Posted on 03/18/2007 3:58:18 PM PDT by RedRover
60 Minutes wanted to know more about how Marines face this choice – between killing civilians or risking their men. We spoke to a Marine who led a platoon through some of the most hostile territory in Iraq. Donovan Campbell, now a Reserve Captain, estimates he cleared at least 50 houses.
"We have a saying: 'Always know your target and what’s beyond it. And no matter what, whether you think you’re probably going kill everyone inside, you still need to know exactly what your target is. Who is it that I’m shooting when I go through the door,'" Campbell says.
Capt Campbell, you may be a general one day, but not on the backs of our Haditha Marines. I cannot question your service, but I will question your motives. I say it is preposterous that you had eyes on your every adversary in the clearing of at least 50 houses. Sgt Byron Norwood had eyes on his adversary in a house in Fallujah..right before he took a bullet in the head. 7 Recon Marines tried to put eyes on their adversaries in the Haditha Hospital.. all 7 are now dead.
I can't question your service, but I will question your motives. You should resign your commission in the Marine Corps immediately and go into politics. Murtha probabaly has a position for you right now.
Darryl Sharratt
You refer to SSgt. Frank Wuterich,although you never say his name, as a "young man", "this young kid", "young soldier","this kid","the kid".
Now I know you just signed up today here at Free Republic, and you're obviously chaffing at the bit to enlighten us all, but be that as it may....
The MAN is a MARINE, his name is FRANK WUTERICH, he's a STAFF SERGEANT in the CORPS.
Remember that, the next time you wish to share your wisdom around here.
Thanks!
He appeared to be in complete control of his emotions, despite being on national TV with an ignorant and hostile ahem..."journalist" being asked slanted questions about murdering 24 people, a trait highly uncharacteristic of one who might go "berserk!!"(I always liked that word, by the way). He was unflappable.
That said, I believed in him from day 1, and still do today. Now that I've had a chance to watch his mannerisms as he testifies to doing some ghastly things, I am even more convinced he was doing his duty.
I think he interviewed as well as could be expected, although I don't really know if this helped him. We'll never know what ended up on the cutting room floor...
Hey, smooth! I appreciate like heck where you've been, but I'm still glad to have you back.
I wish he had showed a little more emotion, myself. (And read my entire reasoning before jumping on me for this)
Innocent people generally recoil when being seriously charged with a heinous crime. Guilty people often remain calm and collected, and stick to their story. Now, in this particular case, I think that there was no deliberate murder, just a series of bad decisions that were more or less within the framework of the ROE. These bad decisions, while marginally legally supportable, turned out to have catastrophic results.
Now, anyone can make a mistake, even an inexperienced person following the guidelines and doing the right thing. The scene in Iraq, especially that route, was a bad one. I'll tell you firsthand that those roads are 99.9 percent an ocean of boredom, where you never see the shark till it has your foot. That kind of stress wears on you. And, in the end, our government would rather let Marines die than risk mistakes like this making it to the news. So the deck is already stacked well against him.
Still, emotion would have been better displayed than held. I know a lot of interrogators that have taught me about guilt and innocence, and a tell tale sign of someone who is hiding something is being overly calm and collected when charged with something they didn't do. In fact, I know people that have killed when they absolutely had to, and they're more affected when they talk about it. The problem here is that Wuterich showed very little remorse at killing a lot of unarmed people.
All context, ROEs and legal justifications aside, people without any understanding of the event or human nature instinctively pick up on that. People who make horrific mistakes, even steely eyed gunslingers trained for battle that basically did nothing wrong, would show some kind of visible reaction to the slimy questions that jackass reporter asked.
It's certainly no admission of guilt, but it doesn't paint him in a very good light. The other possibility, which wouldn't particularly help, is that he has the common Marine attitude towards Iraqis. Namely, that they're about as human as cockroaches. That may explain his lack of reaction and remorse, but again, the only thing the average viewer is going to take from that is his lack of emotion in what should be an emotional interview.
At any rate, we'll see what the trial brings. I just think that this was an interview that should have been avoided by the defense.
I think the only benefit to this must be publicity.
There's been terrible coverage of the Haditha operation. It's been confused by a congressman, it's been mixed up with Hamdaniya and others, it's been presented as a cut-and-dried "murder in cold blood" case, and it has been presented as already decided.
Above all, there really hasn't been much at all. Very little. Most Americans don't even know about it.
I think the lawyer wanted 60 minutes for the simple purpose of elevating visibility. And everytime someone gets into the facts of the case, and realizes that these Marines applied current infantry tactics according to the then-in-effect Rules of Engagement, they come away saying, "There are definitely 2 sides to this story, and the Marine in charge should be heard." Perhaps it will cause folks to read Wutterich's account.
One thing very important to me is that Wutterich was a young buck sergeant (E5) at the time. He looks real young now, and he looked much younger then.
Are we really going to take some guy who was about 23 at the time and punish him for decisions he made to stay alive in the middle of a firefight in the middle of a war? He was the senior guy on station at the time they were attacked and fired upon.
If there's a travesty here, that would definitely be it.
In the middle of getting your buddy killed and getting fired at, EVERYONE who is maneuvering in the vicinity is the enemy. Anyone who wants a "PERFECTLY clean" combat zone that also houses "civilians" is asking for something that has NEVER happened in warfare and NEVER will.
Probably because he was the senior NCO on-site, and any shots fired were done in accordance with his orders.
That's my best guess.
His age has nothing to do with it. The question is whether his decision to fire upon civilians was legally justifiable. It is an admittedly close question - it was a combat zone, but he simply rolled a grenade into a house where he heard noise, which doesn't sound like positive identification to me (but, of course, I've never been in combat).
Thanks for the transcript RedRover, I can't get the network channels.
Wish I could say the same!
I disagree, jude. Profoundly disagree. His age has a huge amount to do with it.
We're in the middle of March Madness, and a day hasn't gone by when some older team or player hasn't been mentioned. It is a given that their age makes a huge difference in their ability to handle the pressure of a mere basketball game. Someone's trying to put a round ball through a net, and it's the subject of national discourse. BYU, with its Mormon "elder" players, some now married with children and in their mid-twenties, made it to the tournament on the basis of their experience and greater clarity of mind, credited to their age.
No one even questions it. Why? Because it's true. Age and experience matter.
Where are the "free fire" leagues that Wutterich's been on through his youth preparing him for this moment? Where are the youth "live-fire combat" leagues and coaches for youth "live-fire combat" teams? They don't exist, and that means that a 23 year old, inexperienced man getting buddies killed, getting shot at himself, and getting nervous about his own continued existence is going to make the best decisions he can at that moment to stay alive....simply stay alive.
No one knows what that's like except those who've also been there. What do you tell a soldier who's driving through a town who has an Iraqi jump in front of the vehicle.... trying to get them to stop? Do you tell him it's an innocent attempt to get a question asked, or do you tell him "barrel on, and if the guy can get out of the way, he'll live, but if he can't, he'll die. But if you stop, you know that even one unfriendly in that crowd of people nearby will kill you for the kindness you've displayed in stopping for them."
What do the ROEs say about that? What does a father say to child? What would you say to your young soldier-son or daughter?
Someone in Mao's China, I believe, wrote a book entitled "War in not a Dinner Party."
Ignorant people will apply the same standards to war deaths as they do to young men who kill in their comfy suburbs back home where no one is stalking them, no one is killing their buddies, and no one is firing on them from buildings. Our city and suburb youthful murderers have malicious intent.
Battlefield kills by youthful enlisted and commissioned members of our Armed Forces have the intent of self-preservation in a totally chaotic, world gone mad.
And if the world is insane, then being insane yourself at that time is the ultimate in sanity.
The problem is that Sgt Wuterich only saw a small piece of the picture that day. Pelley was hammering Frank with questions that others would have been in a better position to answer.
For instance, we know from the leaked NCIS report that Lt Kallop saw muzzle flashes coming from the first house. He ordered Cpl Salinas to clear it. A fire team was formed that included Sgt Wuterich. Pelley chose not to fill in any of those gaps in the sergeant's account.
Pelley said that others declined to be interviewed. He neglected to say that Frank couldn't be interviewed now either. Everyone was ordered not to talk about the case when charges were filed.
Thankfully, the 60 Minutes studio is not a courtroom.
Let's not forget what the situation in Haditha was like at the time of the incident. Pelley pretty much glossed it over by saying that most of the residents were against the soldiers but were not armed. Completely untrue... just read some of the stories - it was an insurgent hotbed. The IED's were buried UNDER PAVED ROADS - not just stuck on the side of the street. The detonators were wired to the electrical poles. BUT... the residents were simply "innocent civilians"? Bravo Sierra - they were terrorist sympathizers and willing accomplices to the murders of coalition soldiers. They hid behind women and children. It's also well known that the terrorists use children for lookouts and distractions...
It's Monday morning and I'm still pissed... Sorry for the rant...
If I make a small mistake on the job, no big deal. The biggest mistake I can make will be caught and corrected down the line. And I'm blamed for something over which I have no control, the very worst that can happen is that I'll be fired. Puts things in perspective.
E-mail to you and a ping to a piece by Neal Boortz. Maybe the interview will help get some conservative yakkers on our side.
Hi SmoothSailing and RedRover, and thanks for the kind welcomes here. Yes I did just sign up yesterday and I did watch 60 Minutes and I finally had the nerve to comment.
Red you asked what the heck am I talking about. My only point is that courtmartials don't come from politicians or television talking heads. They come from the military. I trust them to sort out what happened and to either convict or acquit. I pray for our troops every day, and especially those who suffer through horrible incidents like this one. I believed him 100% in that interview.
Smooth, I do not appreciate being screamed at just because I didn't refer to the soldier, Frank Wuterich, by name in my post as you demanded. I feel a lot of compassion for him and as I as watching, all I can tell you is that what was going through my heart and head was that he did look so young, and I felt terrible for him. I am not going to apologize for that. I wish him all the best in his court martial.
First, SSGT Wuterich is a Marine, not just a soldier.And last, I demand nothing of you, nor do I ask you to apologize for anything. As for me screaming at you, let's just say I got your attention, and whether you appreciate that or not is irrelevent.
I might add that I'm encouraged that you appear supportive of SSGT Wuterich.Welcome to Free Republic.
Hey, Jim, I'm feeling neglected. I posted to you, as well, but I didn't get a response. :-) I guess I forgot to welcome you. I don't normally look at when someone signs up since I'm pretty new myself (I is just a girlene). So, welcome.
It's good to hear you pray for our troops, and that you believed Frank was telling the truth. I don't have as much faith as you in certain aspects of the investigative system at play here, specifically NCIS. Sometimes they appear driven to find a crime and convict versus ensuring justice. But, NCIS doesn't control the whole UCMJ process, so I'll hope this gets "sorted out" properly.
The one thing apparent on this thread is that most posters were passionately repelled by any negativity toward the accused Marines. At least that's my take.
I still disagree. I too have been present for --not military-- but certainly many law enforcement interrogations. I have also studied the crimes of over 100 serial killers.
It really could be interpreted in 2 ways. 1 - he's a sociopath and has no remorse, and 2 that he has a free conscience.
By showing remorse, that is an indication that you feel what you did was wrong. Unpopular, tragic, perhaps a mistake made while being shot at, yes. legally or morally wrong, I think no.
Innocent people get indignant, and forcefully say they did not murder anyone. But so do guilty ones. The difference is, guilty ones usually sweat, blink, fidget, avoid eye contact or send some other signal that they're uncomfortable what that line of questioning. Unless of course one is a psychopath, and it would be pretty hard to argue that in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.