Marine squad leader discusses Haditha killings
Newspapers today have what I believe is the first account of someone directly involved in the Haditha killings, a Marine sergeant squad leader.
The Washington Post's article (linked above), by Josh White - but with contributed reporting by USMC expert Thomas E. Ricks - has more insight than most. Check it out.
While 24 dead is obviously an unusually high number for civilians killed by small-arms fire, the accounts of the situation do make at least some of the deaths explainable. Picture it: You take fire from a building, you go in to clear the building, and civilians are mixed in with those who are/were shooting at you.
It is because of these kinds of situations that Marines are taught at recruit training about February 1968, when Marines suffered 75 percent casualties in urban combat in Hue City in South Vietnam. Urban combat is the worst kind, and to be avoided, Marine recruits are told. Of course, since we've been in Iraq, almost every month has been like February 1968.
Perhaps urban combat - also called Military Operations in Built-up Areas (MOBA) and Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) - needs to be re-evaluated... yet again. Seriously, what does one do?
The Marines did have the option of just driving away - leaving behind some people who had tried to kill them, chalking the potential firefight up as too dangerous. They also could have gone through the house more slowly, and been more hesitant to fire, which would have almost certainly resulted in more Marines dead. There must be some sort of middle ground, and that middle ground is the policy Marines usually follow: avoiding civilian deaths at almost all possible cost. Almost, not all.
Of course, I wasn't there, and perhaps they weren't hesitant at all, and there was some blind rage involved. I do refuse to believe that Marines went into the house with the mindset, "We're going to kill everyone in this building." But 24 is a hell of a high number for "collateral damage." And that's why John Murtha and others have immediately assumed Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
Again, 24 seems just about impossible to justify, but hopefully more folks will wait until an actual trial before making such judgments. The right has been just as bad. Sean Hannity, for example, has bent over backwards to justfiy the killings and come up with explanations for how they must have been the right thing to do.
I look forward to hearing more accounts of the situation.
The Washington Post's article (linked above), by Josh White - but with contributed reporting by USMC expert Thomas E. Ricks - has more insight than most. Check it out.
While 24 dead is obviously an unusually high number for civilians killed by small-arms fire, the accounts of the situation do make at least some of the deaths explainable. Picture it: You take fire from a building, you go in to clear the building, and civilians are mixed in with those who are/were shooting at you.
It is because of these kinds of situations that Marines are taught at recruit training about February 1968, when Marines suffered 75 percent casualties in urban combat in Hue City in South Vietnam. Urban combat is the worst kind, and to be avoided, Marine recruits are told. Of course, since we've been in Iraq, almost every month has been like February 1968.
Perhaps urban combat - also called Military Operations in Built-up Areas (MOBA) and Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) - needs to be re-evaluated... yet again. Seriously, what does one do?
The Marines did have the option of just driving away - leaving behind some people who had tried to kill them, chalking the potential firefight up as too dangerous. They also could have gone through the house more slowly, and been more hesitant to fire, which would have almost certainly resulted in more Marines dead. There must be some sort of middle ground, and that middle ground is the policy Marines usually follow: avoiding civilian deaths at almost all possible cost. Almost, not all.
Of course, I wasn't there, and perhaps they weren't hesitant at all, and there was some blind rage involved. I do refuse to believe that Marines went into the house with the mindset, "We're going to kill everyone in this building." But 24 is a hell of a high number for "collateral damage." And that's why John Murtha and others have immediately assumed Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
Again, 24 seems just about impossible to justify, but hopefully more folks will wait until an actual trial before making such judgments. The right has been just as bad. Sean Hannity, for example, has bent over backwards to justfiy the killings and come up with explanations for how they must have been the right thing to do.
I look forward to hearing more accounts of the situation.
posted by bp at
10:43 AM
1 Comments:
Actually, more & more the MSM are starting to distance themselves from their earlier reports, especially in light of actual evidence. And the fact that much of the original reports & footage (esp photographs) now seem a little suspect.
I'm always amazed at the times when the media chooses to be skeptical, vs. when it chooses to not be.
By
Miguel Centellas, at 2:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home