A dozen Marines may face courts-martial for alleged Iraq massacre

[LeadMagnet]

Article

A key member of Congress said he ?wouldn?t be surprised? if a dozen Marines faced courts-martial for allegedly killing Iraqi civilians Nov. 19. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told Marine Corps Times that the number of dead Iraqis, first reported to be 15, was actually 24. He based that number on a briefing from Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Mike Hagee on Wednesday.

Hagee visited Capitol Hill in anticipation of the release of two investigation reports, which are expected to show that among the 24 dead civilians, five of the alleged victims, all unarmed, were shot in a car with no warning, Murtha said. The killings took place in Hadithah, 125 miles northwest of Baghdad.

At least seven of the victims were women and three were children.

?If the allegations are substantiated, the Marine Corps will pursue appropriate legal and administrative actions against those responsible,? said Col. David Lapan, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters.

?The investigations are ongoing, therefore any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process,? he said. ?As soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable.? Murtha, an outspoken war critic and retired Marine colonel, has maintained for several weeks that the reality of the Hadithah incident was far more violent than the original reports suggested.

?They originally said a lot of things. I don?t even know how they tried to cover that up,? he said.

Two investigations into the incident are ongoing, according to the Pentagon ? one by Multi-National Forces Iraq, expected before the end of the week, and a second by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, that is due in June.

The Marine Corps originally said a convoy from the Camp Pendleton, Calif.-based Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, hit a roadside bomb Nov. 19 that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso, Texas.

Marine officials initially said 15 Iraqi civilians also were killed in the blast, but later reported that the civilians were killed in a firefight that took place after the explosion.

But a 10-week investigation by Time magazine resulted in a March 27 report that included claims by an Iraqi civil rights group that the Marines barged into houses near the bomb strike in retaliation, throwing grenades and shooting civilians who were cowering in fear.

Three officers from the 3/1, including battalion commander Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, were relieved April 7 for ?lack of confidence in their leadership abilities stemming from their performance during a recent deployment to Iraq.?

The two other Marines who were relieved, Capts. Luke McConnell and James Kimber, were company commanders in the battalion.

Officials would not explicitly connect the firings to the Hadithah investigation.

While no charges have been filed yet, defense attorneys who handle military cases are bracing for what could fast become a busy summer season in the courtroom.

?It looks like it?s coming,? said one San Diego area-based civilian defense attorney who has handled other cases of assault and manslaughter and has gotten a sort of ?warning order? about potential new cases.

?I think there?s a lot of pressure to do something,? the civilian attorney said.

?It?s going to be extraordinarily difficult for them to find enough defense counsel,? one Marine Corps attorney said.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who was also briefed on the reports, said his committee will hold hearings on the incident after lawmakers return from their Memorial Day recess.

Hunter was matter-of-fact about the reports? contents.

?It is not good,? he said. ?Let the chips fall where they may.?

Hagee was due to brief leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee late Wednesday.

Staff writers Rick Maze and Gidget Fuentes contributed to this report.

Article

If found guilty should they pay for thier crimes in a Iraqi prision or Levenworth Kansas?

 

[sandorski]

Ouch. This sad for the Iraqi's and sad for young Marines sent into a war based on lies. Of course any guilty Marines need to be charged/convicted, but I wonder what their lives(and the lives of the Iraqi civilians) could have been if they were never sent to Iraq in the first place. The utter waste produced by this fiasco will affect the lives of tens of thousands for decades to come.

 

[Red Dawn]

They'll go to Jail and that asshole Bush will have his own Library even though he rarely if ever reads a book!

 

[catnap1972]

Blah--they'll just get a slap on the wrist and some freedumb medals.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: catnap1972
Blah--they'll just get a slap on the wrist and some freedumb medals.

I highly doubt that...

Military to Report Marines Killed Iraqi Civilians

By THOM SHANKER, ERIC SCHMITT and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: May 26, 2006

WASHINGTON, May 25 ? A military investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis last November is expected to find that a small number of marines in western Iraq carried out extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians, Congressional, military and Pentagon officials said Thursday.

Two lawyers involved in discussions about individual marines' defenses said they thought the investigation could result in charges of murder, a capital offense. That possibility and the emerging details of the killings have raised fears that the incident could be the gravest case involving misconduct by American ground forces in Iraq.

Officials briefed on preliminary results of the inquiry said the civilians killed at Haditha, a lawless, insurgent-plagued city deep in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province, did not die from a makeshift bomb, as the military first reported, or in cross-fire between marines and attackers, as was later announced. A separate inquiry has begun to find whether the events were deliberately covered up.

Evidence indicates that the civilians were killed during a sustained sweep by a small group of marines that lasted three to five hours and included shootings of five men standing near a taxi at a checkpoint, and killings inside at least two homes that included women and children, officials said.

That evidence, described by Congressional, Pentagon and military officials briefed on the inquiry, suggested to one Congressional official that the killings were "methodical in nature."

Congressional and military officials say the Naval Criminal Investigative Service inquiry is focusing on the actions of a Marine Corps staff sergeant serving as squad leader at the time, but that Marine officials have told members of Congress that up to a dozen other marines in the unit are also under investigation. Officials briefed on the inquiry said that most of the bullets that killed the civilians were now thought to have been "fired by a couple of rifles," as one of them put it.

The killings were first reported by Time magazine in March, based on accounts from survivors and human rights groups, and members of Congress have spoken publicly about the episode in recent days. But the new accounts from Congressional, military and Pentagon officials added significant new details to the picture. All of those who discussed the case had to be granted anonymity before they would talk about the findings emerging from the investigation.

A second, parallel inquiry was ordered by the second-ranking general in Iraq to examine whether any marines on the ground at Haditha, or any of their superior officers, tried to cover up the killings by filing false reports up the chain of command. That inquiry, conducted by an Army officer assigned to the Multinational Corps headquarters in Iraq, is expected to report its findings in coming days.

In an unusual sign of high-level concern, the commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, flew from Washington to Iraq on Thursday to give a series of speeches to his forces re-emphasizing compliance with international laws of armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions and the American military's own rules of engagement.

"Recent serious allegations concerning actions of marines in combat have caused me concern," General Hagee said in a statement issued upon his departure. The statement did not mention any specific incident.

The first official report from the military, issued on Nov. 20, said that "a U.S. marine and 15 Iraqi civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb" and that "immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire."

Military investigators have since uncovered a far different set of facts from what was first reported, partly aided by marines who are cooperating with the inquiry and partly guided by reports filed by a separate unit that arrived to gather intelligence and document the attack; those reports contradicted the original version of the marines, Pentagon officials said.

One senior Defense Department official who has been briefed on the initial findings, when asked how many of the 24 dead Iraqis were killed by the improvised bomb as initially reported, paused and said, "Zero."

While Haditha was rife with violence and gunfire that day, the marines, who were assigned to the Third Battalion, First Marines, and are now back at Camp Pendleton, Calif., "never took what would constitute hostile fire of a seriously threatening nature," one Pentagon official said.

Women and children were among those killed, as well as five men who had been traveling in a taxi near the bomb, which killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas of El Paso.

Although investigators are still piecing together the string of deaths, Congressional and Pentagon officials said the five men in the taxi either were pulled out or got out at a Marine checkpoint and were shot.

The deaths of those in the taxi, and inside two nearby houses, were not the result of a quick and violent firefight, according to officials who had been briefed on the inquiry.

"This was not a burst of fire, but a sustained operation over several hours, maybe five hours," one official said. Forensic evidence gathered from the houses where Iraqi civilians died is also said to contradict reports that the marines had to overcome hostile fire to storm the homes.

Members of the House and Senate briefed on the Haditha shootings by senior Marine officers, including General Hagee and Brig. Gen. John F. Kelly, the Marine legislative liaison, voiced concerns Thursday about the seriousness of the accusations.

Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican who is a retired Marine colonel, said that the allegations indicated that "this was not an accident. This was direct fire by marines at civilians." He added, "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."

The deaths, and the role of the marines in those deaths, is being viewed with such alarm that senior Marine Corps officers briefed members of Congress last week and again on Wednesday and Thursday.

The briefings were in part an effort to prevent the kind of angry explosion from Capitol Hill that followed news of detainee abuse by American military jailers at Abu Ghraib prison, which had been quietly under investigation for months before the details of the abuse were leaked to the news media. "If the accounts as they have been alleged are true, the Haditha incident is likely the most serious war crime that has been reported in Iraq since the beginning of the war," said John Sifton, of Human Rights Watch. "Here we have two dozen civilians being killed ? apparently intentionally. This isn't a gray area. This is a massacre."

Three Marine officers ? the battalion commander and two company commanders in Haditha at the time ? have been relieved of duty, although official statements have declined to link that action to the investigation.

Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, said he expected senators would review investigators' evidence, including photographs by military photographers that Mr. Warner said were "taken as a matter of routine in Iraq on operations of this nature when there's loss of life."

Lawyers who have been in conversations with the marines under investigation stressed the chaotic situation in Haditha at the time of the killings. And they expect that the defense will stress that insurgents often hide among civilians, that Haditha on the day of the shootings was suffering a wave of fluid insurgent attacks and that the marines responded to high levels of hostile action aimed at them.

Much of the area around Haditha is controlled by Sunni Arab insurgents who have made the city one of the deadliest in Iraq for American troops. On Aug. 1, three months before the massacre, insurgents ambushed and killed six Marine snipers moving through Haditha on foot. Insurgents released a video after the ambush that appeared to show the attack, and the mangled and burned body of a dead serviceman. Then, two days later, 14 marines were killed when their armored vehicle was destroyed by a roadside bomb near the southern edge of the city.

The Marines also disclosed this week that a preliminary inquiry had found "sufficient information" to recommend a criminal probe into the killing of an Iraqi civilian on April 26 near Hamandiyah, a village west of Baghdad.

For those who again doubted Congressman Murtha.

And this would seem to be more widespread than previously indicated.

Whenever someone posts information here about such abuses there are certain other members who post rebuttals that are, shall we say, inflammatory in nature. Fallujah, for example. The shooting of Giuliana Sgrena and her bodyguard or any of the myriad news people who have been shot by U.S. forces in Iraq. Whenever these abuses are mentioned the same tired "this is war" nonsense is posted by the same tired posters.

This isn't war. This is an intentional attack against a nation that did nothing to justify it. This is murder. This is Iraq's 9/11 courtesy of george w. bush, dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, colin powell, paul wolfowitz, richard perle, william kristol, and the rest of the evil bastards who are right now, today, making billions of dollars off of the fruits of their lies, the death, the destruction, the carnage, the charnel house they've created for no reason at all in Iraq.

God bless America.

 

[Drift3r]

FoxNews commentator spin............."Liberal media bias in Iraq."

 

[Skanderberg]

Oh yeah...Iraq was a peaceful and prosperous nation with opportunity for everyone...then the invasion ended their paradise on Earth.

Give me a break!

The Marines committed a crime and should be punished. Whether or not the war was a good policy decision has nothing to do with the actions of these marines.

If a group of policemen in the US killed 15 (or 24) in a gunfight they would be investigated and indited for a crime. There would not be any of this banter or rhetoric about how police should be disarmed or the government shuold be run out of office.

 

[Polish3d]

It is a shame though. No one can know the exact causes behind this, but regardless, it is relevant to highlight that the stress these troops are under is in large part due to what seems to have been IMO arrogance on Rumsfeld and other individual's part about sticking to their own plan over sending in a huge troop contigent.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
Oh yeah...Iraq was a peaceful and prosperous nation with opportunity for everyone...then the invasion ended their paradise on Earth.

Give me a break!

The Marines committed a crime and should be punished. Whether or not the war was a good policy decision has nothing to do with the actions of these marines.

If a group of policemen in the US killed 15 (or 24) in a gunfight they would be investigated and indited for a crime. There would not be any of this banter or rhetoric about how police should be disarmed or the government shuold be run out of office.

Iraq was obviously not prosperous (because of the sanctions by the US/UN), but it was relatively peaceful until we came in.

 

[ManSnake]

Those responsible should receive death by stoning from the Iraqi children.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
Those responsible should receive death by stoning from the Iraqi children.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rush, Hannity, Rove, 52% of America including the resident Republicans on here.

 

[Skanderberg]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
Oh yeah...Iraq was a peaceful and prosperous nation with opportunity for everyone...then the invasion ended their paradise on Earth.

Give me a break!

The Marines committed a crime and should be punished. Whether or not the war was a good policy decision has nothing to do with the actions of these marines.

If a group of policemen in the US killed 15 (or 24) in a gunfight they would be investigated and indited for a crime. There would not be any of this banter or rhetoric about how police should be disarmed or the government shuold be run out of office.

Iraq was obviously not prosperous (because of the sanctions by the US/UN), but it was relatively peaceful until we came in.

Maybe if you close your eyes to what goes on around the world it really doesn't happen. People were killed every day by the oppressive regime that was toppled by the US "invasion". Attrocities were so common place that the media didn't even deem it newsworthy to talk about it.

I hear that the Dufar region of the Sudan is relatively peaceful.

 

[Drift3r]

<sarcasm>"Yeah those Iraqis will never attack America again like they did during 9/11. Besides it's war just deal with it...now lets talk about American Idol and the results."</sarcasm>

 

[Skanderberg]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ManSnake
Those responsible should receive death by stoning from the Iraqi children.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rush, Hannity, Rove, 52% of America including the resident Republicans on here.

So everyone who disagrees with your point of view is responsible for the actions of a handful of Marines? What a very compellig statement that says a lot about your level of maturity.

 

[Skanderberg]

If you really want to place blame for the lack of adequate security in Iraq look no further than the UN and the socialist governments in Europe. Like many of the Bush haters on this forum, the governments of France, Russia, and Germany waould rather see the security situation in Iraq collapse than send an international police force. That way they can thumb their noes at the U.S. Administration and say "see I told you so" like a three year old.

Whether the war was justified or not is no longer a material argument of current events. The war has been over for a few years now. It is history.

The problem with the current state of affairs in Iraq is that the U.S. Military is taking on a role that they are not suited for. There should be more police on the ground in Iraq, not more soldiers. Soldiers and marines are not police officers. The UN should send in an internetional peace keeping force including multinational police. This has worked well in the Balkans. There is no reason why it shouldn't be successgul in the Middle East.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
If you really want to place blame for the lack of adequate security in Iraq look no further than the UN and the socialist governments in Europe. Like many of the Bush haters on this forum, the governments of France, Russia, and Germany waould rather see the security situation in Iraq collapse than send an international police force. That way they can thumb their noes at the U.S. Administration and say "see I told you so" like a three year old.

Whether the war was justified or not is no longer a material argument of current events. The war has been over for a few years now. It is history.

The problem with the current state of affairs in Iraq is that the U.S. Military is taking on a role that they are not suited for. There should be more police on the ground in Iraq, not more soldiers. Soldiers and marines are not police officers. The UN should send in an internetional peace keeping force including multinational police. This has worked well in the Balkans. There is no reason why it shouldn't be successgul in the Middle East.

The war is NOT over. Just because Chimpy McFlightsuit declared "Mission Accomplished", that doesn't end the war. This occupation our troops have been forced into is just a part of the same war that BushCo started in 2003. No, we're not battling regular army troops, (or are we?) but it's a war none the less. Technically, Vietnam wasn't a war either, nor was Korea, but people fought and died...and that makes them ALL wars, like it or not...

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Skanderberg

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
Oh yeah...Iraq was a peaceful and prosperous nation with opportunity for everyone...then the invasion ended their paradise on Earth.

Give me a break!

The Marines committed a crime and should be punished. Whether or not the war was a good policy decision has nothing to do with the actions of these marines.

If a group of policemen in the US killed 15 (or 24) in a gunfight they would be investigated and indited for a crime. There would not be any of this banter or rhetoric about how police should be disarmed or the government shuold be run out of office.

Iraq was obviously not prosperous (because of the sanctions by the US/UN), but it was relatively peaceful until we came in.

Maybe if you close your eyes to what goes on around the world it really doesn't happen. People were killed every day by the oppressive regime that was toppled by the US "invasion". Attrocities were so common place that the media didn't even deem it newsworthy to talk about it.

I hear that the Dufar region of the Sudan is relatively peaceful.

Frankly, quite a few Iraqi's far preffered their standard of life under Saddam. Iraq was a basically stable country internally, with a limited amount of crime (dealt with harshly), safety on the streets, and an operating economy. That is a FAR cry from what it is today, where people are terrified to walk the streets, go to work, and the production of oil is only a fraction of what it was before we invaded...and oil is their lifeblood of the economy.

Certainly, certainly many dissenting groups were dealt with harshly and cruely...but for the average Iraqi, it was a safer place...

Future Shock

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
If you really want to place blame for the lack of adequate security in Iraq look no further than the UN and the socialist governments in Europe. Like many of the Bush haters on this forum, the governments of France, Russia, and Germany waould rather see the security situation in Iraq collapse than send an international police force. That way they can thumb their noes at the U.S. Administration and say "see I told you so" like a three year old.

Whether the war was justified or not is no longer a material argument of current events. The war has been over for a few years now. It is history.

The problem with the current state of affairs in Iraq is that the U.S. Military is taking on a role that they are not suited for. There should be more police on the ground in Iraq, not more soldiers. Soldiers and marines are not police officers. The UN should send in an internetional peace keeping force including multinational police. This has worked well in the Balkans. There is no reason why it shouldn't be successgul in the Middle East.

For all your righty rhetoric, you hit on an important point...no nation, not even ours, can go it alone all the time. You're right, an international coalition made up of, among other things, a multinational police force would go a long way towards helping Iraq rebuild. To borrow a line from "The Siege", the Army is not a big green police machine, treating Army troops and Marines as well armed police is not a good way to assure long term stability.

But you're wrong in who deserves blame for our current lack of international support in Iraq. After 9/11 we enjoyed the highest levels of international support in decades, we had a historic chance to really do something good with that support. Instead, in the run up to the Iraq war, we pissed it away by telling our allies to just cram their objections and questions up their collective ass. We came up with truly childish things like "Freedom Fries" and insulting France came back in vogue, the words of friendship from a Paris newspaper after 9/11 (Today we are all Americans) forgotten in our race to see which US leader could act the most like a 6th grader.

I agree that we need more police on the ground, keeping the people safe and training Iraqis to take their place. But the reason we don't have that isn't because Europeans hate Bush, but because we forgot that they are (or were) our ALLIES, not our servants. It's not very smart foreign policy to tell your friends to go fvck themselves when you think you don't need them, and then turn around and complain that they don't come running when you do.

 

[Cruise51]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
If you really want to place blame for the lack of adequate security in Iraq look no further than the UN and the socialist governments in Europe. Like many of the Bush haters on this forum, the governments of France, Russia, and Germany waould rather see the security situation in Iraq collapse than send an international police force. That way they can thumb their noes at the U.S. Administration and say "see I told you so" like a three year old.

Whether the war was justified or not is no longer a material argument of current events. The war has been over for a few years now. It is history.

The problem with the current state of affairs in Iraq is that the U.S. Military is taking on a role that they are not suited for. There should be more police on the ground in Iraq, not more soldiers. Soldiers and marines are not police officers. The UN should send in an internetional peace keeping force including multinational police. This has worked well in the Balkans. There is no reason why it shouldn't be successgul in the Middle East.

For all your righty rhetoric, you hit on an important point...no nation, not even ours, can go it alone all the time. You're right, an international coalition made up of, among other things, a multinational police force would go a long way towards helping Iraq rebuild. To borrow a line from "The Siege", the Army is not a big green police machine, treating Army troops and Marines as well armed police is not a good way to assure long term stability.

But you're wrong in who deserves blame for our current lack of international support in Iraq. After 9/11 we enjoyed the highest levels of international support in decades, we had a historic chance to really do something good with that support. Instead, in the run up to the Iraq war, we pissed it away by telling our allies to just cram their objections and questions up their collective ass. We came up with truly childish things like "Freedom Fries" and insulting France came back in vogue, the words of friendship from a Paris newspaper after 9/11 (Today we are all Americans) forgotten in our race to see which US leader could act the most like a 6th grader.

I agree that we need more police on the ground, keeping the people safe and training Iraqis to take their place. But the reason we don't have that isn't because Europeans hate Bush, but because we forgot that they are (or were) our ALLIES, not our servants. It's not very smart foreign policy to tell your friends to go fvck themselves when you think you don't need them, and then turn around and complain that they don't come running when you do.

I couldn't have said it better. :thumbsup:

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
If you really want to place blame for the lack of adequate security in Iraq look no further than the UN and the socialist governments in Europe. Like many of the Bush haters on this forum, the governments of France, Russia, and Germany waould rather see the security situation in Iraq collapse than send an international police force. That way they can thumb their noes at the U.S. Administration and say "see I told you so" like a three year old.

Whether the war was justified or not is no longer a material argument of current events. The war has been over for a few years now. It is history.

The problem with the current state of affairs in Iraq is that the U.S. Military is taking on a role that they are not suited for. There should be more police on the ground in Iraq, not more soldiers. Soldiers and marines are not police officers. The UN should send in an internetional peace keeping force including multinational police. This has worked well in the Balkans. There is no reason why it shouldn't be successgul in the Middle East.

For all your righty rhetoric, you hit on an important point...no nation, not even ours, can go it alone all the time. You're right, an international coalition made up of, among other things, a multinational police force would go a long way towards helping Iraq rebuild. To borrow a line from "The Siege", the Army is not a big green police machine, treating Army troops and Marines as well armed police is not a good way to assure long term stability.

But you're wrong in who deserves blame for our current lack of international support in Iraq. After 9/11 we enjoyed the highest levels of international support in decades, we had a historic chance to really do something good with that support. Instead, in the run up to the Iraq war, we pissed it away by telling our allies to just cram their objections and questions up their collective ass. We came up with truly childish things like "Freedom Fries" and insulting France came back in vogue, the words of friendship from a Paris newspaper after 9/11 (Today we are all Americans) forgotten in our race to see which US leader could act the most like a 6th grader.

I agree that we need more police on the ground, keeping the people safe and training Iraqis to take their place. But the reason we don't have that isn't because Europeans hate Bush, but because we forgot that they are (or were) our ALLIES, not our servants. It's not very smart foreign policy to tell your friends to go fvck themselves when you think you don't need them, and then turn around and complain that they don't come running when you do.

Very well put.

My only additional comment is that those people in power that Dave called out above chose the size of the force invading and then occupying Iraq. They were told by many of the same people who thought invading was bad policy that going in with less that about 500,000 troops was a mistake, not because that wasn't enough to overthrow Saddam but because it wasn't enough to keep the peace after his government fell. Those people who balked at the paltry size of the post-invasion force have been brushed aside, pushed out of positions of influence and been generally called idiots by the necons running the show. I guess we know who the idiots were now, don't we.

And guess what, it wasn't the French or the Germans who planned (it was planned, wasn't it??) the occupation so you can't blame it on them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
If you really want to place blame for the lack of adequate security in Iraq look no further than the UN and the socialist governments in Europe. Like many of the Bush haters on this forum, the governments of France, Russia, and Germany waould rather see the security situation in Iraq collapse than send an international police force. That way they can thumb their noes at the U.S. Administration and say "see I told you so" like a three year old.

Whether the war was justified or not is no longer a material argument of current events. The war has been over for a few years now. It is history.

The problem with the current state of affairs in Iraq is that the U.S. Military is taking on a role that they are not suited for. There should be more police on the ground in Iraq, not more soldiers. Soldiers and marines are not police officers. The UN should send in an internetional peace keeping force including multinational police. This has worked well in the Balkans. There is no reason why it shouldn't be successgul in the Middle East.

For all your righty rhetoric, you hit on an important point...no nation, not even ours, can go it alone all the time. You're right, an international coalition made up of, among other things, a multinational police force would go a long way towards helping Iraq rebuild. To borrow a line from "The Siege", the Army is not a big green police machine, treating Army troops and Marines as well armed police is not a good way to assure long term stability.

But you're wrong in who deserves blame for our current lack of international support in Iraq. After 9/11 we enjoyed the highest levels of international support in decades, we had a historic chance to really do something good with that support. Instead, in the run up to the Iraq war, we pissed it away by telling our allies to just cram their objections and questions up their collective ass. We came up with truly childish things like "Freedom Fries" and insulting France came back in vogue, the words of friendship from a Paris newspaper after 9/11 (Today we are all Americans) forgotten in our race to see which US leader could act the most like a 6th grader.

I agree that we need more police on the ground, keeping the people safe and training Iraqis to take their place. But the reason we don't have that isn't because Europeans hate Bush, but because we forgot that they are (or were) our ALLIES, not our servants. It's not very smart foreign policy to tell your friends to go fvck themselves when you think you don't need them, and then turn around and complain that they don't come running when you do.

Very well put.

My only additional comment is that those people in power that Dave called out above chose the size of the force invading and then occupying Iraq. They were told by many of the same people who thought invading was bad policy that going in with less that about 500,000 troops was a mistake, not because that wasn't enough to overthrow Saddam but because it wasn't enough to keep the peace after his government fell. Those people who balked at the paltry size of the post-invasion force have been brushed aside, pushed out of positions of influence and been generally called idiots by the necons running the show. I guess we know who the idiots were now, don't we.

And guess what, it wasn't the French or the Germans who planned (it was planned, wasn't it??) the occupation so you can't blame it on them.

Indeed, the pre-war estimates from professionals almost without exception said that the force the Bush administration wanted to use was too small to properly secure Iraq after the invasion. The fact that those estimates were intentionally ignored almost certainly cost American lives, something both sides seem to be ignoring. While I can understand why Bush supporters ignore this inconvenient fact, I'm honestly surprised more people from the other side don't jump on it.

 

[Future Shock]

The problem with a UN Peace Force in Iraq is the US - the current admin would NEVER allow US forces to be put under any control of UN command. That would in effect create two seperate and dis-equal forces in Iraq. Where this type of thing has happened before, the insurgents would take a licking from the heavily armed US forces, and then take revenge upon the ligher-armed and equipped UN-sponsored forces, leading to great casualties amongst the soldiers from the EU and other nations. I believe that was the situation in both Bosnia and Somalia (may be mistaken on one of them, please correct if known bad).

That situation is one that the EU is VERY hesitant to sign up for again, for obvious reasons. If the US wants to put on the blue helmets of the UN, and join a true multinational force using a consistent strategy and command structure, then I would bet you would see a much greater EU presence and backing. Until then, no one wants to play the "weak sister" in the middle of a killing zone...

Future Shock

 

[Red Dawn]

Instead of invading Iraq we should have done what Reagan did, buy off Saddam, it would have been cheaper. cost America no lives and given Iran more headaches

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Skanderberg

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
Oh yeah...Iraq was a peaceful and prosperous nation with opportunity for everyone...then the invasion ended their paradise on Earth.

Give me a break!

The Marines committed a crime and should be punished. Whether or not the war was a good policy decision has nothing to do with the actions of these marines.

If a group of policemen in the US killed 15 (or 24) in a gunfight they would be investigated and indited for a crime. There would not be any of this banter or rhetoric about how police should be disarmed or the government shuold be run out of office.

Iraq was obviously not prosperous (because of the sanctions by the US/UN), but it was relatively peaceful until we came in.

Maybe if you close your eyes to what goes on around the world it really doesn't happen. People were killed every day by the oppressive regime that was toppled by the US "invasion". Attrocities were so common place that the media didn't even deem it newsworthy to talk about it.

I hear that the Dufar region of the Sudan is relatively peaceful.

Iraq WAS peaceful. Just because saddam executed people doesn't mean it wasn't. We execute people in America too.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
If a group of policemen in the US killed 15 (or 24) in a gunfight they would be investigated and indited for a crime. There would not be any of this banter or rhetoric about how police should be disarmed or the government shuold be run out of office.

If a group of police shot 15-24 unarmed civilians, including children under the age of 10, in the back of the head in a random revenge spree and their superiors attempted to cover it up, I think there would be a lot of calling for government to be run out of office actually.