In the UK channel 4 showed the docu-drama "Battle for Haditha" followed by a documentry, looking into the facts surrounding the incident, on More 4. I wondered if anyone here saw this or if it has been shown in the USA. I would be interested to hear what other's thought about the programme and also what they think about the resulting outcome of the case against the Marines (originally 8, then 4, then 3, then 1, then 0) who committed this alleged massacre. On the basis of the factual evidence alone and the later admissions of some of the marines, the acts were war crimes, but a not-exactly-independent court marshall ruled there was insufficient evidence. General James "Mad Dog" Mattis (I jest not) who made this decision was subsequently promoted. The only reason the incident was ever revealed was because Time magazine got hold of the story and uncovered the cover-up.
I would particularly like to hear Mike's views on this. I am not trying to make political points here, but I would like to get views on what people think about how such things should be treated; this is bearing in mind that with a large number of people involved in forces in a hostile environment, there will be some who step over the line, sometimes in a big way. Are they to be held responsible, or their commanding officers, or is this something that should be accepted and even covered up (as it seems happened here)? Does the act of not properly punishing such actions send the wrong signals to others and lead to even more indiscipline? Does it also lead to even more distrust, even hatred, by Iraqis of the American forces and further undermine efforts to stabilise the country?
I have not seen the docu-drama or documentry yet. However, the "truth" certainly depends on who is providing it.
Quote:
...On the basis of the factual evidence alone and the later admissions of some of the marines, the acts were war crimes...
Which suggests you have already accepted the program as truth. I'm more skeptical of the media. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/14/130557.shtml
Quote:
Haditha Truth Massacred by the Media
Phil Brennan NewsMax.com
Thursday, June 14, 2007
When it comes to the November 2005 Haditha incident, which the media has characterized as a wanton massacre of 24 innocent civilians, it seems it is the truth that has been massacred — by the news media.
The evidence clearly shows that a great miscarriage of justice has been imposed on a group of some of the bravest and finest of Americans — the men of the Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.
Intelligence gathered by Marine S2 officers in advance of the events of Nov. 19th, 2005, revealed that it was known that an insurgent ambush was planned for the day.
Although exact details of the planned ambush were not known, some important details were revealed — most importantly, that some 20 insurgents would take part, and a white car would play an important role in the ambush.
The intelligence was made available to the officers and men of Kilo Company including Sgt. Frank Wuterich who has been charged with, among other things, murdering the occupants of a white car that came on the scene following the IED explosion that killed one Marine and seriously wounded another. The evidence will show that Wuterich acted appropriately when he shot the passengers of the vehicle.
Although the media continues to report that 24 innocent civilians were killed that day, the S2's testimony shows that eight of the dead, including four of the five occupants in the white car killed by Wuterich, were known insurgents and the dead civilians therefore numbered 16, not 24.
The insurgents whose communications were intercepted and which revealed the planned ambush were the same two men who were the sources of the fallacious and dishonest Time magazine story, which was the source of the accusations against the Marines.
As previously reported by NewsMax, the battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day's events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation. None!
It told the full story, was supported by photographic evidence, logs of all the day's radio transmissions, and included an almost minute-by-minute narrative of the day's events.
--
Boring and enraging Liberals with the truth since 2004
Your responses were not unexpected. I am not sure whether the docudrama was UK made or US made. I agree that it is right to be sceptical about the media although you both seem less sceptical about stories which may say the opposite but which fit with your preconceptions and political views. I suppose we all do that to some extent. I was more convinced by the documentary program that followed which showed the actual gathered evidence following the extensive and official investigation, which included film footage from a reconnaissance helicopter showing the guys in the white car were all lying within 1 to 2 metres of the car in a line which suggested execution and the fact that two of the marines later admitted that these people were executed, were unarmed and posed no imminent threat. The official report said they could find no evidence whatever that these men were implicated in any wrong doing, so I would tend to question the source of your information. The number of children killed also suggested a lack of care and discipline in the manner with which the marines acted. Wuterich claimed he was operating within the rules of engagement, though I really doubt that this was the case. If he was given specific instruction to act this way, he did not say this when being interviewed.
Anyway, my point was to question whether you think that any action should be taken in such cases. Perhaps your view is to deny everything, whatever the act or the proof, unless the evidence is so incontravertable that it cannot possibly be denied. This seems to be the military response and there can be a valid, if dishonest, political argument for adopting such an attitude. Another view is that such things are bound to occur and should be accepted; maybe there should be some punishment for those involved but that greater understanding should be shown that take into account the overall circumstances and pressures soldiers are subjected to. Or maybe you think that it is actually very rare that, in such circumstances, such things ever happen and that, if it really did happen, the people involved should be subject to law and justice.
My view is that such things do happen, and much more often that the average person would find palatable, and that people, especially politicians, should understand and take this into account when they undertake operations like the invasion of Iraq. I think there should be no whitewashing when these events occur and that those involved need to face charges, but I think the punishments need to reflect the circumstances and not blindly follow civil law equivalents (because there are none).
I tend to be less skeptical about stories which support my point of view?
I tend to comment on the views of others rather than post my own views. I prefer to offer the other side of the arguement, especially when the views expressed are based on hysteria, broad generalties, widely accepted myths, or half-truths.
In the case of Haditha, my opinion is to listen to the evidence presented in court, not reports in the media. Trial by the press is unjust. That was the case at Abu Ghraib. Rather than the US-sponsored program of repression reported by the media, the trial of the accused revealed it to be a case of untrained national guardsmen using prisoners to act out sex fantasies for one another. Reporters who sat in on the actual trial referred to the behavior of the accused as frathouse antics.
Are Hadithas bound to happen?
When the ones carrying the guns are as scared as the ones who don't, anything can happen. In conflict, as many as 10 percent of combatants are killed by friendly fire. What does that say about nearby civilians?
'I tend to comment on the views of others rather than post my own views. I prefer to offer the other side of the arguement,'
I’ve been too busy to respond to anyone of late, but this is just too juicy to let slip by. Ahh, Mr. Osborn, this really is how you see yourself, don’t you? Offering up the balanced perspective so dearly missing on this board while graciously sacrificing your own views in the process. What a shame that more of us can’t be more like you, and what a burden it must be to carry this responsibility all on your own, valiant Osborn.
PS. In the future valiant one, could you perhaps use the spell checker prior to posting, OD martyr you may be, but one of its better spellers you are not!
"...the balanced perspective so dearly missed on this board..."
You can call it balanced perspective if you like. I call it as I wrote it, pointing out "hysteria, broad generalities, widely accepted myths and half-truths."
Poking holes in these fallacies is too easy and too much fun to be called valiant.
PS. My spelling is fine. Funny you should overlook the poor grammar and sentence construction of others. I'll survive.
Posts: 519
Joined: 2005-02-27