Dealing with Haditha

[Ken White]

...

Have I missed the point?

It's a long story, a lot more than defense as RTK pointed out, worldwide presence for another thing and the sheer cost of things today.

The Peaceniks will eventually win because no one will be able to afford to fight...

There's also, as W.S. Churchill said, the fact that:

"You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried every conceivable alternative."

He was being polite. We bumble a lot.

[Ken White]

...
...The Powell doctrine, as implemented in 1991, lead very quickly to a "mutual understanding" of who should run Kuwait.
. . .

You may or may not be aware that Powell tried to use the doctrine to avoid going to Kuwait at all.

"...He contrasted Pershing’s subservience with the overreaching behavior of General Colin Powell, who was “encouraged by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986” to trespass on the civilian prerogative of policy-making in a variety of disturbing ways. Powell too vociferously opposed going to war in the Gulf, insisted on withdrawing from the war before Saddam’s Republican Guard had been destroyed, and inappropriately dominated the peace-making process at the end of the Gulf War."

LINK

Here's more detail; LINK. There's a lot more out there.

I'm sure you're aware that the only reason it looks as though the doctrine was applied is that VII Corps was in Germany, about to be inactivated and could be -- was -- shipped to the Gulf to go to war on their way home. That Corps and the number of Divisions it had were later inactivated. Had Saddam's attempted takeover of Kuwait occurred two years later than it did, the "overwhelming force" we applied in Desert Storm would just not have been available. Can't apply what you don't have. However, I suspect that most President's would not have allowed that lack of overwhelming force to deter them from acting...

Not to mention, as Weigley pointed out, that Powell -- and Cheney -- used the 'doctrine' as a crutch to convince Scowcroft and Bush to end the war prematurely because going to Baghdad would be messy. True, and the Coalition would have not gone with us (but they would have cheered on us on behind the scenes while publicly expressing dismay) but the reason he didn't want to go was to protect the Army from another insurgency; the reason Bush didn't want to go was partly that, partly fear of public discontent both domestically and interantionally due to the havoc the 24th ID and the USAF were wreaking on withdrawing Iraqis.

It would've been a whole lot easier then with 500K troops than it was 12 years later. We quit Gulf War I too soon. If we quit Gulf War II too soon then we can count on Gulf War III.

[JJackson]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. My original impression was defiantly that the role of the US forces job was to shape the global environment in a way that was best for the US’s economic and political interests and to the detriment of any nation or group that went contrary to those goals. This seemed to fit well with the size and global power projection evidenced by overseas bases and carrier groups. My confusion arose from statements like Ken Whites on the Powell and Weinburger Doctrine

Both were expressly designed to deter use of the Armed forces in anything short of a war of national survival and to avoid any commitment to peacekeeping, nation building or counterinsurgency work.

If this was what was being taught as the role of the military it seemed difficult to square with either the size & disposition of those forces or the way they seemed to be being employed by their political masters.
The listing kindly posted by RTK seems to imply a much wider role than the doctrine.

[Ken White]

... My confusion arose from statements like Ken Whites on the Powell and Weinburger Doctrine

If this was what was being taught as the role of the military it seemed difficult to square with either the size & disposition of those forces or the way they seemed to be being employed by their political masters.
The listing kindly posted by RTK seems to imply a much wider role than the doctrine.

I was trying to point out that it was a flawed doctrine and was never really used; four Presidents ignored it totally. To go to Grenada, Panama, The 1991 Gulf War, to Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and to Iraq.

The doctrine was however misused by the Army as a reason to avoid any work on counterinsurgency doctrine or training because such work is messy anf hard on the institution (and we don't do it very well). Other than lip service it was not effectively taught as doctrine -- nor was it ever really applied simply because it was too practically and politically limiting.

As A German Officer complained in WW II, "The Americans develop good plans, -- but they never follow them."

Still true...

[Sarajevo071]

US wanted Europe to fix its own problems, Sarajevo.

They didn't seem inclined to do that. If you've noticed, we were late to the party in World Wars I and II as well -- waiting for Europe to solve their own problems. Seems to be a pattern there...

As to the world wide Empire, not really that we want to do it all that much; we'd a lot rather worry about Lindsay Lohan and Larry Craig's bathroom habits but all these other folks just seem to cause problems that no one is willing to fix.

Nasty job as they say but somebody has to do it.

Be happy, another 50 years or so and we''ll be downgraded -- then you can complain about the Chinese or the Indians.

If you let me...

I do not agree with you about U.S. imperial ambitions... Read the statement of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf in his book "It Doesn't Take a Hero" when he is saying that if U.S. want to have upper hand and basically control over the Europe and Asia (who also heavily depending on ME oil) U.S. absolutely NEED to control ME and oil. Sadly, I can not quote him completely since I gave my copy to the my american friend before I moved. Then, you move on neocon ideas of control and reasons for war in Iraq, finishing for the REAL reasons for so many military bases all over the world. If you wish, we can talk about that to.

Second. About Bosnia and stupid Bosnian people who believed in lies of democracy, being equal and universal human rights... Bosnia was sacrificial lamb for both American and European interests. U.S. wanted to prove to Europe that they are limp d%$^# and that can't do a crap without them, while Europeans was trying to prove opposite. In same time, Europe being divided, racists, xenophobic and nationalistic, they was unable to do a thing since some of them supported serbs, some of them supported croats...

U.S. came on the end not for being "good old guys" but because old farts from E.U. failed and since finally someone got smart in Washington and said" "Wait a minute... Bosnian Muslims are Europeans, white, and if they got radicalized and start hate us (like they hate some in Europe) we will be in deep sh%^&$". So, they wake up and "help". Bosnia was let to die since it was Muslims who was getting killed en mass and serbs got time if they can do job fast and localized only to Bosnia... They failed and Bosnians refused to die and give up.

So world reacted ONLY because we start hating them to much realizing why they don't care for our kids being killed, because mujahideen came to help us and because Bosnians start coming back to Islam. Why else did "civilized" world wait to send solders for 4 YEARS when Muslims was killed in Bosnia and only 4 MONTHS for East Timor when christians was killed by Muslims?! Answer is simple and you (all of you) know this! But, let not listen my biased opinions and read the truth from your own fellow americans:

"If the situation was reversed in Bosnia, and a fanatical Muslim regime in Belgrade was slaughtering thousands of innocent Christians in Sarajevo, then America would have reacted by now. We would not watch Christians get killed by Muslims in Europe. Period. But we can watch Muslims get killed by Christians." The problem for Bosnia was larger than the fact that George Bush was getting clobbered by Bill Clinton in the polls. Bosnia was Islam.

George Kenney
(he resigned in 1991 over U.S. policy towards the Bosnia)

“Mr. President, I cannot not tell you something,” Wiesel said. “I have been in the former Yugoslavia last fall. I cannot sleep since for what I have seen. As a Jew I am saying that we must do something to stop the bloodshed in that country. People fight each other and children die. Why? Something, anything must be done!”

Elie Wiesel
opening of Holocaust museum in Washington April 22, 1993.
(A few months earlier, Wiesel had visited a Serb prison camp in Bosnia, and the haunted faces of the Muslim inmates reminded him of the doomed souls jailed with him at Auschwitz fifty years before. He saw many parallels, too many.)

All references and quotes taken from the book: "Love Thy Neighbor - A Story of War" by Peter Maass.

P.S.
Just to note for all... Bosnians NEVER ask nor they wish for ANY soldier to came and fight for them! All they ask is stop blocking us from the weapons!

[Uboat509]

I don't get the whole, the US needs to control the ME and oil argument. When has the US EVER controled the ME or oil? This is the same old strawman that gets thrown out along with the US as Empire screed. OPEC controls the ME and oil and is perfectly happy to tell us to go fly a kite when it suits them. For crying out loud, the majority of our oil doesn't even come from the ME. The last I checked we were getting more oil from Canada than the ME.

On another note what do Jews have to do with Serbia?

SFC W

[JJackson]

Regarding controlling the oil. I would read this as controlling the stability of the price of oil. This is very much in US – and all industrialised nations – interests. This is achieved by global naval presence to secure safety of shipping lanes (working fairly well, bar Malacca straits and Somalia) and by befriending states with oil reserves. The latter has lead to some strange bed fellows for the US, propping up and arming some extremely unpleasant, decidedly undemocratic regimes. While even those countries – like Venezuela – which the US have lost influence over sell their oil, mainly, directly into the global market there are not enough of them to be able to use oil price as a political tool, ‘friends’ can adjust production to preserve stability. There are two exceptions to this that immediately spring to mind firstly – and this is not really an exception as it involves price level rather than stability – Sheik Yammani’s 1973 galvanisation of the OPEC members to use their combined control of production to get themselves a better price. The second, more interesting, is the use of oil by the Soviets who rather than sell at market prices and use the proceeds to currie favour supplied subsidised oil to achieve the same ends. Soviet oil production at the time was small and it would be interesting to see how they would have used their position now, as a major energy player, had the USSR survived.

[Ken White]

Schwarzkopf was a fair General in some respects but no great geopolitical intellect -- and he did not and does not speak for the US, he speaks for Schwarzkopf.

As for the oil issue, I think JJAckson and UBoat509 adequately and correctly answer that. We really do want China, Europe and India to have all the oil they need. The only empire we're interested in is commercial -- that's been true for over 200 years.

The Neocons are idiots, or at least they have idiotic ideas. Did we go to Iraq due to the great Neocon plot or did Bush use some of their mumblings to further his own agenda with their concurrence and support?

I basically agree with you on Bosnia. Nations do tend to act in their own interests at some cost to others. I'm not at all sure that the Muslim content had all that much to do with our delay on entering and I doubt we can know for sure so in my opinion there's no sense in arguing about that.

Just to note for all... Bosnians NEVER ask nor they wish for ANY soldier to came and fight for them! All they ask is stop blocking us from the weapons!

I agree with that. As I recall we (the US) effectively supported that and made some end-runs around the EU who disagreed.

[Steve Blair]

but we are straying a bit off-topic here...at least as it relates to the original topic of the post.

Let's see if we can't do a course correction....

[Ken White]

post which contained a link to a letter from Marine Corps forces, CentCom said it all on the topic.

As Jedburgh pointed out two days ago, there was extensive discussion on another thread. Thus, in effect, this became a thread of idle chatter and point / counterpoint for two days. That happens in forums like this. Eventually they die from lack of interest and, I suspect, very little harm is done.

[Sarajevo071]

First - thank you for letting me talk and post without insults or low blows, and for being open for other opinions... Who knows, maybe you will learn something new and/or get on your own to look for the Truth.

I don't get the whole, the US needs to control the ME and oil argument. When has the US EVER controled the ME or oil? This is the same old strawman that gets thrown out along with the US as Empire screed. OPEC controls the ME and oil and is perfectly happy to tell us to go fly a kite when it suits them. For crying out loud, the majority of our oil doesn't even come from the ME. The last I checked we were getting more oil from Canada than the ME.

On another note what do Jews have to do with Serbia?

SFC W

You did it before in Iran (that's reason why did U.S. support dictator and help him to bring down democracy in Iran) and american oil companies (with ties to the US government and interests) presence in ME it's matter of public knowledge.

If ME oil don't mean that much to you, why U.S. sons and daughters fighting and dieing there!? Democracy?! Freedom of others!? Please... U.S. put and support those stupid, evil, moronic regimes all over the ME. Controlling them you control ME and oil, therefore have control over other countries.

Controlling other countries you get them to do what is in your agenda (either asking them, paying them off, twisting they arms or threatening them). That's how U.S. got UN support for this invasion of Iraq and (another example) how U.S. get countries to sign out treaty that no matter what U.S. military does and who and why they kill they can be brought to the International Justice Court... All other countries and people can be tried there but not US or Israel. Interesting.

Link with oil, money, ME and powerful circles in White House and Congress it's all known and established truth and one who wish to know can find all the answers out there.

Jews have to do allot with serbs (another big killers of jews in WWII), this war in Bosnia, word leaders opinion and actions when Muslims was killed there... Example: 155mm shells with hebrew signs that rain down on Sarajevo streets, playgrounds, homes or how they behave in Sarajevo/Bosnia and how they made treaties with serbs.

If you wish, we can talk more about history of jews in Bosnia some other time.

We really do want China, Europe and India to have all the oil they need. The only empire we're interested in is commercial -- that's been true for over 200 years.

I am sorry to disagree but there is no way that U.S. government will be OK with China or India or anyone else for that matter to become economical stronger! That's danger to the U.S. monopole and imperialistic tendencies. Look at latest Chinese actions... Attacks on computers and ideas of "war satellites"!? They are all over ME and Africa, they getting stronger and better and that worry many in Washington.

I agree with that. As I recall we (the US) effectively supported that and made some end-runs around the EU who disagreed.

Openly, you did nothing. U.S. politician bitch and moan, talked how is un-just and ask Europeans to stop that but in same time they agree with them... NATO needs to be unified and strong always! But, on the other hand you did try to deliver something to us... Sadly, not enough and not without big price. I personally know about one case involving U.S. awacs, turkish C-130s and U.N. controlled airport in Tuzla. But, I believe it was couple more.

but we are straying a bit off-topic here...at least as it relates to the original topic of the post.

I agree with you (when we are talking about name of the topic) but if we are talking about REASONS for that and WHY's and HOW's that is possible and how other people see and read those events (killings of civilians and U.S. soldiers getting off with little or no punishments) it is all well connected.

Having control over resources, being Empire, controlling new and old "allies" and "friends" lets U.S. get they soldiers free from a fear of International prosecution and responsibilities (something that ALL other countries are subject of) and then U.S. justice don't applying they own standards when other people are killed, it is a strong and wrong message to everyone.

Soldiers gets to kill and rape knowing that no big deal will happened to them. Pilots kill allied soldiers and then destroy tape in cockpit, lie and corrupt evidence and what happening? Nothing. Pilot kills brit and U.S. military don't want to send evidence or representatives and what happening? Nothing. U.S. soldiers kill and rape and destroy property and what will happened? Again, nothing much. No evidence, can't be proven, lies, cover ups...

I know no one of you will agree or accept this, but all this it's connected.

[Ken White]

China and India to get too economically strong. Of course we don't. However, in the short term, it's to our advantage that they get all the oil they need -- which is what I did say. Sure their increased play around the world worries many in Washington but while that town isn't filled with the best and the brightest-- never was -- they aren't totally stupid and they can do the math. Both China and India will be "superpowers" whatever that means and we know it. We'd just like it to be on our terms.

We don't do a lot of things openly. Nor are we as stupid as we allow many to think we are.

[Sarajevo071]

but we are straying a bit off-topic here...at least as it relates to the original topic of the post.

Let's see if we can't do a course correction....

Ok. Let's go back on the course then... What do you say/think about this:

US Marine: I Was Ordered to Execute Women and Children

Lance Corporal Humberto Mendoza testified this week that Marine Sargeant Frank Wuterich, who faces 17 counts of murder over the Haditha killings, ordered him to execute Iraqi women and children.

The marines had been responding to a roadside bomb on November 19, 2005 when a roadside bomb killed one in their midst. Mendoza says Wuterich ordered him and his fellow marines o begin clearing housses in search of insurgents, what followed was one of the most horrific episodes reported out of Iraq:

At one house Wuterich gave an order to shoot on sight as Marines waited for a response after knocking on the door, said Mendoza.

"He said 'Just wait till they open the door, then shoot,'" Mendoza said.

Mendoza then said he shot and killed an adult male who appeared in a doorway.

During a subsequent search of the house, Mendoza said he received an order from another Marine, Lance Corporal Stephen Tatum, to shoot seven women and children he had found in a rear bedroom.

"When I opened the door there was just women and kids, two adults were lying down on the bed and there were three children on the bed ... two more were behind the bed," Mendoza said.

"I looked at them for a few seconds. Just enough to know they were not presenting a threat ... they looked scared."

After leaving the room Mendoza told Tatum what he had found.

"I told him there were women and kids inside there. He said 'Well, shoot them,'" Mendoza told prosecutor Lieutenant Colonel Sean Sullivan.

"And what did you say to him?" Sullivan asked.

"I said 'But they're just women and children.' He didn't say nothing."

Mendoza said he returned to a position at the front of the house and heard a door open behind him followed by a loud noise. Returning later that afternoon to conduct body retrieval, Mendoza said he found a room full of corpses.
...

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/howard/61363/

Google search (just to double check all this for you) came up with this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

[SWJED]

Frontline’s Haditha: “Rules of Engagement”

Jules Crittenden (Forward Movement) has the advance scoop on PBS Frontline’s Haditha: “Rules of Engagement”

Airing on PBS Tuesday, Feb. 19. Check your local listings and make a note. Preview trailers here.

I just finished watching a review copy. If you want to know the basics on this political football, see principal participants and witnesses interviewed — Marines, Haditha survivors, reporters and lawyers — and see extensive private and military video footage and stills of 3rd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3/1 Marines in Haditha before, during and after the Nov. 19, 2005 incident, you’ll want to watch this.

Like most Frontline treatments, it is well-documented and painstakingly fair. To the extent it can be in the space of an hour, it is the story of the unit and the military, media and political history of the incident. The high points of the investigation, prosecution and defense are woven through...

[bismark17]

I thought it made Murtha and the Prosecution look like total jackasses. I really feel for those kids being placed in that position. Regardless of how much training you do sometimes when you go "full tilt boogie" stuff happens. Mistakes were made and I'm sure they will have to deal with them for the rest of their lives. There is a big difference from intentional acts to things that occur in the heat of the moment. Major kudos to that forensics investigator who appears to have done a great job at investigating the objective facts and not just creating more ammunition for their respective paymaster.

That show should be required viewing for L.E. and ground pounders after they have some realistic training and can appreciate the feelings of tunnel vision, auditory exclusion and all the rest of that reptilian mind stuff. The problem in our polite, zero defect, society is that too many people not only don't have an understanding of history or the military but have never even been in a fight and thus can't even appreciate what happens in a fight for your life event.

[Ken White]

... The problem in our polite, zero defect, society is that too many people not only don't have an understanding of history or the military but have never even been in a fight and thus can't even appreciate what happens in a fight for your life event.

Or even one not for ones life but just where someone might get rough...

[Rank amateur]

It seems to me that we insist its safe to eat soup with a knife, until innocent people get cut by the knife.

If we were all honest enough to say, "we're going to blow up a lot stuff, a lot of people will be killed, some of them will be innocent, but here's why we think it's worth it..." civilians, politicians and soldiers would be on the same page and know what to expect.

Having said that, I only saw Wuterich's 60 Minutes interview - and don't know many of the details that must've been in the frontline piece - but it appeared to me that Wuterich was using conventional ROE in a COIN environment. He wasn't properly prepared. I felt sorry for him and don't see how anyone could hold him criminally responsible.

[tequila]

CBS seeks to quash subpoena for Hadithah interview - MarineCorps Times, 22 Feb.

Military prosecutors say unaired footage of a CBS “60 Minutes” interview given by a Marine squad leader contain admissions of crimes in an attack that killed 24 Iraqi men, women and children in 2005.

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich “apparently admits in an unaired segment that he did, in fact, order his men to ‘shoot first and ask questions later,’” Capt. Nicholas Gannon said in response to a motion filed by CBS seeking to quash a subpoena seeking the footage.

CBS is set to ask a judge Friday to throw out the subpoena during a pre-trial hearing for Wuterich, who faces voluntary manslaughter and other charges in the Nov. 19, 2005, deaths in Hadithah, Iraq ...

[Boondoggle]

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009...c50074c7e7.txt

If he drops the charges against LtCol Chessani, that leaves only the case against SSgt Wuterich to be tried, if that.

Personally, I doubt there will ever be a trial on the merits at this point and the USMC would probably like this whole thing to fade away.

[IntelTrooper]

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009...c50074c7e7.txt

If he drops the charges against LtCol Chessani, that leaves only the case against SSgt Wuterich to be tried, if that.

Personally, I doubt there will ever be a trial on the merits at this point and the USMC would probably like this whole thing to fade away.

I haven't been following this story very much... but if Chessani says that he kept his superiors informed wouldn't the logical thing to do be to investigate them? Or is that part of the "unlawful command influence"? And if it was unlawful, why aren't they facing charges?