The military account, so far, of the Haditha Massacre

[fastpat]

Reparations payments didn't buy off the families.

May 31, 2006
Investigation
Military Inquiry Is Said to Oppose Account of Raid
By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, May 30 � A military investigator uncovered evidence in February and March that contradicted repeated claims by marines that Iraqi civilians killed in Haditha last November were victims of a roadside bomb, according to a senior military official in Iraq.

Among the pieces of evidence that conflicted with the marines' story were death certificates that showed all the Iraqi victims had gunshot wounds, mostly to the head and chest, the official said.

The investigation, which was led by Col. Gregory Watt, an Army officer in Baghdad, also raised questions about whether the marines followed established rules for identifying hostile threats when they assaulted houses near the site of a bomb attack, which killed a fellow marine.

The three-week inquiry was the first official investigation into an episode first uncovered by Time magazine in January and that American military officials now say appears to have been an unprovoked attack by the Marines that killed 24 Iraqi civilians. The results of Colonel Watt's investigation, which began on Feb. 14, have not previously been disclosed.

"There were enough inconsistencies that things didn't add up," said the senior official, who was briefed on the conclusions of Colonel Watt's preliminary investigation.

The official agreed to discuss the findings only after being promised anonymity. The findings have not been made public, and the Pentagon and the Marines have refused to discuss the details of inquiries now underway, saying that to do so could compromise the investigation.

When Colonel Watt described the findings to Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the senior ground commander in Iraq, on March 9, they raised enough questions about the marines' veracity that General Chiarelli referred the matter to the senior Marine commander in Iraq, who ordered a criminal investigation that officials say could result in murder charges being brought against members of the unit.

Colonel Watt's findings also prompted General Chiarelli to order a parallel investigation into whether senior Marine officers and enlisted personnel had attempted to cover up what happened.

Colonel Watt's inquiry included interviews with marines believed to be involved in the killings, as well as with senior officers in the unit, the Third Battalion of the First Marine Regiment.

Among them were Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, whom officials had said was one of the senior non-commissioned officers on the patrol, and Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, the battalion commander, the senior official said. Colonel Chessani was relieved of his command in April, after the unit returned from Iraq.

In their accounts to Colonel Watt, the marines said they took gunfire from the first of five residences they entered near the bomb site, according to the senior military official.

The official said the Marines had recalled hearing "a weapon being prepared to be used against them."

Colonel Watt also reviewed payments totaling $38,000 in cash made within weeks of the shootings to families of victims.

In an interview Tuesday, Maj. Dana Hyatt, the officer who made the payments, said he was told by superiors to compensate the relatives of 15 victims, but was told that rest of those killed had been deemed to have committed hostile acts, leaving their families ineligible for compensation.

After the initial payments were made, however, those families demanded similar payments, insisting their relatives had not attacked the marines, Major Hyatt said.

Major Hyatt said he was authorized by Colonel Chessani and more senior officers at the marines' regimental headquarters to make the payments to relatives of 15 victims.

Colonel Chessani "was part of the chain of command that gives the approval," Major Hyatt said. "Even when he signs off on it, it still has to go up to" the unit's regimental headquarters.

The list of 15 victims deemed to be noncombatants was put together by intelligence personnel attached to the battalion, Major Hyatt said. Those victims were related to a Haditha city council member, he said. The American military sometimes pays compensation to relatives of civilian victims.

The relatives of each victim were paid a total of $2,500, the maximum allowed under Marine rules, along with $250 payments for two children who were wounded. Major Hyatt said he also compensated the families for damage to two houses.

"I didn't say we had made a mistake," Major Hyatt said, describing what he had told the city council member who was representing the victims. "I said I'm being told I can make payments for these 15 because they were deemed not to be involved in combat."

The military began its examination of the killings in Haditha only after Time magazine presented findings of its investigation to a military spokesman in Baghdad in January.

General Chiarelli, an Army officer who had taken command of American ground forces in Iraq in January, learned then that the Marines had not investigated the incident, according to the senior military official.

On Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said that President Bush first became aware of the episode after the Time magazine inquiry.

He said that Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, briefed Mr. Bush upon news of it, an indication of the seriousness with which the episode was regarded by the White House.

"When this comes out, all the details will be made available to the public, so we'll have a picture of what happened," Mr. Snow said.

[techweenie]

Those payments are no more than $2500 per person, AFAIK, and don't represent an admission of guilt. It's more a recognition of the probability that decedents were not combatants.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by techweenie
Those payments are no more than $2500 per person, AFAIK, and don't represent an admission of guilt. It's more a recognition of the probability that decedents were not combatants.

Objectivity becomes you. The article is certainly slanted and written to cast a dark cloud of suspicion on the military.

[Nathans_Dad]

I don't really care about Fastpaste's article, but this Haditha thing is probably going to not be pretty, IMHO. Sounds like the Marines had some serious command and control issues and lost their composure. It's sad that stuff like this happens, we're supposed to be the good guys out there.

[on-ramp]

don't forget that the Marines are also victims of Bush's illegal war in Iraq.

sometimes soldiers SNAP, due to a number of reasons associated with war trauma....then bad things happen to innocent people...

[Wrecked944]

This is just breaking my heart. Seriously. That sounded sarcastic but it's not. We really ARE supposed to be the good guys and Haditha and Abu Graib are daggers in the heart of the American psyche. This nation was founded on the idea that a country ruled by its citizens would be a better place than one ruled by autocrats. And it is our duty to history to make sure that premise is not proven wrong. And events like Abu Graib and Haditha just yank the guts out of every genuinely good and moral thing this country was founded to promote.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by on-ramp
don't forget that the Marines are also victims of Bush's illegal war in Iraq.

sometimes soldiers SNAP, due to a number of reasons associated with war trauma....then bad things happen to innocent people...

Its was absolutely predictable that this would happen. A 100% certainty. When militaries operate in civilian populations, this will always happen, since before the Romans, and in every hostile military occupation since. This is why it was wrong to inflict this invasion on Iraq.

I would bet my house this has happened before in Iraq, regularly, on a lesser scale and it never gets oxygen. Shootings at checkpoints, patrol incidents. The Bedouin Wedding incident being a shining example. The explanation? Denial. Never happened. All utterly, sadly predicatble.

So we shouldnt be shocked that this has happened. The more alarming issue is the culture in the US military of cover up. Lies, obfuscation, spin and more lies. Again we see investigation only after pressure from Human Rights groups and media. Action taken only after the glare of public scrutiny. In this case, 6 MONTHS after the event.

The US military, institutionally, is a self aggrandising, culturally rancid organisation that lies as a matter of first course action.

Everything its pronunces should be treated with the deepest sceptism. Thank god for the external scrutiny brought to bare by third parties.

[DavidI]

Although these people were killed, it is the cost of war. Fastpat, what is your solution? Give them more money? Would it have made a difference if each were given a million dollars? Probably not.

It is unfortunate, but collateral damage that will be appropriately investigated and punished by the military.

David

[stuartj]

Originally posted by DavidI
Although these people were killed, it is the cost of war. Fastpat, what is your solution? Give them more money? Would it have made a difference if each were given a million dollars? Probably not.

It is unfortunate, but collateral damage that will be appropriately investigated and punished by the military.

David

You are correct. But lets not forget its ONLY being investigated because public scrutiny has made it impossible for the military to bury it.

Otherwise....

[fastpat]

Originally posted by DavidI
Although these people were killed, it is the cost of war. Fastpat, what is your solution? Give them more money? Would it have made a difference if each were given a million dollars? Probably not.

It is unfortunate, but collateral damage that will be appropriately investigated and punished by the military.

David

The solution is to go to war only when your land is invaded.

Period.

Wars to do anything beyond defend your land from invasion are immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong. Pope John Paul didn't rule the invasion of Iraq immoral on a whim.

Americans need to demand we leave Iraq and Afghanistan at once, and then demand that no more military action be tolerated in other than defense against invasion.

Otherwise, literally, there will be hell to pay.

[Flatbutt1]

If its found that this is another My Lai then the soldiers and their officers must be brought to justice. I agree whole heartedly that for American troops to do this is simply ...well I'm not sure what adjective to use as unacceptable is too weak a word.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Flatbutt1
If its found that this is another My Lai then the soldiers and their officers must be brought to justice. I agree whole heartedly that for American troops to do this is simply ...well I'm not sure what adjective to use as unacceptable is too weak a word.

American soldiers are no different to any other county's soldiers. Yes, you may argue that this or that that military may be more or less likely to commit such acts, or more or less accountable when they do happen, but the inevitability of this type of atrocity occurring is simply a given.

If you accept the morality of this unprecedented war, the doctrine of pre-emption, then you must accept what these soldiers -allegedly- have done in prosecuting the war we asked them to wage.

[coloradoporsche]

[QUOTE]This is just breaking my heart. Seriously.[QUOTE]

Me too.

[QUOTE]When militaries operate in civilian populations, this will always happen, since before the Romans, and in every hostile military occupation since. This is why it was wrong to inflict this invasion on Iraq. [QUOTE]

Yep. Nobody likes an occupying army.... nobody. Not even when your cause is just…you’re still the occupying army. I hate that our soldiers are put in this position. Didn't we learn anything in Vietnam?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by coloradoporsche
Yep. Nobody likes an occupying army.... nobody. Not even when your cause is just…you’re still the occupying army. I hate that our soldiers are put in this position. Didn't we learn anything in Vietnam?

What are you talking about?...People do like occupying armies, especially when those occupying armies liberate them from oppressors. I know I for one would understand and help an occupying force if it liberated me from an oppressor, this is only logical.

If you don't want to take my word for it, why don't you ask the Jews, the Vietnamese or go ask an Iraqi.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by stuartj
But lets not forget its ONLY being investigated because public scrutiny has made it impossible for the military to bury it.

Otherwise....

Lets also not forget that this mole-hill is being amplified into a mountain by a press and an ideology (leftist) that hates the military and has a vested interest in undermining the war. The people who are making hay out of this have been plotting and planning our failure since the war started (the Rockefeller memo). This current story is being totally blown out of proportion, intentionally misconstrued, and tried in the media and in the Democrat party, for no other reason than political gain. Our loss in Iraq is Democrat gain, and this explains why the majority of good we are doing gets no coverage, and the miniscule bad gets amplification and a spot-light...This is the real scandal here.

The way the military are being giddily painted "guilty" illustrates the media's disdain and contempt for the military...The wolf is being exposed as its sheep's clothing is falling off.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
What are you talking about?...People do like occupying armies, especially when those occupying armies liberate them from oppressors. I know I for one would understand and help an occupying force if it liberated me from an oppressor, this is only logical.

If you don't want to take my word for it, why don't you ask the Jews, the Vietnamese or go ask an Iraqi.

A collaborationist.

Figures.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
A collaborationist.

Figures.

Said the Islamofascist and Clinton apologist.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Lets also not forget that this mole-hill is being amplified into a mountain by a press and an ideology (leftist) that hates the military and has a vested interest in undermining the war.

Allegedly- 24 civilians, including children as young as 1yo, were shot in their homes point blank by US military forces. An 11 yo girl took seven bullets to the head.

Then the military on the ground, and presumably the military institution, tried to cover up the fact that this had happened, until external pressure caused them to react.

What apsects of this issue do you feel is being blown out of proportion, and how so, Mul?

[jyl]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
What are you talking about?...People do like occupying armies, especially when those occupying armies liberate them from oppressors. I know I for one would understand and help an occupying force if it liberated me from an oppressor, this is only logical.

If you don't want to take my word for it, why don't you ask the Jews, the Vietnamese or go ask an Iraqi.

I've never figured out why, given your enthusiasm for the liberation of Iraq, why you haven't enlisted by now so that you could be over there, enjoying the occupation for yourself. Perhaps its easier to post nonsense than to actually go face reality?

[snowman]

Reality is that we should have killed a lot more of them than we have. At least, historically, thats what one should exect to happen.

These soldiers should be be given all benefit of any doubt. Snaped?? so be it. They should not be punished for normal human response to a given situation.

A few more of the potential enemy died, some unjustified, some not. Thats the way it goes.

War is NOT fair. There are winners, there are losers.