Haditha Marines you can do so by going to these sites.
Posted on 05/05/2007 6:07:07 PM PDT by RedRover
Recently unclassified documents suggest that senior officers viewed the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in late 2005 as a potential public relations problem that could fuel insurgent propaganda against the American military, leading investigators to question whether the officers’ immediate response had been intentionally misleading.
Col. R. Gary Sokoloski, a lawyer who was chief of staff to Maj. General Richard A. Huck, the division commander, approved a news release about the killings that investigators interviewing him in March 2006 suggested was “intentionally inaccurate” because it stated, contrary to the facts at hand, that the civilians had been killed by an insurgent’s bomb.
According to a transcript of the interview, Colonel Sokoloski told the investigators, “We knew the, you know, the strategic implications of being permanently present in Haditha and how badly the insurgents wanted us out of there.”
But Colonel Sokoloski told them he believed that the news release was accurate as written.
“At the time, given the information that was available to me and the objective to get that out for the press” before insurgents put out their own information, “that is what we went with.”
The documents also show that derailing enemy propaganda was important to senior Marine commanders, including Col. Stephen W. Davis, a highly regarded regimental commander under General Huck, who played down questions about the civilian killings from a Time magazine reporter last year, long after the attacks and the civilian toll were clear to the military.
“Frankly, what I am looking at is the advantage he’s giving the enemy,” Colonel Davis said of the reporter, Tim McGirk....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
By the way, the first Article 32 in the Haditha case will be on May 8th. Get the lowdown at this thread: Haditha Article 32: Capt. Randy W. Stone
“The documents also show that derailing enemy propaganda was important to senior Marine commander”
Times, purveyors of liberal propoganda on a daily basis, state this as if it is somehow surprising or shocking.
It is obvious that this was a set up from the very beginning. The insurgents were embedded in the civiliian’s house, inviting, no doubt provoking, what happened. Likely with accusations to make against our Marines in mind. Outrageous that this country recognized those accusations!
Of course the NY Times seems to think that our military shouldn’t use propaganda as a technique to defeat the enemy, and that there is something wrong with our military leaders putting out information which is calculated to damage the enemy. What a bunch of fools.
No doubt the NY Times staff thinks every thing the terrorists say is true...
It figures, he's a lawyer after all. No doubt his pals took care of him.
There, I fixed it.
It’s not clear to me where these quotes by Capt. Stone originated. Are they what the captain told investigators or from some other source? I can’t make it out. Can you?
Also, if you’ll allow me to speculate...
This article isn’t unfavorable to Capt. Stone, but it is unfavorable to the Corps. One can wonder if all the leaks in the Haditha case are coming from people who want to hurt the accused—or the Corps itself.
Your version is much more accurate!
I read somewhere (please don’t ask me for a link because I can’t remember where!) that Gen. Huck’s retirement has been held up until the Haditha matter is put to rest.
Frankly, it’s not impossible that the defense attorneys could be leaking (fighting fire with fire).
But it could also be the same “senior defense officials” who are out to settle some kind of score with the Corps.
Ironically, once the cat was out of the bag that the civilians were not killed the way the initial report stated, the revised propaganda apparently called for mollifying the Haditha locals by railroading the Marines who were there.
One propaganda effort has simply replaced the other.
And a bunch of good Marines are caught in the middle.
What a friggin disgrace.
Man, I am getting so damned tired of seeing killing of 24 Iraqi civilians stated as fact.
If the NY Times is correct about that rule, General Huck is probably as rightly frustrated as anyone would be when you have to fight a war with rules as arbitrary as those. I wonder if they run those investigations in the Air Force?
I guess he is supposed to run the calculation for every firefight, IED explosion, etc. And if the US casualties happen to be low enough then he investigates. Imagine if this attack had been more of a success for the enemy - then he wouldn't have to investigate. Sounds totally backwards to me. I would think he should investigate what went wrong when there are a lot of US casualties, not the opposite!
The proper test for assessing whether an attack led to excessive civilian casualties can't be just a numerical ratio, but depends on the overall circumstances, but even if it was, the ratio should be enemy combatants killed to civilian casualties.
The General should have 100% of his attention on winning, not following bureaucratic rules that look like they were drafted by some guy at a the SEC or IRS, or Congress.
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.