Haditha: the new My Lai?

[Garbarsardar]

It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12...trascript.html

The Time magazine was the one that broke the story first. (http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...4649-4,00.html) Apparently Marines opened fire and killed 15 (the number is 30 now) unarmed Iraqi men, women and children. The initial take was that there were insurgents in the houses and that the marines were under attack, but all this was later retracted.The Army initially denied any wrongdoing then turn abrubtely on its heels when confronted with the evidence and 7 months later a report is about to be publicised. Three officers have been already transfered to desk duties and Marine's officials say that they cannot comment on the ongoing investigation. However:

... privately, senior commanders and Pentagon officials tell Fox it appears that Marines did not follow the rules of engagement in the incident. And according to one official, the report is going to be, quote, "ugly."

Murtha who served in the Marines for 37 years prior to his election to Congress apparently has some insight about the report's contents:

And now I understand the investigation shows that in fact there was no firefight, there was no explosion that killed the civilians in a bus. There was no bus. There was no shrapnel. There was only bullet holes inside the house where the Marines had gone in.

So it's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they're out in combat.

I'm basing it on information that I've gotten from -- all the information I get. It comes from the commanders. It comes from people who know what they're talking about.

I feel that the tremendous pressure and the redeployment over and over again is a big part of this. These guys are under tremendous strain, more strain than I can conceive of. And this strain has caused them to crack in situations like this.

Findings even worst than the initial assesment of TIME:

But the details of what happened that morning in Haditha are more disturbing, disputed and horrific than the military initially reported. According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children. Human-rights activists say that if the accusations are true, the incident ranks as the worst case of deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by U.S. service members since the war began.

All this reminded me of the My Lai massacre, the turning point for the American public opinion about Vietnam. Still there are many differences:

This time the cover up did not work even for a short time as it did in the case of My Lai:

Independent investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, after extensive conversations with Lt. Calley, broke the My Lai story on November 12, 1969, and on November 20 Time, Life and Newsweek magazines all covered the story, and CBS televised an interview with Paul Meadlo. The Plain Dealer (Cleveland) published explicit photographs of dead villagers killed at My Lai. As is evident from comments made in a 1969 telephone conversation between United States National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, revealed recently by the National Security Archive, the photos of the war crime were too shocking for senior officials to stage an effective cover-up. Secretary of Defense Laird is heard to say, "There are so many kids just lying there; these pictures are authentic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

...but more important, the public opinion about the war in Iraq and president Bush handling of it are respectively lower than what was it in '68.

[Gaius Baltar]

And this calls into question the evolving role of the media in the war, and politics in general. In 1969 the media was vigorous, aggressive, and infused with the idea that truth was the right of the American public.

Thats not true anymore. Todays media is a multibillion dollar industry with contacts in the goverment, industry, and likely foreign media as well. And whats true about todays giant corporations is true about the media. That is, its all about the almighty dollar.

Look at the role the media played a the start of the Iraq war (the latest version). It was all about weapons of mass destruction ,genocide, and terrorism. Did the media ever retract thier statements and coverage of that time? Was there any review of their role in influencing the public to support the war? Of course not, is was all swept under the rug with some vague references to "bad intelligence". A shelving of the problem and misdirection of the public focus. We tend to believe what we hear from the network anchors at night, but it seems they are not delivering the truth anymore.

What happened in Haditha is being played out around the globe today, in Iraq, in Palestine, in the Sudan, in Somolia. The real truth here is that the miliitary forces are no longer controlled by goverments, but by corporations. And they care little about the conduct of those forces as long as they obtain their access to a countries resources, the people be damned.

And the pubic was a much different force back in the 60s as well. Look at the hugh anti-war demonstrations of the era, the "Love-ins", Woodstock and Watergate. We cared back then and we raised our voices.

Today, we will just slump into our easy chairs, sip our beer in airconditioned luxury, and lament the high energy bills socking us in the gut. We are fat, lazy and complacent about our place in the world. We are removed from reality by our blinking TV screens which interupt our train of thought every 5 mnts for 4 mnts of commercials. The world seems distant.

Its time to go outside and shake the world.

[Ahiga]

Nice words, but do you have any thoughts on just how?

It's easy to sip the beer and lament of the high energy in an air conditioned room and then condemn the situation of things in the world - But how do you fix it?

[Aristophanes]

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12...trascript.html

The Time magazine was the one that broke the story first. (http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...4649-4,00.html) Apparently Marines opened fire and killed 15 (the number is 30 now) unarmed Iraqi men, women and children. The initial take was that there were insurgents in the houses and that the marines were under attack, but all this was later retracted.The Army initially denied any wrongdoing then turn abrubtely on its heels when confronted with the evidence and 7 months later a report is about to be publicised. Three officers have been already transfered to desk duties and Marine's officials say that they cannot comment on the ongoing investigation. However:

All this reminded me of the My Lai massacre, the turning point for the American public opinion about Vietnam. Still there are many differences:This time the cover up did not work even for a short time as it did in the case of My Lai:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

...but more important, the public opinion about the war in Iraq and president Bush handling of it are respectively lower than what was it in '68.

You'll probably hear this a lot, but running a war based on public opinion is beyond stupid, ditto for ending a war based solely on public opinion. The US doesn't have a choice here. If they pack up and leave not only do they lose credibility in terms of their reasons for the war, but they'll also lose even more important credibility, and that pertains to their will to effectively use the force at their disposal. Inevitably, if the US leaves before it is good and ready, certain nations on this planet who may have aggressive designs of their own are going to take this as a sign of fundamental weakness, and realize that it is a very simple matter to make a conflict 'too expensive' for Americans to want to continue it. Obviously, the result is that other nations are empowered at the expense of the US. This may seem like a great thing for those out there who have an almost fanatical belief in the malevolence of Americans and their Administration, but it might not be such a great thing if certain nations far less squeamish than the US decide to let loose the dogs of war.

If this story is true, it represents a terrible breach in discipline and combat professionalism, and 17 people will be dead at the hands of American soldiers, murdered; however, when we compare this seemingly isolated incident, which has yet to be conclusively proven, with the daily attacks the 'other side' are making on defenceless civilians, it is not difficult to conclude that the US is the lesser of the evils.

[Garbarsardar]

It seems I am not the only one who thought of My Lai:

A US military investigation is expected to conclude that a unit of marines killed 24 civilians, among them women and children, in retaliation for the death of a comrade, reports published in America yesterday said.
If confirmed when the official findings are published next week the incident would be the worst war crime committed by US forces in Iraq.
Though on a smaller scale, it will inevitably spark comparisons with the massacre of up to 500 Vietnamese villagers at My Lai in 1968. Citing Congressional, military and Pentagon officials, the reports in US newspapers said investigators had unearthed a catalogue of abuses so serious it is likely an as yet unspecified number of marines will be charged with murder.
John Kline, the Republican Congressmen for Minnesota who is a retired marine colonel, was briefed on the findings. "This was not an accident. This was direct fire by marines at civilians," he told the New York Times. "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."

The US military originally said that 15 civilians had died in the blast from a roadside bomb.

But in January Time magazine published the results of its investigation of the incident which concluded that the marines had instead gone on a rampage in the town after a lance corporal was killed by the bomb.

The article prompted the US military to issue a new report on the incident that stated the Iraqis died in crossfire as troops battled insurgents.

That also now appears to be untrue. Investigators examining the buildings where the killings took place found there was no evidence of a firefight.

Instead they are understood to have concluded that the killings were "methodical in nature" and occurred as the unit conducted a sweep through a town lasting three to five hours.

Among the dead were five men standing near a taxi at a checkpoint and killings inside at least two homes that included women and children, unnamed officials were quoted as saying.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...27/ixnews.html

You'll probably hear this a lot, but running a war based on public opinion is beyond stupid, ditto for ending a war based solely on public opinion. The US doesn't have a choice here. If they pack up and leave not only do they lose credibility in terms of their reasons for the war, but they'll also lose even more important credibility, and that pertains to their will to effectively use the force at their disposal. Inevitably, if the US leaves before it is good and ready, certain nations on this planet who may have aggressive designs of their own are going to take this as a sign of fundamental weakness, and realize that it is a very simple matter to make a conflict 'too expensive' for Americans to want to continue it. Obviously, the result is that other nations are empowered at the expense of the US. This may seem like a great thing for those out there who have an almost fanatical belief in the malevolence of Americans and their Administration, but it might not be such a great thing if certain nations far less squeamish than the US decide to let loose the dogs of war.

If this story is true, it represents a terrible breach in discipline and combat professionalism, and 17 people will be dead at the hands of American soldiers, murdered; however, when we compare this seemingly isolated incident, which has yet to be conclusively proven, with the daily attacks the 'other side' are making on defenceless civilians, it is not difficult to conclude that the US is the lesser of the evils.

I don't disagree with a word from your post (hmmm...that's very suspicious). It is utterly moronic to run a war based on public opinion but it happens to be the case for the US administration nevertheless. I'm sure that this act features very low in the hirarchy of war crimes. At the same time the public eye, is focused upon anything the US army does. Like My Lai this strory will rise to prominence and occlude any achievements, unlike My Lai the US military will try to prevent that with some fair sentencing.
Still, it mainly reflects not only the obvious fact that people are loosing their nerve even when they are trained not to, but mainly that thiswar was fought so badly from a political standpoint that the administration has no way of putting the incident in context.

[Aristophanes]

I think it's safe to say that. The Administration has been quite sloppy in its conduct of the war, and has, over and over again, underestimated the difficulties it would likely face. I think they've also really botched the PR aspects of this: people would be a lot less suspicious of the Admin's motives if the army had been the first to announce the trouble at Abu Graib, and now, this. They're under the terrible misapprehension that these things won't come out in the wash, but they have a habit of doing just that.

It's my belief that the US media have been doing everything in their power to lose this war[as have many Dems], but that, in no way, is a justification for dishonesty or cover-ups on the part of the military. I know there is a strong tendency towards loyalty and "taking care of your own", but sometimes honesty would do the military a greater service.

[Red Harvest]

It's my belief that the US media have been doing everything in their power to lose this war[as have many Dems], but that, in no way, is a justification for dishonesty or cover-ups on the part of the military. I know there is a strong tendency towards loyalty and "taking care of your own", but sometimes honesty would do the military a greater service.

No, the problem is not the media. Their job is to dig around and report, not to cover up for the Administration's failures or mistakes made by our own men.

Blaming the media is a case of shooting the messenger because one doesn't like the message.

[Aristophanes]

No, the problem is not the media. Their job is to dig around and report, not to cover up for the Administration's failures or mistakes made by our own men.

Blaming the media is a case of shooting the messenger because one doesn't like the message.

I don't blame the media for reporting the bad news, I blame them for reporting it to the exclusion of good news. This is a greater problem amongst television newscasters than amongst print journalists. I find the NYT, although it often demonstrates some bias, does occassionally print human interest or success stories from Iraq. The WSJ, as you probably know, generally has more favourable articles about Iraq, and far more stories about developments beyond combat and the latest casualties.

[GeneralLee]

It seems I am not the only one who thought of My Lai:

For a moderater you really are driving things to an extreme, a intentional massacre of 500 compared to the deaths of 17 civilians. Their deaths may have very well been an accident, admitedly one that shouldn't have happend and I dont doubt some LT or sergeant did their best to cover it up and the marines just ignored it. But it's not an intentional butchery and their is little grandiose conspiracy.

[danzig]

For a moderater you really are driving things to an extreme, a intentional massacre of 500 compared to the deaths of 17 civilians. Their deaths may have very well been an accident, admitedly one that shouldn't have happend and I dont doubt some LT or sergeant did their best to cover it up and the marines just ignored it. But it's not an intentional butchery and their is little grandiose conspiracy.

Well from looks of it from military investigation it does appear to have been it was intentional, LA Times ran article that photos from the scene show people were shot in the head and in the back...execution style so it does appear that these soldiers are guilty. I will however agree, comparison to My Lai is weak at best and somewhat insulting. It appears the IED that went off was a line of sight explosive so US soldiers and Iraqi soldiers began searching the area, the killing however seems to been the action of 4 of the soldiers. This is a tough area for the marines, they have lost alot of people to IEDs etc so it is understandable that tension would be high for them but it no way excuses this. It is a shame but obviously people are human and unfortunately do give into baser instinicts such as revenge and frustration. If all the info in the LA Times article is correct I do hope these soldiers get the punishment deserved. On a side note I do have some issues of the rather quick call of this is My Lai again before enough information was out there.

[Garbarsardar]

For a moderater you really are driving things to an extreme, a intentional massacre of 500 compared to the deaths of 17 civilians. Their deaths may have very well been an accident, admitedly one that shouldn't have happend and I dont doubt some LT or sergeant did their best to cover it up and the marines just ignored it. But it's not an intentional butchery and their is little grandiose conspiracy.

What me being moderator has anything to do with it, it's sadly beyond me.

Anyway the similarities are not in numbers. If you take the time and read through the thread, you can see that the similarities I am refering to is the attempted cover up, and the media coverage this will receive in great part due to the cover up.
The US goverment has to finally understand that a little bit of sincerity in the beginning goes a long way. A much longer way than uncoordinated cover up attempts and panicky damage control.

Aristophanes quite correctly points out the disproportionate media coverage on Iraq (and I can add many other similar instances). That said, a preemtive admission from the part of the goverment or the military, would somewhat alleviate the fears that for every thing that comes out there are 20 covered up. The twistedrlation between press and administration goes way back, probably to Vietnam and Nixon, situations that disredited the government in the eyes of all Americans.

I hope my My Lai reference, and also the sources alluding to it are now in a more clear context.

[Red Harvest]

Yep, it's got the earmarks of a modern My Lai (the act itself), misdirected hostility and frustration by poorly led men on the ground. This is exactly the type of occupation we did not want to get embroiled in: a fighting one with little stability anywhere.

Excesses are going to happen, but that doesn't mean they should be accepted or covered up. Instead, investigations should be made, lessons should be learned, and the guilty punished.

[stop-3]

Wern't several hundred killed at My Lai? This incident is of course terrible but many many times worse is the yankee proclivity to drop great big bombs (nice bombs filled with decent high-explosive, not like evil bombs filled with nasty poison gas) on houses occupied by civilians, by blokes in perfect safety who fly back to their luxurious bases and fat pay-checks.
It seems that thousands of Afghan civvies were killed by these nice bombs in the first few weeks of the US onslaught there and we were all cheered up at the time!

[Red Harvest]

Wern't several hundred killed at My Lai? This incident is of course terrible but many many times worse is the yankee proclivity to drop great big bombs (nice bombs filled with decent high-explosive, not like evil bombs filled with nasty poison gas) on houses occupied by civilians, by blokes in perfect safety who fly back to their luxurious bases and fat pay-checks.
It seems that thousands of Afghan civvies were killed by these nice bombs in the first few weeks of the US onslaught there and we were all cheered up at the time!

A specious comparison and erroneous logic. The problem with Haditha is one of intent of those involved. Civilians do die in war, there is no surprise there, nor is that ever likely to change unless the military targets are kept seperate from civilians, and guerrilla warfare ends. The civilian casualties of going into Afghanistan were actually quite light considering that there was some urban warfare involved. I don't recall anyone celebrating civilian casualties.

[stop-3]

They were not light. Thousands of civvies were killed. If in your own country thousands of civvies were killed in a few weeks by bombs dropped by a foreign power I do not think that you would call this 'light', no matter what the justification.
As to the 'urban warfare' you mention - you really think that heroic soldiers were so involved?

[Red Harvest]

They were not light. Thousands of civvies were killed. If in your own country thousands of civvies were killed in a few weeks by bombs dropped by a foreign power I do not think that you would call this 'light', no matter what the justification.

Most credible numbers I've seen are between 1,000 and 1,500, so "thousands" is an exaggeration. Considering the scale, that would be fairly light losses. For your hypothetical it would be impossibly light if U.S. forces were actually hiding amongst civilians during the mythical attack of which you speak. But you aren't discussing this rationally. Instead you are working off pure emotion.

As to the 'urban warfare' you mention - you really think that heroic soldiers were so involved?

It was a mix of special forces and Afghans primarily. I've read of some of the accounts of the firefights with Chechens, etc. pushing them through towns. In many cases the air support lent a hand to the Afghans expelling Taliban and foreign fighters. Considering the number of Taliban and jihadists captured/killed, the civilian losses were rather low. That was fortunate.

[Neb]

The US army has been lowering recruitment standards further as the war goes on. Does anyone know if these are experienced, career military types that deserve a uniform or some of the 'lesser' men who are allowed in to bolster numbers. I would think men allowed in under the newer, lax requirements would more easily buckle under the pressure and do something like this.

-Neb

[danzig]

The US army has been lowering recruitment standards further as the war goes on. Does anyone know if these are experienced, career military types that deserve a uniform or some of the 'lesser' men who are allowed in to bolster numbers. I would think men allowed in under the newer, lax requirements would more easily buckle under the pressure and do something like this.

-Neb

Standards havent been lowered on a dramatic level and even with the lower standards it has been things such as lifting of a ban on recruits with a 'vulgar' tatoo. Since one of the reasons for this incident is that the marines have been in the area for quite some time and have been frustrated by losing people to IED no reason to believe these soldiers were 'fresh' recruits. One of them is a Sergent as well.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Women and children exectued at point blank range. Disgusting.

[Hub'ite]

Women and children exectued at point blank range. Disgusting.

Are you over in Iraq everyday being shot at? Buddy's being blown up everyday? Didn't think so, once you go over there for a year tour then you can come back and say that.