I discussed Staff Sgt. Wuterich’s claims that the Marines followed the rules of engagement, as reported in the Washington Post on Sunday, June 11.  I pointed out how absurd it is to believe that the Marines acted in the way they are portrayed as acting (this does not predispose anyone to take any position on the events other than to say that it is highly improbable that the events unfolded as we have heard):

Wuterich’s version contradicts that of the Iraqis, who described a massacre of men, women and children after a bomb killed a Marine. Haditha residents have said that innocent civilians were executed, that some begged for their lives before being shot and that children were killed indiscriminately.

Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich’s account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients.

Kevin B. McDermott, who is representing Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the Kilo Company commander, said Wuterich and other Marines informed McConnell on the day of the incident that at least 15 civilians were killed by “a mixture of small-arms fire and shrapnel as a result of grenades” after the Marines responded to an attack from a house.

In my post I rely somewhat on experiences and discussions with my Marine son (recently graduated as a Boot and currently in SOI) about his training.

It has become apparent that two members of the clergy were ministering to the unit that was involved with Haditha that day: Rev. Ben Mathes, and Rev. Christopher Price.  Neither reported Marines telling them about any massacre.

I also discussed Time Magazine besmirching of the character of the Marines who were involved with absolutely no evidentiary support (and then printing a small retraction at the bottom of the article).

The Haditha story that the anti-American press so badly wants to exist (and is trying to create) seems to be evaporating.  It now appears that there was quite a fire fight going on in and around the area.  Captain James Kimber reports that this particular time was a period in which Marine units were encouraged to escalate their use of force in dealing with insurgents.  He further reports that:

Nov. 19 unfolded like many other days in Iraq, Kimber said, with reports of violence. A rocket-propelled grenade was launched toward the compound of Kimber’s unit, in a school in central Haqlaniyah, a few miles south of Haditha. Other nearby units also were taking mortar and small-arms fire.

On the radio, Kimber said, he heard the report from Haditha of the blast from a roadside improvised explosive device, or IED, and the death of one Marine there. He also could hear an unfolding gun battle.

Over at Townhall, Mary Katharine Ham reports (from her sources) that:

As the situation developed, the Marines at the initial ambush site were isolated for a period of time in this hostile city and they had every right to fear for their lives.  A group of about 15-20 foreign fighters were believed to be in Haditha that day, supplemented by local insurgents.  Knowing that 6 Marines had been surrounded and killed in Haditha before help could reach them just three months before, the isolated Marines had to fear the worst as they responded to the first attack.

One Marine’s father reports that:

after the car bomb exploded the Marines took a defensive position around his son’s battered vehicle. Insurgents immediately started shooting from nearby buildings, and the insurgents were using women and children as human shields

Brit Hume picked up a story on the suspect nature of the alleged Time magazine videotape of the aftermath of the Haditha incident.  It appears that the budding young journalism student is not quite what he seems, and has a “dog in this fight.”

As this story is studied, inconsistencies and problems become apparent.  CNN reported that:

Suspecting that the four students in the taxi either triggered the bomb or were acting as spotters, the Marines ordered the men and the driver, who by then had exited the taxi, to lie on the ground. Instead, they ran, and the Marines shot and killed them. 

But do “students” really take taxis to school in Haditha, Iraq?

With the mention of “students” who ride taxis to school, little has been said about the nature of the Haditha that the Marines have seen over the last months.  Here is a good primer on the city:

Hardly mentioned at all in the hysterical coverage of Haditha is the nature of this city hard by the Syrian border. If you think Fallujah was a hornet’s nest of insurgency, you should take a look at Haditha and what the Marines have been facing there.

There is good news coming from Haditha too, even as accidently reported on CNN:

There’s been a lot of progress in Haditha, and I’ve been going back there pretty much for a year and a half. My last trip was a month before this incident. And Haditha, at the beginning of 2005 was very violent. U.S. troops would not even enter the city. And little by little, after a series of operations, and finally the last operation was before the operation in Haditha, a certain amount of stability was brought to the area, of course, that is stability on the Iraq barometer of stability. But it’s all relative. And they have brought the city under control to a certain degree, and they have set up fixed bases, both Iraqi and U.S. Army fixed bases to try and build up this relationship with the civilians. They have started the process of trying to clean the city of these roadside bombs that were just about everywhere, and trying to do these sweeping operations to clear out the city of insurgents and bring a certain amount of stability to it. 

There is a good Marine Corps Times article on Staf Sgt. Wuterich (a more personal side).  On an editorial note, it seems to me that it is entirely consistent that unarmed non-combatants were begging for their lives, while at the same time Marines were shooting (with the Marines being innocent of murder).  The reports are consistent that the insurgents used the women and children as human shields.

The Washington Post reports from a lawyer of one of the Marines that:

“There’s a ton of information that isn’t out there yet,” said one lawyer, who, like the others, would speak only on the condition of anonymity because a potential client has not been charged. The radio message traffic, he said, will provide a different view of the incident than has been presented by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and other members of Congress. For example, he said, contrary to Murtha’s account, it will show that the Marines came under small-arms fire after the roadside explosion.

Finally, there is still something very wrong and inconsistent with this whole picture.  The Washington Post reported on May 27 that:

“A U.S. Marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and Marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another.” 

Did you know that 15 civilians were also killed in this IED blast?  I have seen this reported only in the Washington Post.  Further, did you know that Iraqi soldiers were with the Marines?  Additionally, this story is consistent with the other reports of an intense fire fight.  Strangely inconsistent with this account is the statement of one Iraqi:

In the first minutes after the shock of the blast, residents said, silence reigned on the street of walled courtyards, brick homes and tiny palm groves. Marines appeared stunned, or purposeful, as they moved around the burning Humvee, witnesses said.

Then one of the Marines took charge and began shouting, said Fahmi, who was watching from his roof. Fahmi said he saw the Marine direct other Marines into the house closest to the blast, about 50 yards away.

Hmmm.  Either there was a fire fight or “silence reigned.”  Which is it?  Logic says that it cannot be both.

Are the editors at the Arizona Republic wife-beaters?  Do they also engage in sedition, extortion, drug-trafficking and and felony robbery?  But pehaps this post is merely humor masking as serious journalism.  And perhaps the ridiculous cartoon below is a lie based on innuendo and without any substantive support in fact.

Here at the Captain’s Journal, we may be a small blog, and we may not spell words correctly from time-to-time, and we may be charged with being jingoistic, but at least we are not liars.

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!