Dealing with Haditha

[jmm99]

Yup, that old retired duffer Bob Weimann (at post #34) does write well - no purple tongue him :

As Marines, SSgt Frank Wuterich's Haditha Court Martial tears at our souls. If asked; "is SSgt Frank Wuterich any less of a Marine in your eyes?" I suspect most Marines would answer with a strong; "No!"

I personally think SSgt Wuterich is a hero. Other Marines can say that he did not fight to the end, not only for his own honor but also for the honor of the other accused Marines. Like those Marines, I also would have preferred that SSgt Wuterich continue to fight for a not guilty declaration. Those two feelings are the basic elements that cause conflict in our Marine psyche and ethos.

The Marine Corps senior leadership threw everything they had at this Marine and with those actions they compromised the loyalty and responsibility that they owe to all who serve and call themselves Marines. SSgt Wuterich held his post under tremendous pressure for over six years. For the last two years, he was basically alone in his legal foxhole without his leaders and fellow comrades. Folks like the defendourmarines crew and readers provided what support we could but it is not the same as fighting shoulder to shoulder in the same crucible. Our legal system is based on the rights of the individual and therefore, it forces the accused to stand alone. Six years is an amazing amount of time when you realize that the Haditha incident lasted longer then World War II.

In my opinion, the Marine Corps leadership, at its highest levels, bears the most responsibility for this mess. Instead of using their often touted leadership skills, the generals deferred to their political cronies and lawyers. It pains me tremendously to make that statement because, besides being a retired Marine, Dad is a retired Marine Sgt Major. I was born on Quantico making the "Cross roads of the Marine Corps" my home town. My brother was a Marine and we both served together in Desert Storm. I was married in the Quantico Chapel and Dad is buried at the Quantico National Cemetery next to the Marine Corps Museum. Marine Corps pride and honor is part of me.

I believe LtCol Chessani, Major McConnell, 1stLt Grayson, LCpl Sharratt, LCpl Tatum, and Capt Stone have demonstrated the leadership and courage that exceeds any definition of valor. I would also include Major Jeffery Dinsmore in that group. He is also a hero and as a Marine he humbles me. I can comfortable saying I know how the Major feels. I have been wrestling with those same feelings since the announcement of the court martial deal. The SSgt's decision and Major Dinsmore's feelings that the SSgt should have continued to fight represents that inner conflict in our Marine soul that, no matter which way we turn, it leaves no peace. The smart folks would call it cognitive dissonance. The conflict between the loyalty and honor, taught and instill in us by the Marine Corps, and a piece bad generalship is its basic essence that tears and eats at our hearts.

With Dinsmore's speech, I have no bitch in general. I didn't like the tone of these two paragraphs:

For six years, the officers and men of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines firmly believed that no unlawful action took place on November 19th. We believed this based on the available intelligence before, during, and after November 19th, based on the enemy's stated objective of a propaganda victory that would erode our combat effectiveness, and based on our detailed knowledge of the context of November 19th's day-long, high-intensity combat. We accepted challenges to our integrity, accusations of a unit cover-up, and institutional condemnation by our Corps. Men like LtCol Chessani and 1stLt Grayson refused numerous plea offers from the government, including letters of reprimand with no punishment whatsoever. With SSgt Wuterich's admission of guilt, however, we must accept that a cover-up took place, even if unwittingly. With his admission of guilt, we must accept that some unlawful action was committed by a member of SSgt Wuterich's squad.

Today the judge handed down the maximum possible sentence. While a portion of that sentence was restricted by the terms of the plea agreement, it is right and just that Frank Wuterich no longer be a Staff Non-commissioned Officer in the Marine Corps. I wish Frank the best in his future endeavors, and empathize with his difficult personal decision to accept responsibility for the unlawful actions committed by one or more members of his squad. But any Marine who is guilty of negligence and dereliction with results on the scale of November 19th, 2005 cannot lead Marines. Ever again.

To me, Frank Wuterich was WIA on the battlefield of legalisms - and I will stop right there.

As to "and now it's over" - only in that venue. The struggle continues. For example, this and preceding Gotovina posts.

Regards

Mike

Nice to see you have some things in common with that Bob character. Though I understand you were taken from an Arctic ice floe by a Marine and brought back to Quantico, etc.

[KingJaja]

I am not an American and I don't usually post on topics like this.

However, I really believe that the USG should explain why nobody was seriously punished for the apparent murder of twenty four Iraqis. To the rest of the World it appears as if different standards of justice apply to the US Military, that the US does not practice what it preaches.

And this is coming on the heels of Abu Ghraib.

Many of you Americans don't really grasp how far the perception of the US and its Military has fallen this past decade. You might brush it off and say it doesn't matter - it actually does.

This is a PR problem that needs to be handled extremely carefully. To remain silent or to conceal information will do more damage in the long run.

[jcustis]

The Marine Corps senior leadership threw everything they had at this Marine and with those actions they compromised the loyalty and responsibility that they owe to all who serve and call themselves Marines.

Funny, this comment. To do anything less would have compromised our integrity, and frankly, damaged a bit of our credibility when we "say what we mean and mean what we say" to others outside our tiny bubbles.

Kind of like a nasty Catch-22.

[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.

[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.

[Polarbear1605]

Funny, this comment. To do anything less would have compromised our integrity, and frankly, damaged a bit of our credibility when we "say what we mean and mean what we say" to others outside our tiny bubbles.

Kind of like a nasty Catch-22.

But what if, the leadership is abusing the fairness of the system with Strategic Legalism? The Strategic legalism of the Haditha case led to senior leadership abusing the fairness of the system...the battalion commmander's court martial was dismissed on the grounds of undue command influence...its on the record...the prosecution did nothing to argue against undue command influence in the court martial. The battalion legal officer stated that there was no violations of the Laws of War and he was relieve and charged http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz1ky7spSte
The problem is that the senior leadership damaged their integrity and credibility by unethically pushing a political court martial.