Haditha's First Public Account

"Standing Figure" by Graham Sutherland 1952, Private Collection

 

Cross posted @ NewsBusters

You know when the Washington Post publishes three full pages of tight fitting text on the incident in Haditha, Jack Murtha's "murdered in cold blood" story is in trouble:

A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his attorney said.

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

Don't miss carefully reading every word of Josh White's page one story, which I have tried to condense for you. Pay particular attention to the account that a fragmentation grenade was thrown into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke. The time span of the incidents seems to be a matter of minutes rather than several hours as the original Times account suggested.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

Wuterich's detailed version of what happened in the Haditha neighborhood is the first public account from a Marine who was on the ground when the shootings occurred. As the leader of 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, Wuterich was in the convoy of Humvees that was hit by a roadside bomb. He entered the house from which the Marines believed enemy fire was originating and made the initial radio reports to his company headquarters about what was going on, Puckett said.[...]

A corporal with the unit leaned over to Wuterich and said he saw the shots coming from a specific house, and after a discussion with the platoon leader, they decided to clear the house, according to Wuterich's account.

A four-man team of Marines, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it, Puckett said. They then kicked in that door, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke, killing several people, Puckett said.[...]

The Marine who fired the rounds -- Puckett said it was not Wuterich -- had experience clearing numerous houses on a deployment in Fallujah, where Marines had aggressive rules of engagement.

Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women and children -- most likely civilians -- they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said. The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a frag grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people, he said.

Wuterich, not having found the insurgents, told the team to stop and headed back to the platoon leader to reassess the situation, Puckett said, adding that his client knew a number of civilians had just been killed.[...]

A Marine who served near Haditha in November said it was not unusual for Marines to respond to attacks "running and gunning" and that it was standard practice to spray rooms with gunfire when threatened. "It may be a bad tactic, but it works," he said. "It keeps you alive."

After clearing the second house, Puckett said, Wuterich immediately got on the radio and reported the "collateral damage." When the company radio operator asked him to estimate how many civilians had been killed, he said he thought it was about 12 to 15.

McConnell, the company commander, "knew the number was high" and reported it to the battalion executive officer, a major, according to McDermott, his lawyer. McConnell also said that a Marine intelligence team investigated the civilian deaths and reported their findings to senior Marine commanders, the lawyer said.

Wuterich told his attorney that he never reported that the civilians in the houses were killed by the bomb blast and maintains that he never tried to obscure the fact that civilians had been killed in the raids. Whether Wuterich gave false information to his superiors is the focus of one of the military investigations. He said the platoon leader, who was on the scene, never expressed concern about the unit's actions and never tried to hide them.

Marine Corps public affairs officers reported that the civilians had been killed in the bomb blast, a report that Puckett believes was the result of a miscommunication.[...]

After going through the houses, Wuterich moved a small group of Marines to the roof of a nearby building to watch the area, Puckett said. At one point, they saw a man in all-black clothing running from one of the houses they had searched. The Marines killed him, Puckett said.

They then noticed another man in all black scurrying between two houses across the street. When they went to investigate, the Marines found a courtyard filled with women and children and asked where the man was, Puckett said.

When the civilians pointed to a third house, the Marines attempted to enter and found a man with an AK-47 inside, flanked by three other men; the first Marine to enter tried to fire his weapon, but it jammed, Puckett said. The Marines then killed those four men.[...]

If this turns out to be true, it will pale Rathergate into insignificance and give the MSM another black eye they so dearly deserve.

Check out Allah @ Hot Air and Sweetness & Light, for some serious detective work, and do not miss reading my link in the first paragraph to Clarice Feldman @ American Thinker.

Some excellent blogging on the subject @ Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, Mudville Gazette, Dan Riehl, Wizbang, Jeff Goldstein, Right Wing Nut House, Blue Star Chronicles, Flopping Aces, BrothersJudd Blog, Mark in Mexico, The Real Ugly American, Sister Toldjah, The Political Pit Bull,  ShrinkWrapped, Small Town Veteran, PrairiePundit

Comments

[jess1dering]

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/editor_asked_to_explain_editing/Hi Gang, Remember Cpl.Jeffrey Starr and the absolutely unapologetic stance the NYT's took after misrepresenting the words of this young patriot's last letter home ? I can not and will not forget it and hope that Cpl. Starr's family live to enjoy having the record corrected by the NYT's.

[RJBJ]

It's sad to see this stabbed-in-the-back myth propogate and spread, even today, and to see the table set for it again in case the invasion and occupation of Iraq continue to go badly. What happened to the legendary conservative quality of "personal responsibility?" Instead, the all-powerful anti-war left is responsible for not "letting us win" and is even (this is incredible) solely responsible for the fate of the Iraq war if it should end in defeat:

It is the firm conviction and fondest hope of bin Laden that this Iraq war will indeed turn out to be like the Vietnam War. Whether it does is pretty much up to the Left.

Are you kidding? You've lapsed into uncharacteristically illogical spewings, sir. Right now, 60-something percent of ALL Americans say the Iraq war is not worth the cost in life and resources. Seems like there's quite a few from the right who've decided the war was a mistake, quite a few centrists, too. Bush, with the full support of his conservative base, led us into this war. The right is responsible for what has happened and what will happen, victory or defeat. The Bush administration has basically received a blank check to do whatever the hell they want, with very little opposition from Democrats. hahahaha! I still can't believe you could say that, much less believe that it's true.

It was bin Laden's real hope that we would do something like invade Iraq in the first place. al Qaeda has garnered enormormous benefits from the Invasion and occupation of Iraq. According to our own intelligence agencies we've helped spread terrorism across the Islamic world. We've turned "bin Laden" into "bin Ladenism." Terrorists are much more likely to be homegrown without any ties to bin Laden, like the bombers in London, recently. hahahaha. Are these things the fault of the Left also? What if terrorists pull off another successful attack? It'll be the left's fault? It's an easy blame-game to play, I guess... since you're limited to a cast of one villain.

[Kenny Pierce]

Randall,

Thank you for the clarification; I'm glad to see we're not as far apart as it appeared at first.

>
Now at this point it seems to me that anyone who gave a flying f**k about Iraqi civilians or even children in general would have been horrified at having accidentally killed kids. They would take precautions against being placed in that awful position again, particularly in the immediate future.
>

A serious question here, Randall: have you yourself ever been under fire in combat? I mean, I haven't myself, and so if you have then your opinion is probably worth more than mine; but based on the memoirs and blogs and history books I've read, I think you're probably being rather unreasonable. Don't forget that our soldiers in Iraq have been attacked, with intent to kill, both by women and children; the distinction between combatatants and non-combatants is not nearly as clear as you seem to think -- and this is by design on the part of the terrorists. Making sure that this distinction is always clear so that both sides can make sure the noncombatants don't get hurt, is the whole reason for the Geneva Conventions, and it is precisely the reason that anybody who genuinely cares about the purposes that the Geneva Convention is intended to achieve, must fiercely resist any attempt whatsoever to extend the protections of the Geneva Convention to terrorists who deliberately attempt to subvert the distinction between combatant and noncombatant. There is no greater foe of the Geneva Convention than somebody who wants to grant Geneva Convention rights to terrorists captured in civilian clothing who have been trying to pose as civilians -- thus removing any possible incentive for the terrorists to honor the Geneva Convention themselves.

Which is a bit off my point, but to return from chasing rabbits: I don't think it's nearly as easy as you're making it out to be, and therefore I'm far more willing to give the Marines the benefit of the doubt.

I'm pretty certain that you're wrong to think that someone who had been in that situation "would take precautions against being placed in that awful position again, particularly in the immediate future," and therefore that the fragging of the second room proves that they didn't give a shit about civilians. That is so completely NOT the way wise people approach decisions. As much as possible, you work out your general tactical principles not while you are under fire (which is when you are least likely to be thinking clearly) but in planning sessions before, and in debriefings after, you come under fire. While you are actually under fire, you stick to the general guidelines that were worked out while things were calm, so long as the situation does not deviate too dramatically from the scenarios for which you were trained.

If previous experience had led the Marines to feel that the best balance of consequences was generally achieved through the frag-and-spray approach (and remember that terrorists target mostly civilians so that if you let a terrorist get away today in order to save a roomful of innocent women and children today, you may well be dooming a busful of innocent women and children next week -- the terrorists target more than a couple of roomfuls of people at a time)...if, as I say, the experience of the Marines over the past three years (which experience you and I do not share, making it impossible for you and I to evaluate competently the tradeoffs involved) has led them to believe that the best balance of consequences in the long run is achieved with this tactic, then you absolutely do not change tactics in the middle of the battle just because a child has died. The fact that kids often die when you engage terrorists in an urban setting, has already been weighed by commanders in working out the tactical guidelines that have been given to you.

Now, it would certainly make sense to me to say that with the second room, it becomes clear that the terrorists (a) have a burgeoning head start and (b) are deliberately trying to escape through the midst of lots of noncombatants; and that this alters the tactical situation enough to force a reassessment of the balance of consequences. But just because it makes sense to me, that doesn't mean it actually happened that way here. What is most certainly clear is that you would file a report, and your superiors would add that incident as further raw information for the ongoing reassessment of tactical efficiency.

So, I think I'll accept the validity of your contention that I'm making a possibly false assumption about the Marines' motivation for calling off the pursuit -- as I say, I don't have the necessary experience to justify the confidence with which I expressed that view -- and will withdraw the relevant arguments pending further information. I was wrong to express that as fact rather than as uninformed opinion, and I appreciate your bringing that to my attention so that I could correct it.

As for its being a "blatantly obvious point" that terrorists are scum: in a world in which the average noisy Democrat issues about fifty bitter condemnations of Bush for every complaint he utters about the terrorists, and in which it is quite common for Bush to be referred to as "Hitler" on the left, it is very far from blatantly obvious that any given Democrat believes that the terrorists are any worse than Republicans. If American soldiers are fighting terrorists and for every minute that somebody spend complaining about the terrorists he spends sixty bitching about the troops, then he needs not ever to be heard saying, "Oh, but I support the troops" -- because if he says so he is uttering a falsehood. Proportions matter, and the fallacy of emphasis is just another way to use facts to tell lies. And besides, the Democratic Party has put on the podium of its convention a man who has referred to the insurgents as modern-day Minutemen -- so it's probably not a safe thing for anybody to the left of Joe Lieberman to expect anybody to assume that he really opposes the terrorists if he hasn't made that point explicit.

But I'm very glad to hear that you yourself are not in the Michael Moore camp in that respect, and again, that very much shrinks the difference in opinion between us.

>
I feel that rules of engagement that lead to our guys having to live with the images of little kids' brains blasted across a wall, killed by them, fall short of optimal.
>

In that case I don't think you have very reasonable expectations of what war is like, especially war in which one side deliberately does everything it can do to maximize noncombatant casualties.

In short I just don't think anybody who lacks military experience and has not fought in this particular war is in a position to state with certainty that these Marines were out of line. But while that leaves us in disagreement, I don't think the disagreement is anywhere near as serious as I had feared at first.

[Randal Trimmer]

Kenny,

The word "murder" was part of the quote but not the part that grabbed my attention. Rather it was the assertion that marines, all marines and therefore these marines on that day, "would, in fact, try to save and defend innocent lives...even to their own peril." My bad. To clarify: I don't think it was murder. Manslaughter, maybe. An interesting display of our troops' and our military command's attitudes towards the Iraqis, definitely.

So they were shot at. They searched the building the shots came from, heard noises. Fragged the room and used "clearing rounds" to make sure everyone in the room was dead. Discovered civilians, including children, messily dead.

Now at this point it seems to me that anyone who gave a flying f**k about Iraqi civilians or even children in general would have been horrified at having accidentally killed kids. They would take precautions against being placed in that awful position again, particularly in the immediate future.

Instead, "The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a frag grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people."

Maybe it's just me but the precautions seem to have been a little sparse.

Terrorists are scum. Forgive me for not bringing up that blatantly obvious point. As terrorist scum they may well have planned on something like what happened. Presumably they or their bosses would be aware that "it was not unusual for Marines to respond to attacks "running and gunning" and that it was standard practice to spray rooms with gunfire when threatened." If our guys are going to go in "running and gunning" then we can expect more of this sort of thing. I feel that rules of engagement that lead to our guys having to live with the images of little kids' brains blasted across a wall, killed by them, fall short of optimal.

You claim that, "the Marines called off the pursuit of the terrorists precisely because they realized civilians were getting killed, which is not behavior consistent with placing "no value" on Iraqi civilians; thus your own evidence refutes your sweepingly overstated accusation." That is not what the article says: "Wuterich, not having found the insurgents, told the team to stop and headed back to the platoon leader to reassess the situation, Puckett said, adding that his client knew a number of civilians had just been killed.[...]" You may want to believe that Wuterich's motivation for stopping was concern for civilians -- I think that fragging the second room says otherwise -- but it could as easily have been purely tactical. Wuterich makes no such claim in the article above. I wish he had.

[Kenny Pierce]

Randall,

Evidently you do not know the meaning of the phrase "knowingly murder" in ethics.

To take an action that you know is likely to result in the death of innocents, but that (a) you do not know will in fact will kill innocents, and that (b) you devoutly hope does not kill innocents -- that may be morally culpable, but it is not murder. The distinction in question is quite similar to the distinction between manslaughter and murder; the death of innocents is a consequence that is foreseen as possible but is neither desired nor willed by the Marines.

I note that you are ready to condemn the Marines for taking action that has a significant chance of resulting in the death of innocents even though they don't want the innocents to die, but offer no condemnation of the terrorists who consistently and deliberately use innocent civilians as shields. The terrorists, in this case, are clearly more culpable for the death of these innocents than are the Marines -- but I suspect that if somebody sat quietly and listened to you and your like-minded friends discuss the subject amongst yourselves from dawn to dusk he'd never hear the slightest hint that anyone but the Marines were at fault. I sincerely hope I'm unjustified in that suspicion.

If you want to be taken seriously in moral discussions, then (a) learn what the terms mean, (b) learn the basic ethical distinctions (such as the distinction between willed outcomes and outcomes that are unwilled but foreseen as probable) that centuries of thought and discussion have determined are necessary for rational thought on the subject, and (c) give some evidence that when you condemn bad behavior, the venom of your condemnation is based upon the degree of moral guilt inherent in the action rather than upon whether the action lends itself to the disgrace of your domestic political foes.

You will note, by the way, that the Marines called off the pursuit of the terrorists precisely because they realized civilians were getting killed, which is not behavior consistent with placing "no value" on Iraqi civilians; thus your own evidence refutes your sweepingly overstated accusation. Meanwhile there were people involved in the incident who very clearly place no value on the lives of Iraqi civilians...but it seems you have no time to spare for condemning the terrorists when there are American soldiers to indict.

[Randal Trimmer]

hiawatha biscayne said,
"but marines don't knowingly murder innocents. no way. they would, in fact, try to save and defend innocent lives...even to their own peril."

Evidently he did not read the article,
"A four-man team of Marines, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it, Puckett said. They then kicked in that door, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke, killing several people, Puckett said.[...]

The Marine who fired the rounds -- Puckett said it was not Wuterich -- had experience clearing numerous houses on a deployment in Fallujah, where Marines had aggressive rules of engagement.

Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women and children -- most likely civilians -- they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said. The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a frag grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people, he said.

Wuterich, not having found the insurgents, told the team to stop and headed back to the platoon leader to reassess the situation, Puckett said, adding that his client knew a number of civilians had just been killed.[...]

A Marine who served near Haditha in November said it was not unusual for Marines to respond to attacks "running and gunning" and that it was standard practice to spray rooms with gunfire when threatened. "It may be a bad tactic, but it works," he said. "It keeps you alive."

They blindly fragged a room full of people and then finished them off with gunfire without getting a good look at them. They noted that the dead were civilians, including women and children -- and were not surprised. Then they did the same thing again. This seems to be SOP. It "works" -- so long as the lives of Iraqi civilians have no value.

Or maybe HB's definition of "innocent" does not include Iraqi children.

[Kenny Pierce]

RJ,

Well, you pretty much completely missed the point of "self-congratulatory."

The purpose of that word was to make a distinction between two kinds of people from the Left. There are people like my mother-in-law, and (one hopes) like yourself, who hold very liberal opinions and yet do not think that their liberalism proves that they are morally superior to those who disagree with them. My own (statistically not terribly significant) experience makes me think that such people are a majority of American Democrats, but a minority of the American Democrats who push themselves forward as spokesmen for the Left. (The Democratic Underground site, for example, is pretty much a lunatic asylum, but it is not remotely representative of the Left as a whole.)

In other words, I was not accusing the entire Left of being self-congratulatory, but was in fact making a distinction precisely on the basis that the majority of the Left (in my acquaintance) is not particularly so. I leave it up to you to decide whether you personally ought to be offended.

Self-congratulation (like its mirror image self-condemnation) is in general much more common among the self-obsessed and narcissistic, and any profession that promises a shot at celebrity disporportionately attracts such people -- if you love to be the center of attention, then you are much more likely to go into the media or politics than you are to become a plumber or software designer. Therefore the dynamic of self-congratulation is disproportionately in force among those members of the Left who are attracted to politics and the media and other venues for saying, "HEY EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME I'M SO IMPORTANT" -- which is part of why the Noisy Left is not terribly representative of the ordinary decent hard-working down-to-earth American liberal, like my mother-in-law.

As for Iraq's simililarity to Vietnam: I don't think you want to go there, as the primary thing that set Vietnam apart from all previous wars was the attitude of the Noisy Left, and the one great hope of the terrorists is that the Noisy Left (a) hasn't changed its attitudes and (b) hasn't lost its influence in America. In the meantime, some differences for you:

1. The Vietnam army was a drafted army for a war in which the draft pool as a whole did not believe. The army in Iraq is a volunteer force comprised more and more disproportionately of men and women who have already toured in Iraq and believe so strongly in what we are doing there that they have reenlisted.

2. The typical Vietnam soldier and his family knew that the President was dishonest, trusted the media to tell them the truth, and had no alternative source of information when the media lied. The typical soldier in this war and his family believe that the President was sincere and honest in the case he made for the war and indeed believes wholeheartedly in the importance and value of this war; they know that the picture the media paints at home does not accurately depict the soldier's own experience; and there is the blogosphere to leap all over modern-day Walter Cronkites when their distortions get too out of hand.

3. The chasm between supporters of the war and antiwar protestors was, in Vietnam, disproportionately a generational divide; and the antiwar rebellion against the war was part of a massive rebellion of the young against the old in every aspect of life (sexuality, drugs, music, etc.). In Iraq the differences are purely political and are recognized as such; this alters the political dynamic dramatically. The political climate of our day is quite different from the political climate of the Sixties; and this dramatically alters the war because...

4. As the victorious Vietnamese themselves frankly admitted, and as al Qaeda's strategists noted sagely, Vietnam was won militarily, but lost politically. It was lost politically because for the first time in history the American political home front was dominated by people who wanted their own country to lose, and thus for the first time the outcome of victory or defeat depended not primarily on soldiers and military tactics but on propaganda and media strategy. Propaganda had always been part of war but the military actions had been the dominant determinant of victory or defeat; in this war propaganda took control and the military actions became secondary since they could always been spun or outright lied about -- the military victory of the Tet Offensive could be reported as a defeat, and once that happened for practical purposes it functioned as a defeat. Al Qaeda's and the insurgents' fundamental tactics are political, not military, and their fundamental strategic assumption is that what happens militarily is no more important in this war than it was in Vietnam, because they can count on the same sort of cooperation from American defeatists that the Vietnamese got.

That was by far the critical and unique and determining characteristic of the Vietnam War. It is the firm conviction and fondest hope of bin Laden that this Iraq war will indeed turn out to be like the Vietnam War. Whether it does is pretty much up to the Left. I myself have been arguing that Iraq is not, in fact, like Vietnam in respect to the single most critical factor that determined our defeat in Vietnam and that set Vietnam apart from all wars that had gone before.

You will note that in doing so I am paying the modern-day Left a compliment.

[Saunders]

And made many more Zarqawis.

No, it did not. There was only one Zarqawi, and he's dead.

In his letter to the Corinthians (IV:8), Paul writes, "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle." Zarqawi's elimination forever removes his blood-stained lips from the terrorist trumpet, and there is no one of his stature or mad genius to take his place.

[Alexandra]

What I'm asking is that you please try and come up with something that reflects reality. Something that isn't just culture war talking points.

You are simply uninformed.What exactly are you watching when you speak of the media?

I guess this one slipped through all the editors trying to undermine our troops.

Your comment is full of "reality check" references, but I think it is you who needs one the most.

[RJBJ]

Alexandra,

yeah... let's boil this down to a "supporting the troops" kind of thing. Who is mourning "the betrayed Zarqawi?" Who on the left, in the US? For the umpteenth million time, who doesn't support the troops, for god's sake? There are those on the fringe of the right who would destroy our own government... remember Timothy McVeigh? So let's at least reflect a little reality here. I'm going to put this in caps. So we understand each other. HOW COULD I NOT SUPPORT AMERICANS DOING THEIR JOB? HOW COULD I NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS?

It's similar to accusing someone of not supporting their local police force if they don't agree with the policies behind the war on drugs. A police force that pretty much everyone obviously agrees does a hell of a lot for them. It's the policy people want to change.

One other thing. About the "liberal media" thing. It's the WaPo reporting this captain's story. The story you quote. The "liberal" media. I guess this one slipped through all the editors trying to undermine our troops.

What I'm asking is that you please try and come up with something that reflects reality. Something that isn't just culture war talking points.

You accused Murtha of pre-judgment, which was right, he did prematurely judge... although it was far from being treasonous. I'm accusing some people on this comment thread of doing the same damn thing... prejudging.

[RJBJ]

Kenny,

Yeah, let's chalk this all up to "Bush hatred" and the liberal media.

To go a little more in depth... maybe a little bit more psychological, maybe we should talk about your "narrative," the self-congratulatory left. I assume that in the present case this "left" is congratulating itself on realizing that the war in Iraq was sold to us on mistakes at best, and lies at worst. On realizing that the war is creating terrorists that we can fight over there, and possibly fight here at some later time. That the war is an idiotic diversion and misuse of what used to be a consensus on the war on terror. Global, that is. I assume you believe that they're unfairly rubbing it in. If that isn't your "self-congratulatory," what is it exactly?

Basically, somehow, this superiority in clarity, this objection to maintaining the present course, is "self-congratulatory."

All wars have at least one story similiar to what allegedly happened at Haditha. Every single one. Like wingnuts always say, "it's war." That's right. But why war? Cause and effect is easy to grasp, for most. Why war in this case, in the first place? A war atrocity is a result of WAR. Much like the murderer al Zarqawi, as he was when he was killed, was a result of the war. The invasion empowered him. And gave him many more followers, obviously. And made many more Zarqawis. What I'm saying is that a decision to go to war isn't to be taken as lightly as a soccer match.

When it comes to comparing wars, Vietnam is clearly a better comparison to the war in Iraq than WWII. Clearly. There may be a possible war scenario that that the left wouldn't criticize. In fact I'm sure that there is. Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea definitely aren't it. But comparisons are odious, aren't they?

The problem is that it'll always be a stab-in-the-back story with the right. It's what started the "culture war" and obviously it will in the future fuel idiotic division and destructive political strategies. It's almost like nobody can be a conservative without a belief that we were "stabbed in the back" anymore. That we weren't allowed to win. The world's greatest power can't lose to an outside force, no matter what the goal. We must've been thwarted from within. Hence your blaming the NYT and liberals for the story of alleged atrocities at Haditha. In Vietnam, how could we not have succeeded in imposing our will on another people? A people who lived under the yoke of colonialism for so long? In Iraq, how could we fail at the same goal, with a people who already have a large dose of hatred for us? Two different wars, two different nations, but similar arrogance.

[Alexandra]

So, the Marines are innocent before proven innocent.

No, the Marines are given our benefit of doubt and our support in the belief that they may be innocent.

I have a good idea. Let's deny the existence of any US troops in Iraq

The left does that pretty much anyway, unless it is to slam them for doing something wrong. I have not heard or read one single solitary decent thing said about our men in uniform in any comment by the left supporting readers on this blog. Always lining up to be there to slam them as hard as they can though. All in fear that perhaps their support of the troops might be misconstrued as support for the war in Iraq. Well I can assure you there is no fear of either. They can happily carry on mourning the "betrayed"al-Zarqawi and digging for reasons why the military should have treated him in death better than he treated us in life.

[RJBJ]

So, the Marines are innocent before proven innocent. Isn't that what everyone was blaming Murtha for, making judgment before the trial?

igout, I agree with you. Our "war effort" is to deny any truthful account of anything that happens in Iraq. What a burden that is, to absorb lies into our ever expanding capacity for spin and propoganda. It's tiring. And dangerous. I have a good idea. Let's deny the existence of any US troops in Iraq. Let's just flatly state that we never invaded Iraq, and have never occupied Iraq. Therefore, following impeccable logic, no US soldiers are currently in Iraq to commit any supposed atrocities.

[igout]

Rightly or wrongly, we on the home front haven't been asked to buy war bonds, collect scrap metal, become riveters and air raid wardens. One way we can help the war effort is to flatly reject all such stories as Haditha, whether they are true or not. As long as a single American soldier, sailor, airman is in action anywhere, nothing happened at Haditha. Period.

[Kenny Pierce]

I'll copy in a comment I made over at NewsBusters (hence the focus on the far-left portion of the media and its shrinking audience) that I think is relevant to the last few comments. Since the audience here strikes me as rather more diverse than the NewsBusters audience I'm more likely to get useful criticism by posting it here:

...I think a lot of the problem is simply that the subset of the Baby Boomer Left that dominates the media can't see any war in any terms except Vietnam, for a couple of reasons.

1. Vietnam is the only war they experienced personally, and they are not historians. Self-discipline in any field, including intellectual self-discipline, was jettisoned by most of that generation (though many of them later grew up when real life forced them to); and the responsible study of history is hard work. By indolent definition, the establishment (though the Democratic Party gets special dispensation) is bad, the military is corrupt and prone to atrocity, and all war is a pointless quagmire ("What is it good for? Absolutely nothing," rants the black Edwin Starr with no apparent memory of what event it was that put an end to American slavery). They can't get past that narrative because they have no other narrative for war.

This is disastrous for their analysis because the Vietnam War was in many respects a unique and perverse war and not at all a good template for understanding war in general, but having no other template they have no way to avoid grossly distorted analysis. (I am continually struck, in conversation with anti-war Old Hippies, by their nearly-complete ignorance of the World Wars or the Korean War, for example; you have as good a chance of getting a random American teenager to tell you the name of the capital of Nepal as you do of getting a random anti-war Old Hippie -- who can recite at speed every strategic mistake that the Democratic Underground assures him Bush has made in this war -- to tell you the significance of the hedgerows of Normandy. Indeed, a typical Baby Boomer's only image of the Korean War is M*A*S*H -- in which the war is patently the Vietnam War with a false "Korean War" label.)

2. And they don't want an alternative war narrative because the self-congratulatory portion of the Baby Boomer Left -- and the news media is disproportionately composed of the narcissistically self-congratulatory -- has only two accomplishments to which they confidently point with pride. (1) They saw the full flowering of the Civil Rights movement (though the Baby Boomers can't really take any credit for it because it was mostly accomplished by people older than they). (2) They saw to it that we lost Vietnam. That is to say, they saw to it that we cut out and ran and abandoned literally millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians to a horrific fate.

Now, being some of the only people in history who have managed to congratulate themselves for losing a winnable war, it is absolutely necessary that they be able to tell themselves that what they did in demanding that we lose that war, was justified; and since cowardice, selfishness, and abandoning the defenseless to horror and slavery and genocide are generally not grounds for moral self-admiration, they MUST believe that the Vietnam War was worse than the alternative...and if the Iraq War turns out to be a success, it calls into question the self-congratulatory Left's myth of itself and its great anti-war "triumph."

That's a pretty cynical reading of motives, I admit, but I hasten to emphasize that I am speaking only of those on the left who congratulate themselves on their moral superiority with no grounds other than their political affiliation. As you observe yourself, if you get away from the Noisy Left (the blogs and the media) what I find at least is that the ordinary decent Democrat is delighted with the news about al Zarqawi and not eager to see American soldiers slandered without a fair hearing -- for I think the Noisy Narcissistic Left (including rags like the NYT) is out of touch not only with Red State America, but also with lots of decent Democrats like my mother-in-law. Hey, maybe my mother-in-law is not the most logically consistent thinker (she manages both to despise the Vietnam War and to adore LBJ, by what gymnastics of mental reconciliation I can't begin to imagine), but she's a good and honest and decent person who doesn't want American soldiers slandered and is happy to see terrorists die.

I think the Murthas and the NYT's are just continuing to destroy their credibility outside of the Angry Third of the country whose overmastering characteristics are their self-admiration and their hatred of Bush. I really do think their blindness is driving them ever closer to niche-market status -- though of course when the stock price gets hurt enough changes in management may occur and restore something like professionalism, as a matter of survival necessity.

[George Berryman]

Why is it that the marines must be lying and not the insurgents?

Well you have to consider the leftist media mentality, Ann! To media leftists the U.S. military is always the bad guy - with no exception.

[Darrell]

Terrorists lie? It's part of their religion--to help their cause or hurt the enemy's. Come to think about it, that's part of the Left's religion too! Or more specifically, if the Left were a religion, and we all know that it is, lying is one of their commandments. It's "seared into their minds!"-tin foil hats not withstanding.

[radar]

Great for us, for our troops and for the cause of freedom in Iraq. Bad for the liberal Democrats, the MSM, and Murtha in particular!

Murtha wants to be in leadership in the House, thinking the Dhimmis will take control in the fall election. He was the guy who suggested that atrocities by American troops were "policy."
This is going to make this former-war-hero-turned-spineless-appeaser look bad, along with most of the liberal moonbat brigade and the MSM in general. Awwwww...

There were problems with this story when it first came out and now it is all falling apart. Amy Proctor and Woman Honor Thyself were giving us head's up about this before the sergeant's story came out.

As usual, good news is bad for the Democrats, for that is how they have positioned themselves on almost every issue.

This blog is fantastic and is now accorded a place on my blogroll! Carry on!

[Ann]

Why is it that the marines must be lying and not the insurgents? Why is that Zarqawi is mourned by the lefties all because to celebrate his death would mean that the admin is doing something right? Why is it that the left celebrates our failures and resents our victories? Why do they revel in slandering our soldiers? It's like Viet-Nam all over again. How these guys find the courage to fight again and again for us, I am amazed and grateful.

[hiawatha biscayne]

look at it this way, if you will: the marines didn't do it bacause it's not their m.o. there's no honor in it and they are an entirely honor-based society. and while i don't personally know the young staff sergeant, i know, because i know the marine corps, that he was rigorously vetted, countless times, before he was ever considered for promotion to his present rank. and if, at any time, he had been found wanting, he would not have been promoted and he would've eventually found himself standing on the street in civilian clothes. while i do not know anything else about staff sergeant wuterich, i know, because i know the marine corps, that he would stand for the old-time virtues of duty and honor and bravery and, yes, fidelity. the united states marine corps does not entrust the lives of its junior enlisted men to just anybody. there is no honor in lying. there is no honor in killing the defenseless. there is no honor in betraying your oath. and there is absolutely no honor covering-up an atrocity. i believe i would trust the word of a man like that before i'd trust the word of any of the other parties with dogs in this fight. imagine that.

[antimedia]

jpe writes

The guy whose neck would be on the line if the allegations were true is denying the whole thing. Imagine that.

IOW, if the Marines tell the story, they must be lying.

Nice to know where you stand, jerk. You don't suppose there's any possibility that the "insurgents" would lie, do you? Oh, no. They must be telling the truth. And all those left-wing "human rights" organizations - they must be telling the truth, right? Never mind that none of the "witnesses" stories agree (were they shot in the houses or in the street? Were they begging for mercy or screaming in terror? Were there 6 or 8 or 9 in that house? Was the one witness 10, 12 or 13?)

There's not much more ironic than people who don't care one whit for the truth accusing others of lying.

[Angel]

Excellent overview as always Alexandra..I have been sounding the bell myself and linked up to this post. How quick they are to judge....

[hiawatha biscayne]

for what it's worth, and apropos of nothing really, it's woth noting, i think, that wuterich, although only 26, is a staff sergeant, e-6. in other words, he's a career marine. even an e-5 buck sergeant could be just serving out an enlistment, but not so with an e-6. he's a pro who's gone through many difficult cuts to get to be a staff nco in the united states marine corps. forgive me, but if that's what he said happened, then that's what happened. and furthermore, i am just appalled at the idea that so many people seem so quickly willing to believe the worst of these marines. these are u.s. marines, for heaven's sake! they don't line innocents up against the wall and execute them! no effing way. i can believe that some civilians may have gotten killed in the fighting, but i know, as clearly as the day is long, that those young marines did not go on a "rampage." marines don't do that. the baddest of the bad, for sure...called devil-dogs by the germans in the WWI, because the squareheads had gotten used to dealing with the french. but marines don't knowingly murder innocents. no way. they would, in fact, try to save and defend innocent lives...even to their own peril.