Haditha: A Plausible Explanation
After being subjected to weeks of accusations from the Treason Party, led by Representative Murtha and Senator Kerry, one of the subjects of the investigation has released his version of events that provides, I think, a plausible explanation for what happened that day and why there is an ongoing investigation.
On February 10, Time magazine published a story relating to an incident that occurred in Haditha, Iraq on November 19. To make the case for a cover-up, the magazine published several photographs of people who were bound, blindfolded, and obviously executed, claiming that these were the civilians who Marines claimed in their initial report died as a consequence of violent actions performed within the rules of engagement. As it turns out, these photos were of a different incident where the executioners were terrorists. But why trifle with facts when you have a perfectly healthy fire team to crucify?
At any rate, an investigation was launched, John Murtha claimed the allegations were fact (of course, not to waste any political capital from the outrage engendered from his accusation, he blamed it all on President Bush), and other members of Congress jumped on the bandwagon to convict these Marines in the court of public opinion while the investigation was still underway. Several Marine officers in the region were relieved of duty, and Marine Commandant General Hagee made a trip to Iraq to address the issue directly.
For the record, I respect and admire General Hagee's decision to travel to Iraq and get a firsthand account of the situation. It is difficult to really get one's mind around something by reading reports and looking at charts. As a leader needing to get the straight scoop, General Hagee made the exact right decision. General Hagee will not comment on the incident except to say that is still under investigation. Kudos to him.
The tin-foil-hat Murtha and Kerry supporters point to the initial report that claimed the civilian deaths were a result of the IED and that the firing of the Marine officers scream "cover up," and that in conjunction with the fifteen "civilian" deaths, it irrefutably proves that Marines are barbarous murderers with no regard for human life (in contrast to Murtha and Kerry, of course, who favor the legality of sucking the brains out of partially born, near-to-term infants). However, it doesn't occur to them that the dismissals may have been the result of the report, not the result of violating the rules of engagement.
In fact, it seems entirely plausible that the story released by Neal Puckett, the defense lawyer who represents one of the Marines being investigated for "cold-blooded murder," is the same as the one the Marines claim they've been telling all along. That would mean, somewhere along the line, either the events were misreported to the command, or the command misreported what they were told. Keep in mind that three of the officers in this command were fired, and as of yet, the reasons are not known.
I would like to suggest that perhaps the Marines acted properly. Sometime after the detonation of the IED, the Marines say they were taking fire. One of the Marines said the rounds were coming from a particular building, which, in accordance with accepted tactics, the Marines approached, "cleared" it with a grenade, and sprayed some fire into it after the grenade exploded. When they entered, they found several dead "civilians" who may or may not have been willingly providing cover for the enemy.
Noticing that the back door was open, the Marines surmised that the terrorists probably ducked into the next building, which the Marines cleared in the same manner, to the same results.
I don't know how the initial report of the incident was filed. There seemed to be a lot of input from people not close to the incident, but who were interpreting what they heard on the radio. If that's the case, the officers relieved of duty may have been guilty of implementing faulty processes for collecting data for their reports. It is also possible that they willingly filed a false report, believing that civilian deaths would reflect poorly on them or their Marines or that those deaths, if it were to come to light that they were the result of Marine fire, might endanger their Marines.
I don't know the answer, but these explanations are more plausible than the idea that any random four Marines in a group haphazardly go about killing civilians because they think it's funny or will help their cause. Marines are smarter than most people give them credit for. Sure... We have a few bad apples here and there. But the worst of them are a hell of a lot more honorable than turncoats like Murtha and Kerry. At least the worst among us still endeavor for an American victory. Murtha and Kerry could give a damn about America or her servicepeople, so long as their party recaptures power.
On February 10, Time magazine published a story relating to an incident that occurred in Haditha, Iraq on November 19. To make the case for a cover-up, the magazine published several photographs of people who were bound, blindfolded, and obviously executed, claiming that these were the civilians who Marines claimed in their initial report died as a consequence of violent actions performed within the rules of engagement. As it turns out, these photos were of a different incident where the executioners were terrorists. But why trifle with facts when you have a perfectly healthy fire team to crucify?
At any rate, an investigation was launched, John Murtha claimed the allegations were fact (of course, not to waste any political capital from the outrage engendered from his accusation, he blamed it all on President Bush), and other members of Congress jumped on the bandwagon to convict these Marines in the court of public opinion while the investigation was still underway. Several Marine officers in the region were relieved of duty, and Marine Commandant General Hagee made a trip to Iraq to address the issue directly.
For the record, I respect and admire General Hagee's decision to travel to Iraq and get a firsthand account of the situation. It is difficult to really get one's mind around something by reading reports and looking at charts. As a leader needing to get the straight scoop, General Hagee made the exact right decision. General Hagee will not comment on the incident except to say that is still under investigation. Kudos to him.
The tin-foil-hat Murtha and Kerry supporters point to the initial report that claimed the civilian deaths were a result of the IED and that the firing of the Marine officers scream "cover up," and that in conjunction with the fifteen "civilian" deaths, it irrefutably proves that Marines are barbarous murderers with no regard for human life (in contrast to Murtha and Kerry, of course, who favor the legality of sucking the brains out of partially born, near-to-term infants). However, it doesn't occur to them that the dismissals may have been the result of the report, not the result of violating the rules of engagement.
In fact, it seems entirely plausible that the story released by Neal Puckett, the defense lawyer who represents one of the Marines being investigated for "cold-blooded murder," is the same as the one the Marines claim they've been telling all along. That would mean, somewhere along the line, either the events were misreported to the command, or the command misreported what they were told. Keep in mind that three of the officers in this command were fired, and as of yet, the reasons are not known.
I would like to suggest that perhaps the Marines acted properly. Sometime after the detonation of the IED, the Marines say they were taking fire. One of the Marines said the rounds were coming from a particular building, which, in accordance with accepted tactics, the Marines approached, "cleared" it with a grenade, and sprayed some fire into it after the grenade exploded. When they entered, they found several dead "civilians" who may or may not have been willingly providing cover for the enemy.
Noticing that the back door was open, the Marines surmised that the terrorists probably ducked into the next building, which the Marines cleared in the same manner, to the same results.
I don't know how the initial report of the incident was filed. There seemed to be a lot of input from people not close to the incident, but who were interpreting what they heard on the radio. If that's the case, the officers relieved of duty may have been guilty of implementing faulty processes for collecting data for their reports. It is also possible that they willingly filed a false report, believing that civilian deaths would reflect poorly on them or their Marines or that those deaths, if it were to come to light that they were the result of Marine fire, might endanger their Marines.
I don't know the answer, but these explanations are more plausible than the idea that any random four Marines in a group haphazardly go about killing civilians because they think it's funny or will help their cause. Marines are smarter than most people give them credit for. Sure... We have a few bad apples here and there. But the worst of them are a hell of a lot more honorable than turncoats like Murtha and Kerry. At least the worst among us still endeavor for an American victory. Murtha and Kerry could give a damn about America or her servicepeople, so long as their party recaptures power.
posted by Cameron Beck at 8:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home