Rush to Judgment Against Haditha Marines

The press is already salivating over the prospect of the next Abu Ghraib-like public relations disaster for the U.S. in the war on terror - ballyhooing as yet unproven allegations that a group of U.S. Marines launched an "unprovoked" attack that killed 24 Iraqi civilians in town of Haditha on November 19, 2005.

But was the Marine response really "unprovoked" - as at least 40 press reports have claimed in recent days?

The Boston Globe reports that the confrontation was touched off when a roadside bomb struck a supply convoy of Kilo Company, Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment. The explosion killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso, who was on his second tour in Iraq.

"Everybody agrees that this was the triggering event," Paul Hackett, an attorney for a Marine officer with a slight connection to the case, told the paper.

If the roadside bomb was the "triggering event" for the developments that followed, however, then how can it be said that there was "no provocation"?

And while that provocation may not have been enough to justify the wanton murder of innocent Iraqis, it's far from clear at this point that all of those killed were indeed innocent. Or that any innocents who did die were killed in cold blood.

In an April report that pre-dates the uproar over the Haditha allegations, a Marine press release describes the Iraqi town as "a hotbed of insurgent activity less than a year ago." That would be about the time of the so-called Marine massacre.

Plainly, not all the residents of this terrorist hotbed were as innocent as Marine media critics are now claiming.

The Los Angeles Times reports that after smoke from IED cleared, the Marines quickly determined that it was "a type that would have required someone to detonate it."

Following standard procedure, the troops searched nearby houses, the closest of which was 50 yards away.

That's close enough for its occupants to have tracked the Marine convoy and timed the explosion.

It's also worth remembering that the press has so far reported only one side of the story.

All the witness accounts seem to come from residents of Haditha [that hotbed of insurgent activity] - who paint the Marines as modern day incarnations of Nazi storm troopers.

Alleged witness Aws Fahmi, for instance, told the Boston Globe: "I heard Younis speaking to the Americans, saying: `I am a friend. I am good,' But they killed him, and his wife and daughters."

According to the Los Angeles Times, the video that first raised questions about the how the Iraqis died was shot by Haditha residents themselves. Could it have been staged? We still don't know.

Then there's this intriguing tidbit, again from the Times, which notes that after the IED was detonated: "Marines and Iraqi forces searched houses and other structures in the narrow, dusty streets [of Haditha] - jets dropped 500-pound bombs."

Whoever ordered those airstrikes must not have believed the houses of Haditha were filled with Iraqi innocents who knew nothing about planting roadside bombs.

Despite the swirling questions, the press seems eager to jump to conclusions, taking its cue from Rep. John Murtha - who went public last week with charges that the Marines killed innocent Iraqis "in cold blood."

ABC News, for instance, reported Saturday morning that the military investigators had already determined that the killings were unjustified, and that several Marines would likely face murder charges. But instead of quoting anyone in uniform, the report offered a soundbyte from a Human Rights Watch spokesman.

It's also worth noting that House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, who got the same insider briefing given to Murtha, says the "in cold blood" allegations are all wet.

The California Republican has pledged to conclude his own investigation in June. In the meantime he worries about the press using Haditha to further their campaign against the military.

"I don't want the actions of one squad in one city on one morning to be used to symbolize or characterize or tar the actions of our great troops," Hunter told a Washington news conference last week.

Paybacks are hell, aren't they?? LOL

That is awful...and today, I heard he is saying that Peter Pace ORDERED this??

BTW, in you wildest imagination, does this sound like it would even remotely be true?? Women and children in praying positions, shot execution style?

THAT sounds like what the Taliban, al-Queda would do, NOT MARINES...besides, I can understand one troops going off the deep end, and maybe shooting a civilian or something, but a whole UNIT???

Nah..no way....and Murtha should be tried for something, anything for his despicable behaviour.

"Paybacks are hell, aren't they?? LOL"

Only laugh I've had all day : )

I had six Marines at my house last fall, and they put up a new flag on a pole for me. Yesterday morning, I walked out to the point of my garden, and lowered it to half staff for the first time. It was a very emotionally difficult task.

For Murth to trot his fat ass onto the talk shows, vomiting his filth into the media and television news, beating those who are supposed to be his brothers in the weeks preceding and on Memorial is beyond comprehension and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt he has no respect whatsoever for the United States Marine Corps.

He damn sure doesn't have the balls to walk down the streets of Jacksonville after dark.

Of course, it must be a massive conspiracy of liberal lawyers who have infiltrated the military, liberal congress members wanting to fry some marines, and the mainstream media in collusion with al-Qaeda.

Nope. There's no way any of our boys could've committed such acts.

Sorry, I believe in waiting until the official report is released before spouting off about conspiracies of any kind. Conservatives such as Michael Savage can be just as sensationalist and wrong as the MSM.

Personally, I think there are quite a few neo-cons and conservatives who will wind up eating crow for this. Having studied military history, I do not find this story at all unbelievable.

Politically incorrect doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me are conspiracy theories from either side of the political fence.

My point in making that sarcastic comment was - and I admit I could've taken more time to be clear - that it is not beyond the scope of possibilities. War, as many here would agree, is a messy affair. But that does not give anyone license to violate what we now call the Law of Armed Conflict, or LOAC.

Like it or not, our military is governed by this law when prosecuting a war of any kind. It is what sets our military apart from most other nations. Prior to deployment, all service members are briefed (often more than once) on LOAC and the rules of engagement. Nevertheless, servicemembers are human and subject to pressures that can push normally professional and decent people to do things they otherwise would not. So, while we all may wish that incidents like this wouldn't happen, history demonstrates that they do. Perpetrated often by those whom we esteem very highly.

I have no love whatsoever for extremists of any stripe. Whether Muslim, Socialist, Communist, Christian, Fascist, conservative, or liberal all extremism is dangerous and undesirable.

That the civilian casualties at Haditha can be considered collateral damage is in doubt. The key difference between the bombings you mention and an incident like Haditha is a strategic objective. During WW2, bombings served a dual purpose; first, to incapacitate industrial production and supply, and second to break the will of the enemy to fight. IOW, those bombings were undertaken due to the strategic impact they would have on the enemies' ability and/or will to fight. Collateral damage was an undesirable but inevitable result.

In contrast, the information we have so far indicates that some marines incensed - righteously so - at the death of their comrade at the hands of Iraqi insurgents, entered the homes of civilians and took out their frustration on the nearest targets available. No strategic objective. No attempt to avoid undesirable civilian casualties. If the official report bears this out - and by the looks of things it will - the marines in question should be severely punished.

Regardless of how this is spun, shooting unarmed non-combatants at point-blank range is not only illegal, but is morally repugnant behavior.

Not all civilian casualties are collateral damage. If you truly embrace that point-of-view, ironically you are agreeing with Ward Churchill on his ridiculous assessment of the victims of 9/11. I'm sure you don't want that distinction.

Finally, I do not need to justify my resume to you or anyone, but I am no lawyer. I have served from 1989 to present on both active duty and in the reserve forces (U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force) as an MP and in Communications. No lectures needed from chickenhawks, thank you.

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.