Fallujah troubles
There has been debate for some time now about the US Marine who killed a wounded, unarmed terrorist during the battle for Fallujah.
Murder most foul or self defence? Predictably the Left call it murder and the right, justifiable homicide or words to that effect.
At this stage, until we hear the words and thoughts of the Marine, no one is in a position to call it either way.
No one other than the Marine knows the answer. Kevin Sites doesn’t – he just recorded an event. Commentators around the world can’t know either as there are too many factors involved.
Kevin Sites appeals to all to understand his point of view and why he submitted the film for release. His story rings true and doesn’t indicate any bias. I’m happy to accept that Kevin believes what he says
In Vietnam, when dealing with severely wounded or dead we would loop a rope around an arm, pull back out of grenade range and then turn the body over. You see, the enemy being fanatics, were known to remove the pin from a grenade as their last defiant act and secure the grenade with the lever under their body or a limb. When turned over the grenade would explode.
If they are prepared to do this as their last conscience thought do you think they won’t do the same when they have more control over their body.
They will, believe me. Romantics and novelists quote flags of truce and Geneva Conventions. The soldier sticks to reality and until he is totally in control Rule 5.56 applies.
Wounded isn’t enough. The Marine would be looking in the terrorists eyes for a hint of resignation or defiance. He would be looking for tiny body movements that might herald danger..a pistol coming up…a grenade being thrown or rolled. His limbic brain would be in control. It would be assessing the risk and preparing to fight or flee. It has already filed the fact that these terrorists, lying on the ground wounded, have previously killed Marines and it would not be prepared to give the terrorist the benefit of the doubt.
The Marine did what all soldiers have always done….assessed the situation and acted. This is not the time to cut any slack. Mistakes translate into death and hesitation itself can be a fatal mistake.
Kevin Sites doesn’t know all of this and if he thinks he does he’s wrong. Its a feeling not a sentence in a rule book. He is in Iraq filming action and has no responsibility to react in a split second to try and save lives except his own. He just records the events with a lens that in no way is wired through the brain and vision of the Marine.
Not for him the hundreds of hours Marines train to react very quickly to threats. Not for him the responsibility of the life of the man following him. He records history. It is the role of the soldier to play his part in making that history and it is no less important because that role is a small one.
The Marine didn’t go into that room prepared to fire He went in prepared not to fire if he was very quickly convinced it was safe. He has already applied first pressure to the trigger and as it is his and his mates lives at risk, and not the cameraman?s, then he gets the call.
The Marine only has to say;
Sir, I thought he was moving his hand towards a hidden weapon or rolling off an unpinned grenade or about to press a detonator or…..you get the messageand the investigating officer must clear him. If the Marine’s perception of the circumstances was that he and his mates were under threat then he did what he was trained to do. If, on the other hand, he went into the room, was satisfied that all inside were not a threat and then he killed one then that is murder. That moment in battle when the ‘heat of battle’ has cooled is a very fine line that can’t be discerned by cameras or words. Initially it is a slow down of nerves, breathing, pulse and reactions – a sense of having survived and then quickly becomes a state of affairs when the tactics change to securing the scene and the prisoners. Good commanders pick it quickly and true, some soldiers have to be told it is now over, but before you condemn anyone slow to change, measure the adrenalin in his blood and the fear in his heart and then comment. If you can’t do either then leave it be. In the long term I expect the matter will die. Sane and experienced men will know these things and feel all I have said. Thankfully, the commentators aren’t the judges as well.
Facebook
Twitter
You may be right about him being judged by sane and experienced men, Kev. The trouble is that those same judges may be driven in the cold, hard light of the information campaign to condemn the marine. One man is unimportant if a guilty verdict could be used to pacify the treacherous press and mollify the Imams and Mullahs.
One of the things that scared me shitless as a soldier and an NCO was the thought of having to open fire in anger. ROE and OFOF were paper thin against the ranks of lawyers and bleeding hearts that lined up to take a man down for doing his job. No one ever showed me a scenario where anything but outright self defence would stand up in a court.
I seem to recall a few years ago that some creepy lawyer wanted to open up a case against RAAF pilots from WWII who he accused of gunning down Japs in the waters of New Guinea who had abandoned ship. It didn’t matter to Barrister Bill that those Japs were swimming ashore, and they weren’t thinking about opening up the local Sushimi Bar when they got there.
That’s why I get real worried about this idea of cameras as witnesses. They are utterly unreliable, and, like statistics, pictures and videos can be edited, manipulated and massaged to tell whatever story is desired.
Your post nails it. The pictures tell only one tiny part of a big story in Fallujah. May a decent break be swinging the way of that marine.
Having been there I wholly concur with your assessment. I also feel for Kevin Sites, who I think, in the main also did the right thing. Kevin was not some flashy reporter out from Baghdad for the day after a big story, but had been with the Marines throughout the Iraqi campaign, up close and personal. His writing on his personal Blog shows affinity and respect for those he was embedded with.
A tough situation all around.
I agree, a tough situation. But I think Sites should have taken a moment to consider the consequences of releasing the fooatge. It is deadly combat, and I know from personal experience that when you or your people are threatened by deadly force, perceived or actual, that training and reflexes take over from any conscious thought. This Marine reacted according to his training, and as Kev said, the transition from the heat of battle to a rational position is not a thing that can be measured or even controlled. RoE notwithstanding, it is really hard to control the adenalin and muscle reflexes when you are wired as that brave young Marine must hae been.
I think what is missing from a lot of the wider debate is context.
The enemy has, and continues to, ignore the laws of war – they have attacked from under white flags and abused the surrender process – this is a leadership decision, it is the policy of the enemy.
They have used and contine to use suicide bombs as a primary weapon.
Their leadership announced very early in the piece that they had plenty of suicide bombers and suicide belts in Fallujah.
Under those circumstances, the onus is upon those, in Fallujah, seeking to surrender to make it REALLY clear that theirs is a genuine surrender.
I’m fascinated by your continuous ideological pidgeon-holing. Supposedly, because I disagree with the Iraq War and Australia’s position in it, I’m assigned to the ‘Left’. Why then, do I find nothing abhorrent in the despatch by an American Marine of a potential killer of more of his ‘mates’? Let’s be honest. War is not governed by rules. Real war is open slather slaying of one’s enemy before one’s enemy attempts to do likewise. George Patton said it best – “Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” If that Marine preserves his own life by taking that of another, then power to him. I still disagree strongly with our involvement in Iraq.
Niall,
I guess we are all guilty of generalizing at some time or other. I presume (and yes I know that is fraught with danger) that all who dislike the US will believe the Marine is guilty of murder whatever the evidence suggests. I hear this call much more from the Left than Right. In your case, if your pre stated dislike of the US/Bush/Howard/Iraq War et al, is tempered with rational thought then well and good but a quick read of Tim Dunlop?s reader?s comments suggests no compassion for the Marine?s problems from the lesser agents of the Left. Well versed in post grad debate and seemingly totally lacking in worldly views they offer no chance of reasoned debate. They simply state – It?s wrong and my four years at Uni prove I know more than you.
The fact that you disagree with the war and our involvement in it doesn’t label you ‘Left’ but your other writings over a period of time have ? at least in my view. I’m easy with that but as we appear to be of diametrically opposed views and I know I am Centrist right or conservative, I don?t think it?s a big call to label you ‘left’. Labels are easy and if I?m guilty of simplifying matters, as I often am, then educate me
I confess, I can’t understand this anti Iraq war approach. I ask all who state their disagreement with it – what the hell was Bush to do. He had suffered the greatest attack on his own soil and against his own people since Pearl Harbour. The first of two ‘Days of Infamy’ that lead to many pre-emptive strikes and millions of dead across most of the globe, yet no one then, or now, questions the 1941 motives.
From time to time I read that the true target was Afghanistan and that is all 911 justified. It strikes me that there a re a few more trees in the forest than that one.
Hatred of the infidel was born well west of Afghanistan, much closer to Mecca than Kabul, and all well trained military will tell you that the heart of the matter is..well..the heart of the matter.
Disagreeing with me is fine but you offer an opinion without solutions and that comes out as anti-US, right or wrong.
I ask again;
What was Bush to do, and
why is the goal of establishing a democracy in the Middle East so wrong when it was ok to do it in Tokyo and Berlin.
I just want someone to tell me why freeing 50 million plus people is a bad thing?
GWB and his supporters (Blair, Howard, etc) have freed more people than Nelson Mandela. yet somehow that was bad.
Harry, I never even considered that point before and yet it is probably the most pertinant of all.
Great post Kev but I think Sites should have used some discretion before going public. The lens gives a snapshot only, it fails to give emotion or danger. They are added and controlled by the music and commentary that accompanies the footage.
The soldier in question was only the day previous injured in battle and had every right to be cautious. I believe adequate warning was granted the prisoners and yet they failed to inform their captors of their condition until the now deceased was killed.
Too many armchair warriors too willing to condemn. I wouldn’t swap places with that marine for quids and neither will I wrongly judge him.
What was Bush to do? Well, the field is wide open on that one, Kev. For a start, concentrate on the real villian of the piece instead of diverting attention and resources to a theatre which warranted no attention in relation to 9/11 and has since proven to be so. To constantly maintain that Iraq was fostering Pro-Al-Qaeda sentiments/terrorists/resources is simply wrong. It’s a fact, pure and simple.
Let’s assume that Bush concentrated on the task at hand, in fact let’s assume he’d done so from day-one of his Presidency. 9/11 may never have occurred. Assuming it was always a given, Al-Qaeda may well be a spent force now had he continued to concentrate his forces in Afghanistan where they were most productive. Today, Al-Qaeda is far from spent, and is most likely re-grouping for another turn at some point of their choosing in the future.
Let’s be quite clear. Iraq was always a personal vendetta. Daddy’s payback by the son. A bloody poor slap in the face it’s been too. When I was growing up, my old man always taught me to avoid fights whenever possible, but when not possible, hit hard and fast and make bloody sure your opponent never has a chance to get back up. Sadly, it’s pretty plain that ‘Dubya’s’ Daddy never taught him the same way.
If you really want to know why people like myself decry Australia’s involvement in the Iraq War, I can tell you it’s because there simply was no justification. It doesn’t matter how you mix the facts or blur the lines, there simply was no basis for Australian involvement of our defence forces in a war of aggression desired by another nation for reasons of their own.
Tell me…..in your mind, just what does Australia get out of being in Iraq, apart from the armament bill?
Personal vendetta is a big call. To accept that I have to believe that Bush is dumb and I don?t. Bush has some education (Harvard and Yale), is qualified to fly an F102 and was governor of Texas (the first ever to be re-elected four times). I don?t believe dummies get that far and even if you believe in the stolen election conspiracy then you would have to call it a very smart conspiracy because almost every Democrat believes it and run around talking about it and the authorities still can?t prove it happened.
He has some very good advisors, a fairly good counter check system, a host of Democrats trying to trip him up and any amount of media talking-heads bad mouthing him and still he gets Congress and the Senate onside. Dozens of Senators, hundreds of Congressman, thousands of Advisors and hundreds of millions of Americans all seem to have missed the point that the whole war, the thousands of lives and billions of dollars, was all done it to please Daddy. Jesus, give me a break.
We have terrorists in most countries of the world. Outside of sleepers in the western world we have cells in the Pacific countries, Middle East countries, parts of the old USSR, Afghanistan and all the other *stans, Africa and bits of Europe. They all bow to Mecca, want a piece of us Infidels and answer to a hundred names, one of which is Al Quida and yet somehow or other Bush is expected to rid the world of terrorism by attacking just one of these little shit holes.
Cutting the tentacles off an octopus slice at a time is the slowest method I can think to put the beast down and yet that is the demand. I don?t get it.
Why is Australia there? Because we too have been attacked by the bastards and as the problem is global and we can?t fix all of it by ourselves we join an alliance and help them fix the problem. We are too smart to think for one second that quelling Jemaah Islamiah will fix the problem. It is much deeper and sourced from further afield ? like the Middle East.
By the way, what?s this war of aggression bullshit. Is there a war of appeasement