Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

On March 12, 2006 a gruesome crime took place in a farmhouse in Mahmoudiya, Iraq. A 14-year-old girl was raped and murdered. Her parents and her 5-year-old sister were shot in the head in another room. Their bodies were then burned to hide the evidence. A discharged United States soldier has been charged with one count of rape and four counts of murder stemming from the this crime. Four other soldiers who were allegedly involved in the killings and rape have also been charged.

The first person to arrive at the scene of the crime described the horrors he saw:

"Never in my mind could I have imagined such a gruesome sight," Abu Firas Janabi said of the day in March when his cousin, Fakhriya Taha Muhsen; her husband, Kasim Hamza Rasheed; and their two daughters were slain and their farmhouse set ablaze.

"Kasim’s corpse was in the corner of the room, and his head was smashed into pieces," he said. The 5-year-old daughter, Hadel, was beside her father, and Janabi said he could see that Fakhriya’s arms had been broken.

In another room, he found 15-year-old Abeer, naked and burned, with her head smashed in "by a concrete block or a piece of iron."

"There were burns from the bottom of her stomach to the end of her body, except for her feet," he said.

"I did not believe what I was seeing. I tried to fool myself into believing I was in a dream. But the problem was that we were not dreaming. We put a piece of cloth over her body. Then I left the house together with my wife."

As regular readers may have noticed, I have not been posting with the regularity I normally do. That is because after I wrote the above paragraphs I hit writer’s block. I had to step away from this post for a number of days before I could return to it. I also realized that if I don’t finish this post I wouldn’t be able to focus enough to write other posts. I have chronicled many atrocities and deaths in Iraq since I started blogging, but what happened in Mahmoudiya struck harder than all others. Sometimes it takes a concentrated act of insanity to give clarity to the surrounding madness. The rape and murder of a 14-year-old child and the cold-blooded murder of her 5-year-old sister is that act of insanity. American soldiers are accused of this insanity. It is time for an accounting.

Over 2500 American soldiers have died, perhaps a hundred thousand Iraqis have died, a country is in tatters, neighbors are slaughtering neighbors. This is George W Bush’s Iraq. This is America’s Iraq. Who is responsible for the chaos in Iraq? The Bush Administration is fond of saying that the Iraqis must learn to defend their own country; that they must show the will to fight for their country - and when they stand up, we will stand down. Although this kind of rhetoric makes for good campaign slogans it also shirks responsibility. The responsibility for the chaos in Iraq lies with the United States and more specifically it lies with George W Bush, our Commander-in-Chief.

President Bush insists that he has a "responsibility" to "stay the course". But he has shirked his most basic responsibility - that is, the protection of the civilian population of Iraq. The Law of Occupation as codified in the 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Conventions make it the responsibility of the occupying power to ensure public order and safety. The United States is the occupying power in Iraq. It is therefore subject to Article 43 of the Hague Regulations:

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

The Law of Occupation has been adopted by the United States Military. Article 43 is explicitly stated in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare. The Manual’s chapter on Occupation states:

363. Duty to Restore and Maintain Public Order

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.(HR, art. 43.)

The United States has failed in its primary responsibility as the occupier in Iraq.

Instead of public order and safety, we have car bombs and death squads. We have Iraqis committing atrocities on Iraqis. We have Iraqis committing atrocities on Americans. We have Americans committing atrocities on Iraqis. George W Bush has lost all control in Iraq. The people of Iraq, who Mr. Bush claims to have liberated, are dying by the dozens every day.

Three years after he declared "Missions Accomplished", the Pax Americana in Iraq has brought murder and mayhem instead of public order and safety. It is not the responsibility of the Iraqis to restore order after an invasion by a hostile force; it is the responsibility of the United States. Every time President Bush says "stay the course" he is shirking his responsibility as the Commander-in-Chief of the occupying forces to protect the Iraqis. Having failed to restore order for the past three years, President Bush has encouraged and condoned continued violence in Iraq by saying "stay the course".

On Mr. Bush’s watch, people are being beheaded, shot through the head, and blown up. Children are being raped and murdered in cold blood. That is the accounting in Iraq. The account is large and getting larger still. We have turned many corners in Iraq. The latest corner sees American soldiers accused of being rapists and murderers of children. How many more corners must we turn before this atrocity of an occupation is brought to an end?

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".

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."

What is the appropriate punishment for murdering 504 innocent men, women and children? Death penalty? Life in prison? House arrest? If you answered house arrest than you win a cookie. Only one man received punishment for the slaughter of innocents at My Lai village in Vietnam on the morning of March 16, 1968. His punishment was 3 and a half years of house arrest. Many are now comparing the Haditha killings in Iraq with the massacre at My Lai. If the comparison holds then once again war criminals will escape unpunished. I for one hope that in the case of Haditha there will be justice where there was none in My Lai.

Now let me tell you the story of what happened one morning in a village in Vietnam…

On the evening of March 15, 1968, Captain Ernest Medina informed the men of Charlie Company that their orders were to destroy the village of My Lai the next morning. Medina said that there would be no women and children in the village at the time and they were likely to find the 48th Battalion of the Viet Cong in the village. Their mission would be to destroy the enemy, kill the livestock, poison the wells and set fire to My Lai.

On the morning of March 16, 1968 shortly before 8 a.m. helicopters carrying the men of Charlie Company landed just outside the village of My Lai. By 8 a.m. the first platoon of Charlie Company commanded by 24-year-old Lt. William Calley entered My Lai. The platoon began their search and destroy mission and found that the only people left in the village were old men, women and children. No one of fighting age was left in the village. The orgy of killing began. A man was stabbed in the back with a bayonet. Another man was thrown down a well and a grenade followed. Fifteen to twenty older women were gathered together and shot in the back of their heads. Eighty people were herded together in the village plaza and mowed down by Lt. Calley and a soldier named Paul Meadlo. Young children and babies were shot. Little girls’ breasts were fondled. An army photographer named Ronald Haeberle arrived in My Lai as the third platoon of Charlie Company moved in. He photographed and witnessed about 30 GIs kill about 100 civilians.

Lt. William Calley gathered about 80 civilians near a drainage ditch on the edge of the village. Calley ordered his platoon to throw the old men, women and children into the ditch. Most of his men refused but 3 or 4 obeyed. Calley ordered his men to shoot the civilians in the ditch. Some refused and some obeyed. Calley joined the soldiers in slaughtering the civilians in the ditch. One 2-year-old child tried to escape and ran toward the village. Calley grabbed the child, threw him into the ditch, and shot him.

Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thomson was piloting a helicopter above My Lai and saw the horror unfolding below. He landed his helicopter near the ditch and put himself between Calley and the civilians. He instructed his crew chief to gun down the Americans if they opened fire on the civilians again. Thomson managed to evacuate 10 civilians, including 5 children and a baby who was still clinging to her dead mother.

By noon the carnage was over.

Hugh Thomson filed a complaint alleging numerous war crimes at My Lai. The complaint went nowhere. The official Army version was that 128 enemy were killed and 20 civilians were inadvertently killed. However, word started to spread about the massacre from the GIs of Charlie Company. Some GIs of Charlie Company talked to a soldier named Ronald Ridenhour. Ridenhour decided to send a letter about the My Lai massacre to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and some members of Congress. Almost all of his letters were ignored. One recipient of the letter, Representative Morris Udall, urged a full investigation of Ridenhour’s allegations.

Eventually the Army charged 26 enlisted men and officers, including Lt. Calley and Captain Medina, with crimes related to the My Lai massacre. The charges against 25 enlisted men and officers would eventually be dropped. In March 1971 Lt. Calley was convicted by a military court martial of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Richard Nixon ordered Calley released from prison and confined to house arrest instead. On November 9, 1974 the Secretary of the Army paroled Calley and he was released from house arrest. In total, Lt. William Calley, the only man ever punished for the My Lai massacre, spent 3 and one half years under house arrest.

The oldest human being murdered at My Lai was 82 years old and the youngest was 1 year old. Lt. Calley spent a little under 3 days under house arrest for each civilian murdered at My Lai. President Nixon called the My Lai massacre "an isolated incident."

The public sentiment in the United States was overwhelmingly against the conviction of Lt. Calley. According to an opinion poll conducted for President Nixon on April 1, 1971, 79% said that the sentence of life imprisonment for Lt. Calley was "too harsh".

However, the My Lai massacre eventually caused the public to sour on the Vietnam War. Support for the war rapidly dissipated after the horrors of My Lai seeped into the American consciousness.

The lessons of My Lai are still relevant today. We learned at My Lai that soldiers are capable of and sometime do commit atrocities during war. We learned that even in the bleakest of times, and perhaps because of them, heroes emerge. We learned that war crimes sometimes go unpunished even when the evidence is overwhelming. We learned that political expediency can trump justice when a President wishes it.

After My Lai the expectation is not great that if the soldiers involved in the Haditha killings are found guilty that they will be given anything more than a slap on the wrist. There was plenty of public outrage and international outrage after My Lai, but the punishment did not come close to matching the magnitude of the crime. There is likely to be public outrage over Haditha, but public outrage is not enough.

This time justice must be served. For the victims, for the American people, and for the sake of humanity. Otherwise massacres like My Lai and Haditha will continue to occur and the guilty will continue to go unpunished. The lesson will continue to be that our ideals state that we do not do these things but our actions tolerate these atrocities with a wink and a nod.