Dealing with Haditha

[jmm99]

BTW: I've no problem with a Nigerian or any other non-USAian posting to this topic.

I spent a lot of time in preparation and posting why Haditha wasn't murder (a term you use). Obviously, you've read what I've posted and concluded it was utter bull$hit. So be it; but that also adds up in my perception to a mind that is incompetent (not likely from your posts re: your own area of expertise) or closed (which seems much more likely; with a bit of agitprop spin added, which is fine ).

You should know (if you've read my posts in other threads), my own views of what and where the US should be doing "things". That view does not include military force projection within the Eurasian and African continental land masses as a general rule. It also does not include nation or state building in those regions for either hegemonic or humanitarian reasons.

World Map US Limits.jpg

The US has a need to manipulate opinions in Eurasia and Africa by PR, etc., only if it seeks to continue as a hegemonic power in those regions. That is not my worldview; and frankly I am not interested in trying to win "Hearts and Minds" throughout the World. I doubt that that "win" is even possible.

As you have correctly pointed out in your various Nigeria and Africa posts, there are a lot of perceptions concerning the US floating around Africa. You could have added that even more perceptions concerning the US are floating around Eurasia. I read those perceptions with interest. So far as correcting them, I feel no personal responsibility; nor do I feel that the US should launch PR campaigns to dispel what it (or I) considers "incorrect" perceptions.

My rules for US foreign relations are simple:

Golden Rule 1 (initial): Do unto others as you would have them do onto you. The "do" is simply respect. If you've been disrespected by us, say so. If we disagree on whether there has been disrespect, then it would be best for us to disengage and contemplate our navels for awhile. Essentially, we would be at a neutral impasse. My vocabulary does not include "If you are not for us, you are against us." Neutral (non-aligned) states do and should exist.

Golden Rule 2 (secondary): Do unto others as they do onto you. If you are positive toward us, we will be positive toward you. If you are negative toward us, we will be negative toward you. If you are neutral toward us, we will be neutral toward you.

I'd like to see the US get back to doing business (on a private basis) with the World, without trying to run the World. We suck as neo-colonialists, neo-imperialists, or any description of the "New World Order" you want to put up.

If someone else wants to appease non-USAian "perceptions", so be it. I'll pass - I've had enough of the "perceptions" of this case.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

If you recall, I used the term "apparent murder".

As you rightly pointed out, the US has no business in Eurasia, but you went there, uninvited (Iraq). Given that background (whether the US likes it or not), it has to play the PR game.

Even if I read what you posted, the rest of the World hasn't. The rest of the World needs to be informed as what exactly happened in Haditha.

The USG publishes "annual human rights reports". Isn't it fair for the nation that publishes "religious freedom reports" to explain in detail the rationale for the light sentence?

You cannot castigate China and Syria in one breath and create an impression that you don't really care about the human rights of Iraqis in another.

Finally, the US is not omnipotent, it cannot simply impose its rules on the rest of the World and expect us to meekly follow. You started this "hearts and minds", "human rights centered foreign policy" stuff. You cannot simply say you are not playing ball and expect us to just accept it.

[Strickland]

I am not aware of any active-duty service member familiar with the facts of this case that thinks Wutterich is/was a victim.

[jmm99]

and, in the English I know, "apparent murder" means "it appears to me to be murder". Is it murder to you or not ? If it's murder, our "perceptions" differ - and. so be it, we have reached a neutral impasse.

As to the rest of your post, those points I've already covered as being immaterial to me. Lest we misunderstand each other - I speak for JMM, not for the USA. I certainly do have my personal opinions about what the US should or should not have done in the World, should or should not be doing in the World and should or should not do in the future in the World. Apologetics addressing perceptions are not among my selected courses of action.

Regards

Mike

[KingJaja]

English isn't actually my first language. You speak it much better than I do.

I was trying to convey a thought.

[jmm99]

English, that is. I've no problem understanding your thoughts, perceptions, etc., here, or in your Nigeria-Africa posts.

Regards

Mike

[Polarbear1605]

I am not aware of any active-duty service member familiar with the facts of this case that thinks Wutterich is/was a victim.

Then you are not ware of any active-duty sevice members who know the facts. Anyone who takes the time to look at this case will immediately see the victimization. SSgt Wuterich followed his training and is a victim of Strategic Legalism. He has spent hundreds of thousands and owes hundreds of thousands more for a politically motivated court martial.

[Strickland]

I am very familiar with the case and the relevant facts. The facts are clear - there was no positive identification of a threat, and a disproportionate use of force was applied. Both of these facts the defense conceded. The defendants claim "a shot" was fired. If one shot caused 24 deaths, then I think someone should ask a few questions.

[Strickland]

Wikipedia claims that the US military executed 160 service members for capital offenses between 1942-1948. How many contractors or military personnel are currently serving prison sentences for crimes committed in Iraq or Afghanistan? A handful? Now, one can either conclude that WWII era service personnel were not as disciplined, professional, and well trained as today's personnel, OR - one can conclude that we simply close our eyes to these happenings, and/or have grown much more tolerant of extra-judicial killings. Each can reach their own conclusion.

[Polarbear1605]

Wikipedia claims that the US military executed 160 service members for capital offenses between 1942-1948. How many contractors or military personnel are currently serving prison sentences for crimes committed in Iraq or Afghanistan? A handful? Now, one can either conclude that WWII era service personnel were not as disciplined, professional, and well trained as today's personnel, OR - one can conclude that we simply close our eyes to these happenings, and/or have grown much more tolerant of extra-judicial killings. Each can reach their own conclusion.

Not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China. WWII we court martialed 1 in 8 of the 16 million that served. After the war the appeal courts were so jammed Congress initiated and executed a massive reform...what we now call the UCMJ and its appeal process. The beauty of the current system is they kept it a command system that places the authority and trust in the fairness of the commander.
My opinion and conclusion is Haditha is a classic case of Strategic Legalism and to attribute a six year court martial to bad PID is short sighted and naive.

[Polarbear1605]

I am very familiar with the case and the relevant facts. The facts are clear - there was no positive identification of a threat, and a disproportionate use of force was applied. Both of these facts the defense conceded. The defendants claim "a shot" was fired. If one shot caused 24 deaths, then I think someone should ask a few questions.

If the "facts" are so clear please explain which facts and where your getting them. In the Watt investigation, the investigating officer determined that the Marines followed their ROE and their Training (TTPs). He also states the PID was established in houses 3 and 4. Establishing PID in Houses 1 and 2 due to hostile action made "it difficult for PID". In the second investigation (Bargewell Investigation) there were no finding of facts. In the Watt investigation under the para asking if any LOW violations occurred the investigating officer states the insurgents were not distinguish themselves from non-combatants and does not mention the Marines. Under the LOW the field commander determines military necessity...the battalion commander and, again, the battalion legal officer determine that there was no murder and the Marines were acting within the current ROE and training. So you think this entire six year court martial is all due to PID?