Did I Predict This or What?
BY Herschel Smith17 years, 10 months ago
Here I posted (among other things) that there would be an ingrained hesitancy now in the Marines’ room-clearing techniques and less overall willingness to defend themselves due to the charges brought against the Marines at Haditha (along with other similar instances). At Haditha, I still believe (until it is proven otherwise) that the room was cleared using techniques that the Marines are trained on and which are approved by the brass. The intent is to kill those in the room. Read here and here. The presupposition is that those in the room are enemy, and that the Marines are threatened.
Now we find out that:
In theory, the rules for “clearing a building” are simple: The person inside must have been conclusively identified as a combatant, and the threat must be confirmed as real.
But in practice, every case is different — particularly with an enemy that prefers to hide behind women and children, U.S. combat veterans say.
Marines who fought in Fallouja said later that the mere suspicion that a sniper was in a building was justification for calling in a tank or airstrike. Now the bar is higher.
“It’s not just one suspicion or one event [that is needed], but several,” said Lt. Col. Pat Kline, deputy director of one of the training programs.
The presence of civilians also has to be considered when deciding whether, for example, to enter a building by throwing in a grenade, as Marines did in Haditha.
“Because someone is hostile inside a house, that doesn’t mean the entire house is hostile,” Baczkowski said.
Read the full Los Angeles Times story here.
You mark my words. This new “protocol” will mean the deaths of more Marines. But hey. The upshot is that John Murtha will be happier.
On July 7, 2006 at 3:28 pm, Republicanpundit said:
Herschel,
It is a shame, but you are probably right
On July 7, 2006 at 8:45 pm, Mike said:
“In theory, the rules for “clearing a building