Provocation

Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! « Amariyah | Main | Enter the Contest »

June 02, 2006

Provocation

Greyhawk

Whilst avoiding a larger discussion of what happened in Haditha, let's take a look at some of the media coverage of the story.

Starting with this headline - Investigators: Unprovoked Marines Killed Civilians

You've likely seen it before, perhaps heard other references to this unprovoked attack business. But regardless of what happened, unless there was no bomb, unless Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas wasn't really killed, unless Lance Cpl. James Crossan wasn't really wounded, there was a provocation that the Marines responded to. To the best of my knowledge, no one disputes the IED attack that started this incident, and no one disputes that civilians were killed. It seems indisputable that the attack was indeed provoked - a point that's actually a substantial factor in answering other questions regarding the ensuing events.

But quite clearly, according to this headline, the investigators say unprovoked.

Or do they? Here's the first paragraph of the story:

(AP) WASHINGTON Investigators believe that their criminal investigation into the deaths of about two dozen Iraqi civilians points toward a conclusion that Marines committed unprovoked murders, a senior defense official said Friday.

Read that again if you didn't get it the first time. To clarify, we'll name the actual source up front: a senior defense official said investigators believe that's what their investigation points towards. But that's certainly not the stuff of good headlines, so presto change-o, eliminate the middle man and roll out the 24-point Times New Roman. "Investigators: Unprovoked Marines Killed Civilians"

But nowhere in the story are investigators quoted as saying any such thing. A "senior defense official" is.

Or is he? Skip forward one paragraph:

The official ...said the evidence developed by investigators strongly indicates the killings last November in the insurgent-plagued city of Haditha in the western province of Anbar were unjustified.

That's closer to an actual quote than the first paragraph, and it says the killings were "unjustified" - something significantly different in meaning than "unprovoked". But quotation marks are noticeably absent from the story - meaning that what we really have is a reporter claiming that an unnamed senior defense official claims that people conducting an ongoing investigation currently believe that the attack was unprovoked.

All beneath a headline that reads Investigators: Unprovoked Marines Killed Civilians. As noted, you must ignore an IED, one death, and one serious injury for that to be true. ("Unjustified" may or may not be more accurate - but it certainly doesn't "sex up" the story to the same degree.)

Let's further illustrate this point. You and I are in a crowded room. Suddenly I throw a punch, and hit you quite squarely in the jaw. You go down but arise quickly, though quite shaken, and immediately throw a punch at me. I'm ready though, so I duck, and you light up the young lady standing behind me, sending her to the carpet.

No doubt at this point you are quite remorseful, but there's no one in the room who could reasonably accuse you of having launched an unprovoked attack on the young lady in question. Yes, you punched her. Yes, you were acting in anger. Yes, you lost control. But as the guy who struck first then avoided your retaliation, sane people might think I deserve most of the blame.

Unless, of course, your response was the entire point of my actions in the first place. And if the room is full of my friends who are quite willing to go along, you had best start backing towards the door. Because you hit a girl, you sumbitch. One who had done absolutely nothing to you, so it was unprovoked.

Oh by the way, Jimmy says he heard her turn you down when you asked her for a date five minutes ago.

But let's get back to the real story and watch it grow. Que The New York Times:

President Bush expressed concern today over reports that 24 Iraqi civilians may have been killed by American marines in an unprovoked attack in the city of Haditha last November.

So now President Bush has used the phrase "unprovoked attack"? A careful reading of the New York Times quote reveals nothing; the only use of quotation marks in the story is here:

"I am troubled by the initial news stories," Mr. Bush said. "I am mindful that there is a thorough investigation going on." If laws were broken, the president said, "there will be punishment."

and here:

The president said he had discussed the incident with Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "He's a proud marine," Mr. Bush said.

But it's possible the reporter's original question used the term "unprovoked". But that question isn't included in the NY Times story. Fortunately the White House has a full transcript of the statement, which came in a question and answer session during a visit with President Kagame of Rwanda:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Welcome. The President and I will take two questions a side, starting with the Americans. Nedra.

Q Mr. President, what have you been told about the killings at Haditha? And are you worried about the impact it could have on the situation in Iraq?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I am troubled by the initial news stories. I am mindful that there is a thorough investigation going on. If, in fact, the laws were broken, there will be punishment. I know this: I've talked to General Pete Pace about the subject, who is a proud Marine, and nobody is more concerned about these allegations than the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps is full of men and women who are honorable people who understand rules of war. And if, in fact, these allegations are true, the Marine Corps will work hard to make sure that that culture, that proud culture will be reinforced, and that those who violated the law, if they did, will be punished.

Well now, it would appear the "unprovoked" bit was an after-market construct of the New York Times. (Side note: the unreported aspect of the meeting was the discussion of US support to Rwanda, whose troops are deployed as peacekeepers in Sudan's Darfur region, but hey, who gives a damn?)

That should end the "unprovoked attack" story - but it won't. Because it's a very necessary element in getting these Marines condemned to death before their trial - and enraging certain elements of the population of Iraq to kill some more. So please do look carefully at future news stories that include that mysterious phrase from nowhere - along with all others from similar sources.

And before departing, here's the full paragraph from that "unprovoked" AP story on that "senior defense official" - I cut a bit in the first use above:

The official, who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the yet-to-be-completed investigation, said the evidence developed by investigators strongly indicates the killings last November in the insurgent-plagued city of Haditha in the western province of Anbar were unjustified.

For those who weren't looking closely, here's the part I added back: "...who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the yet-to-be-completed investigation...".

Now pardon me as I slip into military jargon, but even though dipstick may have had that "unprovoked" quote falsely attributed to him by a reporter with an agenda, do you suppose if someone rammed a size-14 combat boot straight up his ass it would be called "unprovoked"?

Posted by Greyhawk at 06:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (287) |

Show Comments Here (287) |

Hide Comments

So who provoked the murders? Was it the old man without legs in the wheelchair? Or was it the infant whose brains fell on the boots of the marine who cleaned up the bodies later on?

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 06:53 PM

That's an easy one, double-dub. It was the folks who planted the bomb. Thanks for asking.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 06:58 PM

By the way, for regular readers here, WW is Willy Snout. (His email address, if you're wondering how I know.)

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 07:01 PM

So, 'hawk, are you saying that marines are robots without self-control who can be expected to go on a rampage? I mean, whoever planted the IAD was indeed a bad guy. No argument from me on that one. But you seem to have sort of skipped over the part between the IAD and the dead civilians.

Not to mention the four-month delay in the Marine Corps "investigation," which has allowed evidence to vanish and lies to be coordinated. No fools, they.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 07:06 PM

Nope - pointed out at the start this story had a narrow focus.

Rest in it's time, if not already covered here or at MilBlogs.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 07:09 PM

Greyhawk --

I agree that the term "unprovoked" is most likely an artifical term brought out to sensationalize headlines and ledes. But in the face of what seems to have happened in Haditha, I'd suggest that this is a very minor issue.

A certain amount of blame undoubtedly falls to the insurgents who planted the roadside bomb that killed Lance Cpl. Terrazas. But another large part of the blame, should the allegations turn out to be warranted, falls on the shoulders of the Marines, whose responsibility it was to respond appropriately to attack.

Posted by brogonzo at June 2, 2006 07:10 PM

If these people are caught and put on trial, think they'll be acquitted after they explain that someone threw a brick through their windshield and killed the driver and wounded one passenger?

http://w3t.org/u/qdt

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 07:14 PM

Greyhawk,

You show more patience with trolls than I could muster.

The point of your detailed examination into the Times reporting on this, is of course that the Times feels compelled to "sex up" their reporting for a desired effect.

Words mean something, context is critical to proper understanding, and objective facts don't need "sexing up." Unless of course your a frustrated partisan, in the media or on the left, and you wnat the American people to finally "get what this evil war is all about."

As opposed to, you remember, just report the damn news. Not create it.

Posted by dadmanly at June 2, 2006 07:30 PM

Brogonzo
It's not semantics - there's a distinction between provoked and unprovoked - and it's directly applicable to whether we are discussing manslaughter or first degree murder, or even a much lesser charge.

That discussion must wait for the completion of the investigation - but make no mistake about it, you're seeing an attempt by the media to establish guilt of a very specific crime.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 07:58 PM

An Arabic speaking former Israeli officer, who comments on Hugh Hewitt's show from time to time, saw an Arabic language interview of the child who survived. She was saying that she had put her fingers in her ears because she knew the IED was going to explode and make a loud noise. How did she know if all those civilians were innocent ? Does the NY Times have translators who can see the Arabic language interviews and draw conclusions ? Or do those conclusions run counter to the story they want to write ?

Posted by Mike K at June 2, 2006 08:01 PM

Sheesh Willy, I was considering another post about how the Indianapolis murders were more heinous than the haditha incident, but here you did it for me.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 08:05 PM

Heh. WW, could you stick to the details of the post in question, rather than expand it beyond?

Greyhawk points out how the media reports the story. He does not attempt to defend the indefensible.

So, go somewhere here at Greyhawk's place or over at Milblogs, or over at my place where someone *does* attempt to defend the indefensible and fight your fight there.

What the 'Hawk (and others like me) is doing is not mounting a defense of American military personnel losing control - we're looking at how the narrative is being built and framed - as well as explaining how the services deal with things like this.

And I haven't seen a post in my readings (no, I haven't read every milblog or right wing blog in the world, so I'm sure you can find 'em) where I see anyone mounting any serious defense of the actions *if the story is as it's being spun in the media* but, rather, looking at that spin and exposing it. And you'll find many declarations where it's baldly put - if there's sufficient evidence, charge 'em. If they can't defend it, throw the book at 'em.

And pointing out that until we hear the defense, we don't have the full story. The instructive case of Lieutenant Pantano comes to mind.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 2, 2006 08:06 PM

Now to see if he finds the Red Herring.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 2, 2006 08:06 PM

Greyhawk,

I definitely understand the difference... but assuming initial reports are true, inasmuch as some of the victims were concerned the Marines' actions were indeed unprovoked.

Respectfully, I'd offer a slightly revised analogy:

We're at a gathering, and you punch me in the jaw, but I don't see who it was that punches me. I recover from the blow, look around, and then announce that I am going to punch everyone around until I find the person who actually hit me.

In that case, I'd say any assaults I launch at surrounding partygoers are, as far as they are concerned, unprovoked, since they had nothing to do with the initial sneak to the head.

Now, I've heard a couple people bring up the point that the nine-year-old girl reported covering her ears because she knew the bomb was going to go off, from which they infer that not ALL of the Haditha villagers could have been innocent.

Perhaps one or two of our fellow partygoers saw you wind up before you hit me and said nothing to warn me, and afterwards, did not point you out to me as I went through the crowd, punching my way to the guilty party. I still wouldn't be convinced that I would be justified in hitting anyone who wasn't directly involved in that first punch -- it's between you and me, right?

I understand the desire to defend the marines from preemptive conviction in the court of public opinion, but I'm not loyal enough to follow anyone off a cliff, and that's what this is beginning to look like.

I hope this hasn't come across as trollish. I'm really not looking for a fight (analogous, physical, or otherwise), just to figure out the right way to approach this awful scenario.

Posted by brogonzo at June 2, 2006 08:20 PM

John, the Milbloggers and their amen chorus have been doubting that a massacre occurred. They have been doing so by raising a swarm of tangential objections of various kinds, and of course demanding "complete evidence."

However, complete evidence will never be forthcoming, because the Marine Corps didn't even start its investigation until four months after the massacre. This has insured that forensic evidence will be unavailble and has given the murderers times to coordinate their lies. The result will be mostly acquittals, and a few wrist-slaps of those who didn't file accurate reports.

http://w3t.org/u/qbg

Once all of that is over 'n done with, the Milblogs will declare that there was no massacre. Already, by declaring it "provoked," Greyhawk, et. al. are quite strongly suggesting that the victims had it coming.

Be that as it may, let's accept for purposes of argument that the marines were "provoked" into slaughtering women, children, infants and old folks. Leave aside the "terrorists" in the cab, and say they were guilty because any Iraqi male is a terrorist who is guilty of something.

Even if it was "provoked," it can still be a massacre. Take, for example, the Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770. You know, the one we learned in those boring history classes? Yes, I realize it happened in the B.R. (Before Reagan) period and therefore is unimportant, but a closer look my be instructive.

Three (yes, only three!) townspeople were killed by British soldiers, and eight more were wounded. Guess what? Those soldier were provoked by a crowd of people shouting insults and throwing snowballs. You know, sort of like that crowd in Kabul that was throwing rocks after that truck accident the other day?

It was "The Boston Massacre" because the British soldiers overreacted.

The order to shoot was given by one Captain Preston. He and six soliders were acquitted. Two soldiers were convicted. They were branded (you know, colonial times and all that) and then set free. This time around, no one's going to get branded but I predict acquittals all around.

I also predict that "The Haditha Massacre" will wind up being as important to the Iraqi public as The Boston Massacre was to the American public. Provocation? Beside the point, really.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 08:25 PM

One other thing. The definition of a "troll" is anyone who disputes the prevailing opinion on a website full of ideologues.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 08:28 PM

Mike K,

You posted a valid point that has been overlooked. If the surving girl new the IED was about to go off, who in the house told her. If someone in the house told her then they can no longer nbe defined as innocent.

Posted by feisty at June 2, 2006 08:35 PM

Bro
Now you're into aspects of the case that are under investigation, and I'm not headed in that direction, via allegory or otherwise.

I've already stated that "It's the height of American arrogance to believe our boys coudn't have done such a thing".

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 08:36 PM

Double-dub:
Already, by declaring it "provoked," Greyhawk, et. al. are quite strongly suggesting that the victims had it coming.

Not even close.

Love the Terrorists as American Revolutionaries analogy - very revealing.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 08:38 PM

WW - some Milblogs will undoubtedly do as you say.

I would suggest that Greyhawk's, Blackfives, Smash's, OP-FOR and mine (to name some of the larger ones) will not.

I for one, have been routinely beating the drum for more senior officer scalps for any number of things.

Flip side - you seem to want us to just jump on the NYT bandwagon and call for immediate executions.

We aren't going to do that. I call for appropriate executions based on the evidence.

And make the point that the press, as is their wont, is trying the case in... the press, where, pretty much be definition, the accused can't defend themselves.

So, we milbloggers show the other side of the story - inasmuch as we can without outright defending the indefensible.

It's actually a tight line to walk.

If these guys did what they are accused of, they need to come live with me for a long time (I live in Leavenworth, Kansas, home of the major military prison facility).

There should be a window to the other side of the story. The NYT aren't going to provide it - so we will. As carefully as we can, and in this case, with one hand behind our backs - because we can't - and shouldn't, defend the indefensible.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 2, 2006 08:42 PM

Love the Terrorists as American Revolutionaries analogy - very revealing.

-----------------

Just a little bit of military history, Greyhawk. You know, if the Bush people had read some military history they wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq. As analogies go, the U.S. debacle in Iraq is pretty damn close to a carbon copy of the British experience in Iraq in the 1920s.

But history is for pansies and traitors, right? I guess they never heard of Santayana, either. Oh well, a trillion her, a trillion there. Not to mention all those lives. More where they came from, I guess.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 08:44 PM

John, I'm not calling for immediate executions of anyone. Haven't done that here or anywhere else. Investigations -- real ones, as opposed to the one now underway -- are about finding the truth. Trials are about accountability.

I have no idea who pulled the triggers. I don't know who ordered the coverup, or who executed the coverup. We may well find out the latter, but I predict the most that will happen to them is maybe a few careers ended and a wrist-slap or two.

The killers themselves will be acquitted, and it will happen because too much time elapsed between the massacre and what is being called an investigation. Evidence has been lost, lies have been synchronized. That one's over before it ever started. I give lots of credit to the Washington Post for having the balls to say so.

But no one should kid themselves. It's all over in Iraq. The U.S. effort, such as it was, absolutely depended on the local population. The military and the Milblogs can (and will) spout and spout 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't matter. It's over.

The only question now is the timing and manner of the American withdrawal to come, and the subsequent consequences. Oh, and if you or anyone else here thinks I feel good about that, think again. This loss is going to make Vietnam look like a day at the beach.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 08:51 PM

"The only question now is the timing and manner of the American withdrawal to come, and the subsequent consequences. Oh, and if you or anyone else here thinks I feel good about that, think again. This loss is going to make Vietnam look like a day at the beach."

Then why cheer for it so?

Posted by jacitelli at June 2, 2006 08:57 PM

WW - what do you base your assertion "real ones, as opposed to the one now underway" on?

As for the senior civilian leadership ignoring history - I won't even *try* to offer a defense on that.

You are correct.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 2, 2006 09:04 PM

I cheer nothing. Just look at the news now. Massacre reports are popping up like spring flowers. How long do you think the U.S. is going to be able to stay in Iraq?

This is a tragedy, an outrage and a debacle all the way around. I don't blame the boots on the ground. Oh, I guess I blame the shooters at Haditha, but I think the real issue is that they've had the worst leadership in American history. How else do you explain losing in a defeated, ruined country that has no army and no visible outside supplier?

You think $3.50 gas is a problem? Oh boy. Just wait. That's going to be the least of our worries. Unlike a fair number of you people here, I'm old enough to remember the aftermath of Watergate and Vietnam. It was real bad, but this is going to be worse.

And you know what? I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But I think it's going to get a whole lot worse. We haven't even begun to see the aftereffects of this one.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 09:05 PM

John, the first thing the Marine Corps did after Haditha is lie about it. Then, when Time magazine approached them, they tried to wave them away with the line that it was all propaganda. They didn't even start an investigation until March. By then it was too late. They'll never get the evidence they need to secure convictions.

The military's credibility is shot. Gone. Dead and buried. It wasn't Cindy Sheehan who did that. I've been highly critical of the upper civilian leadership, but I never expected the level and extent of the rot within the military itself.

This is very, very bad news. It is devastating. And to have it happen with the United States Marine Corps is almost more than I can bear.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 09:09 PM

I'm sure the media will give our Marines as least as much benefit of the doubt as they give to Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA).

Posted by Jim Howard at June 2, 2006 09:11 PM

I too have been restraining from commenting re: Haditha, but, more importantly, some of the far left blogs I visit are also being comparatively restrained. The feminists blogs are being far more reasonable re: Haditha than they were for instance with the Duke Lax case. But, it is still early.

Posted by CoREv at June 2, 2006 09:11 PM

And for people to be going after John Murtha is bizarre, macabre and utterly beneath contempt. The man has done nothing other than tell the absolute truth at every point. That's exactly what Americans in general, and marines in particular, are supposed to do.

Since when did this country stomp on decorated war veterans who tell the truth? The Milblogosphere should be burning with shame for what they've done to him, not to mention over what has been done in our name.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 09:13 PM

"I cheer nothing. Just look at the news now. Massacre reports are popping up like spring flowers. How long do you think the U.S. is going to be able to stay in Iraq?"

Really? I stay up on most newsworthy events. I haven't seen this. Perhaps you are overstating the events in Iraq.

"This is a tragedy, an outrage and a debacle all the way around. I don't blame the boots on the ground. Oh, I guess I blame the shooters at Haditha, but I think the real issue is that they've had the worst leadership in American history. How else do you explain losing in a defeated, ruined country that has no army and no visible outside supplier?"

A whole lot of assertions here. It seems to me you've already tried and convicted the "boots on the ground". Also, unless you are privy to information that most of are unaware of, how could you say the terrorists in Iraq are not supplied from outside sources? Once again, heavy on accusations with no substance.

Posted by jacitelli at June 2, 2006 09:14 PM

William Jefferson, the corrupt politician from New Orleans? Talk about your dodges! Of course he should go to jail. But what in hell does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 09:15 PM

William Jefferson, the corrupt politician from New Orleans? Talk about your dodges! Of course he should go to jail. But what in hell does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Talk about missing the point!

Let me try to explain, the press has made excuses for Jefferson fromt he start...Do you really think they give the Marine Corps the same treatment?

Posted by jacitelli at June 2, 2006 09:17 PM

jacitelli, I'm sure that there are some outside supplies. So let me be more precise. Where's the Ho Chi Minh Trail? Imagine if the insurgents had a real outside supplier. I mean a big one, like China or Russia. That's what I'm talking about, and it doesn't exist.

And look at Iraq. The U.S. bombed the living hell out of that country. They are nowhere near recovering. The population is largely shellshocked and scared. There's nothing like the Vietcong or the NVA there. But the U.S. military is getting its ass handed to it every day. The situation there is worse than it was a year ago.

Put politics aside for a nanosecond if you can. Don't you find it a little troubling?

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 09:19 PM

WW
Everything your saying is based on an assumption that everything you've read in the media coverage of this story is true.

You insist that the Marines won't be punished appropriately for their crimes because too much time has elapsed, but insist you're not calling for their execution. But obviously you've determined their guilt.

Wehen I hear IVAW guys confessing to war crimes I offer to serve as their executioner - and I'm serious. I have a low tolerance for war criminals.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 09:20 PM

Jefferson is irrelevant here. If your answer to this is to point at "the media" and its treatment of every other crime, we'll never talk about the Haditha Massacre. Which I suspect is exactly what your goal is. At least have the integrity to look the beast in the eye.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 09:21 PM

"But the U.S. military is getting its ass handed to it every day."

Gonna have to ask for specific facts on that one.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 09:24 PM

I've assumed the guilt of no individual. I have no idea who pulled the triggers. But yes, it is fact that marines slaughtered two dozen Iraqi civilians. To dispute that is to attempt to cover up what can no longer be covered up.

I don't think any trigger-pullers will be convicted. I think will prove impossible. And then what will happen is that you, Greyhawk, and the rest of the Milblogosphere will continue to deny that a massacre occurred.

By discussing "provocation," which is only tangentially relevant, you've already pointed the way.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 09:25 PM

Oh come on, Greyhawk. Look at the death rate. It's the same as it was a year ago. Now they're sending more troops in. Basra is deteriorating, and Ramadi (? I might have the town wrong) is being described as under the control of the insurgents and the next Fallujah.

Come on, you can't just wish this stuff away. I know you want to, but wishing makes it so only in the movies. Iraq is engulfed in civil war. It's a rising tide, and the U.S. military is sitting in right smack in the middle of it.

Hey, I believe yesterday was the first anniversary of Cheney's statement that the insurgency was in its last throes. There's a funny thing about war: Nasty as it is, it does tend to separate the bull from the bullshit.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 09:29 PM

Anyway ... got errands to do. Back later for more.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 09:30 PM

Greyhawk,

He can't give you any specific facts, only opinions.

I won't accept his basic premise, that American forces are defeated in Iraq. I know too many soldiers and marines who state otherwise.

Posted by jacitelli at June 2, 2006 09:31 PM

"I've assumed the guilt of no individual. I have no idea who pulled the triggers. But yes, it is fact that marines slaughtered two dozen Iraqi civilians. To dispute that is to attempt to cover up what can no longer be covered up."

I don't know who did it, but they are all guilty.

Bam, no trial, just convictions for WW.

Posted by jacitelli at June 2, 2006 09:35 PM

This was a piss poor analysis. Doesn't sound like the killed Iraqis provoked the marines - hence the attack was unprovoked.

If I get ripped off by a faulty gas station pump and then decide to go ram my car into someone, can I claim I was provoked? Of course not. If I ram my car into the gas pump, then maybe I could say that I was provoked by the pump.

I know some people can only think in simple analogies and that is why I included it here.

Posted by Me at June 2, 2006 09:36 PM

To whomever was sticking up for Murtha,

Why is a US Congressman giving leaked information to the media during an on going investigation? It's innocent till porven guilty in this country and the Marines involved in this are entitled to a trial where all evidence is laid out, a time line is drawn and events are well documented and not merely heresay as at this point they are. Murtha should now better.

Posted by feisty at June 2, 2006 09:40 PM

Along with the conclusions being jumped to in the media, we have posters her who are using terms that are not what they seem. For example, one asshole keeps referring to a “massacre in Haditha.” About a “slaughter.” Sounds either like an eye witness to me, but I really, really doubt it. Someone who wants to appear to be the smartest guy in the room.

Hey, hear about the entire Duke lacrosse team raping that dancer?

Posted by moneyrunner at June 2, 2006 09:47 PM

Well, if we use the Boston Massacre as our standard in which 5 people were killed, then, yes...this would be a massacre.

Posted by Me at June 2, 2006 09:52 PM

WW said "The order to shoot [at the so-called "Boston Massacre"] was given by one Captain Preston."

Wrong. Preston didn't order the redcoats to fire. He yelled "DON'T fire."

Unfortunately, in the middle of a screaming crowd, that probably wasn't terribly smart. Because at least one of the regulars heard only the last part. Bang. And then his friends opened up. And Sam Adams had a propaganda field day.

Paul Revere's woodcut of the "Massacre" was the "Fahrenheit 9/11" of 1773. That is to say, it was grossly dishonest, portraying Captain Preston ordering an ordered line of evilly-grinning redcoats to blast a volley into a crowd of nattily-dressed innocent Bostonians.

If Marines truly did shoot up civilians in response to an IED attack, then Eddie Skolnik ought to finally get some company. No, I'm not a veteran, so "who am I to judge" and all that -- but neither did I have the unhappy childhood, or whatever, that a lot of garden-variety murderers can claim, and I don't have a problem wanting them hanged even though I haven't walked the proverbial mile in their shoes. Murder is murder, and soldiers are supposed to be more honorable than most, not less. Most are, and the ones that aren't, face the consequences.

What I object to is that WW, John Murtha, and others with axes to grind are embracing the view of disputed facts that reflects most poorly on their country. Why is that, I wonder? It's kind of the reverse of "my country, right or wrong" -- it's "I will believe the worst of my country, until compelling evidence convinces me otherwise."

The enemy in Iraq bases his strategy on fighting a propaganda war. He knows that there are plenty of people in the United States that think this way. The press is lousy with them. Ergo, he organizes his strategy around producing incidents like Haditha, and counts on WW and Co. to buy and propagate his spin on anything that can be spun as an atrocity -- while producing a genuine civilian massacre of his own literally every couple of days, without consequence.

Posted by Thomas at June 2, 2006 10:04 PM

ww,

The Marines in question assert that drone video will exonerate them.

If so who pulled the triggers?

I note none of the news stories speculate that the terrs. might have murdered their own to create an incident. After all they have killed Iraqis by the bushel basket full. What is a couple dozen more?

==========================

And yes this is totally OT. However, as a Navy man I have to stand up for my Marines. 'Ceptin if we are on opposite sides in a bar fight. LOL.

Semper Fi.

Posted by M. Simon at June 2, 2006 10:44 PM

The admittedly akward phrasing of the headline admits the possibility that what was meant is that the alleged Haditha attacks by Marines were unprovoked BY THE VICTIMS, which is essentially what WW and others have argued, I believe.

Thomas, you have no evidence to suggest that WW tends to believe the worst things about America unless compelled otherwise. That is unsupported hyperbole, and is counterproductive.

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 2, 2006 10:47 PM

M. Simon, I'm aware of no reports of officials or investigators saying there exists any reason to suspect the Haditha victims committed suicide or were shot by other Iraqis. Are you? In the absence of such reports, it would be irresponsible for journalists to idly speculate that it "might" have happened.

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 2, 2006 10:53 PM

Yes. There are such reports that hint at the possibility. I will look up the urls and post them in a few minutes.

The Captain of the company said in meetings with town folks nothing was mentioned. He was sure something would have been said if such an event was done by the Marines.

Posted by M. Simon at June 2, 2006 10:59 PM

Taken in a vacuum, "unprovoked" could be perfectly innocent. The civilians who were shot did not provoke it.

But this is not a vacuum, this is the real world and the main stream media has lost it's presumption of neutrality long ago. The same people who approved the use of "unprovoked" will not use the word "terrorist" to describe someone who denotates bombs in shopping malls filled with civilians.(IRA & Hamas to give a few non-Iraq examples.) They will not report on atrocities committed by the Iraqi gov't before the war because that might have ignited hatred but they will show photos of prisoner abuse that are over a year old even after the first time they showed them there were riots. These are the same people who, by and large, nodded in consent when one of their peers stood up and announced that the US military was purposely trying to kill members of the media without a single shred of evidence.

Yes, the attack on the civilians by the marines was unprovoked. So, too was the attack ON the marines.

I will consider giving the MSM a chance when I hear the network news speak of "unprovoked" IED attacks on our soldiers and "terrorists" bombing civilian filled marketplaces.

Posted by Reagan Fan at June 2, 2006 11:05 PM

M. Simon,

Fair enough, you may yet produce credible reports from people whose responsibility it is to investigate the matter, that Iraqis were involved. In the meantime, I recall you wrote that, "none of the news stories speculate that the terrs. might have murdered their own to create an incident". Evidently, you will forthwith produce evidence that what you wrote before, is not exactly true.

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 2, 2006 11:05 PM

First things first. Thomas, we were both incorrect about the Boston Massacre. Preston gave no order, either to "Fire!" or "Don't fire!" That came from Pvt. Hugh Montgomery, who told his defense lawyer that he yelled "Fire!" after he was clubbed to the ground by an unruly Bostonian. Which, as anyone who has ever driven in Boston can attest, is utterly believable -- the unruly part, that is.

In any case, three Bostonians died instantly. One died the next day, and six more were wounded. The massacre was absolutely provoked, but it nevertheless went down in history as, "The Boston Massacre."

http://w3t.org/u/qdx

Now, as for facts in dispute, what is NOT in dispute is that U.S. marines killed two dozen unarmed civilians, and that among them were women, at least one infant and one legless old man in a wheelchair. It is also not in dispute that the USMC issued a press release the next day that contained several lies; that the Pentagon lied to Time magazine when it told them on first inquiry that the stories of a massacre were enemy propaganda; that the Marine Corps didn't request a criminal investigation for nearly four months.

I want to believe the worst things about America? No. I want to know the truth, uncolored by what anyone "believes." We already know certain facts. Those who deny them, or who are squirting squid ink into the water in a phony quest for tangential answers that will never be known partly because the USMC slow-rolled the investigation to begin with, are trying to cover up the truth.

Why? That's impossible to say for certain. I can merely speculate as to the reasons, and my speculation would center on two reasons. First, there is an element that simply does not want to hear bad news. Moral cowardice is a chronic human failing. Secondly, I think many people in the military and in the Milbogosphere are afraid that there has been a pattern of actions in Iraq, and in particular at the recent battle of Fallujah but also elsewhere, that would made Haditha look like nothing if it were examined without fear or favor.

As for Murtha, I have yet to see anyone at any of the so-called Milblogs successfully impeach a single thing he has said. Murtha has done absolutely nothing but tell the truth. For that he is fiercely hated by those who, in the words of the whackjob colonel in that movie you all love, "can't handle the truth."

I think if you actually read your history, you'll tend to find that countries that habitually lie to themselves, particularly about their purported greatness or virtue, tend to lose their wars and then collapse completely. Face up to the truth, folks. It ain't easy, but it's what real men do.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 11:15 PM

WW,

"However, complete evidence will never be forthcoming, because the Marine Corps didn't even start its investigation until four months after the massacre. This has insured that forensic evidence will be unavailble and has given the murderers times to coordinate their lies. The result will be mostly acquittals, and a few wrist-slaps of those who didn't file accurate reports."

Sorry to tell you but this paragraph shows your bias. The 4 months works both ways. Who's lying and why? It is entirely possible that had there been an immediate investigation with good solid evidence that the "alleged murderers" would have been exonerated and it would have been over with. As it is, there will always be a question as to what really happened. The problem with the accusation of massacre is the same as the accusation of rape or child molestation, the accusation is in and of itself a fait accompli. You don't have to prove it, you just have to accuse it. The enemy knows that there will be people like yourself that wants us to lose that will carry the ball for them. It is the perfect psychological weapon because it cannot be effectively blocked. The war will be won or lost by what public opinion in the US is. That is the only thing that is common between this war and Vietnam. The more Abu Grabs or massacres that the enemy can get into the news the better for them. Who cares if it's true because there will always be the fifth column that will believe it because they WANT to believe it. Especially if it makes Bushitler look bad.

As far as what really happened, I do not know, but then again neither do you. I'll wait for the trial before I make a decision. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Or doesn't that apply when it comes to the military?

Steve in Utah

Posted by Steve at June 2, 2006 11:17 PM

Reagan,

AP may have an explicit policy of avoiding the word "terrorist"; I vaguely recall something about that. I could understand why they would, if they do, because it's a terribly imprecise word that, IMHO, tends to obscure rather than illuminate. In any event, I suspect, though without a Nexis subscription cannot verify, that AP reported many, though not all, pre-war Iraqi attrocities in real-time. To comment on them again without new developments, as many as 20 years later, would not be news. I suspect in the case of Abu Graib, there were new developments (a year later).

As for the IED, I suppose news outlets could say they're "unprovoked", but perhaps that's redundant. After all, an IED is essentially a mine that more or less randomly kills individual soldiers who typically have done nothing specifically to the insurgents who have planted the IED. In that sense, it is unprovoked, but saying so would add no new information that we do not already know.

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 2, 2006 11:18 PM

WW, your comment: "Since when did this country stomp on decorated war veterans who tell the truth?"

And, my answer is: how did Swiftboating become a verb over on the left?

Posted by CoREv at June 2, 2006 11:18 PM

Having said all I have to say and therefore falling silent in this - I pipe up to ask...

Apropos of nothing else in the discussion and not trying to move the thread...

WW - why "so-called milblogs" vice "milblogs"?

We return this thread to it's original, rambling gait.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 2, 2006 11:24 PM

Jumping the Gun in Haditha.

Provenance of the Iraqi Reporter on the Spot

A Marine Speaks

Eyewitnesses

I'm still looking for the story I read. More in a while.

Posted by M. Simon at June 2, 2006 11:25 PM

evidently I posted too many urls.

You will have to wait until greyhawk moderates.

Posted by M. Simon at June 2, 2006 11:27 PM

Steve,

You wrote that you will wait for any trials that occur to be complete, before forming a judgment. Have you considered the possibility that pre-trial investigations are capable of establishing certain facts, which in and of themselves would damage U.S. credibility and undermine the war? For instance, that civilians in Haditha died, that they were unarmed, that some were children and some infirm, that they did not commit suicide, were not killed by debris, and were not killed by other Iraqis. Perhaps even that they were killed by American soldiers? Have you considered the possibility that actual criminal trials may only center on the narrower issues of whether a particular Marine committed a particular set of criminal acts?

I do not claim that these have been establish, but they might be, and if they do it will be useful to discuss them, even before any trials. It will be (or is) a useful opportuntity for American self-evaluation and policy correction, not an orgy of American self-hatred. I'm sorry, but I believe the defense that you will "wait for a trial" is essentially a stalling tactic.

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 2, 2006 11:30 PM

CoREV, I'm not going to take your bait and start off towards grandma's house, the path to which goes over the hills and through the woods. One poster here wants to talk about a corrupt congressman from New Orleans. You want to talk about Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth. If we talk about those things, then we won't talk about the Haditha Massacre. I, for one, don't want to let you or anyone else off the hook that easily.

Steve, your comment is an oh-so-typical example of those who label truthtellers as traitors. As for the delayed (and to my view, in many ways pointless) so-called investigation, the practical realities are these:

1. If you wait four months to start, evidence gets destroyed and stories get coordinated. The Washington Post article whose link I posted above does a very good job of talking about it, quoting both prosecutors and defense attorneys. I don't think any trigger-pullers will be convicted -- or if they are at trial, that the conviction will stand on appeal.

To me, the USMC's delay served to ensure that outcome. Who knows, maybe I'll be wrong about that. Given that the Marine Corps lied about this thing twice already, I'd say the burden of proof is now on them.

2. A delayed investigation that can't actually result in convictions is, in my opinion, a political exercise. It is damage control, aimed at creating an image of the military in search of the truth. Problem is this: No one will believe it. I take that back. The Milbloggers will believe it because you want to. But the Iraqis won't, and the majority of the American public won't.

3. Even if an investigation had started within a day or two as it should have, there would always be anomalies, i.e., unexplainables. Anomalies are part of virtually every criminal investigation ever conducted.

I think the Milblogosphere would have seized on any anomalies to deny the truth. Now that we have a Potemkin investigation conducted as a political exercise, I think sure as day follows night, the Milblogosphere will seize on the many gaps that are sure to be unfillable to deny that a massacre ever happened. Or that it's Hillary Clinton's fault. Who knows?

I'm tellin' ya, countries that can't take the bad news lose their wars. Read history. You'll see what I mean.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 11:34 PM

My speculation is that the terrs. did it.

The Marines say drone video will exonerate them.

Posted by M. Simon at June 2, 2006 11:35 PM

John, I say "so-called Milblogs" because I think the Milblogosphere mainly consists of far-right-wing cranks who use military issues as a means to push their far-right-wing agenda.

The best evidence I can offer is the nearly complete silence from the so-called Milblogs about the horrendous problems in health services for returning veterans. Wouldn't you think that, if these were really "Milblogs," the many problems would get more attention? Nary a peep about it at Mudville, Blackfive or any of the rest. It's all right-wing politics, all the time.

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 11:37 PM

M. Simon, why should anyone heed your speculation that Iraqi "terrorists" killed unarmed Iraqi civilians at Haditha.

WW, you comment w.r.t. the deafening silence among "milbloggers" about insufficient health services for returning veterans, is one of the most astute I've read recently. Kudos.

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 2, 2006 11:41 PM

WW makes a good point. Nations which can't take bad news lose their wars.

Oddly enough, that simple statement is correct from both sides.

1. If, as WW avers, the military can't take/allow bad news, and the leadership all the way to the top suppresses it - we will lose the war. A defensible postion.

2. In the other corner, stand the milbloggers - sans "so-called" - who say the same thing. Except from the perspective that a nation which cannot take the bad news from the front, and yes, the occasional war-crime (suitably dealt with) will lose its wars. A defensible position.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 2, 2006 11:43 PM

Dave,

As I said I don't know what happened. I don't think there is anyone here that does not want justice to be served. If these guys are guilty they should be punished. But summarily stringing these guys up without hearing their side is vigilantly and does not serve justice. If my desire that justice be properly served is stalling then I'm guilty as charged.

Steve in Utah

Posted by Steve at June 2, 2006 11:47 PM

John,

Your second point is a good insight, which I would enlarge as follows. A nation which cannot take the bad news from the front, insofar as its citizens no longer believe the war's objectives are worth its costs in blood, treasure, and moral superiority, will lose such wars, if by losing we mean ending them. Perhaps such a nation will conclude such wars are not worth fighting, and have never been.

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 2, 2006 11:49 PM

Jenin Massacre? The Massacre that wasn't?

That's what this smells like, right down to the original reporter on the story who filed a report from the Taliban HQ in Afghansitan after 9/11 about that war-mongerer GWB and how "talking out our differences" with the Taliban "who shared our same values, and were not so different after all" was better than military action (he had a "Thanksgiving Dinner" with them).

More than likely the Marines had enough and ignored the Rules of Engagement and SHOT BACK at the Al Qaeda people there (Haditha was Zarqawi's hangout and Al Qaeda stages executions as a public spectacle there daily) ... regardless if civilians were there or not.

My Grandpa was a Marine on Okinawa (flamethrower). His task was to rappel down cliff-side and flamethrower each cave. Some caves had soldiers wating to ambush Marines; others civilians. He didn't like it. It was war.

When Al Qaeda hides behind civilians as a matter of policy, it's inevitable that Marines will fight back and shoot back even if Civilians are human shields.

THAT's what this is all about. Nothing more.

Posted by Jim Rockford at June 2, 2006 11:52 PM

Steve,

I know of no one who is seriously arguing for punishing the Marines who are alleged to have committed war crimes, without due process.

If you argue for individual and fair justice for the Marines who are--or will be--accused, that is admirable. If you use that argument to stall a wider discussion of immoral acts potentially being conducted in our names, that is not admirable.

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 2, 2006 11:53 PM

Jim,

Your theories about what "actually" happened at Haditha are quite colorful. Do you have any evidence to support them?

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 2, 2006 11:54 PM

Hey WW,
Marines started investigation in January. You won't hear that on MSM. I wish NCIS would hurry up so information will be accurate from the report and Greyhawk can report it the right way.

Posted by Tex at June 2, 2006 11:56 PM

WW, Dave - speaking only for me (I'm in the tier of milbloggers just below your cited sites)...

I've seen discussions on the paucity and inadequacy of PTSD care.

We've followed the travails of wounded soldiers in the system.

Then, rather than write about it, beat our breasts, and wrap ourselves in smug self-satisfaction for having 'spoken truth to power'... we act. Enough so that it was noticed by the BBC. Chuck Ziegenfuss is a "so-called" milblogger, btw.

We can't fix it all, so we picked something we could fix.

Project Valour-IT

Blackfive, Greyhawk, Smash, Lex, and many others (see Project Valour-IT blogroll at my site) have raised, via our blogs, hundreds of thousands (yes, hundreds of thousands) of dollars for that and other projects which directly benefit the soldiers.

There is a milblog cottage industry on the subject. Soldiers Angels.

We just don't brag about it that much.

And then, just today, I went whacking at Congress (admittedly from the Right, though I'm a RINO, not a card carrying Republican) for their cynical use of the VA laptop theft to propose 1.25 billion, yes, billion, dollars to make the VA provide a service the credit agencies already provide for free. I'll take that 1.25 billion. And put it in the health accounts - like I said - here.

Just sayin'. We might not be talking about it on the blogs because we're *acting* on it.

I'm a retired soldier and a %70 disabled one at that, gents. You betcha we pay attention.

What have you guys done besides bitch in the comments of right-wing bloggers?

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 2, 2006 11:57 PM

Milbloggers take up issues they are concerned with - I've written at length about wounded troops and their recovery.

"the horrendous problems in health services for returning veterans"

As with the "handed their ass" comment I'll have to request additional details. As with the previous comment, I doubt you can deliver.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 2, 2006 11:58 PM

Really, Tex? Perhaps your news is more up-to-date than mine, but I read this morning that the initial investigation (probably the January one) concluded that the Iraqis had been killed by the IED, and that only when a military official was shown in March by a Times reporter a video which undercut that analysis, only then did a more thorough investigation commence.

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 3, 2006 12:00 AM

John, you're right. And let me answer you. I supported the Iraq War for slightly more than a year. And even since then, believe it or not I continue to donate to charities that help the returning vets and I send care packages through Any Soldier -- along with resolutely non-political greetings, on the theory that the last thing someone over there needs to get is a package full of stuff along with a letter that says, "Oh by the way, I'm against your mission."

Anyway, what caused me to turn against the war was the one-two punch of the U.S. policy of torturing enemy combatants and the revelation that the stated reasons for going in -- WMD and Saddam's links to al-Qaeda -- were lies made up out of whole cloth.

I probably would have handled either one of those by themselves. I wouldn't have been happy about it, but I wouldn't have bailed. But the two together? Nope. And when that stuff came out, I figured we'd lose. You might lie your way into a war and win, but when a country like the U.S. lies it's way in AND openly repudiates its core values, it's over before the first shot's been fired. That's what I figured a couple years ago. The real tragedy, in my book, is how many lives have been lost for absolutely nothing.

The Haditha Massacre itself is bad stuff, but frankly it's the kind of thing that really does happen in wartime. I don't think, at least for the moment, that the U.S. has been following a policy of massacring people in villages. But the actions at Fallujah, and the lack of discpline as indicated by the massacre and subsequent coverup, are deeply worrisome.

I look at this and see not only the initial lie, and not only the torture, but a frustrated, fatigued, overwhelmed, poorly-led and badly-deployed military that is on the verge of spiraling out of control. That's what it looks like from where I sit, and it's scary.

Posted by WW at June 3, 2006 12:00 AM

"countries that can't take the bad news lose their wars. Read history. You'll see what I mean."

Case in point: Blackhawk Down - a definite must-read, and much of what brought us to where we are today.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 3, 2006 12:04 AM

Well, Greyhawk, didn't you read about the marine who saw the infant's brains splatter on his boots? Suffering big-time from PSTD and getting short-shrift from the VA. Plenty of stories out there about returning vets with serious injuries, both physical and mental, not getting the care they need. Your president (sorry, I don't consider him mine) has responded to all this by cutting veterans funding.

What do the Milblogs say about it? Nothin' at all. If you spent one-tenth as much time checking into this stuff as you do tracking down the latest crapola about Cindy Sheehan, I might actually develop some respect for what you're doing.

As it stands now, I see Mudville, Blackfive and the vast majority of the Milblogosphere as shills for the Bush administration in particular and the far-right-wing of the Republican Party in general.

Posted by WW at June 3, 2006 12:04 AM

Case in point, "Blackhawk Down." The so-called Milbloggers just can't get enough of that one! 19 people killed. Yup, bad news, no doubt about it. I don't see the Milbloggers peeping at all about the Mother of All Blackhawk Downs, which was the stationing of 250+ marines at the bottom of a hill in Beirut, and the subsequent retreat when they were blown to smithereens.

Oops, wrong president. Like I say, with you it's all right-wing politics, all the time. I'm just waiting for the day I click over to Mudville Gazette and read that the disaster in Iraq is all Hillary's fault.

Posted by WW at June 3, 2006 12:07 AM

WW, Dave - my comment on milbloggers and health is in hock waiting Greyhawk's approval because it has urls in it.

Dave -

"Your second point is a good insight, which I would enlarge as follows. A nation which cannot take the bad news from the front, insofar as its citizens no longer believe the war's objectives are worth its costs in blood, treasure, and moral superiority, will lose such wars, if by losing we mean ending them. Perhaps such a nation will conclude such wars are not worth fighting, and have never been."

You state that as a given - obviously, from this side, we find the point arguable.

My personal position on Iraq was that I was not fond of the idea of invading. In that I am at least consistent, because I wasn't fond of Kosovo or Bosnia that much, either - for many of the same reasons. And I got to play in those.

That said - I believe we should follow-through on what we start - and yes, I can hear the intake of breath as you prepare to say "But we aren't winning, we're going to lose, and so leave now and never, ever, ever, do this again. Unless the UN says ok." (alright, the last part was probably an unfair snark)

And I agree with WW that we screwed the pooch from the beginning. And it was the senior leadership around the Presdident (driven by the SecDef) that failed. I've read Cobra II and pretty much concur with much of what is said in there. I wrote so (although not on the blog, but rather in internal papers for the gov't) when asked for opinions on the subject. I do read history. I even have the sobriquet of "military historian" in my Officer's Record Brief and on efficiency reports.

And I help the Army try to figure out this whole transformation thing.

So, I have an informed opinion, too - that differs from yours on where the tipping point is.

That said, what matters is what the people end up thinking - and that agenda is, I believe, largely set by the MSM.

Hence us milbloggers. Lilliputs trying to put out a different story line.

And one a lot less driven by puppetmasters in the Pentagon than you might think.

I've seen the official 'blog training' that the Army published for internal training of combat leaders.

Blackfive, Greyhawk, and my blog are all specifically addressed.

And not always fondly. Though they saved their real ire for Neil Prakash, but that's a different story.

But, according to my server logs and the internal army news digests... they do read us. Just as they read the left blogs. Do we have an impact? I dunno. Which is why I said, in the post in stasis for approval - we act.

We don't just beat our chests in digits and then go to bed knowing we done good. But I'll have to ask you to wait for that post to show up.

Of course, if 'Hawk is too much a slug, I'll just make it a post at my place.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 3, 2006 12:09 AM

Steve, you say you "don't know what happened" because you don't want to know. There are abundant facts in evidence establishing that marines committed a massacre at Haditha. To hide behind "I don't know" is to signal your unwillingness to hear the truth. We don't need to know the names of the trigger-pullers to know that marines massacred a bunch of civilians in that town. It's beyond dispute that this happened.

Posted by WW at June 3, 2006 12:10 AM

Catpain Kimber Speaks

Kimber said he heard nothing about a civilian massacre during city council meetings and talks with local leaders.

"It would have been huge, there would have been no question it would have filtered down to us,” he said. “We reported no significant atmospheric change as a result of that day.”

Posted by M. Simon at June 3, 2006 12:12 AM

ww,

Thanks for the set up.

LOL.

Posted by M. Simon at June 3, 2006 12:16 AM

"Just a little bit of military history, Greyhawk. You know, if the Bush people had read some military history they wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq."

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 08:44 PM

As a matter of fact, the evil, incompetent Rumsfeld studied the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962) pretty thoroughly before launching OIF. His main concern was that we not duplicate the REAL mess that the French made fighting their own protracted Muslim insurgency.

Some statistics: The French had 500,000 troops in Algeria, which at that time had a population of 9 million. If you scale the troop-to-citizen ratio up to match Iraq's population, that would be equal to 1.5 million troops. We currently have about 138,000 in Iraq.

The French lost 18,000 troops killed over an eight-year period, or 2250 a year. Again, if you scale it up to Iraq ratios, it would be 6750 a year. We're losing about 700 a year, and that
figure is falling.

Between 350,000 and 1.5 million Algerians were killed. To scale those figures up to Iraq, multiply them by three. So far in Iraq, about 35,000 have died, including terrorists, former regime members, and civilians killed by the Iraqis themselves.

The French used a policy of collective punishment in Algeria: Villages that harbored insurgents were bombed from the air, assaulted, or hit with artillery strikes. The French also tortured suspects to death, rounded people up by the thousands and shot them without trial, and put about 2 million in concentration camps. And they still lost the war.

With less than 10% of the troops (proportionally) that France had in Algeria, and with a policy not of conquest but of partnership, look what we've accomplished. More importantly, look at the slaughter we've avoided.

I only hope all our future wars go as "badly" as this one.

http://tinyurl.com/q79w4

P.S. The Soviets killed a million Afghans and lost 14,000 of their own, a KIA rate twice what we're suffering. Another REAL mess.

Posted by Tom W. at June 3, 2006 12:17 AM

Beirut - another excellent example.

You'll be waiting a long time for the Hillary stuff though - best of my knowledge she - like Joe Lieberman - is despised by the loony left for her support of the war.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 3, 2006 12:17 AM

John,

I'm sorry if I implied so, but I do not take it as a given that Americans will throw in the towel on Iraq because incidents like Haditha (or as it's alleged to be) destroy their morale. Rather, that they *might* throw in the towel because they *might* conclude the war to be morally repugnant, and if they do they *might* be right, and if they are right, then "losing" such a war is not necessarily a bad thing.

Sometimes, a person, or a nation, may make a mistake (nevermind whether it was an honest mistake, or if it was deliberate calculation...that's another argument). IF this war is a mistake (I say, "IF"), then it is not fortitude, but folly, to continue at it.

Regards,
Dave

P.S. I appreciate the civility of your post.

Posted by Dave at June 3, 2006 12:18 AM

Just a dumb question. Since the insurgents in Iraq are not military... they must then all be civilians. So then if all being killed are civilians the only question is to differentiate between innocent civilians and enemy civilians.

When one is attacked by an IED and the "civilians" in the area 'all' knew it was about happen are they not 'all' "enemy civilians" then?

Posted by Dasher at June 3, 2006 12:22 AM

By the way, WW
Your decision to go with the "all they'll get is a slap on the hand" schtick might make it difficult for you to switch over to the "only punishing the low ranking troops" rant when the actual trials start.

Actually I mean it will be difficult to take you seriously when you inevitably do.

Posted by Greyhawk at June 3, 2006 12:23 AM

Tom W., if Rumsfeld had studied history before virtually destroying the U.S. military and this country's standing in the world, he'd have come across the fact that when news of the French torture of enemy combatants reached the home front, the public rebelled against the whole thing. I guess Rummy figured, "Okay, we won't torture them to DEATH or anything."

Well, funny thing about that is the once you start down that road there's no return. In fact, there is abundant evidence in the military's own archives (released to the ACLU through FoIA requests) that "torture to death" is exactly what's been done.

Naturally, no one gives such orders from on high. Bureaucrats are rarely that stupid. I'm not sure that the Nazis even specifically gave printed orders to torture anyone, let alone to death. It's always euphemisms, with all kinds of deniability built in.

Oh, and if Rummy had studied his history, he'd have seen what happened to the Brits in Iraq in the 1920s. At the very least, he'd have had the good sense to tell his commanders not to virtually repeat the speeches the Brits made on their way in.

And so on.

Trust me, Greyhawk, if Clinton gets nominated by the Democrats in '08 you and your fellow far-right-wing Republicans posing as Milbloggers will be hanging the Iraq defeat around her neck. Sure as day follows night, it's gonna happen. What's more, I also predict that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.

Posted by WW at June 3, 2006 12:25 AM

Dave - I detest shouting matches and personal attacks. I don't allow 'em at my place. Keeps the readership down, but it keeps the moonbats of both sides away, too.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 3, 2006 12:26 AM

Jeeze,

We are on to health now. OK. The very largest health problem in Iraq (it dwarfs physical wounds) is PTSD.

The US Army is involved with Israel in studying the problem and coming up with soltions.

A test for PTSD

PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System

BTW I'm somewhat of an amateur strategist and think Iraq is/was a great move. In strategy like real estate the three most important things are location, location, and location. We have Iran surrounded.

Posted by M. Simon at June 3, 2006 12:29 AM

Heh. WW - another example for you of a so-called milblogger taking on the torture thing, roundabout, which of course none of us do, aside from publishing the talking points that Don sends us. I've lost readers over my tepid support for torture.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 3, 2006 12:29 AM

Heh. *That* one posts. Hey, 'Hawk - what's the magic number for "too many urls"?

Oh, wait - that's prolly classified because it's a spam thang.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 3, 2006 12:30 AM

'hawk, in days gone by, there'd be some officers doing time for something like this. As for trials, the delay in the investigation convinced me that those will go nowhere. Not that there'll be no trials. They'll go through the motions. They might even get a conviction or two, but nothing's going to stick.

But if I'm wrong, then there's the question of officers and their involvement. I have no idea about that. Haven't read anything yet. I'd like to know about the air strikes and how that happened. I'd also like to know whether there's a pattern of the U.S. committing massacres and then calling in air strikes to try to obliterate the evidence.

Now, that's a question that a real investigation could still look into. But I think it's likelier that I will sprout wings and fly to Venus than the U.S. military will seriously look at that question, because if they do that then they're also going to have to take a close look at Fallujah.

Ain't a-gonna happen. When it all comes out in the wash, it's going to be acquittals and wrist-slaps in public, back-slaps in private. And they'll inevitably tell themselves that it's over 'n done with. The Milblogs will bless it and throw holy water on top, and the downward spiral will continue.

Posted by WW at June 3, 2006 12:32 AM

WW- check out this post (yeah, another one of mine, this time on Milblogs) regarding "officers swinging from the yardarm". It's the update at the bottom of the post.

Then you can say you've read something about that.

Posted by John of Argghhh! at June 3, 2006 12:35 AM

The Army is working on the PTSD problem.

I posted TWO urls on the subject.

I await greyhawks's moderation.

Posted by M. Simon at June 3, 2006 12:41 AM

I note that speculation on who did it has died down since I posted the Kimber quote.

Interesting.

Posted by M. Simon at June 3, 2006 12:43 AM

Well, John, it's all speculation as to what will happen in whatever trials take place. I went down that road because of the Washington Post story. Why I am so eager to believe bad things, some might ask?

Well gee. They lied their way into Iraq. They made torture standard operating procedure of the U.S. military, and of course lied about it. They've been dangerously incompetent in actually executing the war -- at the leadership level. And they've done nothing but lie about it at every stage.

Call it inductive reasoning. If it happened before, it'll happen again.

http://w3t.org/u/qdy

Let me tell you this: If there's anything that REALLY gets to me here, it's the sheer incompetence. This is the United States of America. We have 300 million people, which means roughly 4 million adult geniuses. Well where the hell are they?

Posted by WW at June 3, 2006 12:47 AM

I spoke too soon.

ww,

You are back to speculating that the Marines did it.

What if there was no report because the Marines didn't do it?

Posted by M. Simon at June 3, 2006 12:47 AM

Dasher,

I don't think you will convince very many people that because they do not wear uniforms, Iraqi non-civilians cannot be distinguished from civilians, if that is your aim.

M. Simon, why do you find it interesting that the few recent posts have not debated the identify of the bad actors in Haditha? What is it that you find significant about this, and what is it that you have concluded?

Regards,
Dave

Posted by Dave at June 3, 2006 12:52 AM

I have seen many posts in this comments section which have stated that "what is not in dispute is that US Marines killed 24 innocent Iraqi civilians".

I have been following this story from the beginning, but have not read up on any updates this afternoon. Have I missed a big story somewhere that revealed that we now know for a fact the Marines shot and killed these civilians or are we not still waiting on more evidence and a trial?

Last I heard we had the word of some very sketchy sources (an "Iraqi journalism student" and some pro-insurgency doctor who spent time in an American jail for his ties to the insurgency).

In other words, we have no coraborated evidence that the civilians were shot dead by the Marines.

Also, are there pictures of the dead bodies? Last I read, the families of the dead would not allow the bodies to be exumed for an examination. So are we simply going on the word of a journalism student and an enemy doctor?

And I read a story of a child who was a survivor of the Haditha killings who said she knew about the IED before it was going to go off. Why did she know? Why was she allowed to survive the "massacre"?

Posted by Michael in MI at June 3, 2006 12:5

More Books Here

June 02, 2006

Provocation