Top General in Afghanistan Expels Marines

[Stan]

Hi Sarajevo !
I am glad that you feel you understand a little more. I may later ask you to explain some things to me They will definitely be hard ones

Much like you and the fine folks herein, I also think that even one human loss is terrible, no matter how it happened.

Please continue to find those "difficult subjects" and post them for us.

Good night, Stan

[Sarajevo071]

That is rather inflammatory. I doubt you can construct a genuine model whereby the U.S. is in Afghanistan for imperialistic reasons. We went to Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban, not for conquest or to help the Afghan people. Yet, despite incompetence and criminal under-funding and under-resourcing, the U.S. is trying to help the Afghan people set up a genuine representative government.

Despite this awful incident where innocents were killed, it is important to keep the bigger picture in mind before we resort to such anti-imperialist rhetoric. If you want to use such words, you must justify them.

My apologies tequila… I didn’t saw you post before.

First, thank you for your advices. Second... I don’t wish to be source of “inflammatory” posts and I will just say that what I learned in my humble lifetime, what I read and see, made me what I am today and what I believe and think now. There are many proofs and “proofs” and going thru them just to be shut down and never accepted since our perspectives and view are different, serve no purposes… I would have to say much about it but please, allow me stop here.

[Sarajevo071]

Killings of Afghan Civilians Recall Haditha
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER

After it became clear last year that several marines had killed 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq, following an attack on their convoy of Humvees, the Marine Corps, which had initially played down the massacre, began an offensive of a different kind.

Last May, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the commandant of the Marine Corps at the time, went to Iraq to express deep concern to his marines and to reinforce what he called the “core values” that required them to respond to danger with thoughtful precision.

But almost a year later, marines killed at least 10 civilians in Afghanistan in an episode that bore some striking similarities to the Haditha killings and suggested that the lesson had not taken, even in a platoon of combat veterans wearing the badge of the elite new Marine Corps Special Operations forces.

Marine Corps officials said the unit, whose members undergo at least four months of specialized military training, did not receive specific values training addressing the lessons of Haditha. The actions of the 30 marines on patrol in Afghanistan appeared to contradict many of the edicts General Hagee had implored the marines to remember.

“We use lethal force only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful,” General Hagee declared in a series of talks he gave at Marine bases around the world. “We must regulate force and violence,” he added. “We protect the noncombatants we find on the battlefield.”

A preliminary military investigation found that the marines killed at least 10 civilians and wounded dozens along a stretch of road near Jalalabad on March 4, and no evidence that they were being fired upon.

....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/wo...=1&oref=slogin

[TROUFION]

I was rereading this thread and wondering what is the point?

What I see is this: a Marine unit on patrol is hit by an IED while traversing a village. Due the blast they became disoriented. One or more of them fired. Then the remainder followed the lead and joined the firing. It was an over-reaction. It was precisely what the enemy wanted. The unfortunate side is that civilians died.

In the aftermath the Marines in the patrol believe they had been fired upon. IED ambushes are disorienting as stated, they probably believed they had been fired on. The difference between incoming and outgoing fire is tough to discern in many cases.

Rumors spread and mistakes in the investigation(s) compound these rumors.

This does not excuse the Marines from a mistake. It does not excuse investigator mistakes. It does not excuse the deaths of civilians. Rest assured that the Marine Corps WILL investigate and WILL hold people accountable.

BUT lets not forget the people who planted the IED ina populated civilian area. Lets not forget about the double standard of attrocity and accountability. AND do not forget that in combat 30 seconds is a lifetime.

So I ask again what is the point? When US/coalition forces kill civilians it is accidental, when taliban do it it is intentional. WHO should be held to account more?
-T

[TROUFION]

For those following this thread, here is the latest from the UNOFFICIAL Marine Corps Times:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...marsoc_070420/

Bottom line, Commanding Officer and Senior Enlisted relieved of duty and sent home awaiting the results of the investigation (several other team members have also been sent home early). It would appear despite confusion around the initial reporting and chaos of the event that the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Laws of Land Warfare and U.S. Law will be fully engaged in this matter. This action is entirely in keeping with agreements between the U.S. Government and the Government of Afghanistan regarding status of forces.

It is important to remember that while the Marines in question are being investigated for a response to a suicide ambush that was initially investigated and deemed “out of proportion to the threat…” under the UCMJ, U.S. and International law there remains the Presumption of Innocence.

Further the incident took place on 4 March 2007. Today is 24 April 2007. This is a period of 50 DAYS not weeks or months. This is a speedy pursuit of truth and justice.

-T

[tequila]

Army Colonel apologizes for alleged Marine shootings.

An Army colonel in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday apologized and made condolence payments to families of civilians allegedly killed by special operations Marines after a suicide bomber struck the Marines’ vehicle convoy.

He said the killing and wounding of “innocent Afghans at the hands of Americans is a stain on our honor,” despite the fact that the criminal investigation into the incident has not been completed.

The March 4 incident in Nangarhar province left 19 civilians dead and 53 wounded, said Army Col. John Nicholson, commander of the 10th Mountain Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team, which is winding down its deployment following 16 months away from home. The number of dead is well beyond previous reports, which ranged from 10 to 12.

“We came here to help the Afghan people and the Afghan government, not to hurt you,” Nicholson said, re-reading for Pentagon reporters via satellite the statement he gave to the families of the victims. “So I stand before you today deeply, deeply ashamed, and terribly sorry, that Americans have killed and wounded innocent Afghan people.

“We are filled with grief and sadness at the death of any Afghan,” Nicholson continued. “But the death and wounding of innocent Afghans at the hand of Americans is a stain on our honor, and on the deaths of the many Americans who have died defending Afghanistan and the Afghan people.

“This was a terrible, terrible mistake,” Nicholson said. “And my nation grieves with you for your loss and suffering. We humbly and respectfully ask for your forgiveness.”

Nicholson said such events “do set us back with the population, and they have to be addressed very directly and forthrightly with the Afghan people.” The families’ response, he said, was “very positive. Showing them the appropriate respect is culturally significant. And seeing the genuine remorse we have for incidents such as this is important in terms of keeping them with us.”

Marine Maj. Cliff Gilmore, spokesman for Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command at Camp Lejeune, N.C., said his command is not characterizing the incident until the investigation has been completed.

“We regret the March 4 ambush of the Marine Special Operations Company in Afghanistan and offer our deepest sympathy to all of those involved,” Gilmore said. ”The events related to that ambush are currently under investigation. In the interest of preserving the presumption of innocence that all U.S. service members deserve when facing allegations of misconduct, we will not characterize the incident until we have all the facts.”

[LawVol]

Hopefully these guys aren't now screwed. I find it surprising that a commander would comment prior to an investigation being completed. This only feeds into our nearly complete ineptitude when it comes to IO.

A great number of people will selectively digest information. We've seen it in this very thread. One member has permitted himself to believe one account by someone who was not there, but discount the statements of an attorney who heard it straight from the source. Additionally, he has automatically dismissed information provided by another member because it does not comport with what he already knows. I think its the whole cognitive-affective thinking model taken from psychology.

In any event, we've just handed the enemy a victory. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation (which will likely be covered on page 28 of the NY Times next to the newest fat-free recipe), the perception has been created and these two commanders have helped create it. Because of their statements, any investigation that unsubstantiates the allegations or any court-martial that renders an acquittal will be seen as a coverup. We really need to get better at this IO stuff.

[Steve Blair]

It's a shame, and the military's track record here has never been very good (going all the way back to our earliest wars). I don't know if it's a lack of interest in the subject, a failure to see the need for a good IO strategy, or what. I suspect it's a combination of the above, with a certain level of disdain for "non-military" activities thrown in for good (or bad) measure.

[jcustis]

A great number of people will selectively digest information. We've seen it in this very thread. One member has permitted himself to believe one account by someone who was not there, but discount the statements of an attorney who heard it straight from the source. Additionally, he has automatically dismissed information provided by another member because it does not comport with what he already knows. I think its the whole cognitive-affective thinking model taken from psychology.

Sounds like a perfect recipe for fratricide. Makes me think back a couple of months to the tape of the A-10 flight erroneously attacking the British Scimitars near Basra

[goesh]

- politician disguised as a full-bird pees all over self while apologizing for Marines trying to stay alive in a fire fight, that's my take on it

[SWCAdmin]

Let's not confuse lynching in the media with culturally appropriate expressions of remorse.

Many other threads here, and elsewhere, tout IO uber alles. On at least one level, this is what it looks like in practice.

I do not see anything in the quote above (post #46) that offends my US/first world sensibilities of "innocent until proven guilty" when balanced against an Afghan culturally sensitive and appropriate acknowledgement of involvement, which is undisputed. Actually a fairly well balanced statement, at least at the bumper sticker level - involvement but not guilt or justification. I don't go for the blood money concept, but they do. How would our IO campaign look with a "let's wait for the investigation" stance. When in Rome...

Perhaps those who are following this more thoroughly see lapses at other levels. No comment there, just at this drive-by level.

On a related note, the darn nuisance with COIN is that losing and winning look so annoyingly similar at the time.

[LawVol]

I agree that the quotes from Colonel Nicholson are not an admission of guilt. However, perception is reality. It is this quote from the article that bothers me:

Nicholson’s comments mark the second time that a prominent Army official has publicly cast doubt on the Marines’ innocence

If this reporter can come to that conclusion others will do so as well. By the time these quotes make the rounds, guilt will be affixed and any official determination to the contrary will be seen as a coverup. I'm just waiting for John Murtha to condemn them as well...

[SWCAdmin]

However, perception is reality.

Concur!

Problem is we have at least two, maybe more, extremely different realities, or at least perceptions, going on.

Actions that completely optimize the in-country issue management are almost the worst things that could be done with regard to the U.S. domestic political situation and/or the American system of justice for the accused. Yet if we try to please all, we do none effectively.

Would that we were only fighting on one front.

[carl]

I agree entirely with SWCAdmin. If we care about what the Afghan villagers think, and we should, probably more than anything, Col. Nicholson's statement and the payments had to be made sooner rather than later.

It appears that the unit involved was not prepared for what they ran into. IED/VBIED attack accompanied by an ambush, or not, would seem llkely to a point approaching certainty for a unit deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. That the unit couldn't respond as they should have is the fault of the leadership. The commanding officer and the senior NCO were relieved so it seems the Marines agree.

[Arctic Breaze]

Regardless of who is wrong or right this is an excellent event as it sets a precidence now for holding sub units accountable.

[SWCAdmin]

In this post (#51 this thread) I made a statement regarding a view through one specific soda straw. I still stand by that statement within the extremely narrow context that it was offered -- a sterile comment on the cross-cultural multi-audience issues raised by the excerpt of COL Nicholson's statement as it appeared in tequila's post #46.

However, now that I have peered through a few more soda straws and a little bit more at the events in general, I note that it must be next to impossible for anyone with more background on the incident in Jalalabad to separate that one straw from the many others that are on the camel's back and point to a breadth and depth of issues far beyond the one that I brought up.

The whole event is WAY complex and strikes to many many issues. In retrospect, for me to make have made such a comment on one sterile corner of the whole festering mess, as darn on target as the comment may have been , was marginally ridiculous. For those who were able to join me in being so objective (or ill-informed ), OK I guess, you needn't have read this. But for those who had some subjectivity due to a smidgeon of additional awareness, I now thoroughly appreciate how you might not have been able to accept that sterile comment and probably couldn't see straight for a while after reading it.

Might be some breaking news this week, and we'll see what it all brings. There will be much ado about rush to judgement, conviction in the press, service and cross-loyalties and/or their absence, etc.

BTW, in this recent story Gen Conway criticizes the apology.