If the Marines at Haditha started indiscriminately killing civilians, they should pay for their crimes. I want that clear right now. The point of this piece is not to defend their actions. However, there are those who never pass up the chance to start throwing corpses at political opponents, and they are using this event to paint the military as a bunch of baby-killers or "prove" the policy of the United States is just to start killing people wherever they are. Unlike disgraced ex-Marine Murtha (he disgraced himself after his service), I'm willing to let the facts be heard and a fair trial be had before trying to score political points on the backs of others.
There are laws of war in place to prevent this kind of thing. They were in place hundreds of years before anyone conceived of the United Nations. At each step, the terrorists (and they are terrorists) have not only violated the laws of war, but used those laws of war against us to further attacks on our soldiers.
First, a military uniform was not created to give something for the woman to ogle (though it is certainly effective at that). A uniform is a public statement to the enemy that you can shoot the person wearing it. Plain and simple, a military uniform is a full-body bull's-eye. Why would any government want their soldiers to wear them then? Simple. It let's both sides easily figure out who the civilians are so they don't engage them. When the terrorists don't wear uniforms, they might be able to seek out another kill or two, but they also put their own civilian population at risk, because it becomes impossible to tell who is a combatant and who is not.
Second, the logic of war dictates that you not attack civilian structures such as schools, houses, and churches. It should be obvious why this is so, but the laws of war comes with a caveat. The price for not getting your residential areas attacked is that you don't use them for fighting to begin with. Many like to make much of the fact that the U.S. military has attacked mosques. What those same people refuse to acknowledge is that those buildings were used as weapons stores, sniper nests, and central places to coordinate attacks on the U.S. military. The military was left with two options: either engage the enemy, or surrender. It is not the U.S.'s fault that fighting involved mosques, it was the terrorists who defiled those buildings, turning them from houses of worship to dens of killing.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jon Sobel
John, you had me till the end. I agree with your piece overall. It is certainly true that an enemy that ignores the rules of war must indeed be creating an environment that engenders abuses even from a largely honorable force.
But I don't agree that "no one seems to stand up for the soldiers." 99% of the commentary out there, whether from left, right or center, is supportive of the troops, recognizing the enormous and even inhuman pressure they are under. In fact, liberal talk radio tends to be more supportive of the troops than conservative talk radio - possibly because liberal commentators are more likely to have military experience.
Finally, you state that "some in the U.S. will stand up for the actions of those terrorists as legitimate." But I don't see how that follows from your main point. Even if there are some who are too quick to point fingers at our own troops, how is that standing up for the actions of the terrorists?
2 - John Bambenek
What I mean by people not standing up for the soldiers was mostly being quick to condemn soldiers when they break the law but silent when the tactics of terror are used that lead to that breaking of the law.
Part of my commentary is colored by being on far-left and various anti-war mailing lists. They're almost cheering at events like Haditha happening because they can use this to their advantage.
3 - mschannon
I agree with Jon S. that your diatribe at the end weakens an otherwise excellent piece. As one of those liberals you bash, I fully support our troops and know that there's a very fine line separating legitimate action and oops.
If the terrorists fought like human beings rather than animals, the line wouldn't be so fine, and we'd have a lot fewer oops. But while I regret the loss of innocent life and worry that it makes us even more disliked, most of our military deserves our praise and thanks.
However, as you note, when someone deliberately crosses the line into brutality or wanton neglect of civilian rights, we owe it to ourselves as a nation to come down hard on them. (That of course assumes that Rummy & his band of merry murderers even bother to train soldiers in how to handle such impossible situations.)
If the administration had the vaguest idea how to win the peace, we wouldn't be putting our military into such untenable positions.
Just look at what's happening in Afhganistan where Bush is cutting our support for the military (which is working) from 70,000 to 50,000 troops--even when experts say that even 70,000 may not be enough.
BUT...you're absolutely right. We should not be rushing to judgment about the troops. They deserve a fair and open hearing.
In Decaf Veritas
4 - JP
I don't think people are rushing to judgement. In my opinion, people are expressing disgust at the act of killing civilians. We SHOULD express disgust and horror at such allegations, after all if we do not, it almost makes them sound less unacceptable.
The disgust directed at an abstract act does not mean anyone is disgusted with our troops; much like disagreement with the war does not equal lack of support for the troops.
5 - SMSgt Mac
Ignore the gnats. Your presentation was cogent and accurate. If the left/media were truly interested in finding out and accurately characterizing what went down in Haditha (a more dangerous pit of darkness would be hard to find), we would have heard more about the place, and its denizen's propensity for war-crimes than we have to-date.
We would also have been told how from the very first hint of a possible problem, the military was investigating instead of covering-up possible crimes. Instead we got that treasonous pile of 'Murtha', preempting the military's findings by playing judge, jury, and executioner in front of any camera or microphone put before him. And boy, how the media likes to put them in front of him! Like you I'll wait for the investigation to conclude. I only hope it doesn't get tainted by the political circus.
Check Six!
6 - Jack Adams
I agree with your comments but go one step farther. In WWII we didn't put such obstacles in the way of our fighting men. Remember Dresden? Remember just about every German city. Remember Tokyo. We needed to take such action to convince the populace that surrender was the only way to survive. We need to do the same with all those who support or allow terrorists to hide behind them. The people of Iraq need to know the new Iraq government is going to win (albeit with our help). Al Jazera is not going to convince them. Your commenters above are not going to convince them. Our own media is doing its best to convince them we won't win. We need to untie the hands of our military and get this job done. Hearts and minds will follow the winner.
7 - Joe
the rules of engagment are inadequate when fighting Jihadis. As noted they do not respect the rules of war. And indeed blend with the civilian population. They are the ones putting civilians at risk. Not Bush or Rumsfeld"they are. The enemy.
Even if these Marines lost it, in my opinion they committed a crime of passion not a war crime. This was not premeditated and while that probably doesn't matter in a courts martial, it matters to me. Investigate sure. Make sure the investigation covers the background and the involment of the "civilians" in this villiage with the Jihad. If they were, they bear the responsibility for the event. There have been reports that a survivor of this incident, a young girl, knew of the impending attack. How did she know that?
We don't want to become like this enemy, but there must be consequences to the enemy when they violate the rules of war...
If the world stands here against them they will have less and less population to swim in...
8 - Bliffle
"First, a military uniform ... is a public statement to the enemy that you can shoot the person wearing it. Plain and simple, a military uniform is a full-body bull's-eye....
Second, the logic of war dictates that you not attack civilian structures such as schools, houses, and churches. It should be obvious why this is so, but the laws of war comes with a caveat. The price for not getting your residential areas attacked is that you don't use them for fighting to begin with. ...
Third, when an enemy surrenders, the fighting is over. Once an enemy surrenders by throwing up a white flag, raising his arms, or getting wounded, they are no longer valid targets of attack. ...
This is not an exhaustive list of all the ways that the terrorists have violated the laws of war but merely a few examples."
Gee, I think this is a swell set of rules! Takes me back to the Glorious Wars of the 18th century. Can we amend them so that the soldiers, properly garbed and trained to not shoot civilians, etc., meet in equal combat on a level green field far from cities where they might accidentally harm a civilian?
Did our government lawyers make sure that the islamists (or whoever they are) signed a proper contract guaranteeing they'd play by the rules before we invaded Iraq?
9 - Craig R. Harmon
I'm going to ask for a bit more specificity here. Who, exactly, is painting the military, in large or in whole as opposed to individuals within the military who are accused of wrongdoing, as "a bunch of baby-killers" or are saying that "the policy of the United States is just to start killing people wherever they are. Some links would be nice as I'd like to go and rip them a new one, linguistically speaking, via comments on their blog or at the blog to which I contribute.
Now there are those, like Murtha, who speak of the specific soldiers involved in Haditha and several other actions where crimes are alleged as murderers in advance of their courts martial or even the completion of the investigations and I have taken them to task but I have yet to run across a single person who generalizes the charges as you do in your first paragraph as follows:
"However, there are those who never pass up the chance to start throwing corpses at political opponents, and they are using this event to paint the military as a bunch of baby-killers or "prove" the policy of the United States is just to start killing people wherever they are."
10 - Richard R
Mr. Harmon, I suggest you browse through The Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos. Or, try Air America Radio for an hour, or read your local alternative weekly newspaper. You'll find plenty.
Bill Whittle made many of the same points in an essay on Eject! last year.
11 - Erelis
Jack Adams,
It seems that we can either fight within the rules and have this thing drag out, or we toss the rules, win, and hope we don't lose our nation's soul in the process. I honestly don't have an answer.
Are Dresden and Tokyo what it will take to win? I really hope not. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your point. I think that the rather uneven record of the US in protracted wars in the decades since WWII is a consequence of fighting halfheartedly instead of mobilizing for total war. The US certainly had the capacity to do to the North Vietnamese what it did to the Wehrmacht and Imperial Army (hell, we dropped four times the explosives on Vietnam as we did in Europe and the Pacific combined). But we stopped short of actually "bombing them back to the Stone Age." The result? The other side knew that it hadn't been beaten. Total war strives to make the other side understand that it has been absolutely and undeniably crushed, and further resistance is useless. Sherman realized it. Eisenhower realized it. We obviously didn't do it in Iraq, "shock and awe" aside. The insurgents simply dug in among the civilian population, knowing that they could get enough local support to bleed the US slowly. Neither they nor their supporters understood that they had been "beaten" when Bush declared victory.
Total war in itself is immoral because it requires civilians to suffer almost as much as combatants. Most of the laws of war implicitly reject the concept entirely and outlaw it. But ultimately it appears necessary to achieve real and lasting victory. The laws of war presume that the other side is playing by the same rules. They are absolutely not designed for asymmetric conflicts against non-uniformed, non-state enemies who don't care about the rules because there is no way to enforce them.
Where does that leave us? Do we have to start leveling cities to crush the insurgency beneath our boots? People already claim we did that to Fallujah, and the US has done a poor job of defending itself against claims of war crimes like white phosphorous use. Is it worth it to blatantly violate the laws of war to get at those who demonstrate no respect for the law themselves? Are we willing to live with the condemnation that would be poured out on us by the whole world? If we are not, is it worth fighting a war that we cannot win fully and decisively because we have tied our hands with the Geneva Conventions and Rules of Engagement? Do we want to deploy JAG officers at the company or platoon level?
I apologize if I ramble, it has been a long day.
12 - Observer
Bambenek's post was spot-on, including the end.
Be clear about this: once these 'jihadists' detonate a nuclear device on a US city, the politically correct whining from liberals and "progressives" will fall on deaf ears, and things will get ugly for the Arab World very quickly.
I suggest that region stop feeding their own continued backwardness (e.g., Al Jazeera, textbooks imploring their citizens to kill 'infidels,' the subjugation of women, madrassas, etc, etc), and instead start looking for ways to bring their backwards world into modern society.
Once we see a WMD-based 9-11, or similar, these repugnant societies will wish they had taken these few years after 9-11 to clean up their act. For if they continue to be a part of the problem, and not the solution, and a WMD attack occurs, they will look back at "Abu Ghraib" panties on the head (and any other nonsense blaring on Al Jazeera 24/7) as "the good old days."
Of this, I can assure you all.
13 - IgnatiusReilly
Yes, we need to wait to hear the facts before we pass judgement, but that genie has been let out of the bottle at least 20 years ago. With 24 hour news and content, all this country does is pass judgment without the complete facts.
"There are laws of war in place to prevent this kind of thing."
Laws don't prevent crimes. They dictate punishment of behaviors deemed unacceptable. Does the speed limit stop you from driving faster than the posted amount?
War isn't fair and while we have the better weapons the terroists play a better PR game. If the military isn't going to factor that component into the fight, they need better leaders.
"It is a shame, however, that no one seems to stand up for the soldiers who have to put up with an enemy who consistently breaks those laws."
You are right. You're the first person to speak out and support the troops during the war/occupation. You are reading to many far-left/anti-war materials if you think that is true.
14 - Vaporlock
"It is a shame, however, that no one seems to stand up for the soldiers who have to put up with an enemy who consistently breaks those laws."
I am one of those soldiers... and I think anyone who shoots an infant in the head can NOT be defended. Terrorist, soldier or whatever title we want to put on the person doesn't change the facts.
We are fighting an unjust war against people who MUST use guerrilla tactics against us, this situation was fully predictable before we started the war. Personally I think the word "terrorist" means very little when we did the invading.
As a soldier in Iraq I had a friend who shot a family dog for no good reason and it bothered him for weeks. I feel pity on the troops that murdered children. The real problem is that once again there is NO accountability from the top. Everyone better stop spinning and wake up soon.
15 - Jabba the Tutt
Observer: Bingo!
What these so-called 'antiwar' types (they're not antiwar, just on the other side) ignore, is that the Bush Administration is first trying the soft option. They're trying to create an environment to make it safe for Arab Democracy to take root, which will drain the swamp and create peace and progress in a fossilized, brutal, backward culture.
The Bush/US-Opposition should realize that if the soft option fails, the US won't go home and back to the La Di Da days of the 90's. Nope, the Jihadis won't allow that. The Jihadis will have won a great victory and as Bin Laden said, the people follow the strongest horse. The Jihadis will gain strength and conduct even more attacks. Peace without victory is NOT an option.
The US under Republican or Democrat President can simply reach for the standoff weapons, avoid US casualties and kill as many million Muslims as it takes for the Muslims to control their Jihadist impulses. The 'Antiwar' folks claim to be so concerned about US casualties and civilians/terrorists killed by the US (with zero concern for anyone killed by the Jihadists) that they'll be happy with 10 million Muslim dead and zero additional US casualties after the next 9/11 horror. Right?
16 - Vaporlock
"with zero concern for anyone killed by the Jihadists"
These type of comments always crack me up. How does being anti-war fall into this category? I for one am a vet and having been in a war, I am 100% against WAR. Not pro-democrat nor anti-republican. Statements like, "The 'Antiwar' folks claim", are nothing more than rhetoric. Do you really think we just "claim" it... Do you really, seriously, believe that secretly we like it? If you do, your either brainwashed, or you don't actually listen to what "the 'Anti-War' Folks" are saying. It's strange to me that we are surrounded by so many experts on "brutal, backward culture." I suppose it's a coincidence this is exactly what they say about us. This would lead some to question their own rhetoric or methods.
17 - JP
Erelis, great question: "is it worth fighting a war that we cannot win fully and decisively because we have tied our hands with the Geneva Conventions and Rules of Engagement?"
Many of us think this is NOT a war worth fighting, much less "fullly and decisively" -- especially if that means Dresden and Tokyo.
War strategists, some on this board, argue that to win "hearts and minds" undeniable victory must be achieved using any means necessary. Given the "unconventional" nature of this "war," does anyone really believe that more brutality--if sanctioned--would win over every "heart and mind" that could potentially become a terrorist? Especially given that terrorists can acheive their own goals with very few people?
18 - Fatih
Who start and create the war at the first place? and why you guys suddenly feel as though you are at war?
19 - Moneyrunner
I believe the primary reason that the enemy is not called to adhere to the rules of war is racism. The Left, especially the Left, has long ago decided that “other people” (black, brown, Arab, etc.) are simply not capable of being held to “our” standards, so they are not.
Here’s an example: did you know that two congressmen went to jail this year for corruption? One was “Duke” Cunningham … who was the other?
That is why there is no outrage about enemy combatants dressed as civilians, hiding behind children, and shooting from Mosques. The Left simply assumes that there are standards for “us” and … no standards for “them.”
For those who wish to deny this, please cite proof of sustained outrage about enemy atrocities. Even head-hacking, which was once a headline story, has become so common-place that it no longer invites coverage. Decapitation via a dull knife is simply the way “they” kill their enemies. Blowing up bombs in crowded streets is simply the way war is carried out by “them.”. Shooting your daughter for having a lover is simply a quaint native custom.. Yawn.
And to the idiot on this post trying to create moral equivalency between us and them: have you seen the need to shoot your sister lately?
20 - azlibertarian
"...Many of us think this is NOT a war worth fighting, much less 'fullly and decisively' -- especially if that means Dresden and Tokyo...."
But what if we add New York or Washington to your list?
As I see it, we've already been hit by low-level, asymmetric WMDs. I am fully convinced that once the Islamists can get their hands on on more proper WMDs, that they will attack us again...and this time hard. Very hard.
I'm past wanting for peace with the Islamic world. After enduring nearly thirty years of their asymmetric attacks against the US, I'm ready for victory. If that means that we turn Tehran into Tokyo, then so be it.
21 - Edward Perline
All the terrorists are housed and fed in various neighborhoods throughout Iraq. Their civilian naighbors certainly know what's going on. Many choose not to report it. These people may not be active enemies, but they're not innocent either.
22 - Tim
The Left, as evident here and virtually everywhere else, has no answers but retreat and defeat. They say they support the troops, but do not hesitate to accuse them and their leaders of being murderous war criminals. They say they are patriotic, yet immediately highlight and embrace any evidence of U.S. wrongdoing as proof the U.S. is not only wrong, but justly deserves to lose. They say the believe in national defense, yet advocate handing defeat to our enemies. Their talking points and bin Laden's talking points are unsurprisingly similar. At root, they and our enemies share the same goal - a much weaker US and western civilization in complete retreat. Simply put, they, and their criticisms, just aren't credible.
23 - Jiggs Kincaid
You can orate until the cows come home, invoke every tough, pro-military cliche since Thermopylae, associate marines gone mad with conditional war-time exigencies, but nothing, nothing will ever justify the cold-blooded, close-range shooting of children.
24 - tom swift
Hmmm. Terminology problems and facile mislabelling leading to confusion.
I'm not too concerned about the deaths of "civilians" per se because our enemies there are ALL civilians (and to belabor the obvious, no, that is not the same as saying that all civilians are enemies). Just because someone is a civilian or a journalist (even a legit journalist, with an AP badge and everything) does not mean that he isn't a terrorist or bomber as well. So there are innocent civilians, and other civilians who are legitimate targets. The simple label "civilian" is not useful in this context.
And in paragraph 5, an enemy combattant does not become a prisoner just because he's wounded. Wounded combattants are legitimate targets. Wounded prisoners are not.
25 - tom swift
"but nothing, nothing will ever justify the cold-blooded, close-range shooting of children."
Really?
I recall an incident from Vietnam in which those notorious humanitarians, the VC, had set a baby down in the middle of a village street, and wired it up to a bomb. Of course from that point on, the baby was as good as dead - the VC were not overly concerned with its safety. US troops entering the village approached the baby to pick it up and remove it safely from the combat zone, as the VC knew they would. Another US soldier, entering the village from the other side, saw the wires and apparatus of the booby trap, but his yells to the other troops were unheard or misinterpreted. So he shot the baby with an M60 (a machine gun), thus setting off the bomb, which exploded before the other troops were close enough to be killed in the blast. Was the man with the M60 wrong to shoot a baby? As I understand it, he wrestled with that question for many years afterward.
Maybe some you "moral absolute" types could provide quick and easy guidance.