BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Marines Gun down Civilians in Iraq

 
 
Liger Null
20:46 / 25.05.06
As if any of us didn't already suspect this sort of thing was going on...

"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."
 
 
rizla mission
12:56 / 26.05.06
I heard this trailed on the TV news the other day - assumed it would be Big Fucking News, but have heard nothing about it subsequently...

I would ask "why?", but y'know, at this stage what would be the point..
 
 
sleazenation
14:32 / 26.05.06
I thnought this was old news - wasn't this the incident Senator Murtha was talking about a few weeks agao? -Of course this doesn't lessen the awful wrongness of it all...
 
 
Slate
08:53 / 27.05.06
It is starting to pass through the filter and get down the wire now. I really hope this blows out to be big news everywhere...
 
 
Slim
00:00 / 28.05.06
Why would you want this to be big news everywhere? It's a travesty and also an exception to how the Marines operate. It shouldn't be covered up but it will likely create more anti-U.S. sentiment in Iraq, something that will only hinder the anti-insurgency campaign.

I was shocked when I heard what the Marines had done. This really is unusual case. The Corps prides itself on their ability to act as a diplomatic as well as a military force. I honestly believe that everyone involved, even those who aren't charged with a crime, will catch hell from their commanders.
 
 
charrellz
07:46 / 28.05.06
IMO, catching hell from one's commander is not an appropriate punishment for gunning down a dozen innocent civilians.
 
 
sleazenation
09:01 / 28.05.06
Well, there is an argument for saying that full disclosure is a vital necessity in the battle for hearts and minds, but that battle has now been largely lost, due to numerous acts of bad faith on the side of the coalition.

As for the Marines behavior, I kind of agree with senator Murtha, it was aberrant, but entirely predictable under the circumstances. As for commanding officers, I wish I had faith that various elements higher up the chain of command haddn't attempted to cover this up. It also strikes me as consistant with the damaging influence of the idealogically driven civillian leadership at the pentagon that has fostered a climate where torture can thrive...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:42 / 28.05.06
It shouldn't be covered up but it will likely create more anti-U.S. sentiment in Iraq, something that will only hinder the anti-insurgency campaign.

You know what might also create more anti-US sentiment in Iraq? Shooting civilians. That tends to piss people off. It's also likely to hinder the anti-insurgency campaign, if that's what we're calling it this week, since it will give Iraqis a pretty clear signal that not providing shelter to insurgents makes not being shot by Americans no less likely. So, tempting though it may be to try to sweep the whole embarrassing mess under the carpet with a comfortable knowledge that this is totally unlike the Corps, they must not have had their coffee that day, and that they will certainly get a bit of a tongue-lashing from their commanding officers, might it not make more sense to be open about this and show that actions are being taken both to pursue the guilty and to make it clear that this is not acceptable behaviour, for the good of the anti-insurgency campaign? I seem to recall Thomas Payne saying something about summer soldiers that might be relevant here.
 
 
SMS
19:04 / 28.05.06
Is that what having this story blow out to be big news everywhere means? That the offending Marines would be held accountable? Because I picture these as two very different things. In the first, this story becomes the lens through which the war is viewed for a time; in the second, the Marines are disciplined/punished.

Slim suggested that it should not be covered up, which to me sounds synonymous with being open about it. Being open about it is not, as Haus seems to say, the preferable alternative to what Slim suggested; it is exactly what Slim suggested, although there may be some disagreement about the nature and degree of the appropriate punishment.

But I would like to know what Suitcase Rider's reasons are for wanting this to become a big news story everywhere. My initial sense is that xe wants the world to be as unhappy with America and its power as possible, but maybe I'm mistaken.
 
 
Slim
21:30 / 28.05.06
IMO, catching hell from one's commander is not an appropriate punishment for gunning down a dozen innocent civilians.

If Marines knowingly gunned down innocent civilians then they'll be brought up in court. I was referring to those who didn't actually commit the crime but allowed such a thing to happen, unintentionally or not.

Well, there is an argument for saying that full disclosure is a vital necessity in the battle for hearts and minds, but that battle has now been largely lost, due to numerous acts of bad faith on the side of the coalition.

I agree that U.S. forces are in a bad way down there.

As for the Marines behavior, I kind of agree with senator Murtha, it was aberrant, but entirely predictable under the circumstances. As for commanding officers, I wish I had faith that various elements higher up the chain of command haddn't attempted to cover this up. It also strikes me as consistant with the damaging influence of the idealogically driven civillian leadership at the pentagon that has fostered a climate where torture can thrive...

I'm sure that the civilian leadership has at least partially tainted the Marine Corps, just like it interfered with how the CIA operated in the lead up to the invasion. However, the Corps has been fighting against insurgent groups for quite some time now and has learned its lessons, at least to some degree. If you read the Small Wars Manual published by the USMC, you'll find that it emphasizes maintaining positive relations with the surrounding populace. If this is lost then the campaign becomes far, far more dangerous. The point is that the effect of the civilian leadership will be limited because if the Corps adopted the same mindset, U.S. casualties would skyrocket.

I don't know if it was covered up. I hope not. Since the Corps is highly dependent on public relations, you could take the viewpoint that this kind of action won't be repeated for fear of the damage it will cause, or that greater effort will be put into hiding such incidents.

So, tempting though it may be to try to sweep the whole embarrassing mess under the carpet with a comfortable knowledge that this is totally unlike the Corps, they must not have had their coffee that day, and that they will certainly get a bit of a tongue-lashing from their commanding officers, might it not make more sense to be open about this and show that actions are being taken both to pursue the guilty and to make it clear that this is not acceptable behaviour, for the good of the anti-insurgency campaign?

Again, I don't want this swept under the carpet. The guilty should be brought to justice. What I don't want is for this to be seen as standard U.S. procedure and used as a rallying point for anti-U.S. forces. The punishments should me made public and serve as a warning to soldiers who cross the line.

Suitcase Rider's statement was "I really hope this blows out to be big news everywhere..." To me, this indicates SR wanted the crimes stated widely in an effort to discredit the U.S. actions in Iraq. My suspicions are largely similar to those of SMS. I too hope that SR clarifies his or her feelings on the subject.
 
 
Slate
23:29 / 28.05.06
yeah SMS you got me, to some extent you are right smack bang on the money. The term 'America and its power' is subjective so I will try to be succinct but at the same time widen the scope a little.

Yes I am unhappy about US foreign policy matters, unhappy about the situation in Iraq, unhappy about the Republican GOP and it's agenda, unhappy about US hegemony on other cultures, unhappy about the 'media lens' and embedded journalists who are nothing more than mouthpieces for the military to ignore the facts and say what they are told. It is why I used the term 'filter' because that is what the 'media lens' does; it filters out the necessary details needed.

Needed for what you ask?

Objective and rational reporting of the facts. Not to 'justify' one countries actions for what it does, not to include assumptions regarding insurgents or innocent civilians or otherwise. It is to give the observer the right to decide what is right or wrong without having so many implications and assumptions written into the text. Read the link, the video tape was shot by an Iraqi journalism student, it would not of seen the light of day if it had of been up to the Marines/Military, or an embedded journalist for that matter. One of the charges brought forward from this blatant cover-up is filing a false report, and in my opinion the entire coverage is one big false report, all the way back to 'shock and awe' and beyond that. Cue President Bush video looking under table and joking with the press saying "whoops, no WMD's there!" Looking into the details as to why this thing happened and the exact events will be like trying to map the boundary of a sand dune.

Slim, I agree totally that it was and still is a travesty, but your insinuation that this was a merely one off event that is very unusual really doesn't hold any water for me at all. Remember the Marine who shot an unarmed guy in the head in a Mosque that was broadcast on BBC about a year ago? I see these actions in the story quoted on this thread as having many correlations to the entire way this ‘war on terror’ has been fought from the beginning. Retaliations and reactions that will escalate until when? You speak of anti-US sentiment, well I have had anti-US sentiment since I was about 10 years old, so for over 20 years now, and it is not getting any nicer, my apologies though, I am a bit ignorant here, I have never been to the US. So SMS, you are not mistaken here. I do love many things about the big old USA so it is a bit of a love/hate relationship that I constantly grapple with.

So my exact reasons for wanting this to be exposed, for wanting everyone everywhere to see the horrific aftermath video and read the story? It is to further my own view in the minds of rational human beings that this 'war' or whatever it is called, it totally UNJUSTIFIED. The initial reasons for war in the first place are on very tenuous ground and I will do whatever I can to make as many people ask WHY. You cannot force American style Democracy onto these people, they don’t want it, and they may not even need it. The media gives a little spin to most political stories in the process. There is no spin the GOP media can put on this story, which is also why I want this to be big news. How this whole mess is portrayed to the people trying to get on with their lives is giving me the shits. The language used is mostly sugar coated to take your mind off the colour red and the stench of rotting corpses. The use of ‘buzz words’ is really grating to my intelligence, these ‘buzz words’ tend to cover a lot of ground and assume far too much when it comes to an Individual or group of people. This story adds to the ever widening river of blood that flows from this pursuit of 'Democracy and Freedom'.

So there you have it folks. I might add that I might be a bit over sensitive at the moment. I am working in a compound for the next 3 weeks in a 'sensitive' area and I cannot walk outside as my safety can't be guarenteed so I feel a bit trapped. I guess it shows.
 
 
Liger Null
23:41 / 28.05.06
I'm not so sure I buy into this "The soldiers are under a lot of pressure, it could happen to anybody" spiel that's been going around the media. I mean, according to witness reports, they went into people's houses and shot everyone, including children and the elderly. It wasn't like they just flipped out and started to fire into random buildings from the outside, this took a conscious effort. They saw the faces of their victims and fired anyway.

If this situation indeed went down the way that people on the scene said it did, it was murder, plain and simple. And something tells me it wasn't the first time, and it probably won't be the last.

But that could be just my pessimism talking. Hopefully.
 
 
Slim
00:56 / 29.05.06
Slim, I agree totally that it was and still is a travesty, but your insinuation that this was a merely one off event that is very unusual really doesn't hold any water for me at all. Remember the Marine who shot an unarmed guy in the head in a Mosque that was broadcast on BBC about a year ago? I see these actions in the story quoted on this thread as having many correlations to the entire way this ‘war on terror’ has been fought from the beginning.

Walking into a house and shooting children is a lot different from shooting an enemy combatant who may or may not be reaching for a weapon. In my mind, these events are totally separate. I'm not sure if this is derailing the thread but I have to repeat that this is an unusual case for the Marine Corps. It does not operate in the same way that the Army, Navy, and Air Force do. For reasons I'm not going to go into, the Corps is, and has to be, the most judicious in the use of force (if you really want more information, let me know and I'll send you a PM). This situation is far, far more damaging to the Marines that it would be to the other services. Of course, all this is assuming that the Marines in question are guilty of purposefully killing innocent civilians, something which has yet to be proven.

I suppose we differ in our views on what is good for Iraq. I see two options. One is that Coalition efforts are successful and Iraq has a stable government. The other is that Coalition efforts fail and Iraq descends into a chaos that makes what is happening now seem like the halcyon years.
 
 
sleazenation
08:59 / 29.05.06
I suppose we differ in our views on what is good for Iraq. I see two options. One is that Coalition efforts are successful and Iraq has a stable government. The other is that Coalition efforts fail and Iraq descends into a chaos that makes what is happening now seem like the halcyon years.

This is kind of what I was trying to get at in my Mistakes in Iraq thread. It is a question about whether the leadership of the two main powers of the coalition have become so discredited that their association with the project to build a stable democratic government is increasingly becoming tainted by them.

I guess you could also argue the American and British armed services have also become tainted.

Is the project to nation build a stable and democratic Iraq something that British and American forces can achieve under their current leadership?
 
 
Slate
19:45 / 30.05.06
Walking into a house and shooting children is a lot different from shooting an enemy combatant who may or may not be reaching for a weapon.

Mitigating circumstances? It's a bit late for the victim isn't it?

Here is some more news regarding the Haditha massacre.

For reasons I'm not going to go into, the Corps is, and has to be, the most judicious in the use of force

I think I know why, the Corps is known as the 'Pointy end of the spear' Yes? No? The Army, Navy and Air Force all act on prior intelligence and have to have clear authorisation to launch an attack. When Bush admits to making mistakes on prior intelligence that started it in the first place, then what is justified in he grand scheme of things and what isn't? I can't seperate the different divisions of the Military here sorry. For me it is one whole unit from one whole 'coalition of the killing'...
 
 
ibis the being
21:27 / 30.05.06
Many Iraqis believe unjustified killings by US troops are common, though few have been confirmed by investigations.

I think this, quoted from the ABC News link in SR's post, is the reason why this story should be widely covered. It's comforting to assume that this incident in Haditha was an aberration, but we don't really know that unless there is some inquiry into the matter, and often it seems there isn't much inquiry into the matter until a story's made public and the men in charge feel that heat.

It's not as though we haven't seen anything like this before. The war in Iraq resembles the Vietnam War more and more... a place we had no business going, to fight a war we had no business fighting, in which no one seems to have a decent plan on how to fight it, and at this point there is just a nebulous idea about why we're even there.
 
 
Slate
00:04 / 02.06.06
Sadly, it just gets worse.

These links I feel speak for themselves.
 
 
sleazenation
09:56 / 02.06.06
But all US coalition troops are to undergo extra ethic training.

This news gives me mixed feelings... Is it a mere PR reaction to recent news of massacres, and/or admission that standards have slipped, either in the more... sypathetic... circumstance of facing an ongoing vicious insurgency or in the less sympathetic circumstances of sly nods and winks from various elements within the chain of command or the civillian leadership at the pentagon, or an honest attempt to redouble efforts to ensure that the conduct of coalition troops in Iraq is of the highest level possible, or something else...
 
 
sleazenation
15:04 / 03.06.06
Well, this story of the wrong-doing of US troops seems to have ratcheted up a couple of notches...

A US military investigation has cleared 11 US soldiers of misconduct over Iraqi civilian deaths in the town of Ishaqi

But the Iraqi government has rejected these findings.
 
 
Triplets
09:31 / 05.06.06
Is it a mere PR reaction to recent news of massacres

You know, I've never needed to be taught not to shoot children and the elderly in the face. Call me a ethical savant but it just comes naturally.
 
 
sleazenation
11:22 / 05.06.06
I think you'd be surprized to how desensensitized to violence troops can get when they are regularly seeing their comrades being blown to pieces by an unseen enemy and various officers from within and outside the chain of command keep insinuating that dead Iraqis are preferable to dead soldiers...

I can see how this could happen quite easily, even without the the alleged widespread abuse of drugs and alcohol by marines
 
 
Slate
16:30 / 05.06.06
Hey Sleazenation, not really.

I think it is a combination of Milgrams "Perils of Obedience" and raw retribution.

It's this sort of behaviour that brings everything into focus on why politicians really need to be brought into account for their 'armchair orders'. All the way to the top. When personal responsibilty for actions are so far removed, all the way to the sealed doors of the White House, anything is possible by so many people.
 
 
sleazenation
22:16 / 05.06.06
I want to be clear on this though, I don't think there are necessarily anything as hard and fast and substantial as orders, or indeed anything that there would be a record of, but more, as I say, insinuations, nods and winks that certain things would not be looked on unfavourably...
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
12:50 / 07.06.06
sleazenation - I can see how this could happen quite easily, even without the the alleged widespread abuse of drugs and alcohol by marines.

And the use of "combat" drugs such as amphetamine/speed.
Wired awake July 29, 2004 The Guardian

On April 17 2002, an incident just outside Kandahar in Afghanistan thrust one of the military's least favourite subjects into the media spotlight. Two US F-16 pilots, Major Harry Schmidt and Major William Umbach mistakenly bombed a Canadian infantry unit, killing four and injuring eight. But while the "friendly fire" incident was terrible in itself, worse was to come for the military. In the ensuing legal case, it was claimed that the pilots had been pressured into taking amphetamines - speed - to sharpen their senses.
 
 
Slate
02:56 / 22.12.06
JFYI: a bit of closure on the Haditha Killings. I am pleased to see some action from the U.S. Military, even if they are making contradictory statements like:

At a news conference to announce the charges, military officials would not say what they believe prompted the killings on Nov. 19, 2005. But investigators have raised the possibility that the men went on a rampage in a fury over the roadside bombing that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas of El Paso, Texas, and wounded two other Marines.

and the next line goes on to offer a "counterpoint"

Defense attorneys have disputed that, saying their clients were doing as they had been taught: responding to a perceived threat with legitimate force.

This wording "perceived threat with legitimate force" is too subjective, especially when executed under higher orders. It reminds me of what happened when the unstoppable force met the immovable object.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
02:21 / 24.12.06
I don't see how the quotes you have posted are examples of the U.S. military making contradictory statements.
 
 
Peach Pie
11:04 / 27.12.06

well... presumably s/he means they have not been trained to go off in a rampage of fury as standard practice.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:48 / 29.12.06
Investigators raised the possibility that they rampaged. The defense attorneys claim otherwise. What is strange about this?
 
  
Add Your Reply