Haditha planned by Al Qaeda

[Undertoad]

NYT gives up, Saturday:

...on Thursday, a senior military investigator recommended dropping murder charges against the ranking enlisted marine accused in the 2005 killings, just as he had done earlier in the cases of two other marines charged in the case. The recommendation may well have ended prosecutors’ chances of winning any murder convictions in the killings of the apparently unarmed men, women and children.

Then, separately, a blogger over the weekend:

Buried in the mountain of exhibits attached to the once secret Haditha, Iraq murder inquiry prepared by US Army Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell is an obscure Marine Corps intelligence summary (see pdf) that says the deadly encounter was an intentional propaganda ploy planned and paid for by Al Qaeda foreign fighters.

Wow. Just wow.

TW had told us:

Today, we know this was a massacre of Iraqis including a 76 year old blind and decrepit man in a wheelchair, his elderly wife, and children ranged in age from 15 to 3. This was all unquestioned for a month until Time Magazine's Tim McGirk reviewed pictures and saw obvious discrepancies. Four months later, Time Magazine would publish facts that eventually revealed the 2005 massacre.

But the blogger points out that McGirk was getting his information from the enemy.

McGirk received his video "evidence" and contacts from two known Iraqi insurgent operatives already under observation by Marine Corps counter intelligence teams. One of the Iraqi witnesses McGirk relied on had just been released from almost six months captivity for insurgent activities and the other witness was considered a useful intelligence tool by Marines listening to him talk on his cell phone. McGirk never interviewed the Marines, who ironically had prepared a similar intelligence summary in anticipation of his canceled visit.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=10896

Undertoad: "However, I'll go ahead and guess that the psychology of a team of Marines hit by a roadside bomb is far different from the psychology of a unit that massacres an entire village."

Happy Monkey: You misspelled "that massacres an entire family".

Do you maybe want to walk back from that one? Don't say I didn't warn you.

tw:

When direction at the highest level is flawed (no smoking gun, no strategic objective, no exit strategy), then this is how troops end up in this no win situation. They don't control the terrain. They are not proactive. It results in MyLai, Haditha, and Fallujah.

blogger:

After Tim McGirk wrote his specious report claiming a squad of Marines massacred 24 civilians at Haditha the world press immediately compared the incident to the massacre at My Lai. The unwarranted comparisons still anger Meyers.

"From our perspective - from a legal perspective - we knew it was a kinetic event," said Meyers. "We knew enough to present to the IO (Investigating Officer) that this was not an isolated event; that the entire city was in a kinetic state that day. Anyone who tries to compare this event to My Lai is an absolute fool."

Or a tool. But don't worry tw... you were just following the My Lai narrative set up for you by the New York Fucking Times. Too bad they were tools too.

[TheMercenary]

Amazing. I am not in the least bit surprised.

[deadbeater]

And I suppose that we should rely on biased sources as well?

[Undertoad]

We should assume that all sources are biased, because they are.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... by the New York Fucking Times

It is called FISHing. Throw in a grenade. Then charge the home to discover who was killed. Shoot anyone who moves or runs. Alternative consequences are dead Marines. We created this unwinnable situation. We listened to a wacko mental midget. Now Undertoad wants to defend this president? Or does he justify routine massacres as acceptable?

Marines never wanted to be in that impossible situation when deployed to An Bar. Never forget Blackwater's part in changing Marine tactics - and the 7000 mile screwdriver who ordered this military strategy; in direct contradiction to what Marines wanted to do. Haditha (and Blackwater tactics) are situation normal when, well, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to whom? Same person who Undertoad believed about Saddam’s WMDs even after George Jr admitted there were no WMDs.

Haditha was a massacre. Apparently not severe enough to justify legal prosecution. Justified in part because American soldiers routinely discovered Iraqi 'friends' were really enemies - deja vue Nam. Put the soldier in such unwinnable situations and numerous Hadithas occurred. UT would defend these massacres only because civilians are far game? Or because the 7000 mile screw driver could not be wrong - as forced upon soldiers? That is what UT has just posted.

UT completely ignored the underlying point of those Haditha posts. Such massacres occur when troops are forced into unwinnable situations - because George Jr is so dumb as to even conform to another’s definition of 'evil'. Haditha was not the only massacre. Such deaths are documented repeatedly meaning so many more have occured.

The death of Paliwoda had left the unit in a mood for revenge - and they knew how to exact it. When the sun went down that chilly January night, soldiers from the 1/8 set out to kill some specific Iraqis. ... The third vehicle was a white pickup truck. Its two occupants were handcuffed, driven to the Tigris, forced from the ledge of a pump house into the river, a drop of about six feet. One of the men, Zaidown Fadel Hassoun, age nineteen, drowned, according to the other, Marwan Fadel Hassoun, twenty-three, his cousin.
When the 1/66 Armor learned of the incident and passed word to Gen Odierno, he tried to check it out but was lied to by his subordinates, he said. "I went to 1/8, and they said, "Didn't happen," he recalled ... "The bottom line on the Sassaman case is .... he directed a cover-up of an incident, and didn't come clean until he realized the CID had figured it out."
Sassaman's soldiers at first insisted that they had released the men - without mentioning they had "released" then into the river. Pressed, they subsequently said they'd seen both men swim to shore and emerge. That was a lie, Saville later testified. In fact, he had one out that night with an order from his company commander Capt Matthew Cunningham. "I understand he was directing me and my subordinates to kill certain Iraqis we were seeking that night who were suspected of killing the company commander in our unit," he testified .... "I understood that the order meant that if they were captured, regardless of the circumstances of their capture, they were not to return alive." That order was given twice that night, he added. Saville also testified that his company commander had given him a list of five Iraqis who "were not to come back alive" ....

Haditha is only one in a long list of examples; what happens when troops go to war without a smoking gun, without a strategic objective, without an exit strategy ... and because top management - the president is a liar. This is what happens when people such as UT supported the scum bag president - even denied the lies about WMDs. Whole units even become involved in coverups. Deja vue Nam where a frustrated army would routinely kill people for no reason but emotion – anger.

Largely unseen and unnoticed by reporters and other observers of the war, these convoys were a major cause of friction with Iraqis as they traversed Iraq. … Soldiers from another unit, when convoying through his area, ‘were shooting at passing cars without provocation, the officer reported. Rudesheim responded, “Oh shit, those guys come into my sector and do it, and their own leaders don’t stop them.”
Official reports describe a lack of fire discipline in the conduct of convoys. “The British sector … is relatively free of anti-Coalition attacks, Yet American convoys moving north from Kuwait … have fired at British contractors who drove near the American Vehicles on a major highway,” noted the Center for Army Lessons Learned. …
Despite the improvements, trigger-happy convoys would continue to undercut efforts to win over the populace. The number of Iraqis who died this way is unknown. Lt Col Todd Wood, a battalion commander in the 3rd Infantry Division, complained to a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle about troops passing through his area of operations on Iraq’s Highway 1. “Seems like I pick up a lot of people’s pieces around here,” he said. “These … patrols that drive around and shoot people have been a thorn in everybody’s side all year.”
His senior NCO, Sgt Maj Samuel Coston added, “I hate the fact that American soldiers ride around killing civilians. All you got to say is, ‘I felt threatened, the car was driving aggressively’, and you shoot. They have no remorse. They just keep driving.”

UT would have us believe innocent people were not killed? UT continued to insist that Saddam had WMDs even after George Jr admitted that was a lie. Haditha is simply a symptom of American leaders who lie. Deja vue Nam.

UT also told us Iraqis overwhelmingly welcomed Americans. Whole towns could watch insurgents setup for American attacks and say nothing for an obvious reason. Obvious? UT insisted that Americans were warmly welcomed by Iraqis – which was even obvious by the so few who came out to tear down Saddam’s statue. Once we eliminate the propaganda; Saddam was undesirable. But Americans were widely despised (for invading) and were not trusted. Obviously Iraqis had good reasons to not trust Americans - because of what happens when war is not justified AND created by a wacko extremist (lying) American government. Deja vue Nam, the lessons from My Lai, and Americans who still deny those realities.

Somehow UT (and TheMercenary) tells us that Americans do not do massacres? Of course. It happens when our leaders are crooks – just like Nixon.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by tw

Marines never wanted to be in that impossible situation when deployed to An Bar.

Why did you spell it An Bar?

I do think it's ridiculous to be so upset about one particular incident of murdering civilians. We do it all the time. It's called collateral damage and its yet another item on the long list of 'acceptable losses' that we agreed to when we invaded Iraq.

Mistakes happen in war, which is one big-ass reason it should be avoided at all costs, not used as a political tool by some mental midget who wanted to get a little excitement and a chance to wear a real-live flight suit out of his four years.

I can't blame these marines, they thought they were shooting bad guys. I can blame their intelligence apparatus and their leadership, but when you send out a group of guys whose job it is to kill, don't get mad when they kill someone.

[richlevy]

Buried in the mountain of exhibits attached to the once secret Haditha, Iraq murder inquiry prepared by US Army Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell is an obscure Marine Corps intelligence summary (see pdf) that says the deadly encounter was an intentional propaganda ploy planned and paid for by Al Qaeda foreign fighters.

What are you suggesting, that they planted the IED knowing the marines were going to shoot up two households? Or are you suggesting Al Qaeda actually shot the civilians?

It appears that the marines will get off, but noone is using the 'Al Qaeda did it' defense.


From here we see that it is believed the marines did kill the civilians, that the deaths were outside the rules of engagement, but not considered murder. Again, no mention of an Al Qaeda setup.

Al Qaeda may have planted the bomb, but noone is disputing that the marines pulled the triggers.

I said it in another thread and I will say it here. Our troops are not there to protect Iraqis, our troops are there to protect themselves while carrying out patrols and convoys. I don't think any of these guys are going to go out of their way to insure the safety of civilians if it means exposing themselves to more risk. Haditha was just an extreme example of this.

Inside the homes where many Iraqis were killed, including the seven women and children Sergeant Wuterich was accused of killing, marines used grenades and rifles to clear the structures of enemy fighters. No weapons were found in the homes.
In the report, Colonel Ware said he believed that a jury would probably decline to convict Sergeant Wuterich of any crime other than dereliction of duty, for failing to ensure that his men followed the rules of engagement when they fired their weapons, according to a person who has read the document.
“I believe after reviewing all the evidence no trier of fact can conclude that Staff Sgt. Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill,” Colonel Ware wrote, the person who reviewed the report said. “The evidence is contradictory, the forensic analysis is limited, and almost all the witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice.”
Several officers were earlier charged with dereliction of duty for failing to properly investigate the episode. Investigators recommended dropping all charges against a battalion lawyer, and last month prosecutors dropped all charges against the commander of Company K, Third Battalion, First Marines .

[Undertoad]

What are you suggesting, that they planted the IED knowing the marines were going to shoot up two households?

The source link is poorly written, but explains: This was an operation planned by al Qaeda to discredit the Marines.

During the November Haditha battle, the insurgents secreted themselves among local civilians to guarantee pursuing Marines would catch innocent civilians in the ensuing crossfire.

Why they think this? First, an informant said so:

The report – apparently overlooked by a Washington press corps awash in leaked Bargewell documents and secret Naval Criminal Investigative Service reports – shows that Marine Corps intelligence operatives were advised of the scheme to demonize the Marines by an informant named Muhannad Hassan Hamadi.

Secondly, they had intel revealing...

...that the al Qaeda fighters planned to videotape the attacks and exploit the resulting carnage for propaganda purposes.

Which is why Time Magazine's McGirk had photos... which were purported to be from Human Rights Watch, but turned out to be from insurgents who were under observation from the Marines.

Hey, take the report as a data point. But consider. Insurgents have been revealed to have been "stringers" for the AP and other media, feeding photos that are beneficial to their version of the facts. This is part of the Al Queda strengths, understanding western media and how to exploit it.

[TheMercenary]

This was an operation planned by al Qaeda to discredit the Marines and the story was suppressed and buried by the liberal media.

[deadbeater]

If it were, then it worked very well. The Marines and the American forces can't afford to be that stupid in fighting al-Qaeda, being repeatedly and repeatedly suckered into situations in which they may be forced to kill civilians.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Hey, take the report as a data point. But consider. Insurgents have been revealed to have been "stringers" for the AP and other media, feeding photos that are beneficial to their version of the facts. This is part of the Al Queda strengths, understanding western media and how to exploit it.

Justifying soldiers killing civilians by stating that insurgents mix in with the civilian population would open a big can of worms. There were probably a few insurgents among the thousands that 'chemical Ali' gassed, but noone was sorry when he hung. Insurgents mix in with civilians. That is part of the definition of 'insurgent'.

If they were filming the marines waiting for them to screw up, this does not meet the definition of a setup. If the Iraqis planted the civilian bodies, that would be a set up. If they made it appear that enemy fire was coming from the houses, that would be a setup.

Following soldiers around waiting for them to do something ugly in order to generate their own propaganda is just part of the information war. They lie, we lie, and everyone puts their own spin on anything resembling the truth.

War is very ugly, and Haditha is an example of this. It is closer to the truth than any talk of liberation, parades, and 'mission accomplished'. Having a war in your backyard is pure horror. Every day being told by each side how you should support them and what bad things will happen to you if you support the other side just adds to the nightmare.

The only argument that can still be made for staying in Iraq is the 'Pottery Barn' one. We propped up a dictator for decades until we decided not to. Then we overthrew him and turned a brutal dictatorship into brutal anarchy. Then we took hundreds of thousands of 'volunteers' away from their families, extended their tours, gave them a mission with nebulous parameters, fuzzy rules of engagement, and absolutely no clear definition of victory. We let the mission deteriorate to the point where many if not most of the soldiers place themselves and their comrades lives above those of the people they are there to protect. We subject them to the worst kind of warfare, the kind almost guaranteed to blot out large pieces of the soul, and completely fail to plan for the support they will need when they return in much the same way we failed to plan for the support they would need when they arrived.

And when it becomes too much and the unthinkable happens, we blame it on conspiracy, bias, rumormongering - anything but the simple fact that people whose primary training is to kill the enemy are not 'police in fatigues' but soldiers whose rules of engagement, while not a pure license to kill, allow for a significant civilian body count.

I don't hate the marines on trial for Haditha. I might not even hate them if any of the civilians killed were my relatives. However, I thank G-d that after post-Civil War Reconstruction, the second attempt at large scale military occupation in the United States, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to keep us from having a similar experience.

Much of the Bill of Rights is a response to restrictions imposed in occupation, from the 1st (peaceable assembly), the 2nd (right to bear arms), the 3rd (quartering of soldiers), etc. The colonists had their own experience with contractors (Hessians) and 'foreign' soldiers during the Revolutionary War, since the British soldiers did not treat the colonists as citizens, and after the 2nd experience passed the act to prevent a third.