waiting to video him doing so. Note that Sites doesn't have the camera focused on the Marine who shoots until the shouting starts.
I think that at the point of "He's {expletive} faking..." Sites was just realizing that he already had a story (the Marines had already shot up unarmed men that had surrendered) and the shooting caught him by surprise, too.
About Sites: the way it came across to me, it was a confusing situation. SO since Sites knew they were wounded from before, and the Marine who shot did not, and it happened so quickly, who is HE to assume moral superiority and hand the video over to broadcast around the world to friend AND FOE alike?
I think we agree, except on the point of turning over the video. I don't think that he "asssumed moral superiority" in doing his job. He video'd something that happened, and illustrated the strength of America by demonstrating that we are not afraid of a Free Press. Oh wait...some people here seem to be... :-( I believe that by jumping to the Marines' (sic) defense without investigation, people have made the case that America is covering something up.
I don't like that...I'd rather people see that America will investigate first and not just blindly say we did nothing wrong. The current reaction fuels an international perception that we are covering up atrocities. (And to those who say "who cares" about the international perceptions--that it "doesn't matter what other people think, let's kill them all" how can you then justify attacking Sites for doing something that "doesn't matter"?!?)
I.E. the video being shown DOES cast blame on the Marine and his unit and the United States. Yet, it was a morally confusing situation, and if Sites could not manage to stop it, knowing what he knew, and being there, what right does he have to blame the others by sending out the tape?
This really concisely sets out your position, and I agree to a large extent. The exceptions are that (a) the video doesn't cast the blame, the viewers and the network editors do, and (b) sending out the raw, uncommented video is not "blaming" the others. It is documentation of something that really happened... (you don't think it was doctored, do you?) Sorta like saying to a cop, "You can't ticket me--it's not fair...I thought you were a manniquin in that car, so I didn't slow down!"
I am not in favor of shooting unarmed wounded, but this video should never have been released. Sites is the one who did that. (oh, and that "right" he has...it's one of the ones guaranteed by the First Amendment... ;-)
I disagree. We are better than the scum we fight, and if we aren't going to be willing to face our actions then we are slipping down the moral hill already and we should just get out of there.
Thanks for taking the time to look into this and for your integrity in not jumping to conclusions. (And for reading my long and poorly worded posts--even coffee isn't helping those!!) I wish all correspondents were so reasonable. :-)
And also, thank you for your service to this country. :-)
"oh, and that "right" he has...it's one of the ones guaranteed by the First Amendment... ;-)"
that does not mean he HAD to release it; responsibility, prudential judgment come into force.
since he DID release it, knowing or anticipating its shocking and inflammatory effect -- HIS motives and -- dare I say: AGENDA -- are fair game. Esp. NOW - to the extent that the video is still being played/discussed here or anywhere else in the world -- i.e. still actively doing damage to the reputation of the Marines and the way our forces conduct war.
The mistake "we" made in the VN era was letting the libs and media get away with thinking that they were righteous, on the right side, and that they "won". Well. WE aren't going to LET the argument of "freedom of the press" turn into disparaging our servicemen and losing the war THIS time. We KNOW better. We are not going to take away freedom of the press, but . . .
How about adding to that "freedom of the press" also RESPONSIBILITY of the press? If they tell a selective few facts, it is fair game that we demand "the rest of the story." If they are not going to make RESPONSIBLE use of the data the military allows them to collect, i.e. reasonable prudence, self-censorship (which we ALL engage in every day in life) THEN they will have to be denied real-time info. and given reports after the info. cannot cause unnecessary HARM.
Re: "Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall"
The discussion we had at CGSC in the 80s included updating with data from the VN war. Wish I could remember more of the details. It hasn't come up much in the past 20 years! ;)
Yes, when NOT to fire too; that is also trained; but that was not the problem in that there was too MUCH hesitancy to fire.
Re: releasing the video
If the point was to investigate it, as you and I would desire, that was happening; the tape did not need to be released for that. The Marines had pulled the unit and were investigating in his original report with the video.
SO since that goal was accomplished, what OTHER goal could be accomplished BY releasing the tape? Confusing the American public who does not still have enough info. to judge properly? OR advancing Sites' agenda as outlined on his Blog? Hmmm?
re: "(the Marines had already shot up unarmed men that had surrendered) "
still confusing in my mind; HOWEVER:
Statement to be issued to the world by the DoD:
we are humane, etc. and follow rules of warfare and etc.
HOWEVER OUR ENEMY DOES NOT. IF the enemy did not VIOLATE THE RULES OF WAR by boobytrapping bodies, pretending to surrender ,etc. , , , our forces would not HAVE to reshoot the dead to make sure they are really dead, etc.
We play by higher standards than the terrorists do; HOWEVER, this is one area where the forces CANNOT do otherwise than protect themselves AS LONG AS THE TERRORISTS USE THESE ILLEGAL TRICKS.
end of controversy
Thank you also for your thoughtful commentary.
And I thought I was done with this episode! ;)