"Massacre"

The NY Times has coverage of the awful story about the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians by US Marines.

I don't have time to be sure I am expressing myself correctly, but I don't want to duck this, either, so let me blurt this out - this sort of incident is a deplorable but predictable consequence of putting people in a violent and confusing situation.  Obviously, almost all of our troops conduct themselves with a high degree of professionalism and appropriate restraint, but this sort of incident can not be a complete surprise.  Folks who supported this war (as I did) need to shoulder some responsibility for the consequences.

Well.  An excerpt:

A military investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis last November is expected to find that a small number of marines in western Iraq carried out extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians, Congressional, military and Pentagon officials said Thursday.

Two lawyers involved in discussions about individual marines' defenses said they thought the investigation could result in charges of murder, a capital offense. That possibility and the emerging details of the killings have raised fears that the incident could be the gravest case involving misconduct by American ground forces in Iraq.

...

Evidence indicates that the civilians were killed during a sustained sweep by a small group of marines that lasted three to five hours and included shootings of five men standing near a taxi at a checkpoint, and killings inside at least two homes that included women and children, officials said.

That evidence, described by Congressional, Pentagon and military officials briefed on the inquiry, suggested to one Congressional official that the killings were "methodical in nature."

Congressional and military officials say the Naval Criminal Investigative Service inquiry is focusing on the actions of a Marine Corps staff sergeant serving as squad leader at the time, but that Marine officials have told members of Congress that up to a dozen other marines in the unit are also under investigation. Officials briefed on the inquiry said that most of the bullets that killed the civilians were now thought to have been "fired by a couple of rifles," as one of them put it.

...Women and children were among those killed, as well as five men who had been traveling in a taxi near the bomb, which killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas of El Paso.

Comments

[keatssycamore]

That's some Jean Rohe courage there, you know "shouldering some responsibility" and all "when you are in the heart of the **blogosphere** surrounded by thousands of like minded **conservatives**".

Bob Kerrey would be proud and not just of your noble dissent from American death squads, of course, but also (and simultaneously) of the Marines involvede and civilian massacre in general.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Well, taxis, civilians, and even women and children are used in suicide attacks against both American military and Iraqi civilians. So, Tom is right, this is a regretable but almost certain side-effect of the cure for eliminating Uday's rape rooms and Qusay's human paper shredding.

[Appalled Moderate]

keats:

And where does your personal moral authority come from? Does the safety from which you author your blast come, in part, from those who visted atrocities on others?

We're frequently are in the priveleged places we are because somebody many years ago did a very bad thing to someone else, or many someone elses. To function in life, or to have an opinion, even, we have to in some way accept it, get past it and not waste energy brating others about it.

Personally, I believe this sort of thing is one of the reasons a President who engages in a War of Choice needs to consider his actions very very carefully. War does things to people who might otherwise have led productive, godly lives, and moral, spirtual as well as physical cost.

I do not think Iraq was a well-considered action. I hope I am wrong, because I am not, this massacre belongs on the President's conscience as well as those who committed the actions.

[Richard Aubrey]

Well. A deliberate killing of civilians the left notices.

And condemns.

[capitano]

this sort of incident is a deplorable but predictable consequence of putting people in a violent and confusing situation.

Precisely. It's nasty business.

That's what makes Murtha's earlier comments so abominable -- I voted for the war, but I didn't know it would take so long or that _____ (fill in) number would be killed and wounded.

If you're not willing to make the commitment, vote against the resolution and accept the political fallout.

It's inexcusable that a veteran would take such a position. War deaths are a natural consequence of war. Once committed to war, weak kneed politicians who voted for the war need to be called out when they lose their nerve, or worse, see a chance for partisan advantage through US defeat.

This BS of politicians jumping on the war bandwagon when it's popular and then claiming "nobody explained it would be so hard" is total hogwash.

[Rick Ballard]

AM,

You might want to work on your causation chain a bit. Unless you would care to defend your apparent proposition that the President's actions occurred ex nihilo and are the primary cause for every sparrow that falls.

Frankly, gutless moderates sitting on the sidelines with their invisible scales of justice pre-loaded are (IMO) as least as large a 'cause' in the creation of a belief among Muslim fanatics that the West can be intimidated without fear of reprisal as any other.

[Appalled Moderate]

capitano:

Sounds great. But all those votes were taken in the belief Iraq had substantial WMD capacities and the belief the war was adequately staffed.

The ones who bear the most responsibility are those who chose to staff the war at light levels. A lightly staffed war puts a lot more pressure on the soldiers, who them may be more inclined to break down, and also provides them inadequate supervision. See, also, Abu Gharib.

[capitano]

AP-

Oh please!

I was actually paying attention during the runup; I don't need any revisionist assistance.

But thanks anyway.

[Appalled Moderate]

Capitano:

As has been repeated constantly, everyone believed saddam had WMDs. You saying that didn't tip some Democrat votes?

I also prefer to think politicians (including Murtha) did not vote for the war knowing that staffing levels were not adequate.

What you need to consider is that there are reasons that the formerly pro-war could chnage their minds that have something to do with conviction.

[Good Lt]

"A lightly staffed war puts a lot more pressure on the soldiers, who them may be more inclined to break down, and also provides them inadequate supervision. See, also, Abu Gharib."

I call BS. This incident is unfortunate and against UCMJ no doubt.

Otherwise, how many other incidents, and significant numbers of military personnel can you cite as "war criminals" other than this isolated case and the frat-boyish antics at Abu Gharib (for which ten soldiers have already been charged and sentenced)?

"But all those votes were taken in the belief Iraq had substantial WMD capacities and the belief the war was adequately staffed."

Those votes were not strictly and exclusively based on WMDs, Appalled Mod. Read this post at All Things Beautiful to read about the connections between Bin Laden, Saddam and their collusions and overtures reported in 1999. After you read this and hear the ABC newsclip, come back and tell us how WMDs were the only reason for going into Iraq after 9-11. Those who want to keep believeing that it was the "main reason" are flat wrong at worst and were severely misinformed (perhaps from selective listening to the evidence presented for over 13 months at the UN) at best.

I'm not excusing this military blunder, but keep it in context before making generalizations about the military, the war, etc. Nothin' personal.

http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/05/manipulated_int.html

[Good Lt]

This post

Sorry bout the bad link...

[boris]

I do not think Iraq was a well-considered action

The same could be said about the retaking of flight 93. The "nobility" of sitting there in seat 23C cursing the rash actions of others escapes me and always will.

There is the possibility that this action is related to gang members serving in the military.

[JamesH]

I support the war and don't feel any personal responsibility for the massacre. When going to war it's inevitable that innocent people will get killed. Not every bomb hits its target and even those that do might kill innocent bystanders etc. It's part of the moral calculus required to justify a war and part of the reason nations don't go lightly down this path. In the case of Iraq it seems inarguable that violent premature deaths among innocent Iraqis have fallen from the Saddam era averages. In other words this incident doesn't reflect much on the war as a whole. We have a UCMJ so that we can properly judge incidents like this after the fact. The courts martial were able to handle the Abu Ghraib situation, let them look into this.

[Sue]

AM,

Conviction or poll numbers? Poll numbers is my vote.

[Sue]

Bad things happend during war. If they didn't we wouldn't need military tribunals, court martials and the discipline that is the norm rather than this. It really pisses me off when our entire military is judged by the actions of a few. Yet we are told not to judge Islam because of the actions of a few. If these marines did what they are accused of, the military will punish them.

[Sue]

I also wonder why newspapers report with breathlessness each and every bad act that is committed by our military but totally ignore people like LTC Erik Kurilla? Oh wait, no I don't wonder. I know why they do it. Blood leads as long as it is not American blood.

[Geek, Esq.]

Remember when a bunch of chickenhawk bloggers were calling John Murtha a 'traitor' for telling the truth about this incident?

How many of the cowards do you think will offer an apology?

[Sue]

Telling the truth? Have they been convicted?

[verner]

War is Hell. Investigate, put them on trial, and if guilty, lock them up for the rest of their lives.

That said, the marines involved are guilty, not every supporter of the war. There is no excuse for their behavior. They knew damned well that killing unarmed civilians was against the law.

If you consider the scale of this operation, and the hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform involved, the number of "war crimes" committed is remarkably low. I would even go so far as to say unprecidented in military history. That to me is the real story.

[PeterUK]

AM,
"A lightly staffed war puts a lot more pressure on the soldiers,"

You make it sound like a Walmart sale,your choice of words indicates a certain ignorance of the subject.

GeekEsq,Remember the rulse,you can't call Chickenhawk unless you have served.

[Geek, Esq.]

PeterUK: When rightwingers stop calling war heroes 'traitors' and 'cowards' then I'll think about obeying your rule.

[Geek, Esq.]

Telling the truth? Have they been convicted?

Murtha was, quite accurately, describing what the contents of the report would be. So yes, he absolutely was telling the truth.

[cathyf]

As far as troop levels, the higher the troop levels the more scum you get among the troops, just by the law of averages. And if the demand for troops gets strong enough that the military starts letting in more losers than they otherwise would have, then the increase in the scum level will be significantly greater than what you expect just from the increase in raw numbers. Like boris, I'm also wondering about whether this has anything to do with gang members in the military.

And also some significant responsibility for civilian casualties lies squarely with the terrorists who use war crimes as their primary tactics. Whose responsibility is it that taxis and un-uniformed men standing around are sometimes armnaments and combatants? The GC rules about hiding among civilians are all about protecting civilians; the war criminals who violate those rules are the ones primarily responsible for the civilian casualties that result when the war criminal terrorists bring the field of battle into the midst of civilians.

cathy :-)

[verner]

Murtha was grandstanding, and using an alledged horrible crime, that was committed by a handful of marines to condemn the whole war--and whether he likes it or not, all the men and women who are serving in it.

That is disgusting to me. He should not have done it. For one, it makes life even harder for the men and women serving in iraq--troops he says he supports --when Al Jazerra broadcasts Murtha's over the top rhetoric.

And I'd like to remind everyone, the US is not at war "Against" Iraq. We are in Iraq in support of a constitutionally,democratic elected government, against Al Qada and what's left over of Saddam's murderous associates. The Iraqi government wants us there--and both parties agree, that as the Iraqi military gets up to speed, American troops will start coming home.

Until then, let's support our troops, and those who desire freedom in liberty in Iraq.

[SmokeVanThorn]

"Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that 'there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.'"

That's describing, "quite accurately," what the report says, according to Geek.

[Wilson's a liar]

Guess nobody noticed that this story appears to be yet another leak to the NYT from somebody on Capitol Hill. I'm sure the leakers had no ax to grind with the military or the President and gave the Times only factual and accurate information. /sarcasm

Me, I'd rather wait for a real news source with integrity to report on this before reacting.

[PeterUK]

Geek,
"When rightwingers stop calling war heroes 'traitors' and 'cowards' then I'll think about obeying your rule."

No Geek that is what the left do,don't forget Murtha wasn't a hero to your crew when he was one,it is only now when he is against the war.
Hypocrite!

[Sue]

It was Murtha scoring points at the expense of the very branch of service he served in. If he feels good about it, then fine, I'm sure he's a big enough man he can take a little criticism. But last I looked, I had every right to voice my opinion of his gloating attitude to score political points.

[Appalled Moderate]

boris:

Boy, is that analogy ever a false one.

peter:

And you have expereince that you can use to muster an argument that what I say is bunk? Then let's hear it.

cathyf:

Atrocities happen in war. They just do. Nothing changes that. It's one of the reasons a war decision is one not taken lightly, or for political reasons, or with reckless disregard for the costs. As for your point about there being more "scum" in a larger army, perhaps. But also more Sergents watching people and guiding them, and more inspectors and the like seeing that the rules are followed.

[Sue]

And last I heard, you are innocent until proven guilty and Murtha standing up saying they committed cold blood murder is irresponsible.

[PeterUK]

Easy Appalled Leftist,
The use of the word "staffing" is so ignorant as to be risible,and the fact that you used the hoary old Murtha troop levels meme as a root cause,indicates you are think by sound bites rather than rational analysis.

As it stands,would it not be better to get the investigations over first,or is your leftist bias so strong that you have pre-judged the case.
Furthermore it is a disgrace that Murtha should be using this in the media to promote his his talking points,what happened to a fair trial?
There is no disgrace that you are ignorant of these matters,but it is utterly reprehensible you should make a pretense of knowledge simply to make a point.
Not very Christian is it?

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Frankly there's no information available that would allow me to form an opinion on this. It's entirely possible that gunmen used these civilians as decoys and/or human shields. Terrorists in Iraq have used civilians before in such ways. Even in the West Bank and Gaza the Palestinian terrorists have often used civilians, most notably children, to transport weapons, supplies and ammunition to fighters.

Additionally there have been incidents in the past where drivers have deliberately driven cars through checkpoints and been shot for it because they were forced to by terrorists.

And it's also possible that this is a setup by media savvy terrorists. It's entirely possible that these civilians were either armed or interspersed with armed terrorists. The Marines may very well have returned fire after having been fired upon. What little facts are known about this incident is that the Marines left the area after the firefight and an Iraqi police force followed up several hours later. It's entirely possible that some bodies were removed and any weapons there, along with the spent brass, were also cleaned up and removed.

Is this speculation? Sure it is. But until the facts are known, anything is possible.

So I'll withhold judgement until at least a substantial amount of facts about all this is available.

[Appalled Moderate]

peter:

You a military guy? A military expert? Guess not.

Notice I have not defended Murtha, whose "cold blood" language is too unmoderate for me. But I believe the people who were killed were those said to be killed.

[PeterUK]

"But also more Sergents watching people and guiding them, and more inspectors and the like seeing that the rules are followed."

Yes you could have platoons made up of sergeants and a couple of brigades of inspectors with clipboards,Don't forget the Anger Management consultants and that Stress Councilors.

[Geek, Esq.]

Apparently, the report indicates that the killings were 'methodical.' Sounds like cold blood to me.

[Soylent Red]

Sue nails it folks...

No one is guilty of anything. Yet.

If or when guilt is determined, the liberal peanut gallery and troop level apologists can pipe in. And we need to quickly and publically burn the offenders to the ground. But we haven't gotten there yet, so let's just take a deep breath, and quit with the "I told you so" rhetorical onanism.

Now, I will say this much: We're learning a practical lesson in the potential consequences of a lighter, leaner force and rotational deployment, in particular on shooters.

But that is the nature of things these days. We don't have a template for rebuilding a nation from scratch, and left to the judgement of a handful of overworked 19-year-olds, perhaps mistakes will be made.

The fact that relatively few have factually been made says a lot about the current state of training and leadership. Condemning the whole lot for the alleged sins of the few is pretty short sighted, and generally not helpful to the overall learning curve we are trying to overcome.

I could, by that rationale, suggest that the graft and corruption of a few Senators and Congressmen is evidence that all are crooked, and that Congress should be disbanded.

OK...that last was a bad example.

[PeterUK]

"You a military guy? A military expert?"

You aren't either are you Appalling Leftist?

But nor am I a garrulous, opinionated buffoon as you seem to be.

You simply do not know whether the incident was because of troop levels or what the cause was,so why not stop parroting leftist talking points until the enqiry is in?

[boris]

Boy, is that analogy ever a false one.

Time will tell. History will decide if flight 93 was a microcosm of the war on terror. In the meantime those who support taking action are not interested in sanctimony from the sideliners.

[boris]

Sounds like cold blood to me.

Murtha: "there was no firefight, there was no IED"

That would be cold blood. If there was a firefight or IED, not cold blood.

[PeterUK]

Apparently Geek?
Care to give a link to the actual report,not the story in that rag the NYT?

[Davebo]

Great post Tom, really. And I don't think you should have to shoulder any of the blame just because you supported the war.

The blame belongs to those who committed the atrocities. I'd say you deserve credit for treating this issue with the importance you have.

But Boris, with this..

"There is the possibility that this action is related to gang members serving in the military."

You have officially flown the coop.

Perhaps we should consider the possiblity that this action is related to having too much soy bean product in the school lunch program?

It's just as likely.

[maryrose]

Too early to take a position as all facts in the case are not in. Patience and not biased opinion is the order of the day. Plenty of time to pontificate later.

[SmokeVanThorn]

I should have known you wouldn't be able to understand, Geek. Murtha claimed "no IED." What does the report say? "Quite accurately," huh?

[Wickedpinto]

I hope this isn't cold blooded murder, that said.

a "squad leader" and "as many as 12 other marines" yeah, good work on your research. A squad leader, and 12 more Marines is called A Squad.

[JM Hanes]

Appalled:

"And you have expereince that you can use to muster an argument that what I say is bunk? Then let's hear it."

I'm not sure it even really takes military experience, but if you'll clarify precisely what you mean by "lightly staffed" I'll take a shot at it.

[Appalled Moderate]

JM --

Lightly staffed = "boots on the ground argument". Pardon my thesaurus addiction.

[JM Hanes]

AM

Which putatively optimum number are you using boot-wise?

[Appalled Moderate]

Shinseki famously said "several hundred thousand" (a somewhat vague number). I would go for 365,000. This is about equal to the 425,000 we had in the region for Gulf War I, reduced by the 60,000 navy.

I realize that the choice in 2003 was send what we had or not fight until we had the right number to fight a war. If we assume what we believed about Iraq was true, we had a situation similar or slightly worse to what we have with Iran. So that was part of the policy maker calculus.

[boris]

"There is the possibility that this action is related to gang members serving in the military."

So this speculation is way out of bounds but blaming it on troop levels or administration policy is just fine.

Sorta like how exaggerating the risks of global warming and dismissing the skeptics is good and proper but explaining the true consensus on Saddam's danger and leaving the skeptics to make their own case was wrong and dishonest.

Do re mi fa Q

[Barney Frank]

Is there any objective evidence that troop levels influence the volume of war crimes or is this just an intuitive argument? It is just as likely that more crimes would occur with more troops (and therefore more potential criminals), is it not?
We had a half million men in Viet Nam, a rather smaller country than Iraq, and My Lai still occurred.
We seemed pretty well staffed in WWII but numerous cases of civilian shootings occurred.
Even after the war was over we sent hundreds of thousands of Soviet refugees and POWs back to certain death in the gulag.
There's a reason they say war is hell and its not because its 'understaffed'.