Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 21, 2006
On the Origins of an Atrocity

by citizen

If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
George W. Bush, speech at West Point in 2002

That seems to be the logic use in defense of the atrocity at Haditha. I am ready to agree with that logic, but do disagree that this logic was actually being followed in Haditha or in Iraq in general. Nor has the government given us reason to expect that this logic is actually driving the so-called national policy of the United States.

In Haditha, Iraq – a Time report:

Dr. Wahid, director of the local hospital in Haditha, who asked that his family name be withheld because, he says, he fears reprisals by U.S. troops, says the Marines brought 24 bodies to his hospital around midnight on Nov. 19. Wahid says the Marines claimed the victims had been killed by shrapnel from the roadside bomb. "But it was obvious to us that there were no organs slashed by shrapnel," Wahid says. "The bullet wounds were very apparent. Most of the victims were shot in the chest and the head–from close range."

A day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with Time. The tape makes for grisly viewing. It shows that many of the victims, especially the women and children, were still in their nightclothes when they died. The scenes from inside the houses show that the walls and ceilings are pockmarked with shrapnel and bullet holes as well as the telltale spray of blood. But the video does not reveal the presence of any bullet holes on the outside of the houses, which may cast doubt on the Marines’ contention that after the ied exploded, the Marines and the insurgents engaged in a fierce gunfight.

The officers that allowed have no solid grounds for explaining to their troops that they have suffered for any good reason, nor that their deaths and soul-crimes have been in true service to the nation or the folks back home. These Marines have been damned by a military policy that is not national, not at the service of the U.S. as a people, or even as a country. Whether or not these Marines have gotten as far as Smedley Butler had figured out that they’re working for this era’s version of United Fruit and Standard Oil, it is a certainty that these troops have been damned to hell by the same ‘national’ policy makers when they also damned Iraqis to life in hell.

For democracy?! Tell that to these Marines. Or tell it to the Iraqis in this or any village.

One wonders, who do these ‘national’ policy makers consider the enemy? They seem to hate and fear most of all anyone serious about serving the nation. Look at whom they smear and spy on the Bill of Rights. Look at how they seem to read it.

We are taking about treachery, or as a former Supreme Court Justice of the U.S. said upon the opening of certain earlier trials against men and women who betrayed their nation by leading it into hell:

Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or for altering these conditions.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson opening the Nuremburg Trials

How does the current President of the United States recommend we defend ourselves were someone to threaten to betray and attack the nation:

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
George W. Bush, speech at West Point in 2002

Words to live by.

Comments

Kudos, citizen, on a brilliant and far-ranging post!
You touch upon the two sides of the coin of “the atrocity”: The atrocities that we, in the service of empire, commit upon others; and the crimes that empire, in the interests of self-perpetuation, commit upon us.
Propaganda encourages us, the Citizens of Empire, to enlist in the cause, that is the carrot. Loss of Civil Liberties, and the rapid and frightening descent into outright Fascism, including jailing, spying, bankrupting, torturing, and the disappearing of our own citizens, is the cudgel, to be used against those dissenters who might not get the message.
We already have our Rachel Corrie. How long before we have our very own White Roses? How long before the Horsemen of Empire decide to put a little more muscle behind their “us against them” rhetoric? As noted on numerous 9-11 threads, and Iraq threads, and social service threads (of which we could use more of here), controlled destruction is their forté, their métier. As our very own Uncle $cam reminds us, the global heat is being inexorably ratcheted up, in more ways than one, click by click. At some point, the all will be called upon to choose: Silent complicity to maintain one’s meagre, and increasingly fragile, existence, one’s life, one’s family, in the face of the controlled erosion of our domestic security–job, healthcare, and yes, probably even the violent type of “terrorism”–whether committed by state, black-flag or anti-state forces; or the reluctant, lonely, and tragi-heroic path of resistance.
How far will the “Wicked Witch of the West”-like fingers extend their clawing grasp in their vainglorious attempt to wrest control of the entire globe? Will Canada be safe for the frantic refugees of Empire? How about Iceland? Or Venezuela, New Zealand, Costa Rica? All around us, people are asking the question: Is there a lee harbor in which to ride out the storm?
Or is it possible to ride the storm out from inside Empire? Is there a neutral position, a career such as artist, basketball coach, teacher, doctor, even grocery bagger, toilet cleaner or ass-wiper, where we won’t be asked to publicly commit ourselves and risk losing freedom and family in hopeless resistance.
The choice has never been starker: A quantum leap–peaceful shrinkage into a sustainable, more equitable, planet; or the nightmare existence of a rapacious global elite ruling an ever more anarchic (in the negative sense), chaotic, environmentally devasted world, from gated islands of engineered “normalcy”, protecting their sensitive, civilized, ectoplasms from the ever more frantic rampages of the dying, starving, massing, excluded hordes.
This is the urgent question that rests heavily upon the marines’ incipient consciences. It is the dreaded question that Sandra Day O’Connor poses to her former accomplices. And it is the fateful question which today’s Prophets, slowly rising from the dying embers of ignorance and complacency, ask, no, implore of all of us.
From the hollowness of the uncertain atom, to the vast vacuum of space; from the desolation of the once-verdant plain of life destroyed, to the ultimate loneliness of each and every one of our souls, from within and without, a cold, bitter wind now remorselessly blows.
How will we answer its siren call?
The Second Coming — W. B. Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty (-one, ed.) centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 21 2006 16:00 utc | 1

Haditha is a truly sad episode. Unfortunately, I suspect its one of many that occur everyday in Iraq.
What’s missing here in the US is any sense of shame for the crime/sin of invasion of a country that did not threaten us.
I have yet to see any US government official, media personality, or public figure articulate the most basic sentiment on the road to redemption:
“Forgive us, for we have sinned”

Posted by: simplyLurking | Mar 21 2006 16:02 utc | 2

SimplyLurking,
not just in the US. Same here in Australia, where PM John Howard had this to say in an interview yesterday:

TONY JONES: Now Iraq’s Defence Minister, the former interim prime minister, says there is a civil war now in his country. Do you take any responsibility, along with the other leaders who planned this war and what appears to be a poorly planned regime change for what is happening now in Iraq?
JOHN HOWARD:…I don’t run away from my responsibility. I committed Australia to the military operations. I believed on very valid grounds, I still believe history will judge it to have been the right thing to have done. But it will continue to go through a difficult phase, transiting from tyranny to democracy is neither smooth nor easy.
TONY JONES: And now they’re being murdered still as you say, and the images – perhaps you call them counter-intuitive, or the notion that you’re talking about being counter-intuitive, compared to the images. We saw just last week the most horrific images of a massacre of Shiites. We now hear people like Allawi saying there’s a dissent into civil war. If it does come to that and bear in mind the killing has not lessened, it’s getting worse, will there be a moral responsibility on the leaders who led this campaign for a war?
JOHN HOWARD: Well, I am prepared to defend what I did on moral grounds. I think Iraqis have a better future now than they would have had if there had not been a military operation. Because if there hadn’t been a military operation, Saddam would still be running Iraq. I mean, the people who criticise the coalition, carry the burden of explaining and defending the proposition that it would have been better for Saddam to have gone on running Iraq.
TONY JONES: Does anything, though, that you’ve seen, including the mass killings, including the growing sectarian violence, make you think twice about the wisdom of regime change?
JOHN HOWARD: Well I don’t resile from the decision that I took. I accept the responsibility and I’ll continue to argue that what we did was correct.

Just like Blair and Bush. But that is standard and to be expected of ‘leaders’ who instigate wars. Just see Milosevic, who possibly till his last day was convinced that he was the good guy. All I can hope is to see one fine day the Howards, Blairs and Bushes of this world in front of a court run by someone like Justice Robert Jackson, who made it absolutely clear. The crime is not to loose the war, but to start it.
The whole notion of pre-emptive strikes is against the principles laid out in the Nuremberg trials and any politician playing with that thought should remember that the warlords back then were sentenced to death. The problem these days is that the ol’ saying “where there is no judge there is no crime” applies, instead of Bush, Howard & Blair being taken to court for their deeds, they are re-elected.

Posted by: Feelgood | Mar 21 2006 16:34 utc | 3

Milosevic was not a good guy, but he was the least bad of all the bad guys. We were the real bad guys in that story.

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 21 2006 17:08 utc | 4

Important point about Milosevic, high recommendation for Malooga’s link.
I find myself nearly paralyzed to talk about Milosevic after years of demonizing him through my own slanted grasp of Yugoslav history. But then I read here and other places how the disintegration of Yugoslavia effectively despoiled a still resourceful socialist commons, and I see the same familiar pattern that structures the way corporations despoil each others’ pensions, and that structures an international feeding frenzy on Iraq’s own increasingly-former commons.
I remember being surprised then that we stood with the Muslim group rather than Christians, thinking that unusual in U.S. history. But then I consider that perhaps “we” merely stood with whichever side would allow interests that feed off the U.S. governmental structure to get their daily engorgement in blood and gold. And then it helps me grasp why Democrats would be silent now.
So, I recommend the link.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 21 2006 18:39 utc | 5

citizen
perhaps vbo could write something ‘on the ground’ about the death of yugoslavia
in a century blessed with bad men & margaret thatcher – milosevic was small potatoes. tudjman & his clearly & openly expressed fascism had its roots in th ustashi which left far bloodier traces all over jugoslavia
& milosevic was no more vicious than tyrants vidella, strasser, pinochet etc who were on the payroll of the empire from the beginning
that is one of the interesting things about the belorussia situation – it is clear their leader is a dirigeant of the old school but he has guaranteed for the population stability & even growth & there seems to be no temptation – other than that sponsored by capital to divest him
for me the premier bad guy they tried to sell as that was sukarno – an indonesian patriot & the closest south east asis has ever come to social democracy & since then the stat dept has tried to sell us hundreds of leader as the bad guys who need to be taken out immediately or the world would fall apart
i wish the constructors of this mythology, i wish their world would fall apart
& citizen a sterling post

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 21 2006 19:00 utc | 6

citizen
I am not ready to connect the mini MyLai the troups did in Haditha with preemption. They were attacked and then shot the next 15 civilans they could get a hold on. Sounds more like the German army in Yugoslavia.
But of course the general lawlessness projected by the Cheney regime is recognized and reflected by the troops. Preemption, no Geneva convention, endorsement of torture … Troops look at their leaders and follow such “guidance”.

Posted by: b | Mar 21 2006 20:38 utc | 7

citizen, when you originally posted this over on the torture thread my initial response here was to address the issue of pre emption w/regards to the hadithida massacre.
but i realize your post is more about pre emption in itself.
bush’s statement We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. is so much bs because know one from either party has suggested we have a foriegn policy based on ‘hoping for the best’.
this is just another on of the many instances of Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches

“There are some really decent people,” the president said earlier this year, “who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care … for all people.”
Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.
When the president starts a sentence with “some say” or offers up what “some in Washington” believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.
The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.
He typically then says he “strongly disagrees” – conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.
Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed “critics,” is just as problematic.
Because the “some” often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, “‘some’ suggests a number much larger than is actually out there,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as “a bizarre kind of double talk” that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.

our invasion in iraq had absolutely nothing to do w/pre emption any more than our continued occupation has to do w/fighting terror.

Posted by: annie | Mar 21 2006 21:25 utc | 8

I have to wonder about the dynamics of what’s going on now in Iraq.
We have this.
His comments came as US President George Bush said he favoured the talks, in which he said American officials would show Iran “what’s right or wrong in their activities inside of Iraq”.
Ha.. Iran is playing politics and pissing all over GWB, and the Resistance is playing war and pissing all over a superpower.
Meanwhile US do war crimes.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Mar 21 2006 22:13 utc | 9

@annie
I left a long-ish comment for you on the newsdrop thread, and would be interested in hearing what you think about it.
@citizen
Excellent post, yeah we’re winning the hearts and minds alright, except I get the distint impression the PTB consider democracy and winning hearts and minds, are not defined by what you or I define it by. When they say, winning hearts and minds and democracy they mean winning hearts and minds as in scoring, as in trophy hunting and democracy as in unregulated capitalism.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 21 2006 22:23 utc | 10

It seems like what people are talking about in Haditha is collective punishment. Of course the U.S. has used it since the war against Iraq began, but when they brought in Negroponte, they brought in a master of the black arts.
I always follow the ratio of us/them dead and wounded. I believe that the US feels that if they can keep things in the neighborhood of 100 to 1, which they have, in general, since the war began, that they will prevail. In other words, that is the required amount of brutality needed to pacify a population, to convince them that resistance is futile.

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 21 2006 23:36 utc | 11

Congratulations on this post citizen as I had become concerned that many who oppose this war had stopped seeing the wood for the trees. That is people tend to get so caught up in the minutiae of what politician said what to who when that they end up paying no attention to the day to day slaughter of human beings such as the Waleed, Abdullah and Ayed families.
If I have the family names wrong, I apologise to the survivors of those families that were so callously butchered but I will not dehumanise your relatives by calling them ‘collateral victims, or insurgents or even unfortunate casualties of war. The media, intentionally I suspect, does not publish details about who your relatives were, how old they were, what they did, anything that might allow us to put a face to your family members.
Yes the all the pricks at the top of the tree are responsible for this massacre, in that they went to war with another nation and incidents such as this are inevitable in any war.
But that doesn’t reduce the culpability of the fucking murderers who did this one iota! Making this just another in the infinite list of deaths attributable to the BushCo regime is an insult to the Waleed, Abdullah and Ayed families.
Make no mistake about it even a cursory study of the cells which plant IEDs in and around Haditha as well as the people that comprise them should give no doubt that they don’t ‘shit in their own nests’ by letting off bombs close to where they live.
The Abdullah and Ayed families were termed ‘insurgents’ because allegedly one gun was found in each house, not because they had fired upon the marines. In fact even if the head of the household had got his AK47 out in a vain attempt to protect his family, who could blame him for that.
Doubtless the cruel killing of the Waleed family was not a silent affair, so what else can a man do when he knows his family will come under attack like that, he must try and protect them.
So in a probably similarly vain attempt to try and protect the other families which are going to suffer this needless, black and foul blood letting may I suggest that people who hate this war remember to hold those at the pointy end culpable as well as the greedy fucks who made massacre inevitable by going to war in the first place.
Every federal legislator who voted in support of this invasion and every whore disguised as a ‘media person’ who participated in lying, innuendo, and drum-beating to get others to support the international crime of waging a war of aggression deserves to be punished for these crimes.
That does not expiate those who pulled the trigger.
By burying the death of each innocent being whose life was taken in this atrocity, in a pile of thousands of other accusations we are ensuring that no one at any level will be found guilty of these crimes.
Who cares if this is another to pin on Bush and his acolytes? He’s never going to run for re-election, his mob have done mighty well out of the story so far and none of it will endanger the icing on the cake which is the billions coming in over the bird-flu scam.
Next time US voters are required to ‘tick the box’ this will be ancient history that many will feel has been dealt with ad nauseum on weblogs so by voting for the other mob they will fix the problem, even though ‘the other mob’ also voted in favour of a war thereby guaranteeing atrocities such as this would occur.
We all get to feel better after venting our spleen, a different mob of self-serving pigs get to thrust their snouts in the trough and the Waleed, Abdullah and Ayed families stay dead.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 21 2006 23:45 utc | 12

The real fun is watching Kim Jong-Il make Bush twitch. If this logic was truly being used by Bush, we would have gone after N. Korea instead, although I doubt exremely that Kim Jong-Il has any intention of nuking Los Angeles.
I remember how shocked we all were about My Lai. Remember, it was Colin Powell who was involved in the cover-up, and it was Sy Hersh who brought it all out in the open along with some courageous soldiers who were not afraid to interfere to stop the killing and later reported it. Here’s the letter which started the investigation:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/ridenhour_ltr.html
The interesting thing is that Americans were horrified and paid close attention as the story unfolded and the trials began. I don’t see that horror or even interest nowadays, and that makes me sad for America. We have lost more than money and the world’s respect. We have lost our own self respect. I am just thankfull that my relatives who fought in our wars: WWII (my mother, who tried to join the WACs but was too petite to fit in their stock uniforms), my father who served in the Pacific and later died on a ridge in N. Korea, an uncle who fought in the Battle of the Bulge in Europe, another uncle who was blown up in a tank in Guam, my fiance who never came back from Vietnam, my son who is too ill from Gulf War I to know what is happening — I am glad they don’t know that Americans have lost their honor, not because of what Bush did, but because they don’t give a shit anymore. If that’s patriotism, I’ll kiss your ass.
We can’t stop Bush, but we still can stand up for the real America.

Posted by: Ensley | Mar 22 2006 2:17 utc | 13

If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
George W. Bush, speech at West Point in 2002
That seems to be the logic use in defense of the atrocity at Haditha. I am ready to agree with that logic…

I’m sorry to be a perpetual nay-sayer, but I could not disagree more strongly with that “logic”, which has been the driving force of the United States’ foreign policy under the Bush administration and has resulted in the reductio ad absurdum of the “War on Terror” (or whatever they are calling it now) and the policy of pre-emptive warfare.
Let’s actually look at what this premise is saying. We deal with “threats” before they are “threats”. Let’s put aside for the moment the inevitable paranoia and hysteria that will inevitably arise from a policy in which we are trying to identify and eradicate the burglars under our beds before there actually are burglars under our beds. Further, let’s not assume that what we mean by this is that we’re not going to give anyone any reason to threaten us, thereby eliminating future threats from arising.
What we are actually saying here is that we intend to eradicate peoples and nations not for anything they have done, but for what they have the potential to do. I highly doubt you would agree with this “logic” when you are serving a prison sentence for all the banks that you haven’t yet robbed.
And how do we go about identifying and eliminating non-existent threats? The only ways that I can see to do it would be to assume the worst at all times and act accordingly. Ethnic and social profiling would be a must, as would constant surveillance… exactly the sorts of things we see happening and ostensibly object to. We would have to change international law to be able to prosecute crimes that have not actually been committed… which Bolton and others are working towards… and we, once again, ostensibly object to this.
What we have seen in Haditha is another reductio ad absurdum of the hysterically paranoid foundations that this administration is built upon. But it neither begins nor ends there. And it is not something that the United States is only doing to other nations. Once you adopt an hysterical and paranoid world view, your list of potential (read: non-existent) enemies can only grow. Perhaps Bush will confide to his successor just as Stalin on his deathbed confided to Brezhnev that he trusts no one, not even himself. But that confidence did not comfort the dead or suffering Russian “dissidents” in the gulags any more than Bush will be able to comfort dead Muslims or the American “dissidents” who will occupy the detention camps they have plans to build.
This excerpt by Bush perhaps pinpoints precisely the pathology behind the twisted psychology we see at work, both in the USA and the world. In Bush’s speech, he stated that “We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best.” Likewise, we can not maintain our sanity as a nation by cnstantly expecting the worst. An effective leader must deal with threats that are fully materialised and only with threats that have fully materialised. If you are not dealing with what is, you are dealing in fantasies. In this case, they are fantasies with very dire consequences for everyone.

Posted by: Monolycus | Mar 22 2006 2:53 utc | 14

A familiar saying about preemptive strikes: “If we had waited until Vietnam attacked us …. well, we would still be waiting.”

Posted by: Ensley | Mar 22 2006 3:01 utc | 15

I see Molosevic refered to above. A look back in history says it all for Bosnian wars. Early on a group called the Bogamils introduced the cathar religion to the area as was it introduced to much of Europe. It was considered heresy, but consisted of Gnostic and Manichean religions and was considered duelistic.
This was an isolated area, but the Bogamils rejected the Catholic churh and was harassed by the church. There was also eastern Zoroastrian influence and some say many Bosnian names or even slav names have Iranian influecne in them.
After the persecution started many Cathars converted to Muslim rather than be forced to be orthadox christians. The Christians and Muslims lived together even intermarrying for ages with one family member having a Muslim name and another Christian including husbands and wives. This whole mess go’s back to the 1100s and Bosnia was a state other times in history. Even when not, outside influence was limited. The Yugoslavian state was never something people with 1000 years histories would except after the fall of the eastern block.
If someone has something to ad or a different take, go ahead.
The war in Iraq is a complete disaster, Bush is a disaster and so is our chamber of people deputies. I thought Bush today was a cruel joke. We are the laughingstock of the world. I saw Randy Rhoades from air america on Lou Dobbs and she made the point that opur national CEO should only be a mail room clerk. I don’t think he could handle that.

Posted by: jdp | Mar 22 2006 3:28 utc | 16

“duelistic” religion? Sounds like Bushian X-tianity.
Great thread!
“We have lost our own self respect.” How true, and a very poignant post, Ensley.
Great post, Monolycus. Is it not surprising that the President that did the most surreptitious drugs would also be the most paranoid, and give it form through his foreign policy? What a long, bad trip its been…….
As after Abu Graib, when Rumsfeld outlawed the use of cameras, I fully expect that our “leaders” in the field will now outlaw dropping Iraqis off at hospitals, prefering to drop them off anonymously, at night, in piles by the side of the road. Or maybe we have hit the previously commented upon trifecta, and will resort to the undetectability of mass graves.

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 22 2006 4:04 utc | 17

Monolycus,
Of course I do not substantially disagree with you. However, as seems to be eerily true every time I listen to him, the President does explain how he wishes someone would see and then stop him from sinning again. The man can’t stop talking about himself, and it may be time to start listening.
@6:45:08 PM
Yes, an honest assessment must also show the blood on the faces of every politician who voted to bless the invasion in advance. Sure, they were trying to avoid what they consider political suicide. But this does not excuse them for endorsing political murder.
However, I have met the one man who saved some lives at My Lai and I have also met one of the members of his helicopter crew that day, and it was as clear as day that it was Hugh Thompson that saved those people and his crew that backed him up by aiming their machine gun at fellow American troops. The crew would not have done that without him. The leaders make things happen and people are trained to back them up. I do not expect enlisted men to aim their weapons at men from their own company. But I know they sinned, and they will have to take the responsibility for their actions, or they are just dead men walking. Nevertheless it is not my place to blame them – and blaming them is what the so called leaders of my country are hoping I do. No, this is military politics, and it is important to recognize that orders were given.
But yes, those orders started in Congress.
@annie
our invasion in iraq had absolutely nothing to do w/pre emption any more than our continued occupation has to do w/fighting terror.
I agree that the stated argument about pre-emption is deceitful. But there is a truth being stated by the President. The tyrant, he says, must be stopped, for each action will exceed the previous. I take it the man is not lying, only mis-applying his truths. As, for example, when he tried to stop the tyrant by toppling the President of Iraq. For such a bent man, this may be the nearest thing to honesty hen can achieve.
What we need to do is listen to the man, more carefully than he and the rest of his victim nation are capable of.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 22 2006 5:37 utc | 18

I (hope and) dont think these recent atrocities are part of some policy as such. This is different than activity connected to free fire zone designation. If anything, this reflects a lack of clear policy directive (although that might be citizens point, in a round about–anything goes as, policy kind of way). I refer back to the recent poll of US troops that show a sizable majority ready to throw in the towel on Iraq, and like the majority of the US population, have grown mistrustful of the mission as policy from the president on down. This happened in Vietnam in the 68 — 70 period when it finally began to dawn on everyone that this dog wouldnt hunt, that the whole policy was not only fraudulant, but also doomed to immanent failure. In Vietnam this realization manifested itself in a general decline of militatry efficacy in a (purple) haze epic of foot dragging insubordinate, yeah maybe later, aint no way, slack-fest — fueled with the much celebrated culprits of alcohol, drugs, sex, and an expensive stereo in every hooch. People dont realize just how out of control things got. Yours truly once, with a few fellas got in a 21/2 ton truck, smoked a few joints, and drove off to Da Nang (35 miles) where we stole a trailer size generator from the Navy, went to the officers club with no rank showing (we were e-4’s), picked up a bunch of lumber, and about 30 cases of beer and headed back — where we traded some of the beer to the national guard guys (they controled all the food on the basecamp) for a whole bunch of steaks and had a huge barbque where we gave the (drunken) major the generator, and he then said “you boys are pretty good, and if you can build me a new mess-hall you can stay out of the field”, which we did, and then did again, and again until my time was up. About half my tour there was, well, kinda “freelance”. But so I digress, and not to make light of my own experience of an army breaking up, as it does indeed result also, and more importantly, in an acceleration of death, either through the exponential accumulation of incompetence, or through people taking things into their own hands in the abscence (or ignorance) of oversight. In Iraq, like Vietnam these atrocities seem to correspond to the fallout of faith in the mission, as the Mi-Lai massacre, the so called Tiger Battalian,etc. would illustrate. The convergence of a loss of faith coupled with a breakdown in authority gives the Hobbesian alternative plausability.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 22 2006 6:23 utc | 19

But there is a truth being stated by the President. The tyrant, he says, must be stopped
which tyrant? al Q? sadam? big Z?
if bush cared about stopping the threat of terrorism he would have attended to the threat of planes flying into buildings when he heard about it, not sit back and let it happen as a pretense for invading iraq.
if turning iraq into a functioning society (one he deems worthy) was his priority he would have sent our best and brightest not a bunch of inexperienced kids to manage the CPA.
he would have encouraged the iraqi’s to stick w/their original version of the constitution, the one that used the resources od iraq to benifit the people of iraq, not the private corporations.
What we need to do is listen to the man
i just think its a hoax. i think we could listen to the man til we are blue in the face and not get one step closer to the truth from anything passing his lips.
i know i am jaded. i don’t understand war the way a warrior does so i have limitations in my logic. with a different leader, and a different circumstance (re 9/11 ) i may not be so overwhelmingly hosite to the concept of pre emption, but not now, not w/cheney&co, not w/9/11, not w/the neocons. never w/them will i trust pre emption.

Posted by: annie | Mar 22 2006 7:12 utc | 20

citizen, thank you for the post. great discussion and cool of you for stepping up.
i do agree that many people who voted for pre emption, and citizens who supported the idea truly believed in the threat.

Posted by: annie | Mar 22 2006 7:18 utc | 21

Bush is half awake enough to suspect the truth. But he is also asleep enough that he can only recognize the tyrant symbolically.
Bush dreams of being pre-empted, and begs for it to happen. What can one say?

Posted by: citizen | Mar 22 2006 9:15 utc | 22

ok, i can totally agree bush is asleep and dreams of being pre-empted.
(fill in gannon jokes)

Posted by: annie | Mar 22 2006 9:21 utc | 23

Bush is the Delphic Oracle of U.S. politics, an honest liar.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 22 2006 9:43 utc | 24

Interview with Chalmers Johnson from Tom Dispatch:
Johnson: That’s what’s truly ominous about the American empire. In most empires, the military is there, but militarism is so central to ours — militarism not meaning national defense or even the projection of force for political purposes, but as a way of life, as a way of getting rich or getting comfortable. I guarantee you that the first Marine Division lives better in Okinawa than in Oceanside, California, by considerable orders of magnitude. After the Wall came down, the Soviet troops didn’t leave East Germany for five years. They didn’t want to go home. They were living so much better in Germany than they knew they would be back in poor Russia.
……………………………………………………………
The country suffers from a collective anxiety neurosis every time we talk about closing bases and it has nothing to do with politics. New England goes just as mad over shutting down the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard as people here in San Diego would if you suggested shutting the Marine Corps Air Station. It’s always seen as our base. How dare you take away our base! Our congressmen must get it back!
This illustrates what I consider the most insidious aspect of our militarism and our military empire. We can’t get off it any more. It’s not that we’re hooked in a narcotic sense. It’s just that we’d collapse as an economy if we let it go, and we know it. That’s the terrifying thing.
And the precedents for this should really terrify us. The greatest single previous example of military Keynesianism – that is, of taking an economy distraught over recession or depression, over people being very close to the edge and turning it around – is Germany. Remember, for the five years after Adolf Hitler became chancellor in 1933, he was admired as one of the geniuses of modern times. And people were put back to work. This was done entirely through military Keynesianism, an alliance between the Nazi Party and German manufacturers.
……………………………………………………………
What we’ve done with our economy is very similar to what Adolf Hitler did with his. We turn out airplanes and other weapons systems in huge numbers. This leads us right back to 1991 when the Soviet Union finally collapsed. We couldn’t let the Cold War come to an end. We realized it very quickly. In fact, there are many people who believe that the thrust of the Cold War even as it began, especially in the National Security Council’s grand strategy document, NSC68, rested on the clear understanding of late middle-aged Americans who had lived through the Great Depression that the American economy could not sustain itself on the basis of capitalist free enterprise. And that’s how – my god – in 1966, only a couple of decades after we started down this path, we ended up with some 32,000 nuclear warheads. That was the year of the peak stockpile, which made no sense at all. We still have 9,960 at the present moment.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 22 2006 9:45 utc | 25

We’ve finally managed to coax (er, browbeat) vbo into posting some good diaries on Eurotrib about events in Serbia, along with Sirocco doing one as well. There are apparently more coming from both of them.

Posted by: Colman | Mar 22 2006 10:07 utc | 26

Great to see you colman, I see your post at Eurotrib, and as Austin Powers would say, maybe we can get some “cross mojanation” going between the sites. Just a little joke. I have kids, I’ve got to watch that stuff.

Posted by: jdp | Mar 22 2006 13:02 utc | 27

You can read more about “Serbian case” from my point of view here:
Serbian case – introduction
and here:
Serbian case 2
and also here some of good information:
A brief history of Kosovo. Part I: 1189-1989
by Sirocco

Posted by: vbo | Mar 22 2006 14:19 utc | 28

vbo, this deserves it’s own thread

Posted by: annie | Mar 22 2006 15:49 utc | 29

Chalmers Johnson, in his analysis of American Militarism, makes it quite clear that we are serving the “economy,” rather than the economy serving us.
This has a number of implications:
1) The jingoist mania that is our foreign policy is necessary because these toys need to be used and worn out as quickly as possible to keep the Keynesian wheels well oiled.
2) The environmental effects of Militarism are literally killing us through radioactive leaks, toxic spills polluting aquifers, the use of all sorts of toxic metals and compounds in the workplace, the wasteful over-consumption of precious resources, acceleration of global warming, etc. This environmental degradation played a significant role in the weakening of the eastern block, as the population lost confidence in the directions leaders were taking.
3) As Chomsky indicates, military spending does not have the redistributive effect of social spending, thereby rendering the population more malleable.
4) Militarization always carries the implied threat of being turned against its own population. Indeed, this is the primary purpose of the military in client states.
5) Militarization becomes a self perpetuating “vicious circle,” as those who benefit seek to maintain and increase the returns at the expense of all else.
6) Militarization is an elite-driven policy. Local people have little say in the type of jobs our economy provides. Given the choice, people would flock to work in sustainable industries, even at slightly lower salaries.
7) Militarization is ultimately about death, not life. This preoccupation filters down through our entire cultural apparatus, affecting us in myriad self-reinforcing negative ways. When News coverage is not of the “terrorist” threat, it is about murder and crime. Entertainment is saturated with death, war, crime, murder, etc.–the only respite is its diametric opposite: mindless escapism through consumer consumption. We have become the ultimate pathological society, addicted to death, consumption, and destruction; without any positive purpose for our own existence beyond mere self-perpetuation at any cost.
8) We always run the significant risk of what enginneers term “the ultimate excursion,” a systems failure that triggers a nuclear war based upon a non-existing threat, resulting in the annihilation of all life. (Excursion is the term used when a process parameter runs beyond safe bounds for unexplained reasons. I find the term chillingly descriptive in its unintended evocation of the ultimate consumer goody: a vacation to someplace else.) We have skirted this danger several times, at one point being less than five minutes from the destruction of the world as we know it, and only forestalled by a Russian officer disobeying his orders. Can we really expect the same from our millenarian x-tan switchmen? Over time this risk grows from statistically significant to quite possible, or even probable.
9) The long-term effects and consequences of all of the above, plus much more left out of this brief outline, are quite uncontroversial: The inevitable destruction, either catastrophically, or through gradual degradation, of life as we desire it to be. What was the definition of insanity again?
Chalmers Johnson is brave to speak out. I believe he speaks for many who can not.
You may ask, “With all the negative effects of militarism, why do we continue to pursue this policy?” Quite simply, the elite know that they will no longer be able to control the democratic desires of their populations without it. In short, it is the ultimate source of inequality, and hence wealth, in the world.

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 22 2006 15:55 utc | 30

I don’t have the military background and understanding that others have here. Perhaps that is why I appear to be in the minority in believing that this this was not an isolated tragedy caused by soldiers on the brink, but, similar to Abu Graib and Guantanamo etc., was top-down directed policy. Maybe we were just showing Negroponte’s Iraqi death squads what we expect of them. More probably, we were employing “shock and awe” policies as the situation spins out of control.
Vietnam was one thing. But our elite feel–quite rightly–that the consequences of losing in Iraq would be unthinkable to them.
This is not Vietnam, in the repect that they have made serious changes in how they are handling the troops. The are quartered in vast centralized camps, where they can be monitored much more closely. They are “soma-fied” with the accoutrements of lower class desire: all the food they want, ice-cream 24/7, MickyDs and all the rest of the junk food wasteland (kill them quicker when they return = less benefits paid), music, TV, videos, games, internet, air-conditioning, you name it, as long as it keeps them there. Most have never lived so well, except for that niggling thing called the war. And as we know from recent surveys, they are kept well brain-washed, and ignorant of the role they truly serve.
I’m sure there is vast discontentment, but nowhere near Vietnam levels. We have seen only one fragging that I am aware of. I doubt the troops pulled an unscripted My Lai, though the media may well portray it as such.

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 22 2006 16:15 utc | 31

malooga,
I dont want to belabor my point here (I dont like defending the military) but, the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq in this case make sense. The Mi-Lai, Winter Soldier era in Vietnam was the same time period when the military started falling apart. No matter what people think, the military in Iraq is also now falling apart. This is how a military falls apart. The inertia necessary to preform the desired mission becomes supplanted with a disbelief in the mission, which then develops a wide range of symptomatic disfunctional behaviors, from simple foot-dragging inefficiency to the growth of milignant vigilantism seen in these last two events. Because the demarcations within the rules of engagtment can be so very thin in the first place, especially with the emphasis on “force protection”, it should’nt be suprising then, that the envelope of restrictions, the rules of engagement, can easily become distorted and re-enterpreted on the fly. All the more so in like Hidatha where they were attacked (by ied) first. This is not to excuse the behavior, but to show the context, whereby such incidents are allowed, by default, to happen. Which is one big reason the military hates these kinds of wars, and like Vietnam you can bet they hate this one too, precisely because the mission is so politicalized, and thus, vague to the degree that they are damned if they do, or damned if they dont — which presents itself to major corrosive effect within the military itself. I think you underestimate the discontentment within the military. The civilian leadership has givin them an impossible task, with directives that contradict the desired mission and destine it to eventual failure, which then becomes their failure, where there are no heros, just loosers.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 22 2006 20:02 utc | 32

@anna – I agree completly. They are falling apart. Especially since nothing is left to be done (Rummy wants them to stay out of any civil war) and the “mission” is endless (Bush just said so yesterday).
What we are missing yet are reports on drugs. I am sure they have access to some stuff. Heroin is cheep as it hardly has ever been, thanks to replacing the Taliban with a drug regime. Afghanistan is just a jump away. A lot of psycho drugs are available or can be easily made within those bases (Meth?).
I am sure some stuff finds it’s way into the bases. If people are bored and have money to spend, there will always someone enterprising enough to get them some stuff.

Posted by: b | Mar 22 2006 20:21 utc | 33

I trust your judgement about the military, anna missed. But I still don’t believe that this administration has any intention of ever leaving Iraq; the stakes for the elite, and the American Empire, in losing control here are just too great.

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 22 2006 20:22 utc | 34

@Malooga
There are different kinds of troops. To run Negroponte’s killer squads you need something else then a normal marine. Trained differently with a different mind. You do not want people who freak out. You do not want to leave obvious traces as was done here.
The changes they have made to the troops in serving more entertainment and animities are equivalent to the changes that occured in civil life. Most the GIs in Vietnam had quite a life (see anna missed’s report above).
The psychological trouble of living in such military environment as in Iraq is independent of luxery:
– Nothing to do that really makes sense
– No sex (with 90-95% male GI’s and no access to local or provided professionals that is a very serious problem for 20year old men)
– No mental stimulation (any base gets dull after a week if you can´t get out)
Fragging usually occures only in battle environments when people get killed because some idiot of platoon or company leader makes them do something that will enhance their chances to get killed. Unlike Vietnam, the GI’s in Iraq are hardly enganged in anything like battle (yet).

Posted by: b | Mar 22 2006 20:41 utc | 35

b
you are wrong in assuming drug use in the US military. Random urinalysis is performed in all theaters. there is zero tolerance and you will get caught if you use. you then get a less than honorable discharge and you have a record to carry with you for the rest of your life.
killing is OK, you can probably get away with having sex with a less than willing partner, but you can not do a bowl and relax however.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 22 2006 21:24 utc | 36

Anyone who imagines these recently publicised slaughters are one-offs or the exceptional result of a dysfunctional unit is dreaming.
I would venture to suggest that there hasn’t been a single conflict that has continued for any extended period where such ‘incidents’ haven’t occurred on all sides.
The cause isn’t poor leadership although that can make this outcome somewhat more likely. The root cause is the nature of humanity.
The way that ‘team based’ actions lead to a tribal or clannish sense of the superiority of the group V the weakness or immorality of any other groups. Bike gangs and even the old 70’s rock n roll bands for all their claim to peace and harmony fell into this behaviour.
If you go into the detail of this incident you will notice that this one has only got investigated and publicised this far because the Iraqis are learning all of the hoops they have to jump through to ‘prove their case’. EG videoing the crime scene straight after the US troops leave.
Showing the lack of damage to the outside of the crime scene thereby ‘proving’ there had been no ‘fire-fight’ proceeding the slaughter.
Virtually since the USuk invaded Iraq reports of such incidents have occurred on a monthly basis. The vast majority have been pushed under the rug because of a lack of evidence.
The Iraqis have got smarter even the Shia troops recognise that the chances of peace are hopeless as long as this behaviour continues (not that under different circumstances they don’t do this themselves), so they have given witness to the murders this time, hoping that it may wake the leaders up.
It won’t. The leaders in the field have the same kinship with the grunts and protect the integrity of the group they lead. It should be noted that Hugh Thompson and his men came from a unit outside the group which made his commands to his men to help stop the slaughter possible to be obeyed, although in those situations most men including leaders tend to go along with the mob so his stance although rare was extremely honourable and brave.
I can’t stop thinking about the Waleed, Abdullah and Ayed families and how they feel about all of this.
I am prepared to concede that they may well if they could have been asked, want to forgive the sinners and hate the sin but they must also have a desire to ensure that their cruel deaths at least act as a ‘bump in the road’ and slow down the continuation of this mindless slaughter.
For that to happen everyone from the unthinking fool who hangs the ‘stars and stripes’ off his house or up his flagpole each day to Dubya hisself have to acknowledge their culpability. How many US citizens are aware that the sight of that flag raises the same feelings of fear and loathing in the minds of a big chunk of this planet as the Nazi flag or the Rising Sun did when I was a kid?
Whatever that means. But by refusing to acknowledge the central role of the trigger fingers in each particular slaughter people are making in some ways the absolute opposite of the mistake made when capital punishment is used to ‘punish’ wrongdoers and in other ways the exact same mistake.
The sameness is that both instances are at polar opposite ends of the same spectrum which is ensuring that the community as a whole bears no sense of shame or guilt about the crime.
The capital punishment situation places all of the blame on the perpetrator and none on the community or those who were directly instrumental in creating the circumstances which led to the crimes being committed; whereas the ‘it’s all BushCo’s fault’ meme shifts all of the responsibility onto those who were instrumental in creating the circumstances, absolutely none on the society/culture/people which engendered the crime and very little on the actual perpetrators.
Neither of those approaches will slow down much less cease the perpetration of these crimes. That must be the model that a fair and caring society uses to dispense ‘justice’. The crime has been committed. No one can ‘unring the bell’ and bring the dead back to life. The best outcome must be to prevent further crimes as much as it is possible to do so.
For that to occur, all the people of the US must examine their culture and dispense with the exceptionalism, jingoism, superiority complex or whatever anyone wants to call it and then happily and securely recognise their place in the order of things going about their business in a constructive rather than a selfishly destructive way.
And it is true that many other cultures also need to do so to a lesser or greater extent but as this thread is about the slaughter of the Waleed, Abdullah and Ayed families at Haditha, it is the US culture/society/people who must acknowledge their responsibility in this instance.
This cannot be dealt with by talk or posting or gnashing and wailing it can only be fixed by brave people within the society itself standing up and decrying the attitudes that lead those murderers to Haditha that night.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 22 2006 21:46 utc | 37

@4:46:03
You are right that pinning all the blame on Bush breeds a kind of irresponsibility. That was a valuable corrective for my first post. But I do not find that naming the Congress as culpable is irresponsible, for this country still celebrates many in Congress as “progressive leaders” when they have nevertheless refused to lead, or even to follow the express will of the voters. Naming their responsibility is not insignificant or irresponsible. I say that spreading the blame to Congress is not irresponsible because Congress is the body we have agreed as a nation will decide legally whether or no the U.S. will make war on other nations. And if we recognize that this is the rot we need to address now, that focuses our attention.
Setting a goal like that is not divorced from daily life in little communities. It is a step. The next step is organizing communities as communities, not as political parties. When one of my little communities such as a church invites its local Congressman, and then stares into his eyes silently when the Congressman does not promise to vote against the war, that is the beginning of a peaceful revolution. Have you been in a full room dead silent at the end of a politician’s speech, not welcoming that politician into fellowship until he or she publically promises to actually join the community and vote its will? It is unsettling, in the best way. It is still too rare. Because too few communities have put their Congresspeople on that hook. I say let’s blmae them.
I am only disagreeing with your post in one way. It says that “wailing” will not lead to a solution, but “decrying” will. I, on the other hand, think that both what you are proposing and what I am proposing can build us up toward a place where we can choose peace, in ways that will actually cause it.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 22 2006 23:01 utc | 38

@Malooga
I am not ignoring your analysis of Johnson’s update on Eisenhower’s warning. I too am convinced that the military economy is driving forth the sick economics we are being asked to consider normal.
Ambassador Joseph Grew’s analysis in 1932 might stand almost word-for-word today, just flipped around:

This situation reminds me strongly of the efforts of the German Government, by calumniating foreign nations, to build up a public war psychology in 1914, the effort being repeated whenever some new venture, such as the indiscriminate submarine warfare, was about to be launched. Here in Japan the deliberate building up of public animosity against foreign nations in general and the United States in particular has doubtless a similar purpose-to strengthen the hand of the military in its Manchurian venture in the face of foreign, and especially American, opposition. I believe that on the part of the Japanese it is a sign of weakness, not of strength. The internal economic and financial situation in Japan is serious and may become desperate. The plight of the farmers is very bad, many industries are at low ebb, unemployment is steadily increasing. The yen is falling and prices have not yet risen proportionately. Money cannot be obtained from abroad; I was recently told, although I cannot vouch for the reliability of the information, that the Government had tried without success to obtain loans from England, France and Holland in turn. It will become increasingly difficult to obtain domestic loans. This situation is not critical, but it may become so when the ability of the National Bank of Japan to absorb domestic bonds comes to an end. Meanwhile millions of yen are being squandered to support the Manchurian venture, of which the eventual economic advantage is highly problematical, and when the full purport of these expenses becomes known to the people, in their own serious deprivation, there is no telling what effect it will create. I believe that a steadily increasing anxiety exists among the Government and the thinking men of the country outside of the hot-headed military clique which refuses to face these facts. It seems to be primarily this military element-vocalized by such men as Shiratori [9]-who believe that the best way to obscure these facts is to work the public into a patriotic and nationalistic fervor by representing foreign nations, particularly the United States, as trying to thwart Japan’s efforts for alleged self-preservation.
Such a national temper is always dangerous. The German military machine, supported by a carefully nurtured public war psychology, took the bit in its teeth and overrode all restraining influences in 1914. The Japanese military machine is not dissimilar. It has been built for war, feels prepared for war and would welcome war. It has never yet been beaten and possesses unlimited self confidence. I am not an alarmist but I believe that we should have our eyes open to all possible future contingencies. The facts of history would render it criminal to close them.

I know that many Japanese people who dreaded disasters that came after 1932 were not able to stop all of it, but I do know that many made real differences. I tell myself that if I can become sane, which I can only do by engaging others in sanity as well, then perhaps my country and neighbors can possibly find some balance as well.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 22 2006 23:16 utc | 39

Great thread, everyone, especially citizen.
Hey, anonymous, buy yourself a moniker. They’re cheap.

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 23 2006 0:13 utc | 40

@ Malooga, in re anonymous. I think Debs is dead is back.

Posted by: beq | Mar 23 2006 1:04 utc | 41

@Anonymous, in re: responsibility
The Mathematics of Responsibility by Ran Prieur

It’s frustrating to be stuck in a world where I actually have to point this out, but what we call “responsibility” is not distributed by breaking up “full responsibility” and dividing it into parts. If you add up everyone’s responsibility for something, it doesn’t equal 100% — it equals a billion percent if it has to, because any number of entities can be fully responsible for the same thing. Another way to say it is that our responsibilities can and do overlap. Another way to say it is that nobody’s responsibility for anything excuses anybody else.

at present I rather like this essay.
good thread, y’all. who says this place is dead?

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 23 2006 2:10 utc | 42

If that is Debs, he might be having a uniquely complicated “identity problem”, where the old one could suddenly feel extremely uncomfortable, but it would be dishonest, misleading, generally unhelpful & obnoxious to take a totally new name…just a thght…
If it’s you Debs, welcome back…

Posted by: jj | Mar 23 2006 3:27 utc | 43

Monolycus,
Thanks for that excellent link – I have never noted Ran Prieur before!
I’d been girding myself to post on this idea of responsibility that Malooga called attention to right away, but I had not yet found teh kkind of clarity Prieur gives with his math heuristic or with his very clear frame:

The context that inspired this column is the idea, fashionable among radical intellectuals, that the ruling elite are the evil final cause of our troubles. I believe that the ruling system is a deeper cause, and that the elite are actually more exploited, because the system owns not only their bodies but their souls. I crafted this column to prevent the strawman argument that interprets this uncommon and valuable perspective as the feeble position that the elite have no choice.

I had been blocked from articulating this for the very reason Prieur mentions, that critiquing the system often ends in excusing those who stand at the top of it.
A billion percent of responsibility – very nice. I’ll see if I can say something besides mere gratitude after ruminating on this for a while.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 23 2006 18:19 utc | 44

Three Marine Commanders Relieved of Duties
The move comes as their battalion is investigated in the November deaths of Iraqi civilians.
By Tony Perry
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 8, 2006
CAMP PENDLETON — A top Marine general fired a battalion commander and two company commanders Friday amid an investigation into whether Marines from the battalion wantonly killed Iraqi civilians in a November firefight.
Maj. Gen. Richard Natonski, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, relieved Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and two of his company commanders, Capt. James Kimber and Capt. Luke McConnell, of their duties. The three have been reassigned.
Marine Corps spokesman 2nd Lt. Lawton King said Natonski relieved the three of command because he lacked confidence in their leadership, based on their recent deployment to Iraq and a series of actions by the battalion.
It was unclear what the three officers did to lose Natonski’s confidence. Under military rules, a commander can be relieved for the actions of his subordinates even if he knew nothing of those actions.
Military officials are investigating allegations by Iraqi civilians that Marines burst into several homes in Haditha, near Baghdad, on Nov. 19 and began firing indiscriminately.
Moments earlier, a Marine had been killed in a roadside bombing. When the incident first became public, the Marine Corps said the Iraqis had been killed in the explosion.
But video footage taken by the Iraqis showing the bloody bodies with gunshot wounds threw that assertion into dispute. Officials later said they had been killed in crossfire.
Fifteen Iraqi civilians were killed, including seven women and three children. Eight insurgents also were killed.
The Marine killed by the bomb was identified as Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas of El Paso, a member of Kilo Company of the 3rd Battalion.
Investigators are attempting to determine whether other Marines, angered at Terrazas’ death, went on a rampage, ignoring rules meant to minimize civilian casualties. McConnell was the commanding officer of Kilo Company.
The tape of the bodies has been shown on Iraqi television, and the Baghdad Center for Human Rights has called for an investigation.
Troops could face courts-martial for violation of Geneva Convention protections for noncombatants if the inquiry determines that action is warranted.
Haditha is considered a stronghold of insurgent support. Militant leaders are thought to have fled there after the U.S. assault on Fallouja in November 2004.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 9 2006 10:22 utc | 45

thank you for the report anna missed, i am always caught behind the firewal @lat. time mag covered this around the time the second massacre was reported , the one on the ides of march in the village of ishaqi

“The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men,” the report said. “Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals.”
A local police commander, Lt. Col. Farooq Hussain, interviewed by a Knight Ridder special correspondent in Ishaqi, said autopsies at the hospital in Tikrit “revealed that all the victims had bullet shots in the head and all bodies were handcuffed.” Efforts to reach hospital spokesmen Sunday were unsuccessful.

Posted by: annie | Apr 9 2006 16:57 utc | 46