Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Let’s hope that this is not what it appears to be.

Click on the image to watch the video.

Monday night retired Marine, Second Lieutenant Ilario Pantano, appeared on CNN hawking his new book, "Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy". You might recall that Lt. Pantano had been accused by the Marines of murdering two Iraqis on April 15, 2004. In 2005, the Marines dropped all murder charges against Lt. Pantano. At the time when the charges were dropped, the Marines said in a statement that the "best interests of 2nd Lt. Pantano and the government have been served by this process."

The reason Lt. Pantano had been charged with murder is because he had shot and killed two Iraqis that he had detained. After killing them, he hung a sign above their heads that read "NO BETTER FRIEND, NO WORSE ENEMY". He also emptied his clip, reloaded, and emptied his second clip into the bodies of the Iraqis. All told, he had expended 60 rounds into the Iraqis’ bodies:

The two Iraqis were killed during an April 2004 search outside a suspected terrorist hideout in Mahmudiyah, Iraq. Pantano contended he shot them in self-defense after the men disobeyed his instructions and made a menacing move toward him.

Prosecutors alleged Pantano intended to make an example of the men by shooting them 60 times and hanging a sign over their bodies — “No better friend, no worse enemy,” a Marine slogan. While citing self-defense as his motive, Pantano did not deny hanging the sign or shooting the men repeatedly.

An article in New York magazine shed further light on the incident:

At the scene, Pantano divided his platoon of 40 Marines. He sent a dozen to raid the house. The remainder dispersed, guarding his flanks. As Marines approached the target, a white sedan backed out and drove away. Pantano radioed that he’d take down the car. Pantano, 32, had with him a Navy medic, George Gobles, 21, whom everyone called Doc, and his new radio operator, Sergeant Daniel Coburn, 27.

Pantano yelled for the car to stop. When it didn’t, two warning shots were fired. The occupants, a man in his thirties or forties and another about 18, both wearing “man dresses,” as the Marines called them, finally stopped and raised their hands. They were unarmed.

Pantano received word from the Marines who’d taken the house. They’d found a modest cache of arms and also some significant items, including stakes used to aim mortars.

Pantano, who earlier had the Iraqis put in plastic handcuffs, now had Doc Gobles cut the cuffs off, which he did with his trauma shears. Then Gobles marched the two prisoners to their vehicle, placed one in the open door of the front seat, the other in the open door of the rear seat. Pantano motioned to the prisoners to search the car. He ordered Gobles to post security at the front of the car; Sergeant Coburn at the rear. Both men turned their backs on Pantano and the Iraqis.

A short time later, the shots started. Gobles and Coburn spun around. Pantano, ten feet from the Iraqis, emptied his M-16’s magazine, reloaded, emptied another. Later, Coburn recalled wondering “when the lieutenant was going to stop, because it was obvious that they were dead.” Photos, souvenirs taken by a Marine, would show one Iraqi nearly embracing the backseat of the car. The other lolled on his side, his head on the floorboard.

Coburn seemed distraught. He grabbed Gobles. “What the hell just happened?”

“Don’t worry,” Gobles said to settle him. “The blood is not on your hands.”

The facts of the incident were not in dispute. What was in dispute was whether Lt. Pantano intended to kill the Iraqis or whether he felt that he was about to be attacked and responded in self-defense. The charges were dismissed by Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, commander of the 2nd Marine Division, on the advice of the investigating officer, Lt. Col. Mark E. Winn:

The 16-page report from Lt. Col. Mark E. Winn labels as "extremely suspect" the prosecution’s chief witness, Sgt. Daniel L. Coburn, whom Lt. Pantano had removed as a squad leader weeks before the April 15, 2004, shooting.

"The government was not able to produce credible evidence or testimony that the killings were premeditated," Col. Winn wrote in his report, a copy of which was obtained yesterday by The Washington Times.

The Marines gave Lt. Pantano the benefit of the doubt because they could not determine his state of mind at the time of the shootings in the absence of a credible witness.

In the interview with New York magazine, Lt. Pantano however left no doubt as to why he used so much firepower:

There was another reason for all the firepower, which he says he decided while shooting. “I believed that by firing the number of rounds that I did, I was sending a message.” In case anyone missed the point, Pantano scrawled something on a piece of cardboard, which he wedged against the windshield. NO BETTER FRIEND, NO WORST ENEMY, it said. He meant the Marines. It was General Mattis’s motto.

His statements to the magazine appear to make clear what Lt. Pantano’s state of mind was at the time of the incident. I am not quite sure how "sending a message" is consistent with self-defense. Last night on CNN, Lt. Pantano struggled to explain the 60 rounds, the reloading of his weapon during the killings, and the hanging of the sign:

ROBERTS: Your situation, April of 2004 you were investigating a house. There were a couple of Iraqis who trying to escape in a car. You stopped the car, you had them in custody, they ended up dead. How?

PANTANO: Well, that’s right. And in fact, in a moment in time they attacked me, and they made a move to attack me, and I shot them dead.

ROBERTS: So you claimed self-defense, the Marine Corps eventually agreed with you. The question that I have about that incident, though, is you emptied two clips into these two Iraqis.

PANTANO: That’s right.

ROBERTS: One clip, reloaded, emptied the second clip.

PANTANO: That’s right.

ROBERTS: And then you put a sign on their car that said, America’s — your best friend or your worst enemy.

PANTANO: Right, no better friend, no worse enemy.

ROBERTS: No better friend, no worse enemy. Why did you go those extra steps? Were you trying to defend yourself or trying to make a point?

PANTANO: Well, I think that, you know, in the course of the investigation and ultimately in my exoneration, it was made very clear that I was defending myself.

You know, the decision to weigh in on the amount of force that was required, you know, these were things — listen, in everyday life we have opportunities and examples to look at use of force. We have rap stars that have been shot nine times and go on to make billion dollars selling albums.

So to try and suggest that there’s an appropriate amount of force, how much should be, and what that — you know, when to throttle that on and off. I think the truth is it comes back to the on scene commander.

In that case I was applying the amount of force I felt was required to do the job. In this case the job was end the threat.

ROBERTS: And why the sign?

PANTANO: Well, again, the sign was part of — part of my internal reaction to what was going on with the violence. Bear in mind, we had been taking casualties significantly.

And part of this was even messaging to my own men of, we are here to be no better friend. And they can all speak to, and in fact in the testimony, spoke to all of the efforts that we made in terms of purchasing candy or soccer balls or rebuilding schools.

But when the time comes, when the enemy attacks you, you will be no worse enemy.

So it’s almost the same kind of messaging on some level and it’s internal messaging, but it’s the same kind of messaging like looking at Zarqawi’s face on TV that your network broadcasts.  [Emphasis added me.]

So, Lt. Pantano has been exonerated by the Marines for "sending a message" to the Iraqis. What is that message? The message is that we will kill you at any hint of real or perceived provocation. And after we have killed you, we will taunt you. We will assume you are the enemy. The burden is on you to prove otherwise. And you better take care in proving your innocence because we may have to kill you if we feel threatened in the slightest way.

In an irony in last night’s interview, John Roberts lamented:

ROBERTS: Talk of alleged war crimes by U.S. soldiers in Iraq makes headlines. But when a Marine is cleared, well that seems to get less attention.

In 2004, after two Iraqis were killed outside a suspected terrorist hideout, Second Lieutenant Ilario Pantano said he shot them in self-defense. He said the men disobeyed his instructions and made a menacing move toward him.

Prosecutors allege Pantano intended to make an example of the men by shooting them 60 times, and then hanging a sign over their bodies. A year later the charges were dropped and the Marine decided to tell his story.

Today Pantano’s book hit the stands. It’s called "Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy." I spoke with Pantano earlier. [Emphasis added by me.]

Roberts is right. I had read the story when Lt. Pantano had been accused by the Marines. I had missed the news of his exoneration by the Marines. I hope the Iraqis missed the news too. I think his exoneration is more damaging to the United States than the initial accusations against him. Now that Lt. Pantano has released a book and as he continues his book tour, I am quite certain the fact that he was exonerated will make more headlines.

What are the bounds of acceptable behavior by US soldiers in Iraq? If "sending a message" is acceptable, then how exactly are we winning hearts and minds in Iraq? It seems that with every new revelation of atrocities in Iraq, and every new revelation of exoneration or slaps on the wrist, the bounds of acceptability are being pushed out further. As what is acceptable in Iraq widens more and more atrocities will occur. Is this any way to win hearts and minds? Is this any way to run a counter-insurgency? The killings of Iraqis for the flimsiest of reasons will make for  "No Worse Friend, No Worse Enemy".

In Vietnam, the United States Military carried out many missions in what the military calls "Free-Fire Zones" . These "zones" where areas where, according to the military’s "rules of engagement", an unidentified person was considered an enemy and the soldiers could shoot anyone they considered hostile. Activities in "free-fire zones" have led to massive civilian casualties and would have been violations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The sergeant who led the raid in Haditha has indicated through his lawyer that he and his squad did not violate the "rules of engagement" and did not intentionally kill innocent civilians. He conceded that "collateral damage" had occurred but it was not intentional:

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He’s really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

The Marines’ defense strategy for the Haditha massacre is beginning to emerge. According to the lawyer, the Marines received AK-47 fire from the direction of the houses where the civilians were later killed by the Marines. After receiving fire, the Marines attacked the houses:

A four-man team of Marines, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it, Puckett said. They then kicked in that door, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke, killing several people, Puckett said.

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.

Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women and children — most likely civilians – they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said. The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a frag grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people, he said.

Wuterich, not having found the insurgents, told the team to stop and headed back to the platoon leader to reassess the situation, Puckett said, adding that his client knew a number of civilians had just been killed. [Emphasis added by me.]

The sergeant is claiming that the "rules or engagement" allowed them to enter and fire indiscriminately inside civilian homes without confirmation that there were enemy elements inside. They also entered a second house on a hunch that someone may have left the first house and gone to the second house. They proceeded to kill the occupants of the second house based on their hunch. The door that was left ajar apparently was by the woman fleeing the massacre with the surviving infant.

The sergeant’s explanation of the killings in the third house is as follows:

After going through the houses, Wuterich moved a small group of Marines to the roof of a nearby building to watch the area, Puckett said. At one point, they saw a man in all-black clothing running from one of the houses they had searched. The Marines killed him, Puckett said.

They then noticed another man in all black scurrying between two houses across the street. When they went to investigate, the Marines found a courtyard filled with women and children and asked where the man was, Puckett said.

When the civilians pointed to a third house, the Marines attempted to enter and found a man with an AK-47 inside, flanked by three other men; the first Marine to enter tried to fire his weapon, but it jammed, Puckett said. The Marines then killed those four men.

It is worth noting that this explanation differs from the Iraqi version of events. The apparent point blank gunshot wounds also contradicts the sergeant’s version of events. This explanation also directly contradicts the two versions of events offered by the Marine Corps to the press. The sergeant’s lawyer believes that those versions were the result of "miscommunication".

The irony here is that if the Marine sergeant is successful in his defense, then the Marines who committed the killings will be innocent but the United States Military will be guilty. Either these killings were perpetrated in cold blood by rogue Marines or these killings were a result of very loose "rules of engagement".

Let us assume for a moment that the sergeant is telling the truth and the "rules of engagement" allow American soldiers to go into Iraqi civilians’ homes and shoot everyone inside without establishing that they are the enemy. Let us assume that it is good enough for American soldiers in a civilian populated urban area to establish that gunfire originated from the general direction of some houses and then to enter those houses and kill everyone inside. The obvious question is how many more massacres have taken place under these "rules of engagement"?

These "rules of engagement" are a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. If in fact, the United States is an "occupying power" in Iraq, which it certainly is, it has the obligation to protect the civilian population. Iraqi urban areas with civilian populations are not enemy territory. This is a counter-insurgency, not a war on a battlefield. You cannot indiscriminately shoot women and children. You cannot assume that someone is the enemy first. If you are doing that, you are committing war crimes. If the United States Military "rules of engagement" in Iraq allow for the killing of persons in their homes indiscriminately, those "rules of engagement" are designed to lead to war crimes.

For those who might be tempted to answer that this is a "different" kind of war and the enemy has no regard for human life and hides within the civilian population, I say to you learn some history. This is not the first counter-insurgency operation in the history of the world. All insurgents have hidden within the civilian population. If the Bush Administration has decided that it must kill civilians in order to stop the insurgency than it should say so. Instead of hiding behind the nonsense of how we have "freed" the Iraqis, we should just admit that we consider them the "enemy" and we are ready to kill them without provocation. Let the chips fall where they may and let the world cry war crimes! After all, who will try the United States? We have not ratified the International Criminal Court.

So, here is the ugly reality then. Either the Marine squad is guilty of war crimes, or the United States is guilty of war crimes. Take your pick. The outcome is not pretty. Either way, the people of Iraq are losing their lives as freedom continues to march over their corpses.

The big story today from the Los Angeles Times is that the United States has decided to omit parts of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions from the latest Army Field Manual on interrogation. The Pentagon has apparently decided to omit the "humiliating and degrading treatment" clause of the Article. This has caused outrage in the Human Rights community. The military’s judge advocates general and the State Department have also fiercely opposed this omission. According to the LA Times, the State Department had argued that this change would be a blow to American standing internationally:

Defense officials said the State Department and other agencies had argued that adopting Article 3 would put the U.S. government on more solid "moral footing," and make U.S. policies easier to defend abroad.

Some State Department officials have told the Pentagon that incorporating Geneva into the new directive would show American allies that the American military is following "common standards" rather than making up its own rules. Department officials declined to comment for this article about the directive or their discussions with the Pentagon.

The focus of the concern about the omission has been on abandoning the part of Article 3 that prohibits "humiliating and degrading treatment". However, the focus should really be on torture instead.

The Geneva exemption is part of a broader effort by the Bush Administration to systematically justify the use of torture by lawyering around the international Conventions that it is signatory to. As I discussed in an earlier post, the United States has already narrowed its definition of "torture" from the definition found in the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The United States has also asserted that when it ratified the Convention Against Torture, it only ratified the "torture" portion of the Convention and not the "cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment" part of the Convention. By narrowing the definition of "torture" and not accepting the remaining portions of the Convention, the United States can now effectively claim that interrogation techniques that do not cause serious injury such as "organ failure" or "even death" do not rise to the level of "torture". Furthermore, since the United States only accepts the "torture" part of the Convention, anything short of the US definition of "torture" does not violate America’s obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

The narrowed United States definition of "torture" has been in place since 2002 when the "Torture Memo" was written by the Justice Department. However, the United States military was still bound by the Army Field Manual, which adhered to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Up until now, only non-military personnel (CIA) were able to take advantage of the narrower definition of "torture" during interrogations. Article 3 still prevented the military from engaging in interrogations that were short of the US definition of "torture" but were caught by Article 3’s prohibition on "humiliating and degrading treatment". Dropping these parts of Article 3 now allows the United States military to engage in behavior that falls under the Convention Against Torture’s definition of "torture" but not under the US definition of "torture". Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was the last check against a uniform policy of torture that can now be implemented across all branches of the United States government, including the military.

A final obvious but important aspect of the overall torture policy is that acts performed under the narrow definition of "torture" would constitute a crime if committed within the United States where US Courts have jurisdiction. That is the reason why Guantanamo Bay exists.

It is important to call attention to this cleverly disguised attempt by the United States Government to enlist the military in its policy of torture. The Administration would much prefer to debate what constitutes "humiliating" or "degrading" behavior. That is a murky area that the Administration hopes will cloud the real issue. The real issue is on the other side of the interrogation spectrum. The real issue is what constitutes torture. This Administration is playing word games while it pursues a policy of torture. Our moral authority in the world is not the only thing that is being compromised - we as a people are complicit in torture if we allow it to continue.

Can we agree on a few basic things? Can we agree that unprovoked premeditated murder is a criminal act? Can we agree that there is no excuse for murdering toddlers in cold blood? Can we agree that we must punish capital crimes?

There is a dangerous argument that is emerging over the revelations of massacre at Haditha. Adding to the chorus coming from the right is an op-ed in today’s Washington Post by Frank Schaeffer. The op-ed is titled "What’s Lost in the Hue and Cry Over Haditha" and the "hue and cry" in the title should give you an indication of what the op-ed will argue.

Schaeffer trots out the "War is Hell" argument in excusing the Haditha massacre. He appeals to our respect for the veterans of World War II to argue that even in that war atrocities were committed. He cites a passage from Norman Lewis’ memoir "Naples ‘44" to illustrate that atrocities were committed in World War II:

"I saw an ugly sight: a British officer interrogating a civilian, and repeatedly hitting him about the head with the chair; treatment which the [civilian], his face a mask of blood, suffered with stoicism. At the end of the interrogation, which had not been considered successful, the officer called on a private and asked him in a pleasant, conversational sort of manner, ‘Would you like to take this man away, and shoot him?’ The private’s reply was to spit on his hands, and say, ‘I don’t mind if I do, sir.’

"I received confirmation . . . that American combat units were ordered by their officers to beat to death [those] who attempted to surrender to them. These men seem very naive and childlike, but some of them are beginning to question the ethics of this order.

"We liberated them from the Fascist Monster. And what is the prize? The rebirth of democracy. The glorious prospect of being able one day to choose their rulers from a list of powerful men, most of whose corruptions are generally known and accepted with weary resignation. The days of Mussolini must seem like a lost paradise compared to us."

No doubt that Bill O’Reilly will pick up on this excuse next week on the heels of his false accusation that Americans, and not the Germans, committed murder at Malmedy.

Schaeffer follows his retelling of Lewis’s account with the meat of the matter:

If Lewis’s account were the only surviving document from World War II, we might assume that allied nation-building ended in catastrophe. We would wonder why a morally outraged peace movement didn’t stop our troops from carrying out their failed and brutal campaigns.

Sixty years later and caught up in another war, we are confronted by the massacre in Haditha. And we are also caught up in the anguish of another generation of young men and women asked to kill but to keep killing within "civilized" bounds, to take insults, be fired upon by men hiding behind women and children, yet not respond in kind. [Emphasis added by me.]

That is really the crux of his argument. How can our troops be expected to not "respond in kind" when the enemy behaves so badly? Ok, I’ll bite on the moral argument. Especially since Schaeffer tugs at our heartstrings by recounting his son’s distress at being deployed in Afghanistan and challenges our moral standing to dare criticize actions on the battlefield:

It’s time for the critics of our military to also earn a little moral authority by volunteering themselves or encouraging their children to do so. Anything less is nothing more than arm’s-length moralizing. [Emphasis added by me.]

Well, sir, let me do some "arm’s-length moralizing" before I get to the real meat of the matter. No American is criticizing the American Military for the Haditha massacre, but rather, we are defending the American Military when we demand that these acts are not tolerated. If you want to condone or advocate the killing of innocent toddlers because you can’t take the heat of battle there are countless terrorist organizations that I recommend that you join. They will be glad to accept your application and agree with your rationalization. The American military is not the place for your kind of rationalization. There is a difference between a civilized and disciplined military and a terrorist organization. The American military does not target nor does it condone the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. The way to maintain discipline in an organized military is to quickly isolate and punish acts of barbarism.  For a final word on this, allow me to quote United States Army Major General William Caldwell from a recent press conference (as replayed on CNN’s Late Edition today):

The coalition does not and it will not tolerate any unethical or criminal behavior.

That is a rather clear and forceful statement from the United States Military. The American public should expect and demand no less from our military.

After the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the only person ever punished for murdering 504 innocent old men, women and children was Lt. William Calley. He received 3 and a half years of house arrest for his crimes. The American public was overwhelmingly sympathetic to Calley because after all it was "gooks" he had killed and anyone knows that the only good "gook" is a dead "gook". On the other hand, the hero of My Lai, Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thomson was vilified as a traitor because he dared save the lives of 10 women and babies from the murderous guns of Calley and his cohorts. In condoning the massacre at My Lai, the American public collectively bore the responsibility for those killings. It disgraced this nation and it disgraced the military.

The American people and the American Military have come a long way since My Lai. We have learned that premeditated murder cannot be excused. Excusing such crimes tarnished the entire military and the American people. Vigorously prosecuting these crimes does not tar the military, as Mr. Schaeffer suggests, but rather shows that the military will not tolerate these crimes. It protects the military from being overrun by this kind of barbarism. It sets a civilized and disciplined fighting force apart from terrorists and murderers. It honors our military to not tolerate criminal behavior. It recognizes that when bad things happen in war, civilized nations and militaries do not condone it but aggressively fight against it. After all, that is what the Geneva Conventions were adopted to recognize - that even in war, there is right and wrong, there is morality.

Haditha will not become My Lai as long as the American Military and the American people do not allow it to happen. These acts, whenever they occur, must be condemned. We need to appeal to the honor and discipline of our men and women in our military, not to baser instincts that Mr. Schaeffer appeals to when he condones "respond[ing] in kind". There is a reason why there is a "hue and a cry" over Haditha, Mr. Schaeffer. To remind you of the reasons, I recommend that you repeat after me: "There is no excuse for murdering babies." Here endeth the "arm’s length moralizing."

[Via AMERICABlog] The new Iraqi Ambassador to the United States, Samir Sumaidaie, presented his credentials to President Bush yesterday. With him however he brought more than his credentials, he also brought with him a personal story of the quagmire the United States finds itself in Iraq. Mr. Sumaidaie brought with him the story of his cousin’s death at the hands of American Marines.

After meeting with President Bush, the Iraqi Ambassador discussed his cousin’s killing with Wolf Blitzer on CNN:

BLITZER: But even months before the incident in November, you lost a cousin at Haditha in a separate battle involving United States Marines.

SUMAIDAIE: Well, that was not a battle at all. Marines were doing house-to-house searches, and they went into the house of my cousin. He opened the door for them.

His mother, his siblings were there. He led them into the bedroom of his father. And there he was shot.

BLITZER: Who shot him?

SUMAIDAIE: A member of the Marines.

BLITZER: Why did they shoot him?

SUMAIDAIE: Well, they said that they shot him in self-defense. I find that hard to believe because, A, he is not at all a violent — I mean, I know the boy. He was [in] a second-year engineering course in the university. Nothing to do with violence. All his life has been studies and intellectual work.

Totally unbelievable. And, in fact, they had no weapon in the house. They had one weapon which belonged to the school where his father was a headmaster. And it had no ammunition in it. And he led them into the room to show it to them.

BLITZER: So what you’re suggesting, your cousin was killed in cold blood, is that what you’re saying, by United States Marines?

SUMAIDAIE: I believe he was killed intentionally. I believe that he was killed unnecessarily. And unfortunately, the investigations that took place after that sort of took a different course and concluded that there was no unlawful killing.

I would like further investigation. I have, in fact, asked for the report of the last investigation, which was a criminal investigation, by the way.

[Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq] is aware of all the details, because he’s kept on top of it. And it was he who rejected the conclusions of the first investigation. I have since asked formally for the report, but it’s been nearly two months, and I have not received it.

This is a serious charge and you may be tempted to believe that the Ambassador is simply jumping on the Haditha bandwagon to score some political and decidedly undiplomatic points. However, Sumaidaie raised this incident with the United States military nearly a year ago while he was the Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations. In addition to raising the issue with the US military the Ambassador also sent a letter to his colleagues. According to the BBC:

In a letter to colleagues, Mr Sumaidaie explained in detail what happened to his cousin Mohammed al-Sumaidaie on 25 June in the village of al-Sheikh Hadid.

He said Mohammed, an engineering student, was visiting his family home when some 10 marines with an Egyptian interpreter knocked on the door at 1000 local time.

He opened the door to them and was "happy to exercise some of his English", said the ambassador.

When asked if there were any weapons in the house, Mohammed took the marines to a room where there was a rifle with no live ammunition.

It was the last the family saw him alive. Shortly after, another brother was dragged out and beaten and the family was ordered to wait outside.

As the marines left "smiling at each other" an hour later, the interpreter told the mother they had killed Mohammed, said Mr Sumaidaie.

"In the bedroom, Mohammed was found dead and laying in a clotted pool of his blood. A single bullet had penetrated his neck."

The Ambassador’s own story highlights the confused and tragic situation of the United States military in Iraq. The Ambassador is no insurgent sympathizer. He is Western educated and is a supporter of the US military intervention. The killing of the Ambassador’s cousin, the killings in Haditha, and another killing that is also under investigation in Iraq just add to an emerging pattern of civilian killings and intimidation occurring in Iraq.

We have placed a heavily armed fighting force in the middle of a large civilian population who have been declared friendly by our Government. Our military is fighting a largely unseen insurgent force whose weapon of choice is the IED. In this circumstance the easiest target of revenge is the civilian population. It is tempting to kick down doors and interrogate and harass the population to try to gain intelligence about the insurgency. It is the way of heavy-handed counter-insurgency campaigns. It is also the surest way to lose the battle for hearts and minds. We have to ask ourselves if we are doing more harm than good in Iraq. We cannot destroy the village to save it.

The Bush Administration needs to step back and take a good look at its Iraq policy. Instead of writing off Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other atrocities as isolated incidents, it needs to ask itself if our policy in Iraq is leading to these atrocities. Upon examination I think the answer is likely to be yes. Then the question really is, "Are we as a nation willing to accept the loss of our moral authority to further our policy in Iraq?" I know what my answer to that question is; what is yours? Our collective answer as a nation will determine whether the United States withdraws from Iraq or continues down its current path.

On January 13, 1842 a wounded and battered British military doctor, Dr. William Brydon, riding atop a dying horse arrived at the British garrison in Jalalabad. He was the only survivor of the 16,000 strong British Army that was in full retreat from Kabul. The remaining soldiers had been slaughtered by the Afghanis in the snowy mountain passes between Kabul and Jalalabad.

The British discovered in 1842 what every other conquering army has come to learn - that Afghanistan is easily taken but never kept. Since the time of Alexander The Great conquering armies have made forays into Afghanistan only to find that it is the graveyard of occupying armies. Nonetheless in the 19th century the British and the Russians competed for control of Afghanistan in what has come to be known as The Great Game. This Game has always been played with the foreign power installing a puppet regime in Afghanistan, which eventually is destroyed by local forces. As The Great Game has been played out the Afghan distaste of foreign occupiers has grown.

The Great Game continued in the 20th Century with the Americans replacing the British as Russia’s adversary after the Second World War. On Christmas day in 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet regime. With that action The Great Game between the United States and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was launched in earnest. Over the next 10 years the Soviets unsuccessfully battled an insurgency, the Afghan Mujahideen, backed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The Soviet Army lost over 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan while over a million Afghans lost their lives in the same period. Yet after 10 years of fighting the Soviet Union was unsuccessful in breaking the back of the insurgency. On February 15, 1989 the battered and demoralized Soviet Red Army completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan. The humiliation of the Afghan campaign and the financial strain put upon the Soviet economy by the invasion and occupation played a significant part in the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. The 10-year Soviet occupation also left the economy and society of Afghanistan in tatters.

More than a decade later the United States finds itself as the occupying force in Afghanistan playing The Great Game once again. In response to the attacks of September 11th 2001, on October 7, 2001 the United States launched an aerial bombing campaign in Afghanistan that led to the rapid collapse of the Taliban regime. After the routing of the Taliban the United States installed the government of Hamid Karzai in power. Subsequently an election was held that legitimized the Karzai government.

As in previous occupations of Afghanistan what appeared initially as a routing of the local forces is beginning to appear as anything but that. Over the past few years the seemingly defeated Taliban have regrouped into an ever more potent insurgency. As the Afghan population has soured of the continued foreign occupation the Taliban have regained support as the defenders of Afghanistan. In recent weeks there has been heavy fighting between the American military and the Taliban in the South of Afghanistan. This renewed fighting has led to significant loss of civilian life. With each additional civilian death the United States is rapidly losing hearts and minds in Afghanistan. The inexorable logic of occupation is leading to ever growing resentment of the occupier amongst the local population.

The situation in Afghanistan has become increasingly more volatile. Any act or accident by the United States is now viewed by the Afghans as an act of provocation. In this context the fatal traffic accident in Kabul yesterday involving an American military truck was the spark that was needed to set ablaze Afghan frustration. Yesterday’s riots will undoubtedly be brought under control by the Afghan Government. But by doing so, the Government will inevitably kill or injure Afghan civilians. Any heavy-handed Government tactic will be viewed by the Afghan people with suspicion. The Government will be seen as doing the bidding of the United States. In appealing for calm President Hamid Karzai may have done more harm then good by calling the rioters enemies of Afghanistan:

Karzai, speaking on national television Monday night, condemned "opportunists" for exploiting a simple traffic accident and said people responsible for the violence would be sought and treated severely. "Accidents happen all over the world," he said. "This is not a reason to fight or destroy. Those who have done this are the enemies of Afghanistan." [Emphasis added by me.]

Karzai will be seen more as an American puppet in the aftermath of yesterday’s riots in which Government troops killed up to 20 people. The Washington Post reports on the underlying resentment brought to the fore by the traffic accident:

The riots exposed the bitter resentment that many Afghans harbor toward the U.S.-led military forces that have been stationed here since the Taliban was driven from power. It also reflected the deep ambivalence many Afghan Muslims feel toward the growing Western influence here that includes high fashion and fast-food shops, sprawling aid compounds and even rap music.

The public mood has also been tense since a U.S. airstrike killed at least 16 civilians last week in a village in southern Afghanistan, the scene of heightened fighting this spring. Afghan and U.S. officials blamed Taliban insurgents who had taken shelter in village compounds and then fired at U.S.-led forces.

This is a situation ripe with danger for the United States at a time when it is preoccupied with the worsening civil war in Iraq. The United States and the Karzai Government are in a no win situation. If they allow the rioting and unrest to continue unchecked Kabul and perhaps the rest of the country will become destabilized. On the other hand if the Karzai Government clamps down on the population, as it has begun to do, it will lose any legitimacy it may have and will be seen as a tool of the occupier. Either way the Karzai Government is likely to go the way of other Governments that were installed by occupiers in Afghanistan.

The United States occupation of Afghanistan will come to an end at some time in the future. The only unknowns are whether or not the American military will suffer the fate of previous occupiers and what kind of society the Americans will leave behind in Afghanistan. The Soviets endured 10 years of pinpricks from the Afghan insurgency before the cost of occupation became too great to bear. What will be the breaking point for the United States? The challenge for the United States is to break the cycle of The Great Game and leave behind a functioning Afghan society that does not lead to future interventions and instability. Meeting this challenge requires the United States to be fully engaged not only militarily but also diplomatically. History has shown that foreign militaries have never been able to impose their will on the Afghan people for an extended period of time. If there is a recipe for success in Afghanistan it does not lie in the use of force. With the United States preoccupied in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan promises to slip away toward failure. Urgent attention is required and may not be forthcoming from the Administration of George W Bush. Thus another predictable chapter of The Great Game may be written.

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke writes today in The Washington Post that the six retired generals who have publicly called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld are likely speaking for their colleagues who are still in the military:

First, it is clear that the retired generals — six so far, with more likely to come — surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed.

I agree with Ambassador Holbrooke that what we are seeing is indeed the tip of the spear. The United States Military is quietly but surely signaling to their civilian masters that they need to change course.

Many commentators have tried to determine why the generals are speaking out and why they are speaking out now. Most, like Ambassador Holbrooke, have suggested that the frustration over the Iraq fiasco has now reached a boiling point within the military. This is certainly the case. But, I think there may be more to the generals’ timing and motivation than has been discussed so far. I think by focusing on Iraq we are all fighting the last war in trying to discern the generals’ motivations. I think a significant reason why the generals are speaking out has to do with our impending attack on Iran.

Seymour Hersh wrote in his article that the top leaders of the U.S. military are against a nuclear strike on Iran and may have to resign to prevent the Administration from moving forward with an attack. In one extraordinary paragraph, Hersh wrote:

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

I believe we are seeing the beginning salvo in the military’s push to avert a nuclear strike on Iran. The top leaders in the military may have decided that the civilians in the Administration are ignoring their advice in the march to Tehran and have now decided to take their case public. The military understands the grave consequence of an attack on Iran but have failed to convince the ideologues in the Administration to see reality. Having learned the lessons of Iraq that the checks and balances in the U.S. Government have failed to prevent a determined President from acting out his apocalyptic fantasy, the military have taken their case directly to the public in the hopes of averting a nuclear catastrophe.

This is not a revolt. This is the United States Military upholding the Constitution to which they have sworn an oath.