It's an ugly accusation, no doubt, but the reporting itself doesn't seem to me to be motivated by smear.
If the police report truly says what the Inquirer is reporting, then we need to get to the bottom of it. Either there is infiltration in the Iraqi police detachment who generated the report, or some ugly stuff happened on or after that raid.
The Inquirer noted that most of these reports are either exaggerated or untrue, but noted this one was unusual because it came directly from a police investigation. I saw that as at least a modest attempt at balance.
Our soldiers represent many of the finest qualities of what it means to be American. In war, ugly things do happen, and it remains our responsibility to hold our troops accountable for their crimes and mistakes as well as to acknowledge heroism and reward their sacrifices when circumstances dictate.
Let us hope this report is pure bunk and that we root out the source of inciteful reports like this. At the same time, let us not fall into the trap of giving our folks a pass if the evidence indicates they did something terrible.
Your comment is thoughtful.
Here is my core question for the Inquirer: Why did the editor allow this to be published without further corroboration? Let me put myself in the place of the editor and I will show you what my reasoning process would have been. I read this reporter's story and I come to this line:
"The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men," the report said. "Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles, and killed their animals."
I assess the likelihood of American forces doing what is here reported at less than 100,000 to 1. I assess the likelihood of some form of disinformation by jihadi or other elements, or some other form of battlefield confusion and rumor mongering at more than 99,000 out of 100,000. I sit on the story and wait for the reporter's follow up, if any.
Here is what I'm afraid the anonymous editor's actual reasoning was: "This is far fetched, but [since I don't know the first thing about the actual nature or workings of our military] it not completely implausible. [Perhaps he would assign it a 1/50 probability]. If it turns out to be a false story we will just let it get lost in the slip stream of news. No harm done [from the Inquirer’s selfish point of view]. If it turns out to be the "My Lai" of Iraq then Schofield and I win big."
I assert that the printing of this article is evidence [not proof, just more evidence], of bias, narcissism, detachment from actual American idealism and values, selfishness, a sense of privileged journalistic entitlement, and subtle moral degeneracy.