Men@War Hadithah in context.

National Review Online ^ | May 30, 2006 | Mackubin Thomas Owens

[neverdem]

May 30, 2006, 6:33 p.m.

Men@War
Hadithah in context.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

The basic aim of a nation at war is establishing an image of the enemy in order to distinguish as sharply as possible the act of killing from the act of murder.
—Glenn Gray, The Warriors

It seems like only yesterday. It was 1991 and a U.S.-led coalition easily expelled Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait, signaling to some the emergence of a “revolution in military affairs” that would “transform the very nature of war.” Americans at home watched their TV screens in awe as precision-guided munitions flawlessly struck their targets, destroying them with little, if any, “collateral damage.” For many, this was only the beginning. For instance, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, claimed that the emerging “technology could enable US military forces in the future to lift the ‘fog of war’....battlefield dominant awareness—the ability to see and understand everything on the battlefield—might be possible.” Uncertainty, “friction,” less than perfect information? Forget about it.

Well, that was then, this is now. The war in Iraq demonstrates that those who believed that information technology would transform the nature of war were deluding themselves. War is shaped by human nature, the complexities of human behavior, and the limitations of human mental and physical capabilities. Any view of war that ignores what the Prussian “philosopher of war” Carl von Clausewitz called the “moral factors,” e.g. fear, the impact of danger, and physical exhaustion, is fraught with peril: “Military activity is never directed against material forces alone; it is always aimed simultaneously at the moral forces which give it life, and the two cannot be separated.”

In Iraq, our opponents have chosen to deny us the ability to fight the sort of conventional war we would prefer and forced us to fight the one they want—an insurgency. Insurgents blend with the people making it hard to distinguish between combatant and noncombatant. A counterinsurgency always has to negotiate a fine line between too much and too little force. Indeed, it suits the insurgents’ goal when too much force is applied indiscriminately.

Abu Ghraib No More
For insurgents, there is no more powerful propaganda tool than the claim that their adversaries are employing force in an indiscriminate manner. It is even better for the insurgents’ cause if they can credibly charge the forces of the counterinsurgency with the targeted killing of noncombatants. For many people even today, the entire Americans enterprise in Vietnam is discredited by the belief that the U.S. military committed atrocities and war crimes on a regular basis and as a matter of official policy. But as Jim Webb has noted, stories of atrocious conduct, e.g. My Lai, “represented not the typical experience of the American soldier, but its ugly extreme.”

In the quest for its own My Lai, the anti-Iraq war faction in this country has had to settle for Abu Ghraib, by far the most hyped stories of the war. But now, allegations of multiple murders in the town of Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in al Anbar Province, may provide them with the incident they need. According to published reports, a number of Marines from the storied 3rd Battalion, 1^st Marines, 1st Marine Division are accused killing more than 20 Iraqi civilians in retaliation for the death of one of their comrades by a roadside bomb in November, 2005.

The Marine Corps originally claimed that the Iraqis were killed by an insurgent bomb or during a firefight. But in response to allegations by Time magazine, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) began an investigation of the Haditha incident. A separate administrative investigation by Army Maj. Gen. A. Eldon Bargewell should be delivered soon to Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the operational commander of the multi-national force in Iraq, to determine whether there was an attempt to cover up the incident.

It is important to note that the investigation is still incomplete but that hasn’t stopped opponents of the war from using the incident in Haditha to advance their agenda. Last Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha, (D., Pa.), a vociferous critic of the war, broke the story, claiming that Marines in Haditha had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” This incident, said Murtha, “shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they’re out in combat.” Appearing Sunday on This Week on ABC, Murtha went farther, claiming that the shootings in Haditha had been covered up. “Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long? We don’t know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command.”

Murtha’s attempt to use the Haditha incident for his own political purposes should be obvious to everyone. But if his description of the event—a cold-blooded killing of innocent civilians—is true, then those Marines committed a bona fide war crime. What, if anything, can be said in mitigation?

Western Precautions
Atrocities and war crimes are acts of violence in wartime the brutality and cruelty of which exceed military necessity. They include, but are not limited to, looting, torture, rape, massacre, mutilation of the enemy dead, and the killing of captured soldiers or noncombatants.

The West has placed three constraints on its conduct warfare: proportion, discrimination, and the positive law of war. Proportion means that particular actions must be proportionate to legitimate military necessity and not involve needless suffering or destruction. Discrimination means that direct intentional attacks on noncombatants and non-military targets are prohibited. The incident at Haditha appears to be an example of this last category.

If civilians in Haditha were killed in revenge for the IED attack, the action violated the principle of discrimination and the positive law of war, which derives from conventions, customs, the general principles of law, decisions in international law, and the writings of authorities. Standards regulating the conduct of war have followed two general paths: “Geneva law,” protecting victims and innocents; and “Hague law,” regulating land combat.

The law of war attempts, insofar as it is possible, to civilize war. The law of war seeks to strike a balance among the principles of military necessity, humanity and chivalry and to employ the public conscience of civilized nations to restrain war. The positive law of war thus attempts to codify the principle that belligerents do not have an unlimited right to harm their adversaries.

The key to applying the law of war to particular situations is the principle of military necessity. This principle holds that subject to the principles of humanity and chivalry, a belligerent is justified in applying the amount of force necessary to achieve the complete submission of the enemy as soon as possible, with the least expenditure of time, life, and resources.

Military necessity recognizes that a commander’s overriding concern is the accomplishment of his mission and the safety of his troops. One would not attack a populated area, increasing the risks of civilian deaths, unless such attack was essential to the campaign. Humanity is the self-evident recognition of the fact that one’s enemy is also a human being. Prohibitions against killing or torturing prisoners, or the generally recognized obligation to provide medical treatment to wounded prisoners, flow from this principle. Chivalry is the customary recognition of the idea that the strong protect the weak. Soldiers do not declare war on women or children because it is dishonorable to do so. If women or children engage in war, however, the principle of military necessity usually takes precedence over chivalry, but if the facts are as described by Murtha, military necessity was not a consideration in this case.

Nonetheless, we still don’t have access to all of the information some of which could absolve the Marines under investigation of a war crime. As Tom Ricks has reported in the Washington Post, individuals familiar with the investigation have indicated that message traffic and video from an unmanned drone may affect the outcome of the investigation.

Haditha has all the makings of a terrible story. But I would say of it what I’ve said of My Lai: It was an extreme case. Anyone who has been in combat understands the thin line between permissible acts and atrocity. The first and potentially most powerful emotion in combat is fear arising from the instinct of self-preservation. But in soldiers, fear is overcome by what the Greeks called thumos—spiritedness and righteous anger. In the Iliad, thumos, awakened in Achilles by the death of his comrade Patroclus, leads him to quit sulking in his tent and wade into the Trojans.

But unchecked, thumos can engender rage and frenzy. It is the role of leadership, which provides strategic context for killing and enforces discipline, to prevent this outcome. Such leadership was not in evidence at My Lai. We’ll have to see if this was the problem at Haditha.

Under the stress of war, unchecked thumos can push a decent man over the threshold. That’s a fact. But to use Haditha to discredit the efforts of hundreds of thousands of American and Coalition servicemen in Iraq, is as wrong as it was to use My Lai to discredit our sacrifices in Vietnam.

—Mackubin Thomas Owens is an associate dean of academics and a professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations.

---

[TheCrusader]

As far as I can tell, this story is mostly 'substantiated' by the islamics who claim to be witnesses, and/or victims of the alleged killings.

I'm sorry, but the word of muslims will never, ever override what our U.S. Marines say. Muslims are trained from infancy to hate Jews, Americans, the West. They are taught that lying is a virtue if that lie is in defense of islam. How can any honest, serious minded person accept the word of these backwards, barbaric, America-hating neanderthals?

The article talks at length about the rules of war, how these rules were designed to 'civilize' warfare and restrict the soldier from becoming overzealous in combat. But when the Geneva Convention and the Hague rules were formed, there was no such enemy as these bloodthirsty devils of islam. These men are cold-blooded murderers and butchers of the human body. They spit on the gift of life that God gave them each time they strap on a suicide vest and mass murder civilians, policemen and Coalition troops who freed them from Saddam. They are animated not by a human soul, but by the Satanic spirit that has perfectly possessed them. They live to hate, they love to hate, they are hate.

Recently one such butcher was captured in Iraq, and he admitted to cutting off the heads of more than a hundred people. In any other context than a muslim carrying out his islamic duties, this man would be considered to be the cruelest serial killer that ever lived. There would be books and movies written about his unspeakable deeds. But he is a muslim, hence nobody bats an eye at the story and it is forgotten.

This is what we fight against, soul-less monsters rather than men. I don't blame our soldiers and Marines for wanting revenge against such monsters, who murder and then hide amongst the women and children like the cowardly pigs they are. Either we open up our rules of engagement and send in more troops, and get tougher with these animals or we lose the war in the long run, period. They will never be appeased, they have to be crushed.

[jan in Colorado]

Thank you for your excellent analysis, MNJohnnie!

[Eagle9]

Under the stress of war, unchecked thumos can push a decent man over the threshold. That’s a fact. But to use Haditha to discredit the efforts of hundreds of thousands of American and Coalition servicemen in Iraq, is as wrong as it was to use My Lai to discredit our sacrifices in Vietnam.

Even if the video from the unarmed drone provides undeniable proof that the Marines did not commit any war crimes, I don't think it will be accepted by those intent on branding the entire U.S. Military as barbarians. Those who hate the Military have a history of ignoring facts.

[AmeriBrit]

Notice also the mannerism of the "children survivors". Having come thru what would of been the most terrifying event of their lives and being forced to talk about it again, yet the kids show no hesitation or emotion. Just a dull recital of supposed "Facts" as if they were reciting a story as an memorization assignment in School. Very strange that. Absolutely no real emotion, just a breathless recital of "Facts" Then when done speaking look over to the person standing to the right of the camera (You can see his shadow behind the kids). Sure looks like kids looking at a teacher to see how they did in reciting their "lesson"

---

This is what struck me most about the video. It was too smooth, too staged. No child of that age would be that cool, calm and collected after such a traumatic experience. Her description was too adult.

The interpreter wasn't convincing either, she wasn't interpreting , she was reading out loud.

I've watched it several times and my opinion hasn't changed one iota.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the URL and directions.

[garbageseeker]

Ping

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Cori Dauber

[KTM rider]

"Murtha’s attempt to use the Haditha incident for his own political purposes should be obvious to everyone. But if his description of the event—a cold-blooded killing of innocent civilians—is true, then those Marines committed a bona fide war crime. What, if anything, can be said in mitigation?".........

"Under the stress of war, unchecked thumos can push a decent man over the threshold. That’s a fact. But to use Haditha to discredit the efforts of hundreds of thousands of American and Coalition servicemen in Iraq, is as wrong as it was to use My Lai to discredit our sacrifices in Vietnam."

this reinforces the case for the removal from office of Murtha for his reckless comments

[Eagles6]

save for later

[A.A. Cunningham]

Biography

Dr. Owens is Professor of Strategy and Force Planning at the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island where he specializes in the planning of US strategy and forces, especially naval and power projection forces; the political economy of national security; national security organization; strategic geography; and American civil-military relations. He also serves as Director of the Naval War College Electives Program. In addition to the core course, he teaches electives on The American Founding, Strategy and Policy of the American Civil War, The Statesmanship of Abraham Lincoln, Sea Power and Maritime Strategy, Strategy and Geography, and US Civil-Military Relations. From 1990 to 1997, Dr. Owens was Editor-in-Chief of the quarterly defense journal Strategic Review and Adjunct Professor of International Relations at Boston University.

Dr. Owens is a monthly columnist for the Providence Journal, writing primarily on security affairs and the character of American republican government. His articles on national security issues have appeared in such publications as International Security, Orbis, Armed Forces Journal, Joint Force Quarterly, The Public Interest, The Weekly Standard, Defence Analysis, US Naval Institute Proceedings, Marine Corps Gazette, Comparative Strategy, National Review, The New York Times, The Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal. He is co-editor of the textbook, Strategy and Force Planning, now in its third edition, for which he also wrote the chapters entitled "The Political Economy of National Security" and "Thinking About Strategy." He currently is working on a book tentatively entitled Sword of the Republic and Empire: A History of US Civil-Military Relations.

Before joining the faculty of the War College, Dr. Owens served as National Security Adviser to Senator Bob Kasten, Republican of Wisconsin, and Director of Legislative Affairs for the Nuclear Weapons Programs of the Department of Energy during the Reagan administration. Dr. Owens is also a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam, where as an infantry platoon commander in 1968-1969, he was wounded twice and awarded the Silver Star medal. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a Colonel in 1994.

Dr. Owens earned his Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Dallas, a Master of Arts in Economics from Oklahoma University, and his BA from the University of California at Santa Barbara. He has taught at the University of Rhode Island, the University of Dallas, Catholic University, and the Marine Corps School of Advanced Warfighting (SAW). He has been a program officer for the Smith Richardson Foundation, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Center for Naval Analyses and a consultant to the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Plans Division, Headquarters Marine Corps; and J-5 Strategy, the Joint Staff.

[StarCMC]

I smell a new tagline....

the word of muslims will never, ever override what our U.S. Marines say

Do you mind if I use it?

[TheCrusader]

"Do you mind if I use it?"

By all means, please feel free to use it.

[StarCMC]

Thank you!!

[PsyOp]

"Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. Hence the step is always long from cognition to volition, from knowledge to ability. The most powerful springs of action in man lie in his emotions. He derives his most vigorous support, if we may use the term, from that blend of brains and temperament which we have learned to recognize in the qualities of determination, firmness, staunchness, and strength of character." - Karl von Clauswitz, On War, 1832.

"Danger is part of the friction of war. Without an accurate conception of danger we cannot understand war." - Karl von Clauswitz, On War, 1832.

Clauswitz Quoted.

[bitt]

good site, thanks...

[bitt]

I heard today on the Jim Vicevich radio show that the military had begun paying 3500. to each family as a matter of course, until they discovered all the families were insurgents, at which point they stopped handing out the money...then the families that had not yet been "reimbursed" complained that the paid insurgents didn't deserve the money either, ...thus, the military had to pay all the insurgent families...and it was after they were paid that the families complained and set up the "situation".

Have no idea of the truthfulness of the info...

[Eastbound]

"Under the stress of war, unchecked thumos can push a decent man over the threshold."

And nations?

To make the point, it was okay to drop A-bombs on two cities in addition to obliterating Dresden as long as thumos was in check. And it successfully ended the war and reduced casualties.

But what if thumos was not in check and we made an instant battlefield decision while in a state of anger and frenzy which shortened the war and reduced casualties by dropping A-bombs on two cities in addition to obliterating Dresden?

Would we have still been a 'righteous' victor? Same result. The only difference being that in the case of the former, the decision was in long-making, dispassionate, tactical, and practical.

Make the call.

If you say no difference, that we were justified and righteous either way, then consider how you would judge something similar in nature, but on a much smaller scale, like Haditha (if, what they are saying happened is really the way it went down).

Or must we take the time to make plans and to act objectively, without passion, dropping bombs from the skies to insure it was not personal and close-up, making sure our thumos was in check in order for the act to be righteous?

Just thinking out loud here.

[Jeff Head]

My guess is that the Marines who fought in Haditha recognized that there were civilians working in concert with or abetting the enemy and when that bomb went off, they took some of them down. There were probably innocents killed in the process...but as you say, Nagasaki, Heroshima, Dresden, and countless other places in World War II suffered for worse fates in that regard...and it was te right decision because it saved more lives than it cost and shortened the war.

The fact is, when parents who support our enemies do not move their children ou of war zones, the blood, IMHO, is as much on their head as anyone else's...and if they are supporting our enemies, most of it is in on their heads.

We should take place like Haditha, one or two of them...or more if need be...and give the citizens who so desire 72 hours to get out...through very thorough checkpoints...and then level the places completely.

After two or three examples, you would see the support for thew terrorists even in those places dry up markedly. We must pacify the enemy and the civilian population that is desposed to support them. No embedded reporters, no press zones...just get it done and do it with extreme prehjudice in those areas where the enemy considers it has enclaves.

[Eastbound]

"No embedded reporters, no press zones...just get it done and do it with extreme prehjudice in those areas where the enemy considers it has enclaves."

I agree. In that the WOT is not specifically nation against nation, the tacticians would be wise to start performing micro-surgery wherever necessary -- each of our troops a scalpel. Whatever works should be S.O.P.

I think giving warning and following through with aerial bombardment, bulldozers and disposal teams will cause the bahstids to sue for peace in short order. It's not our war, it's theirs. We don't want it, so let's fight it and end it on our terms, not theirs.