Hadithah may emerge as a one-word no-explanation-needed epitaph of where things went sour in Iraq. But it shouldn't.
If we've learned anything from real military history, and if we have any sense of what a hopeless and frustrating situation really exists on the ground in Iraq, then we should certainly not be surprised that there was a cover-up of the events in Hadithah last November. I'm not referring to an earth-shattering cover-up, a we killed civilians because we are killers or even because we were mad cover-up with a lieutenant, captain, major and colonel all saying let's falsify reports up the chain of command.
No, more likely what happened in Hadithah was more of an oh sh*t, oh well, more Iraqi civilians got in the way cover-up, with way too many bullets being fired, with things getting out of control. This type of cover-up officially put the "blame" for the deaths on insurgents and not U.S. soldiers.
We are already hearing from military sources that there is more to the story, that evidence will show mitigating if not extenuating circumstances...[but] the truth of the matter, I hear from military sources, and an explanation I suspect is completely true, is that what happened in Hadithah that day has happened more times than the Marines and the Pentagon would like to admit, and more times certainly than the American public would like to admit.
We've read endlessly about our soldiers who have killed Iraqis under questionable circumstances, including this incident today where soldiers killed two women-one pregnant-at a checkpoint north of Baghdad. In each one it's possible to explain away the incident-as is the case at the checkpoint-by citing some mistake on the part of either the Iraqi civilians(usually), the American soldiers(rarely), or both. But for what happened in Haditha, there is no "explanation", and no excuse. And Arkin's right; if you think that's the only time something like this has happened, then you're fooling yourself. Even if you support the war in Iraq-either the initial invasion or the continued presence-you have to ask yourself, is anything we hope to gain worth this? I don't know the answer to that question.
4 comments:
But these people were terrorists!!!
Village of My Lai ii Vietnam, and now the town of Haditha in Iraq, both prove yet again that US Marines are nothing but a bunch of baby killers. They were disgraced in the 70s and they are humilated in the 21st century. Marine Corp is a sick culture of death and murder.
In this country, it's a hard sell that 'we are the bad guys' unless there's hard evidence that absolutely cannot be refuted. Can anyone not imagine that the US soldiers (generally speaking) are going nuts over there, never knowing who the 'bad guys' are? That's the same with Vietnam as well. As someone who was born and raised in the Netherlands, I could never understand how Americans could say with a straight face that they were in (fill in blank)country, defending the nation. Last I looked, defending means keeping people out and prevent them from invading. Trust me, Holland's been invaded plenty of times and I have learned from a young age by virtue of knowing our history what 'defending our nation' really is. Who the heck wants to invade or attack the US anyway? As I see it (from years of reading, studying poli sci, and having lived in different countries) the US has done some significant (c)overt attacking and undermining governments just because they were not open to big corporation America... if anyone attacks America, the big question needs to be..what happened beforehand?
alrightie..stepping of my soap box now..
Ingrid
I really don't think this is some wider condition of the Marine Corps, anonymous. I know and have known several Marines. Yes, they are gung-ho and zealous in their devotion to the corps, but that doesn't really make them wild-eyed killers. What makes them killers is being in a foreign land surrounded by death and danger, full of people who are on their side one minute and attacking them the next. Soldiers are only human, and they break down.
The real trouble is that any time you have civilians near soldiers, something bad is going to happen sooner or later, intentionally or otherwise. You know, American soldiers have "accidentally" killed a lot of Iraqi civilians in this war. There's no excuse for it, and this incident is, in my mind, different only in degree, not type.
People are comparing this to My Lai, but the truth is that in every war, no matter what the situation, you will find that soldiers on either side of a conflict kill civilians either on accident or on purpose with much more regularity than anyone wants to admit. The same is true not only of US Marines, but any army anywhere.
That is one reason I never supported the invasion of Iraq. People never seem to expect the massive amounts of damage to a country that use of the military entails. But the military is a hammer, and while you can break someone's knees with a hammer, a surgeon can't use a hammer to put them back together again. Despite the truth of this lesson, which we've seen again and again (such as in Panama), you always have some politicians who want to sell the idea that use of force isn't going to be as problematic as it actually is. And unfortunately, you always have some voters who believe them.
Don't be too cyincal, Ingrid. The Kuwaitis actually were glad for our intervention over there, as I'm sure the French were in WWII. We certainly were serving both our and their interests at the time. But in general, yeah, we don't need to be sending troops around the world "defending freedom".
Post a Comment