Articles by Herschel Smith

PFC John Jodka III is in shackles for charges with respect to Hamandiya.  I will try to follow this story — for right now, Jodka says “I’ll walk out a free man.”

PFC John Jodka III is in shackles for charges with respect to Hamandiya.  I will try to follow this story — for right now, Jodka says “I’ll walk out a free man.”

Time Magazine besmirches the character of the U.S. Marines in the Haditha incident without evidence for the chain of events that they profer. The Time story currently reads like this:

One of the most damning pieces of evidence investigators have in their possession, according to a U.S. military source in Iraq, are personal photos, taken immediately after the killings, by a marine who emailed a snapshot back to a friend in the U.S.

This paragraph makes no sense. Damning evidence from a photograph after the fact by an individual who was there? In fact, the teeth have been removed from this quote due to bad reporting. At the bottom of the page, the following correction appears:

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that “one of the most damning pieces of evidence investigators have in their possession, John Sifton of Human Rights Watch told Time’s Tim McGirk, is a photo, taken by a Marine with his cell phone that shows Iraqis kneeling — and thus posing no threat — before they were shot.” While Sifton did tell TIME that there was photographic evidence, taken by Marines, he had only heard about the specific content of the photos from reports done by NBC, and had no firsthand knowledge. TIME regrets the error.

Right. A retraction makes everything okay, doesn’t it? So when this was first printed, they literally charged the Marines with forcing women and children onto their knees, allowing a fellow Marine to get a snapshot of them with his cell phone, and then executing non-combatants after their brother had taken a picture of the victims.

Okay. The gloves come off on this one. We still do not have all of the fact on this incident, but it does no good to traffic in contradiction and myths so outlandish and preposterous that even the most stolid person can tell that something is wrong. Here is what someone named Matthew Cooper (the reported with Time) apparently believed (we can only suppose that he believed this account — he authored the story).

1. After an IED explosion, the fire team (and perhaps the entire squad) had the time to go after civilians and execute them.
2. During the events subsequent to the IED explosion, the fire team so lacked the command and control by superior officers that they felt the freedom to kill unarmed non-combatants.
3. There is no protocol for how the Marines respond to a situation like this — they are all on their own and can take whatever action they deem appropriate.
4. The fire team was separate from the balance of the unit.
5. Upon arrival at the home, they forced the unarmed non-combatants to kneel.
6. Prior to the execution of unarmed non-combatants, another Marine “brother,” rather than trying to stop the execution, instead took out his cell phone and captured an image of the unarmed non-combatants just prior to execution (“Hey mom, just wanted to let you know how things were going in Iraq today”).

All the while, (a) a Marine brother is either wounded or dead, (b) they have received fire from adjacent houses, (c) their vehicle has been destroyed, and (d) they feel threatened by the situation.

If you believe this, then Santa Claus, the Tin Man, and the Easter Bunny do exist after all!

Just a bit more background to this assessment. One of the things that you are taught in boot camp is control of potential rage and anger. You are taught this on the rifle range, with pugil stick combat, through drill instructor harassment, and in many other ways throughout your training. On the other hand, young Marines are taught always to protect other Marines. From the very beginnings of their time in the Corps, they do “fire watch,” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for as long as Marines are together in a single location. It is the “Guardian Angel” concept. It “is expected to be ingrained to the point that it becomes a continuing action for Marines at all levels and in all circumstances.”

There are those who provide security; the question is “who will protect the protectors?” The answer: Marines protect their own. They do it with well-rehearsed skills, rules of engagement, and machine-like precision. This is what they are taught. The notion that some of the Marines would have gone off on their own, without clear guidance, and in the middle of a fire fight (with fire teams being expected to lay down a field of fire) and knowingly and purposely executed unarmed non-combatants is so ridiculous that it needs the utmost of proof for me to believe it.

The charges are so serious that no one should make them or even provide information that alleges them with the utmost of proof. Slander is a very real thing, and the media engages in it on a regular basis. It would appear that this Time story is one instance of it. Time should apologize to the Marines whose character they have maligned. Even if it turns out that the incredible did happen (and I am wrong in this post), there is still no hard evidence of it (and in fact, contrary evidence is beginning to announce itself).

Finally, with U.S. Marines, it would be equally ridiculous to expect that they not respond to protect their own. If they were being fired upon, then you can rest assurred that they responded. And here at the Captain’s Journal, we expect for them to have that right.

Good reporting is the order of the day. Trash stories are the things that trash publications publish.

We made a nice visit to our son yesterday at the School of Infantry, Camp Geiger (Marine Corps Air Station, New River, North Carolina) just near Camp Lejeune.  In the barracks of Company D, the following quote hangs on the bulletin board, and is very inspirational to my son.  I thought I would share it with you.

Somewhere a true believer is training to kill you.  He is training with minimum food and water, in austere conditions, day and night.  The only thing clean on him is his weapon.  He doesn’t worry about what workout to do — his rucksack weights what is weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.  The true believer doesn’t care how hard it is; he knows that he either wins or dies.  He doesn’t go home at 1700; he is home.  He only knows the cause.  Now.  Who wants to quit?

Staff Sergeant Wuterich (Squad Leader) says, through his lawyer and as reported by the Washington Post on Sunday, June 11, that his fire team followed what they understood to be the rules of engagement.  Read the entire story for yourself.  This marks the first time that someone involved (I guess it turns out that the pathetic DNC lackey John Murtha should have kept his mouth shut) has told us what happened.

Now, let me be clear.  The death of non-combatants is tragic.  I do not want to downplay the importance of having well-rehearsed, well-developed and wise rules of engagement (more on this in a minute).  Further, one has to make sure that the stories are all consistent — although it appears right now that they are all consistent from the fire team members.  This case might also have to be adjudicated through the courts in order to exhonerate the individuals involved.  This is not quite over yet, and more information might come out on this incident that causes me to repudiate my current position.

The attorney for Staff Sgt. Wuterich says:

“It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines.”

If it is true that the Humvee took fire from the home that they went to, and if it is true that they rules of engagement under those specific circumstances included using a fragmentation grenade following by clearing rounds from an M16A2 or M4, and if it is true that the Marines involved felt threatened by the occupants of the house, then here at the Captain’s Journal we agree with Staff Sgt. Wuterich.  It will forever by my position that they Marines did what they had to do, sad as this incident is.

I do not for one moment believe that a U.S. Marine … any U.S. Marine … would intentionally or knowingly fire upon non-combatants or take pleasure in the death of women and children.

As to the rules of engagement, who but an imbecile would refuse the Marines the right to defend themselves upon taking fire from a home?  Do the rules of engagement include stepping into the home (from which they have been fired upon) to see if there are any non-combatants?  If so, then pull our boys out now; we cannot win the war.  We are doomed.

Update, 6/12/06: Hat tip to the California Conservative who points out that there was a Presbyterian Minister who was with the Marines in Haditha.  This is a MUST READ!  The minister said nothing about Marines who felt guilty over any alleged intentional massacre.

Just watching the Beltway Boys and I went AARRGGGGGHHHH!!! when I heard Mort make the point that by standing firm on immigration the GOP is handing the Hispanic vote to the Democrats for the foreseeable future … and Fred agreed and gushed over the Bush plan.

Time after time polls have shown that the current Hispanic citizens are either split or leaning towards strong immigration control. So what is Mort talking about? Here is the hidden presupposition. In the end, the Hispanics will get across the border and be accepted as citizens (and hence get to vote), i.e., the amnesty provision(s) of the Senate bill will prevail over the House version of immigration reform.

Now. This is what logicians call reasoning in a circle (begging the question, or petitio principii). Mort has posed the argument thusly: in the end amnesty will prevail, so the GOP should go for amnesty and therefore get the Hispanic vote. It begs the question. No one has demonstrated that amnesty will prevail yet. If it doesn’t, then there are not newly sworn-in U.S. citizens to go to the Democrats (and further, the GOP might just have shot itself in the foot with currently registered Hispanics).

Mort! Think a little more clearly. Fred! You are on the verge of being a Rebublican first and conservative second (or third, or fourth). Please re-think your positions … you and William Kristol at the Weekly Standard. Good grief. It is hard enough to battle the liberals without having these internecine wars within our own camp.

Yesterday Bush spoke again on immigration, pushing the same policy we have heard from him day after day.  Where does this come from?  Is Rove such a inept political adviser that he has not warned him off of this policy?  The AP reports:

“There are those here in Washington who say, `Why don’t we just find the folks and send them home,'” Bush said. “That ain’t gonna work.”

He said although it sounds simple, it is impractical to insist that the 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. leave and come back legally.

As I have said in earlier posts, this is a smokescreen.  A ruse.  A decoy.  If you punish employers who hire illegals, the illegals will go home on their own.  As for the practicality of insisting, I cannot find any reason that it is impractical to insist anything.  In fact, I insist right now as I write.  I insist that Bush stop pushing his loser immigration policy.  There.  It worked.  I successfully insisted something.

If he means that it is impractical to make it happen, of course, this is a lie.  It’s easy.  Put employers who hire illegals in prison.  The practice of hiring illegals will end immediately.

Here is a prediction in two parts: (a) few if any Republican House members up for (re)election will support Bush’s loser immigration policy, or (b) any Republican House member who is up for (re)election and who does support Bush’s loser immigration policy will lose.  Why?  Because it is a loser immigration policy.

Over at the incomparable Michelle Malkin’s home page she hat tips “Alarming News” for catching the Baltimore Sun for scolding for “inappropriate glee” at the death of Al-Zarqawi.  Well, sign me up for some … and for some more too.  My son will not deploy for another half year or so, but I had already prayed for the death of Zarqawi, hoping that Iraq would be a safer place for him and his brothers when he gets there.  In case you have forgotten what an imprecatory prayer is, go catch Doug Giles on this subject.  We should be praying more of them.  In fact, here is a short one right now.

Lord, please allow us to succeed in killing the enemy.  Root him out from his hiding places, cause him to starve, to experience misery, to fail in all of his evil intentions, and to become a laughingstock to the world.  Lord, give us success in smiting our enemies with a great blow so that this evil will be removed from us.

Glee?  I am overjoyed at the death of the terrorists.  Whew!  Perhaps I will pray more of these imprecatory prayers!

Over at the incomparable Michelle Malkin’s home page she hat tips “Alarming News” for catching the Baltimore Sun for scolding for “inappropriate glee” at the death of Al-Zarqawi.  Well, sign me up for some … and for some more too.  My son will not deploy for another half year or so, but I had already prayed for the death of Zarqawi, hoping that Iraq would be a safer place for him and his brothers when he gets there.  In case you have forgotten what an imprecatory prayer is, go catch Doug Giles on this subject.  We should be praying more of them.  In fact, here is a short one right now.

Lord, please allow us to succeed in killing the enemy.  Root him out from his hiding places, cause him to starve, to experience misery, to fail in all of his evil intentions, and to become a laughingstock to the world.  Lord, give us success in smiting our enemies with a great blow so that this evil will be removed from us.

Glee?  I am overjoyed at the death of the terrorists.  Whew!  Perhaps I will pray more of these imprecatory prayers!

Various blogs have turned logic on its head (especially over at the Daily Kos) by implying that it was better that Zarqawi was be alive because other leaders will just take his place and he will turn into a Martyr. Okay. Think about this argument for a moment. The argument is essentially that it is better not to kill the enemy because there might be more of them. What kind of contorted logic wins a war by keeping the enemy alive? Wonder what General George Patton would have thought of that argument?

It is always better in war that your enemy be dead than alive (unless you need intelligence from him and you believe that you will not increase the chances of escape while attempting to capture him compared to outright killing of the enemy). Further, they (i.e., Al-Qaida in Iraq) have lost their prince (as Usama called him), the top leadership available to the increasingly desperate group. It is also not at all obvious – even if Zarqawi had already designated his replacement – that this new leader will be able to hold them together. Only recently coalition forces captured documents believed to be the work of senior Al-Qaida leadership in the Baghdad area. These documents show a fractured, disorganized, ill-equiped and demoralized group of terrorists. They do not sound like an organization which is enjoying the loss of its membership, especially its senior leadership. Nor does it sound like an organization which will easily be able to bounce back. Don’t count them out, but right now it appears that they are on the mat. While the entire document is worth reading, selected quotes follow:

It has been proven that the Shiites have a power and influence in Baghdad that cannot be taken lightly, particularly when the power of the Ministries of Interior and Defense is given to them, compared with the power of the mujahidin in Baghdad. During a military confrontation, they will be in a better position because they represent the power of the state along with the power of the popular militias. Most of the mujahidin power lies in surprise attacks (hit and run) or setting up explosive charges and booby traps. This is a different matter than a battle with organized forces that possess machinery and suitable communications networks. Thus, what is fixed in the minds of the Shiite and Sunni population is that the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and closer to controlling it while the mujahidin (who represent the backbone of the Sunni people) are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government. The only power the mujahidin have is what they have already demonstrated in hunting down drifted patrols and taking sniper shots at those patrol members who stray far from their patrols, or planting booby traps among the citizens and hiding among them in the hope that the explosions will injure an American or members of the government. In other words, these activities could be understood as hitting the scared and the hiding ones, which is an image that requires a concerted effort to change, as well as Allah’s wisdom. The strength of the brothers in Baghdad is built mainly on booby trapped cars, and most of the mujahidin groups in Baghdad are generally groups of assassin without any organized military capabilities.There is a clear absence of organization among the groups of the brothers in Baghdad, whether at the leadership level in Baghdad, the brigade leaders, or their groups therein. Coordination among them is very difficult, which appears clearly when the group undertake a join operations.The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site).At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad.The role that the Islamic party and the Islamic Scholars Committee play in numbing the Sunni people through the media is a dangerous role. It has been proven from the course of the events that the American investment in the Party and the Committee were not in vain. In spite of the gravity of the events, they were able to calm down the Sunni people, justify the enemy deeds, and give the enemy the opportunity to do more work without any recourse and supervision. This situation stemmed from two matters:First, their media power is presented by their special radio and TV stations as the sole Sunni information source, coupled with our weak media which is confined mainly to the Internet, without a flyer or newspaper to present these events.Second, in the course of their control of the majority of the speakers at mosques who convert right into wrong and wrong into right, and present Islam in a sinful manner and sins in a Muslim manner. At the same time we did not have any positive impact or benefits from our operations.The National Guard status is frequently raised and whether they belong to the Sunnis or Shiites. Too much talk is around whether we belong to them or not, or should we strike and kill their men or not?It is believed that this matter serves the Americans very well. I believe that the Committee and the Party are pushing this issue because they want to have an influence, similar to the Mujahidin’s. When and if a Sunni units from the National Guard are formed, and begin to compete with the mujahidin and squeeze them, we will have a problem; we either let them go beyond the limits or fight them and risk inciting the Sunnis against us through the Party’s and the Committee’s channels.(Salah), the military commander of Baghdad (he used to be the commander of the Rassafah County and still is) is a courageous young man with a good determination but he has little and simple experience in the military field and does not have a clear vision about the current stage and how to deal with it Most of his work at al-Rassafah County is to take cars to the Jubur Arab Tribes, convert them into booby traps and take them back inside Baghdad for explosion. And the more booby trap cars he makes, the more success he has. This alone is not a work plan and we do not benefit from it in the medium range let alone the long range.

(Salah): The current commander of Northern al-Karkh (Abu-Huda) is very concerned because of his deteriorating security situation caused by being pursued by the Americans, since they have his picture and voice print. Therefore, his movement is very restricted and he is unable to do anything here. We should remove him from Baghdad to a location where he can work easier; otherwise he is closer to become totally ineffective. I know nothing about his past military experience or organizational skills.