Posted on 05/27/2006 9:57:27 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
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.
"I totally reject that," Hunter told the L.A. Times.
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.
How about waiting until the investigation is done and the Marines have been given a fair trial (if one is needed).
I'll come down on the side of my brothers each and every time before I'll come down on the side of jihadists and those people who assisted directly or indirectly in the murder of 3000 of our citizens and other nationals.
Semper Fi Devil Dogs.
On the other hand, how about if they died while being held as human shields in front of Al Quaida terrorists?
There are lots of IED countermeasures being used. You don't hear about them so they stay effective. Interesting that Hiditha appears in the post below:
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/08/unstoppable-ied.html
IEDs have grown from relatively weak and simple devices into sophisticated demolitions weighing several hundred pounds in response to American countermeasures which began with uparmoring vehicles to monitoring patrol routes for disturbances in the roadway. As American countermeasures have improved, so has the IED, but not to the same degree. Brig. Gen. Joseph Votel, head of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Task Force said that while the incident rate of IED attacks has gone up, the probability of death per attack has declined from 50% in 2003 to about 18% in early 2005. The Iraqi insurgency may be detonating more IEDs than ever but their yield per attack is not what it used to be. USA Today reported: "While IED attacks have increased, U.S. casualties from them have gone down. From April 2004 to April 2005, task force spokesman Dick Bridges said, the number of casualties from IED attacks had decreased 45%."
To regain effectiveness, the enemy has turned bigger explosives and better triggering devices and aimed them at more lucrative targets. David Cloud of the New York Times describes what this means.
The explosion that killed 14 Marines in Haditha, Iraq, on Wednesday was powerful enough to flip the 25-ton amphibious assault vehicle they were riding in, in keeping with an increasingly deadly trend, American military officers said. ... on July 23 ... a huge bomb buried on a road southwest of Baghdad Airport detonated an hour before dark underneath a Humvee carrying four American soldiers. The explosive device was constructed from a bomb weighing 500 pounds or more that was meant to be dropped from an aircraft, according to military explosives experts, and was probably Russian in origin. The blast left a crater 6 feet deep and nearly 17 feet wide. All that remained of the armored vehicle afterward was the twisted wreckage of the front end, a photograph taken by American officers at the scene showed. The four soldiers were killed.
In response, USA Today reports the deployment of more (and presumably better) electronic jammers and new directed energy weapons.
The Pentagon now has about 4,200 portable electronic jamming devices in Iraq and more are on the way, Bridges said. The military is about to test a new device at its Yuma, Ariz., proving ground that is capable of exploding bombs by sending an electrical charge through the ground. That device, called a Joint Improvised Explosive Device Neutralizer (JIN), could be deployed to Iraq sometime this year if tests prove successful, Bridges said.
Many bomb jammers work by preventing the triggerman from sending his detonation signal to the explosive device. Other equipment relies on detecting the electronic components of bombs, which echo a signal from a sniffer. The JIN neutralizer, now being test fielded to Iraq is an interesting application of directed energy weaponry. It works by using lasers to create a momentary pathway through which an electrical charge can travel and sending a literal bolt of lightning along the channel. A link to a Fox News video report on the manufacturer's website shows a vehicle equipped with a strange-looking rod detonating hidden charges at varying distances, some out to quite a ways.
This is NOT a new story....I remember hearing about it right after is happened...and I questioned then, how was it that the aftermath could be videos, dead bodies and all...
The bury their dead before nightfall over there...so I thought it was awfully convenient that there was someone close enough (it was reported way back then, that it was a news service that had videoed it)...
Plus, I had read that this wasn't a FAST deal...that the IED went off...and the Marines searched all around that area for insurgents...
How do we know they weren't getting shot at from the place the bodies were found....OR, the insurgents killed them..and called in their personal videographer...
I just askin......
In the MSM it's the seriousness of the charge ...forget the truth about it ....
Are you surprised that this wasn't a wedding?
Pray for W and Our Brave Marines
Again Thank you. As always a voice of sanity in a world of noise.
"It does not mean that IF (big IF) any rules of enagement were violated, etc. that those responsible will not have to bear the legal consquences."
I strongly disagree with this seemingly quite reasonable assertion. And let me explain why.
Violations of the rules of engagement can be prosecuted only if this can be done discreetly within the military justice system and in a way that does not undermine the larger war effort. This was the case in WWII. It was not the case in the Vietnam War, witness the Mei Li incident referenced previously on this thread.
Let me state clearly the moral dilemma we face. As citizens we must choose between the following two evils:
We chose option 1 in Vietnam and ultimately lost the war. The aftermath of that defeat was the death of millions of innocents at the hands of the communists and the repression of millions more.
The Abu Graib incident proves that if option 1 is chosen in this war odds are we will suffer the same fate.
Life presents us with difficult choices. This is one. But I believe America is worth defending. And make no mistake. The islamists want to kill us all. For me, this one is easy. I chose option 2.
We don't know till the report/investigation is complete .. but that won't stop many in the Media/Press from accusing the military
The like to say they support the troops .. the truth is they support trashing the troops
They have been doing it as long as I can remember
Unfortunately, I doubt it. Heck, CBS is still throwing out lies, even today calling William Jefferson a Republican.
The reason being is that there are enough America haters to fuel a leftist press. If anything, in my opinion, it's only going to get worse.
With this story, even if it turns out to be false, it doesn't matter for those men because this story will have been put out front the whole time. Any retraction, like print media, will be buried on some back page. The truth doesn't further the leftist agenda. If truth were paramount, leftist ideas would fade into obscurity.
I do agree with you that option #2 is the appropriate way to prosecute the war on Islamo-fascist terrorists. However, in our media culture I don't think there's any possibility that we can successfully follow that route. I would not like to see ANYONE on our side held to some legalistic approach to ROEs and UCMJ while they are battling the most depraved and ruthless forces in the world today. Unfortunately, the lawyers and the media and the politicians will not allow reason to prevail in these matters - the prefer the narcissistic moralism of pretending that they are superior to all, as when Murtha recently smeared every WWII airman with his offhand condemnation of US aerial bombardments in that era.
That is the only realistic approach. My personal preference would be to read the official transcript in as much as I do not trust any media recounting.
Also...don't forget that 3 of the MOST critical of the troops re: their treatment of the enemy are supposedly Republicans, McCain, Graham, and Warner...
They would be the FIRST to go on TV and start screaming about the injustice of NO TRIALS...or having the Marines paraded in front of the world.
Of course Murtha would he there, but I have a feeling that McCain would quickly shove him aside to look like HE is the ringleader.
This Hastert/Pelosi/Frist thing about the FBI searching Jefferson's office has shown us how out of touch these politicians are with we in the "real world"...
So, I have no doubt that McCain and gang would truly feel that they would "score points (votes)" by forcing #1 choice.
What bothers me about those Senator is they act like our military don't investigate and handle wrong doings that happen
And they care more about the bleeping terrorist then they do about our own men and women in the military
If something went wrong .. the military will handle it and if they are guilty .. they will be dealt with
In the mean time .. it would be nice that Senators of the United States of America and some in the MSM would stop painting the ENTIRE military as bad people
Yep. Isn't it ironic that it is the very high sounding moralist who are the cause of our dilemma.
I know you are right...and the sense of integrity that guides a lot of us..and the Marines in particular would not let anything go unpunished...if absolutely TRUE.
You do realize that in the MSM it is still necessary to remind the likes of Alan Colmes, Chrissy Matthews, all of CNN, and others that the troops that were involved in Abu Gharib HAVE been punished and are in prison??
In fact, I heard yesterday that they are waiting on the verdict for the dog handler involved in AG...
If you just listened to the LEFT...the troops just run wild, with the permission and/or encouragement of Bush, Cheney, and Rummy.
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.