Posted on 05/05/2007 6:07:07 PM PDT by RedRover
Recently unclassified documents suggest that senior officers viewed the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in late 2005 as a potential public relations problem that could fuel insurgent propaganda against the American military, leading investigators to question whether the officers’ immediate response had been intentionally misleading.
Col. R. Gary Sokoloski, a lawyer who was chief of staff to Maj. General Richard A. Huck, the division commander, approved a news release about the killings that investigators interviewing him in March 2006 suggested was “intentionally inaccurate” because it stated, contrary to the facts at hand, that the civilians had been killed by an insurgent’s bomb.
According to a transcript of the interview, Colonel Sokoloski told the investigators, “We knew the, you know, the strategic implications of being permanently present in Haditha and how badly the insurgents wanted us out of there.”
But Colonel Sokoloski told them he believed that the news release was accurate as written.
“At the time, given the information that was available to me and the objective to get that out for the press” before insurgents put out their own information, “that is what we went with.”
The documents also show that derailing enemy propaganda was important to senior Marine commanders, including Col. Stephen W. Davis, a highly regarded regimental commander under General Huck, who played down questions about the civilian killings from a Time magazine reporter last year, long after the attacks and the civilian toll were clear to the military.
“Frankly, what I am looking at is the advantage he’s giving the enemy,” Colonel Davis said of the reporter, Tim McGirk....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Thanks for the updates as usual. I am not going to second guess at this point. Not sure how to view the article you referenced within the whole picture.
People have suggested (including some retired Marines I know) that the brass wants to hang these young men to avoid ending up with a black eye over this whole incident.
I can’t blame Capt. Stone for feeling like a scapegoat for a crime that was never committed. It must be a living nightmare.
Love that graphic, smooth.
You are likely exactly right -
But it is shameful that our side, that the RNC/WH have not made certain behind the scenes that a fully resourced WOT supporting 527 was not up and running (two years ago now).
We knew who the MSM was and that they would relish helping our enemies. The WH had to understand this, had to know this.
That a WOT supporting 527 is not up and running, putting out creative and informative bi-weekly ads...touting our successes, why we are in this fight and why we must stay on the offensive....that this 527 still does not exist is shameful.
I’ve brought up a similar concept before but not a 527. That is a great idea. I think Rick Santorum would be a good, high profile spokesman.
Tim McGirk should stand in front of jack murtha on the firing line
LOL. Paul von Zielbauer at the NY Times is doing a nice job of passing along propaganda for the enemy. Here’a another article where he compares an incident in Afghanistan in March to the Haditha incident: “Killings of Afghan civilians recall Haditha” http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/20/america/20marines.php
The enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t have to look very hard for aid and comfort. It’s shameful that the NY Times gives it so easily and freely. This would never have happened in WWII or Korea. That’s how far back we have to go to find a media that honored our own more than the enemy.
JAN 15 2006 murtha detailed his exit strategy. BUT A YEAR BEFORE, Murtha argued ... “A PREMATURE WITHDRAWAL of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which WOULD LEAVE AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY IN DISARRAY AS COUNTRIES QUESTION NOT ONLY AMERICA'S JUDGMENT BUT ALSO ITS PERSEVERANCE,” he stated. murtha says he was wrong before and that times changed since that statement.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/13/60minutes/main1208423_page3.shtml
MCSQUIRT'S STORY CAME OUT MARCH 19, 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please read this excerpt carefully from the article Red has posted:
In a statement he gave at Camp Lejeune, N.C., in April, nearly five months later, General Huck told investigators that he could not recall being informed of reports that 15 civilians had been killed. He said he was overseeing several combat operations at the time, and that he had no reason to believe that the civilians killed in Haditha were not enemy fighters. (I still don't have any reason NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE to believe that the women and children were not enemy fighters, accomplices, crossfire, or were hostages being used as human shields.)
“I didn’t know at the time whether they were bad guys, noncombatants, or whatever,” General Huck said, according to a transcript of the interview. Later in the interview, he added, “They may have been guys pulling the trigger, for all I know.” (DO WE INVESTIGATE EVERY ENEMY FIGHTER/ACCOMPLICE/CROSSFIRE/HOSTAGE SHIELD?!)
General Huck, who is expected to testify at the accused officers’ hearings, told investigators he did not recall orders, called commanders critical information requirements that required him to alert his superiors and investigate the circumstances of any attack that killed at least three times as many civilians as American forces.
General Huck said that three days after the Haditha episode, in the midst of two combat operations, he visited Colonel Chessani, the battalion commander, who showed him an electronic slide show of the attacks that, according to investigators, did not mention the civilian deaths.
“I sat there and took the brief and no bells and whistles went off,” General Huck told investigators.
The bells, the general said, sounded two and a half months later, on Feb. 12, (Remember, murtha changed his stance on Jan 15, McSquirt's story comes out March 19, and murtha says it's a cold blooded killing on May 18) after he sent his boss, Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the commander of ground operations in Iraq at the time, an e-mail message with Colonel Chessani’s slide presentation attached to it.
“I support our account and do not see a necessity for further investigation,” General Huck wrote in the message to General Chiarelli in Baghdad, adding: “Allegedly, McGirk received his info from the mayor of Haditha, who we strongly suspect to be an insurgent.”
Less than five hours later, records show, General Chiarelli forwarded the e-mail message to his chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Donald Campbell, with a note.
“Don: We need to get together at the first possible moment tomorrow morning,” he wrote. “We’re going to have to do an investigation.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 17, 2006 BY MNF Iraq, http://www.mnf-iraq.com/ The level of U.S. forces in Anbar province is sufficient, (REALLY?) especially given the conditions in Baghdad and the focused operations there, Chiarelli said. U.S. commanders on the ground agree that ending violence in Baghdad is the main U.S. effort right now, and forces in Iraq are aligned accordingly, he added.
"In military parlance we always weight our main effort, and that's what we're doing right now," Chiarelli said. "We're going to continue to do that till we get the conditions in Baghdad where they need to be."
Lt. Gen. Chiarelli said the Baghdad security plan is making progress. (REALLY?) Sectarian violence has decreased, and areas are already seeing economic development. Baghdad is a large city, and operations there will not be short-term, he said, but U.S. forces continue to work with Iraqi forces and political leaders to reduce violence and improve services and conditions for the Iraqi people.
"We're very, very pleased with what has occurred with the Baghdad security plan, (Is that a fact? Who's WE? NONE OF HIS OPINIONS HOLD WATER if you look at what's transpired since he made this statement... his counter insurgency plans sucked, and conditions in Baghdad steadily deteriorated. He was reassigned, an expert in counter insurgency took his place, more troops have surged into Baghdad, and Anbar is looking GOOD.) and we look forward in the months ahead to seeing conditions in Baghdad continue to improve," he said. http://www.army.mil/-news/2006/09/17/122-victory-will-be-complex-general-says/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In his own set of conclusions, General Chiarelli recommended that American forces in Iraq receive additional counterinsurgency training both in the United States before deploying, and once in Iraq. (He said this in July 2006 for God's sake. What kind of a CYA statement is THAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?) "From your basic recruit to commanders, he's calling for a refinement of the counterinsurgency approach," said one of the defense officials..........................
.............After the roadside bomb went off, marines who survived the explosion said they believed they were under sustained attack (like they were stupid for believing that?!) and that they were entitled under their rules of engagement to use lethal force as they searched surrounding houses for those who they believed were responsible for the bombing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/08/world/middleeast/08haditha.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=22345e3e2c8ada2a&ex=1310011200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
2 senior commanders in Iraq (Chiarelli) reassigned
September 25, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/25/2_senior_commanders_in_iraq_reassigned/
Go, feeema! Wow, you’re blazing. Your post set my eyebrows on fire. Thanks for putting all those elements together. I’ll add them to the site.
I liked the comment from a person who sent mail to Murtha after he changed his mind about withdrawal. From your link http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/13/60minutes/main1208423_page3.shtml
...”Murtha tells 60 Minutes that 80 percent of his mail has been positive, but he also got this:
“Congratulations! You are now an honorary member of al Qaeda. Your words have emboldened the enemy and endangered our troops on the ground. You have become the new Hanoi Jane,” the sender wrote.”...
I have come very close to spontaneously combusting, Red.
Of course, the Times has a story on the heels of good news regarding Phan. I didn’t expect any less from the traitors, I’m just surprised it took them this long to get their story printed. But I see they’ve switched batters. Where’s McSquirt? In Afghanistan for Easter?
Good point. I was looking at some of the murtha You Tubes where the SOB sits right there and says:
X number of troops have died since I said we should withdraw...
Any moron can make the connection that he is emboldening the enemy.
I just want to bite his buttons off his uniform and spit them in his face.
Does he take time to write every detail (and do we want him to), or does he do a condensed version of the incident? There was the first IED in the road and then there was a second IED.... from the propane tank that blew as a result of a clearing grenade. One of the photos shows a burned out 'window' in the house from that explosion!
The issue is the execution shots. How in the hell can it be proved who did that? They've stolen our rifles. It's the Marines word against the enemy. The day NCIS brings the enemy to testify against the United States Marine Corps is the day NCIS needs to be charged with several counts of consiracy to commit treason, etc., etc., etc.
“I sat there and took the brief and no bells and whistles went off,” General Huck told investigators.
The bells, the general said, sounded two and a half months later, on Feb. 12, after he sent his boss, Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the commander of ground operations in Iraq at the time, an e-mail message with Colonel Chessani’s slide presentation attached to it.
“I support our account and do not see a necessity for further investigation,” General Huck wrote in the message to General Chiarelli in Baghdad, adding: “Allegedly, McGirk received his info from the mayor of Haditha, who we strongly suspect to be an insurgent.”
Less than five hours later, records show, General Chiarelli forwarded the e-mail message to his chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Donald Campbell, with a note.
“Don: We need to get together at the first possible moment tomorrow morning,” he wrote. “We’re going to have to do an investigation.”
It's difficult to imagine that Chirarelli would decide to discount Huck's report out of hand without even meeting with him, and 5 hours doesn't leave him enough time to do much of anything but read the report.
If this is true, it sounds like the decision to investigate had already been made.
Overall, I'd say the purpose and timing of this article was to discredit General Huck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.