In view of the length of this reply I have posted it here.
From Kevin Sites - "Open letter to the Devil Dogs of the 3.1" You will find it here (and I apologise for my mental tic in calling him "Kevin Stiles".
"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.
I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap -- as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.
While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.
Then I hear him say this about one of the men:
"He's fucking faking he's dead -- he's faking he's fucking dead."
Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.
However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.
Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.
"Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background.
I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
...
It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier.
Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat -- those Marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.
During the course of these events, there was plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The Marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.
I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one Marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.
No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone with you, would deny that a solider or Marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.
In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the Marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat -- the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.
I can't know what was in the mind of that Marine. He is the only one who does.
But observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the dark perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances -- it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. According to Lt. Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or Marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.
...
I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time-something that now seems prophetic. It was this:
"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."
I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.
So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
And I asked the question by way of comparison...
"Remember the "execution" of two Iraqis in a mosque - recorded on video by Kevin Stiles? What difference? Oh, and I believe that Marine has subsequently been acquitted of all charges?"
I accept that he has been found not guilty of charges.
But what of the relatives of the men he shot? Would they accept in the same way?
MacBoar, Dave, Kevin Sites saw this from more than just one perspective. You apparently can not.
The Iraqis in the mosque were people, they had families. To those families they may have been war heros, they may have been just good fathers and brothers. Remember “when he was subdued he was your responsibility”. Sites makes the point as I have quoted; who knows what was in the mind of that young man? I can accept that, without question. What is equally as important is the relatives of those he killed. Will they, no CAN they accept
I have a comment here suggesting that the "War on Terror" is no longer (perhaps it is lost?) which I concluded with this remark -
"Yes, there have been successes by the Americans. No question of that.
The problem for the Americans is that bad sh!t sticks to the goodies because they are fighting against it, whereas the same bad sh!t is a legitimate weapon of war for the baddies.
Nowhere near as eloquent as Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, but then I am not commanding a military unit either.
The Serbs in the video might have been heros to their people. They certainly are not heros for me any more than for you. They deserve the charges of "war crimes".
But how fine is that difference...
11 comments:
One side of this conflict has used religious places as military bases. One side has battled without wearing uniforms and hidden among civilians. One side has feigned surrender in order to inflict casualties. One side has purposefully targeted civilians.
By the laws of war, by the Geneva Conventions, anyone who does the above is guilty of war crimes can may face summary execution.
The man who was killed chose to fight on the side that did all of these things. Nonetheless, I regret his death. Even with all he had done I would prefer him to live, and hopefully to someday become a friend instead of an enemy. The vast majority of the American people feel as I do, that is why this story was a big deal.
We have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent the killing of innocents, even at increased risk to our own men and women. We have, for the most part, treated captured enemies well, even when by the laws of War they deserve death. We have refrained from destroying religious buildings, even when they are being used to attack our own forces. We have taken prisoners and treated their wounded, even when the day before an enemy feigning injury had killed some of our people.
And you cannot see the difference between these soldiers and the Serbians who lined up and shot their prisoners. For you this is a thin line?
I accept and admit that our conduct has not been perfect. There have been abuses of prisoners and their have been, as this story shows, people who have been killed that should have been allowed to live. We hold our forces to a very high standard, and yes, sometimes they fail to meet that standard.
War is a horrible thing. Countless tradgedies will always accompany it. But their is a difference in kind, not just in degree, between those who aim to be civilized even within the horror of war, and those who revel in the destruction and amplify the darkness that war brings in every way they can.
And, Dave, with that said I am happy to leave the topic lie.
Your opening para illustrates exactly the point I make. Thank you.
Since the point you are trying to make is that the two sides are the same, I must assume that you find my opening paragraph to be factually inaccurate. Please enlighten me on where I have made a mistake.
Does the Iraqi insurgency make a common practice of using religious places as sanctuaries and arms repositories?
Does the U.S. military do so?
Does the Iraqi insurgency wear a recognizable uniform? Is part of their strategy to blend in with the civilian population?
Does the U.S. military wear recognizable uniforms? Is part of their strategy to blend in with the civilian population?
Has it been common for the Iraqi insurgency to feign injury or surrender in order to deliver suicide or covert attacts?
Have U.S. forces feigned injury or surrender in order to attack the Insurgency?
Is it a deliberate, strategic choice on the part of the Iraqi insurgency to target civilians to accomplish their goals?
Do U.S. forces deliberately attack civilians?
I await enlightenment on where I have gotten the facts wrong. Please provide supporting documentation for any or 'YES' answers for the U.S. military questions. If you require them, I can provide supporting documentation for a yes for all of the Iraqi questions, although I believe that anyone who has been following this conflict even in a cursory way would not need such documentation.
Dave, unlike some I have met I will do my best to answer your questions…
Does the Iraqi insurgency make a common practice of using religious places as sanctuaries and arms repositories? We are informed that this is the case. The Kevin Sites reports indicate that it has been so on occasions.
Does the U.S. military do so? No, not so far as we know. But I think that this is also the wrong question to ask…
Does the Iraqi insurgency wear a recognizable uniform? Is part of their strategy to blend in with the civilian population? I think that you will find that the vast majority of the insurgents are in fact Iraqi civilians. You might like to debate the idea that there is little to no difference between the Iraqi insurgents and the French Resistance during WW2.
Does the U.S. military wear recognizable uniforms? Is part of their strategy to blend in with the civilian population? We are not told if they do. We are also not told how many Iraqi “civilians” are used to gather information and intelligence.
Has it been common for the Iraqi insurgency to feign injury or surrender in order to deliver suicide or covert attacts? Kevin Sites informs us that this has happened. It is also fact that in the instance given the particular soldier IGNORED a fifth Iraqi who was covered with a blanket and who (in Sites’ words) “would far more likely have presented a threat”. It has also been “common” for Iraqi insurgents to suicide bomb US troops.
Have U.S. forces feigned injury or surrender in order to attack the Insurgency? We are not told if they do or not. I suspect that they do not. I doubt that we would be told if they did use tactics such as this. Would you agree?
Is it a deliberate, strategic choice on the part of the Iraqi insurgency to target civilians to accomplish their goals? In exactly the same way as did the French Resistance. Again, is there right on only one side here?
Do U.S. forces deliberately attack civilians? Well, I don’t know… Perhaps these might give you a clue…
http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/
The American army in Iraq has been plagued by something they call IED (Improvised Explosive Devices). These devices come in all sorts of shapes and sizes: in rubbish heaps, in dead animal corpses, in little inconspicuous objects thrown on the side of the road in their path. Some are detonated remotely, some are detonated by wire.
One particular insurgent lived in a district called Aamil in western Baghdad close to the road to the airport (or what is now called the Irish Route by the American soldiers). He specialized in filling old tin cans with some dirt and wood sticks and inserting a piece of wire and leaving the ends protruding. He placed those devices on the route of American patrols and convoys. They looked suspicious enough to be taken seriously. Usually the procession was held up until experts examined those devices and declared them safe!
He was called Sharara (Spark).
His game went on for about a year. Finally the US army caught up with him. Late one night, the district was surrounded, helicopters monitored the scene from above and Sharara’s home was encircled. The front door was smashed. There was panic in the family. The man of the house was told that the army wanted Sharara. The man said that his son was asleep, but he would fetch him. Escorted, he came back with Sharara who was half asleep. The soldiers stood bewildered.
Sharara was only a 10 year old boy!
http://www.mykeru.com/assets/images/insurg01.jpg
http://www.mykeru.com/assets/images/insurg03.jpg
Or perhaps you might like to follow this one…
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2005_0116_0122.html#011905
This last link is a really nice picture of the Iraq war as it really is. It comes back 100% to the statement I made in my post... "The problem for the Americans is that bad sh!t sticks to the goodies because they are fighting against it, whereas the same bad sh!t is a legitimate weapon of war for the baddies.
" One incident like that, or Abu Ghraib, or the implied excesses of Fallujeh, or any other that might get dug up, does far more damage to the American cause ...
It also illustrates time and again as I have said just how fine the line is between right action and war crime.
On that last link, the full gallery is here -
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-iraq-photostory0119,0,5445645.photogallery?
It is interesting how frequently you say 'I don't know,' or 'we are not told.'
While I understand that it can be difficult to get complete and accurate information, nonetheless you seem to be living in a world where nothing is knowable and therefore one supposition is as likely as another and all facts are suspect. This is the world of the conspiracy theorist, not of a rational person.
You gave exactly no responses that indicate a yes to the questions on U.S. forces breaking the laws of war.
I will nonetheless address a few issues you bring up that are pertinent.
You said: " I think that you will find that the vast majority of the insurgents are in fact Iraqi civilians. You might like to debate the idea that there is little to no difference between the Iraqi insurgents and the French Resistance during WW2."
There are certain similarities. Even if I felt the two insurgency movements were identical however, that would not change my point. Civilians who take up arms in warfare and do not wear a uniform are, under the Geneva Convention, subject to summary execution. Their activities make it far more dangerous for those civilians who do not take up arms.
Your picture illustrates this point beautifully. If there were no Iraqis/Foreign Fighters detonating car bombs, the Soldiers gaurding the checkpoint would not have felt a need to shoot those innocent people who failed to stop fast enough. When you disguise your instuments of war as civilians in order to obtain suprise, you are greatly increasing the liklihood that your enemy will end up killing civilians by mistake.
This is why it is against the Geneva Convention. It is a means to try and protect civilians from the horrors of war.
Legal systems decending from English Common law take into account extraordinary circumstances and sometimes grant clemency for violating laws because of those circumstances. One can argue whether the French Resistance (Or the Iraqi Insurgency for that matter) deserve to be granted this clemency. That doesn't change the fact that the Nazi's were perfectly justified in summary executions of anyone who broke the laws of war in occupied France.
I am unaware of the French Resistance deliberately targeting French civilians, although it may well have occurred. Certainly there were many civilians killed as part of collateral damage.
I do not understand how you equate the story of Sharara to deliberately attacking civilians. Certainly I will agree that for a variety of reasons the U.S. military has made deliberate attacks against targets that turned out to be civilians. While regrettable, this is unavoidable. There is however, a world of difference between that and choosing civilian targets purposefully.
If we had wanted to, the U.S. could have depopulated Iraq entirely in March of '03. It would have taken about 30 minutes. No U.S. soldier would have died.
The line between a war crime and a legitimate action is not fine. It is clearly spelled out. Beyond doubt, some of our soldier have commited war crimes, and have been prosecuted for them.
In response to this statement of yours: "The problem for the Americans is that bad sh!t sticks to the goodies because they are fighting against it, whereas the same bad sh!t is a legitimate weapon of war for the baddies."
I would say that the problem for Americans is that too many people (like yourself) have an unrealistic view of what war is like, and yet at the same time are willing to regard the illigitimate actions of the insurgency as legitimate.
The Iraqi insurgency can purposefully kill hundreds of Iraqis outside a church or Mosque, and they are still noble resistance, worthy of admiration. The can do everything in their power to prevent a democratic Iraq from existing and they are still 'Freedom Fighters.'
This is a twisted view of the world. Unfortunately, it is very common in Western Society, and it is a very troubling thing.
“I would say that the problem for Americans is that too many people (like yourself) have an unrealistic view of what war is like, and yet at the same time are willing to regard the illigitimate actions of the insurgency as legitimate. “
Dave, first I have to say that my view of the Iraq war is likely (arguably) far more realistic than is yours.
I say that because I leave off the idealistic raruraru of “introducing democracy to Iraq”. As an objective, that is worthy and supportable. It is a good thing.
Under that veneer, the war in Iraq is no different from any other. At all levels it is the same - there are killings, there is occupation, there is resistance to the occupation, there is misinformation, there is information, there are lies and there is truth. Ultimately, it is glib to say it but there is good and there is evil. What constitutes “good” depends far less upon intention or definition, and to a very great extent upon who “wins”.
I have every sympathy for all those engaged in the Iraq conflict.
I sympathise with the Iraqi people whose country remains under occupation (for “good” reason). I sympathise because the “ideals” they were promised probably seem further off now than they did three years back.
I sympathise with all of those troops who are “doing their job” in Iraq. That job is most difficult, and as we are debating it is looking more and more like a “lose/lose” than any kind of “win”.
I have asked this question of others, and the answers have always been a strong mix of prevarication and vain attempts to make distinction.
If the US were to be invaded by the Chinese, would you and your family stand aside as a non-combatants and let the invading troops pass unheeded arguing “we have an army to fight them” or worse still “we have lost. They are the victors, we have to scrub along as best we can...”?
In two words my answer would be “HELL NO!!! I suspect that yours would be no different. Why should the Iraqis be different? Just because the invader is the US?
” Certainly I will agree that for a variety of reasons the U.S. military has made deliberate attacks against targets that turned out to be civilians. While regrettable, this is unavoidable. There is however, a world of difference between that and choosing civilian targets purposefully”
...
“The Iraqi insurgency can purposefully kill hundreds of Iraqis outside a church or Mosque, and they are still noble resistance, worthy of admiration.”
The US can drop thousands of tons of bombs on Baghdad, not indiscriminately, but still kill many civilians as a result. Those killed are quite bluntly dismissed as “colateral damage” and “the tragedy of war”. Can you make a distinction between those deaths and the innocent victims of an insurgent’s car bomb? Oh, I see, the difference is intention? The car-bomber intends to kill five policemen and bombs a “recruitment line” at the local police station. As a result twelve civilians are killed. The US airforce bombs a building with the intention of killing an unknown number of Iraq army personnel, kills none of them but kills twelve civilians. Where is the difference in intent?
Yes, I used the words “we are informed so” and “we are not told” with purpose and with intent, and most importantly because that is true. For a bottom line, do you believe that Bush, Cheney and the rest lied with intent to mislead, lied by omission, or were “just unfortunately given wrong intelligence”? I ask the question because the British government’s advisers certainly had their doubts about what Bush was doing and the justifications being promoted. That was before Blair signed up to this enterprise...
But given that as a background, is there any reason to be certain of ANY information coming out of Iraq from “reliable and approved sources”?
I remain sceptical.
Well Gents, this is good reading!! I must say Dave your first entry could not state my position more clearly. Although I feel it's hard to 'play' by Geneva Convention rules when the opposition does not. And P., your initial retort was rather weak and unlike you.
P, I'm sorry but no matter how many times you repeat it, there is no comparison to these two actions. I think what the Marine did WAS wrong. While I don't think he should have been thrown in the brig, he should be removed from combat and probably has been.
But I agree with you several points!!!
Your statement:
"Yes, there have been successes by the Americans. No question of that. The problem for the Americans is that bad sh!t sticks to the goodies because they are fighting against it, whereas the same bad sh!t is a legitimate weapon of war for the baddies.
This IS truly profound! I agree 100%. Since we hold our troops to a higher standard, each outrageous action is magnified. While 'baddies' practice their actions with abandon.
Believe it or not, I don't really have a problem with Iraqi resistance if it’s a unified resistance. You’re right; every man and woman would fight an occupation if its goal was an oppressive yoke. Whether you mock an altruistic goal or not, a vast majority of Iraqis can have an opportunity for a better life if they make an effort. But this resistance is a two headed monster, Wahabi foreigners and Sunni Ba’athist, and not a truly unified front (I’m still amazed at the chutzpah of the Sunni’s, now demanding to be part of the Gov’t after boycotting the elections!!) Besides, if we were really such an oppressive occupier, we’d line up 20-30 civilians for execution for every single American soldier killed like the Nazis. Do you think ‘they’ would have any restraint in a similar situation? I don’t.
What constitutes “good” depends far less upon intention or definition, and to a very great extent upon who “wins”. This is a very true statement! I’ve heard it as ‘the victor writes the history books’. Do you think the fire bombing of Germany was a war crime? I’m inclined to think so, but Germany set the precedent by bombing London. It’s interesting to think how History would be rewritten if the ‘other’ side won. I’ve often done that and am amazed at how much it would change. But we know History is subjective by nature.
For a bottom line, do you believe that Bush, Cheney and the rest lied with intent to mislead, lied by omission, or were “just unfortunately given wrong intelligence”? I think it’s a combination of a couple things. I think they did have ‘wrong’ intelligence which is clearly evident by nearly everyone concurring with their conclusions. But I think foremost, Bush had a hard-on for Saddam for what he did to Bush, Sr. or for the fact that Bush, Sr. didn’t finish the job the first time. He was predisposed to use whatever ‘justification’ was handy to take on Saddam. It clouded his better judgment. Kinda like the comparison of the Serbian thugs to the Marine, you’ve already shown a predisposition to equate whatever action American soldiers take to the moral equivalence of whatever action the ‘resistance’ fighters take, be it ‘collateral’ damage or beheadings. In your mind, the beheadings are just the way of the ‘resistance’. Believe it or not, right and wrong do exist and intent is a prime factor.
We look at the same picture and just have differing views.
MacBoar, my comparison of two events like this does not in any circumstances other than my direct statement mean that I condone either.
In other words, if I were to believe that beheadings were a justifiable acion I would say so. I can and do not, and thus I have not said. As with also the Serb miscreants, I have not said at any time their action was justified.
It can not be.
Nor can I justify shooting a family in the their car because they did not stop "in time", or disarmed and wounded men in a mosque.
Proligo: I very much think intentions do matter.
For one thing, it is unfair to judge in hindsight decisions that had to be made at the time. This applies both to the intelligence communities belief on Saddam's WMD capability and Soldiers shooting people in a speeding car.
It was unfortunate, but not wrong, that the those people in the car were fired upon. The soldiers made the right decision. Their first priority was to defend themselves and their comrades against an attack. If the same situation were to occur again, they should do exactly the same thing.
The blame for this should fall upon those Iraqi insurgents who have made civilian vehicles into a weapon of war.
The WMD question is more complex. Do I believe that the threat against western nations was 'sexed up'? Certainly.
However, one thing to be clear on is that every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had chemical and possibly biological stockpiles and that he was covertly working on a nuclear program. There is good evidence that Saddam himself believed this. Despite all the investigations into what went wrong, there is still a tremendous amount of confusion about exactly how this intelligence failed us.
It should be clear that there were multiple reason's for the invasion of Iraq. WMD provided the 'legal' justification and causus belli but was not the strategic reason.
I am sure that Bush was as surprised as anyone else when WMD stockpiles were not found.
You seem to believe that the Iraqi insurgency legimately represents the will of the people of Iraq. There is plenty of information out there that shows that this simply is not true. And it does not just come from U.S. government or military sources.
The Iraqi insurgency, for lack of a better term, is at war with the Iraqi people at least as much as it is with the U.S.
As to your question about China, of course I would resist. And yes, I might very well not follow the Geneva conventions in my resistance. However, If I did so, I would certainly not expect China to honor those conventions in dealing with me either. I cannot imagine though purposefully bombing and American church as a means of getting China to leave. The very fact that I would want to do so would mean that the majority of American's had accepted China's occupation as preferable to the alternative and that I would need to impose my vision for America on Americans by force.
My desired end would be incompatible with those means.
So yes, intentions do matter. What we are fighting for does matter. And the means chosen reveal clearly what those intentions are.
You seem to believe that the Iraqi insurgency legimately represents the will of the people of Iraq.
No, but it certainly represents the will of those who form the ranks of the insurgency.
Look at it this way. Not every French person was a member of the Resistance. In fact the Resistance was probably a very SMALL number of people. At the other end of the scale were the Quislings, co-operating with the Germans. In the middle, doing their best to survive, were the vast majority of French people.
So yes, intentions do matter. What we are fighting for does matter. And the means chosen reveal clearly what those intentions are.
That really is a most enigmatic statement. I am not quite sure what you intend, but I don't think it quite gets received in the way it is said.
If "removing Saddam" had been the primary objective, then there must have been several "better" ways of attaining the same result. I think the term "surgical" has been used by some commentators.
So yes, one still wonders just what the "intentions" were.
On the matter of WMD, as you say what is past is history.
There are two things that I need to say -
First I can not think of the WMD "justification" without recalling the demonisation and denigration of Hans Blix and the work being done by his team. Anyone prepared to sit down and listen to what he was telling the UNSC (also scathingly criticised at the time by one particular party) received a fairly clear picture of what US would eventually find in Iraq.
So, one party found it necessary to attack the messenger, to their own long term detriment. It was more palatable for Americans to believe (given the post 9/11 feeling) their own propaganda than to objectively listen to a "furriner" tell them they were wrong.
The second is more personal, but as one person who did hear what Blix was telling the world I have always been extremely sceptical of the WMD reasoning. But the point that I want to make is this. It is not the fact that I was "right". I could just as easily have been "wrong". The very big hurdle that stands between me and US action in Iraq is the knowledge that the whole enterprise was based upon a lie.
Post a Comment