Some damage control by US forces

[lickmyballssuckmy]

So you pick the most likely. You research. You read everything you can get your hands on that express all sides and you understand that most of it is agenda-driven. Then you watch Jon Stewart and you go, "Damn, he's funny."

I trust a Marine's word more than I trust Senator's Kerry and Murtha. Other will say the Marine is just trying to save his rear.

It doesn't matter to me what people decide to believe as long as they think critically about it first.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by lickmyballssuckmy

It doesn't matter to me what people decide to believe as long as they think critically about it first.

lol

i shouldnt laugh, but everyone thinks they have all the facts because either there was a micheal moore movie about it or because it was on Jon Stewart.

meanwhile, probably 80% of people bitching about the opposite party couldnt even tell you what theirs stands for.

until the media gets fixed, we all get to deal with know it all assholes(like myself) that probably dont know much more than the talking points of the day.

[slugymay]

I hate to armchair quarterback but...
The platoon leader deserves to be fired for his conduct and planning. Not identifying ROE prior to the operation is unforgiveable. After the attack the platoon leader needed to establish a perimeter and restablish security. Once they started receiving fire, and with everything else that happened, the platoon was not a robust enough force to secure a perimeter and clear houses. He needed to maintain his perimeter, "consolidate and reorganize" and then wait for either the quick reaction force (QRF) or air support. The fire from the house must not have been to heavy because the marines were able to approach the building in order to clear the building. This identifies a lack of suppressive fire coming from the house.

With that said 2 comments -
1) There was obviously a breakdown of leadership, communication and poor command and control. Heads should roll, but not the individual soldiers, officers need to atone for their mistakes.

2) Charging soldiers with murder is ridiculous when the poor choices of the platoon leader and other commanders presented the situation. There should be no laws about murder on the battlefield.

Anyone that thinks I am being calous then ask yourself what an ambush is.
You lie in wait, camoflagued, and then open fire on the unsuspecting enemy. You know that you have done it right when they don't get a shot off. That is nothing more than pre-meditated murder.

[lickmyballssuckmy]

Can't disagree with you although I'm sure the media would have had a field day with an airstrike that killed innocent people.

What leads you to believe that ROE was not established, though? Isn't that established before every trip outside the wire? Just because they didn't say it happened doen't mean it didn't happen. Or did I miss something? The case hinges on it, but I'd bet that it was completely understoof by all, not unestablished. As I said before, you are receiving fire from a house, it is now a military target. Bad guys hiding behind innocent people is their choice, not ours.

None of this takes away from the fact that the incident was reported one way in the media and now we may find out that it wasn't like that at all but the insurgents got what they needed from the media. The media may have again made up news and gotten away with it instead of simply reporting facts. And I doubt that the media will go out of their way to correct the story, should this account be proven accurate.

Originally Posted by slugymay

I hate to armchair quarterback but...
The platoon leader deserves to be fired for his conduct and planning. Not identifying ROE prior to the operation is unforgiveable. After the attack the platoon leader needed to establish a perimeter and restablish security. Once they started receiving fire, and with everything else that happened, the platoon was not a robust enough force to secure a perimeter and clear houses. He needed to maintain his perimeter, "consolidate and reorganize" and then wait for either the quick reaction force (QRF) or air support. The fire from the house must not have been to heavy because the marines were able to approach the building in order to clear the building. This identifies a lack of suppressive fire coming from the house.

With that said 2 comments -
1) There was obviously a breakdown of leadership, communication and poor command and control. Heads should roll, but not the individual soldiers, officers need to atone for their mistakes.

2) Charging soldiers with murder is ridiculous when the poor choices of the platoon leader and other commanders presented the situation. There should be no laws about murder on the battlefield.

Anyone that thinks I am being calous then ask yourself what an ambush is.
You lie in wait, camoflagued, and then open fire on the unsuspecting enemy. You know that you have done it right when they don't get a shot off. That is nothing more than pre-meditated murder.

[slugymay]

Originally Posted by lickmyballssuckmy

Marine Says Rules Were Followed
Sergeant Describes Hunt for Insurgents in Haditha, Denies Coverup
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 11, 2006; A01

The defense attorneys said the rules of engagement -- which vary depending on the mission, level of danger and other factors -- are likely to become a central element of their cases because those rules guide how troops can use deadly force on the battlefield. One Marine official said such rules usually require positive identification of a target before shooting but noted that the rules are often circumstantial.
"Once you go back over it, you have to determine if they applied the rules," the Marine official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the Marine Corps does not discuss rules of engagement. "Did they feel threatened? Did they perceive hostile intent or hostile action?"

The Marine who fired the rounds -- Puckett said it was not Wuterich -- had experience clearing numerous houses on a deployment in Fallujah, where Marines had aggressive rules of engagement.

"When I was in Iraq," Morgenstein said, "the Anbar-wide ROEs [rules of engagement] did not say we had the authority to knock down any door, throw in a hand grenade and kill everyone." Still, he said, if someone in a house in Haditha was shooting at them, the Marines' response may have been within procedure. "If they felt they took fire from that house, then that may be authorized."

The rules of engagement are muddled because of differing missions and experiences in different parts of the country. From the selected text above it is still ambiguous, even now, what the ROE was on that mission, The PL either needed to issue clear orders, request clarification from higher or made a sound decision on the spot. He did none of these actions.

By the way, since OSLIN is not here, Congressman Murtha was the one that leaked and broke the story to the media. The media had no idea until Murtha issued a press release about the conduct of Marines in Haditha. Seeing as how Murtha is a retired Marine, that is a bold statement.

[lickmyballssuckmy]

ok.. I still see no indication that they left on this mission without an established ROE. Here's how I read those three paragraphs:

The defense attorneys said the rules of engagement -- which vary depending on the mission, level of danger and other factors -- are likely to become a central element of their cases because those rules guide how troops can use deadly force on the battlefield. One Marine official said such rules usually require positive identification of a target before shooting but noted that the rules are often circumstantial.
"Once you go back over it, you have to determine if they applied the rules," the Marine official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the Marine Corps does not discuss rules of engagement. "Did they feel threatened? Did they perceive hostile intent or hostile action?"

The Marine Corps, as an institution, doesn't discuss ROE for security reasons. The more the enemy knows about your tactics, the more exposed you are so it is not public information. The outcome of the case will be dependent on whether the ROE were followed.

The Marine who fired the rounds -- Puckett said it was not Wuterich -- had experience clearing numerous houses on a deployment in Fallujah, where Marines had aggressive rules of engagement.

The Marine that entered the room first had previous experience in an area with aggressive ROE.

"When I was in Iraq," Morgenstein said, "the Anbar-wide ROEs [rules of engagement] did not say we had the authority to knock down any door, throw in a hand grenade and kill everyone." Still, he said, if someone in a house in Haditha was shooting at them, the Marines' response may have been within procedure. "If they felt they took fire from that house, then that may be authorized."

Sentence one says one thing and the second sentence contradicts the first. He's talking to talk. The authority was either there or it wasn't and he doesn't know because he left country six months before the incident. If the ROE included that people can shoot at you from inside a house and you can't take action, then we have a problem.

[lickmyballssuckmy]

Another interesting Haditha story.. Since senators and reporters don't don't check shit out, let's give the justice system a chance..

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1822-1212r.htm

"A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify. "