The collapse of the military’s investigation of the Haditha killings

On November 19, 2005, a roadside bomb planted by “insurgents” killed a U.S. Marine and wounded two others in Haditha, Iraq.  At least one group of Marines began shooting at men in a taxi and throwing grenades and spraying gunfire into three houses.  After the shooting stopped, there were allegations that several Marines had murdered 24 innocent Iraqi civilians in cold blood and that there had been command failure and cover-ups by superiors in reporting and investigating the matter, among other things.

The matter initially was investigated internally and probably would have ended there.  The Marines concluded that 8 of the dead were insurgents and that the other 15, mainly women and children, had been killed by the roadside bomb. However, as a result of video provided by the founder of an Iraqi “human rights” group, a reporter for Time magazine, Tim McGirk, kept the story alive by challenging the Marines’ version that the civilians had died as a result of a bomb.  Instead, McGirk’s approach strongly suggested that the Marines had simply shot the civilians.  Anti-war Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa) of Abscam scandal fame accused the Marines of killing in cold blood.  The subsequent internal investigation eventually concluded that 15 civilians were killed negligently by U.S. Marines (presumably in clearing the houses with grenades and close-in gun fire).  Later, the investigation determined that all 24 Iraqis were unarmed.

The story soon developed into the Iraq War version of the My Lai massacre from Vietnam War days. The media, including The Washington Post on May 27, 2006, basically swallowed the story of the Marines’ guilt hook, line, and sinker.  The ever-restrained Sidney Blumenthal (the Clintons’ most determined attack terrier) in Salon and the equally restrained John Dickerson and Dahlia Lithwick of Slate crowed about this black eye to the American military and the Bush administration.  The latter mockingly demanded that the Marines be turned over to the Iraqis for “justice.”  Like many liberals, they probably profess “support the troops, bring them home” sentiments.  But they can’t disguise their contempt for the soldiers.  Would they demand that the people at Guantanamo be turned over, say, to the Afghan government or to the Egyptians for “handling,” or would they claim that to be a grave human rights violation?  But that’s OK if it involves American military. As a result of this pressure, eight Marines were charged with various crimes, including first-degree murder.

Bloggers, including milbloggers, found holes in the story as told by the accusers and believed the claims of the men that, far from having killed anyone in cold blood, they believed themselves to be under attack and were operating according to their training for such situations. Here’s an account from June, 2006, that details the media’s one-sided coverage of the event and its position that the Marines’ guilt was a foregone conclusion.  The Marines’ own individual stories regarding small arms fire coming at them from houses were remarkably consistent, and the squad on the ground had informed their superiors on the day of the shootings how the civilians died.

Then there is this report that shows that al Qaeda in Iraq, together with local insurgents planned the whole attack as a propaganda incident to draw the Marines into this trap and video recorded it. The Marines had the signal intercepts to back up the story.  The story contains a link to a report the Marines prepared analyzing this.  Of course, this development didn’t make it into the media.

The Time reporter who started this has declined to testify at the hearings.

Then there is this internal investigative report (the Watt Report) from March, 2006, that concludes that the Marines were not cold-blooded killers and that the fault lay with insurgents fighting from houses occupied by civilians.  See the findings beginning on page 3.

Eventually, the cases against the 8 charged Marines began to fall apart.  The testimony against them was insufficient.  Such evidence as there was tended to corroborate their account.  There was, however, evidence of undue command influence in seeking to have the trials go forward. As of now, charges against 7 of the 8 have been dismissed or they have been cleared of the charges.  The eighth, the squad leader that day, has had his trial postponed indefinitely.  This is despite the military’s increasing use of immunities in the case to try to get someone, anyone.

The latest dismissal involves the charges against Lt.Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the commander of the Marines.  The charges were dismissed without prejudice, on the grounds of improper command influence by the general in charge of the investigation. Here is a synopsis from Chessani\’s attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center. Note the colonel’s qualifications. He apparently was a particularly good anti-insurgency officer.  By this propaganda coup and the media’s credulousness, the insurgents were able to remove him from the theater of war.  Here is another post describing the dismissal of charges and the background of the case.

I don’t know what happened there.  Maybe the Marines acted in good faith but with too much force, not, probably, as Rep. Murtha would have it, for lack of discipline, but because they acted as they were trained.  These kinds of things always happen in war, particularly if the enemy violates the laws of war by hiding behind civilians.  That’s why the laws of war are not intended to protect them (please note, Justice Kennedy). That is a regrettable consequence of war and to be avoided if possible.  What is telling to me, though, is the initial, knee-jerk reaction by the media who fell all over this story and covered it sensationalistically in a way they wouldn’t for real and intentional atrocities committed by the enemy.  They also presumed the guilt and dishonor of these Marines and, by extension, indicted the war effort in their coverage.  That is disreputable, but expected.

UPDATE: The prosecution will appeal the dismissal of the charges against Lt.Col. Chessani.  The author of the post quotes Chessani’s attorney’s view that the appeal will fail and notes further that a similar motion to dismiss will be made by the last charged Marine.