Dealing with Haditha

[SWJED]

11 June Washington Post commentary - Morals in A Combat Zone by Major Peter Kilner, US Army.

The differing reactions to the alleged killing of noncombatants by American soldiers in the Iraqi town of Haditha reveal a troubling ignorance about the moral reality of war. Much of the national dialogue about the incident is being dominated by people whose approaches to making moral judgments on wartime actions are fundamentally flawed.

In one corner are those who are so convinced this war is wrong that they see only the bad things soldiers do in it. Such people are blind to all the good our soldiers and the war are accomplishing, and they revel in exploiting any incident of misbehavior by soldiers to smear all members of the armed forces and the entire war effort. By their logic, abuse of detainees by one platoon in one prison in 2003, or the alleged killing of civilians by one squad in one town in 2005, is conclusive evidence that the entire war effort is evil. These people are unable to reconcile the fact that unjust actions can and do occur within a war that nonetheless is morally justified.

In the other corner are those so convinced of the rightness of our cause that they refuse to acknowledge that our soldiers sometimes make choices that are clearly wrong and for which they should be held accountable. These people equate supporting the laws of war with being unpatriotic and disdainful of the troops. What they fail to recognize is that their implicit argument is both insulting to soldiers and corrosive to the foundation of the military profession. My fellow soldiers and I recognize fully that we are responsible for our individual actions, and that our permission to do violence to other human beings is constrained by our obligation to do so only when it is morally justified...

The circumstances of this war's battlefields are terribly complex. Soldiers find themselves conducting a wide range of operations, from war-fighting to policing, often during a single patrol, and those different operations require different principles for the use of force. It is often difficult for soldiers to discern which approach is appropriate and when. Not infrequently, a well-intentioned soldier ends up killing a noncombatant because of mistaken identity or some other factor caused by the fog of war. In such circumstances, we can say that the action is neither justified nor unjustified but that it is excusable. Not every wrongful death in combat is a war crime.

The good news is that well-trained, well-led soldiers can and do overcome the moral challenges of war and conduct themselves with great honor, and the great majority of American soldiers are well trained and well led. Although we fight an enemy who intentionally violates all norms of human decency and goads us to follow him into the abyss of wanton killing, America's soldiers continue to exhibit remarkable restraint.

What explains the difference between units that commit war crimes and units that don't? Leadership. This is the critical factor in ensuring moral conduct in war. When junior officers and senior noncoms train their soldiers to do what is right and when they maintain their composure and lead by example, their soldiers are able to retain their moral bearings despite the temptations and frustrations of battle...

[Merv Benson]

Is it possible for someone to post the actual Rules of Engagement for the Marines in Haditha so that we can compare them to the sergeant's description of his and the other Marines' actions? I continue to believe that the real question of fact for any ajudication of this matter is at what point should the troops have recognized that they were not dealing with an enemy camouflaged as a civilian?

BTW, comparing the length of a trial to the length of time it takes to investigate an event to see if a crime was committed seems a non sequitor. I think any comparisons of Marines to Nazis is just over the top anyway.

If these troops violated the rules of engagement and committed a crime, I think the military justice system will see that justice is done. Many of the "witnesses" to this event have told conflicting stories which will put their credibility at issue. I think the outcome of the case will turn on whether the events as described by Marines like the sergeant in the Washington Post story constitute a crime.

[Steve Blair]

I would also take issue with a comparison between this and Nuremberg. There are too many contentious issues still swirling around those trials regarding the conduct of the prosecution. I do hope, however, that we do not come out with anything that smacks of a "whitewash" such as was seen at Me Lai or with many of the NOPD stories (this is a police department that has had a horrible reputation over the years, so their behavior in the aftermath of Katrina really shouldn't have surprised anyone).

In reference to Major Strickland's earlier comment about the detainees at Gitmo, I do feel that the military and political leadership has been doing themselves major damage by simply sitting on these people without some sort of visable process to assess their guilt or innocence. As was pointed out, perception does play a major role in how the public views the justice (or lack thereof) of many actions. While the British may have been able to get away with detaining IRA suspects for years (and it's odd how this never comes up in discussions of how to handle insurgencies), our system (both the legal and press sides) really don't allow this to be done.

Speaking for myself, I would not say that I am rallying blindly to support the Marines who may have committed atrocities, but rather rallying to the system that is intended to give them a fair and open trial, and then punish them if they are convicted (and any who may have helped cover up this incident) to the fullest extent the UCMJ allows. In this I include senior officers, since one of the weaknesses of the whole Me Lai procedure was that almost every senior officer in the Americal knew what happened (this was clearly demonstrated in the original Peers report), but only the most junior lieutenant was seriously punished. If we are indeed to claim the higher moral ground, then punishment should fall heavily on those who had the responsibility to either prevent this kind of atrocity or to take swift and decisive action if such an atrocity does occur. Perhaps I'm something of an idealist here.