At Last, A Competing Narrative

The problem with the Haditha story, as I've noted, is that the way it's come out -- as a leak, prior to the completion of the investigation -- has meant that it's been an incomplete and one-sided story. We know what the accusations are, and that has sent the press to the town to get any statements they could get from any Iraqis they could find, but we've really heard nothing from the military, either as an institution, or from those who were there that day.

That's left us with only the accusations, and with no contextualizing information to help us understand those accusations beyond the speculations that just about everyone has been willing to make to explain those accusations.

Again, it would still be preferable for all of this to be coming out in another way, but with all that's come out so far, at this point it's probably a good thing that we're now hearing the story of the Sgt. who was in charge of the squad who went into the village that day.

What he provides is plenty of grist for the mill, because assuming what he's saying is completely accurate there's quite a debate to be had here over whether or not the Marines are operating with appropriate Rules of Engagement. However, what he's saying also provides a competing narrative that explains Haditha in a completely different light. It's possible that what happened resulted from ROEs that are too aggressive -- or that the Marines misunderstood -- but that's a far cry from "cold-blooded" intentional murder and a far cry from a war crime.

It's also the case that if what he's saying is true, what's being "covered up" here, if anything, may be the fact that nothing was covered up. In other words from what he's saying what was reported up the chain was precisely what happened, but no one flinched or saw a need to investigate, and that's the problem the Corps has. Now that obviously contradicts the reports that the problem is that the reports that moved up the chain contradicted the intelligence reports that moved up the chain, and that's a contradiction that will have to be resolved in the investigations to be released in the weeks ahead.

Update: Here's an analysis of how the Post article lines up with the open questions regarding Haditha.

Update: Here's a fascinating analysis of the way this story has developed over time in the press.

Comments

[Richard Aubrey]

Some things are really covered up. But "cover-up!!!!" is also a frequent tool of propaganda, implying considerably more ominousity than the facts warrant. Same as "secret", which is sometimes applied to things everybody knows.

[WPB]

Do you have a reaction to this?

In Haditha, Four Dead Men, One AK-47

[narciso79]

Any idea, we're going to get any kind of decent reporting on the war, is
dispelled by the new hires for Time
and the Washington Post<http://www.
observer.com/media_offtherecord.asp>
one Damien Cave,formerly of Salon and
the NY Times, was commenting, just two
years ago on the 'imminent draft, and
the bad receptions Republicans deserved when they visited New York
during the Convention, the other Santoro, is a former assistant to Maureen Dowd, enough said

[dauber]

Yes, my reaction is that, as I noted, there is much to debate in the account of the ROEs here. The fact that the men were unarmed, if that turns out to be true, was not, of course, necessarily obvious at the split second they were determined to be a threat. (Nor is that necessarily the only form of threat people can pose: what if they're refusing to halt on order and they're men who are regularly setting IEDs? Can they be shot then?)

How long does a Marine have to make that determination? The ROE tells the Marine (and us) where we are willing to draw the line: how much risk are we willing to accept for our Marines as opposed to for Iraqi civilians? This story perfectly lays out the question -- when is the Marine allowed to determine that a threat is present and to shoot? The faster he can pull that trigger, the less risk we are saying we are willing to accept for our Marine, but the less risk we are willing to accept for our Marine, the greater the risk we are willing to take on behalf of unarmed Iraqis. At some point, at some distance between the two, at some amount of time between the two, that is where we say we are willing to set the risk, but the less risk we are willing to accept that unarmed civilians are harmed, the more risk we are accepting of Marines being harmed -- and we shouldn't kid ourselves. This is without a doubt a zero sum game.

In any event, my point in the original post was that that while it would have been better to get the whole story at once, when there was a completed investigation, given that up until now all we had been getting was the story from those presenting a narrative of "massacre," it was a good thing to see the possibilities open up with this alternative. I wasn't defending the alternative as definitively true.

[WPB]

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I am glad we agree that there is much to debate over the ROE's described in the article.

The only problem is that "we" won't be given an opportunity to debate "where we are willing to draw the line" since "the Marine Corps does not discuss rules of engagement."

[BB-Idaho]

A problem with insurgent warfare is what we term collateral damage. No
matter the press slant, it plays into the hand of the insurgent: the loss
of civilian lives is a propaganda tool, particularly in a milleu of tribal society. We expect a great deal from our combat troops in that
each is an ambassador, as well as policeman. 'Hearts and minds'is a necessary part of successful anti-insurgency operations and one I think
US soldiers are naturally good at. Sure, they have good training, equipment and the like, but these young men are making split-second
decisions which can result in their own injury or death, the injury or
death of innocents, or it seems, the possibility of courts martial for
murder. What a burden we place on these guys. No matter our opinions of how or why we are in Iraq, we empathize with and admire the 'boots on the ground'.

[hhhhh]

出会い出会いデリヘル