The Haditha Massacre

[strat-0]

The difference in the messages is one is active and the other is passive.

rockysigman said:

Haditha is Iraq's My Lai. It's pretty horrible, but in a way its also completely understandable, and that's the worst part of the whole thing.

Quite. And "Understandable" does not in any way mean excusable, I would add.

[rockysigman]

Oh, absolutely not. It's not excusable in the least.

[kmc]

What do you guys think will come of this?

[rockysigman]

Probably nothing big. The soldiers themselves may be punished, but I'd be surprised if anyone overseeing the whole thing is held accountable at all.

[strat-0]

Maybe this time. Hardly any officers got in any trouble for Abu Graib; if any sanctioned this behavior, they should pay. They've ordered "core values training" for everybody, when probably few need it. I guess as with any cross section, you're going to have a criminal element.

[rockysigman]

I don't know that they really need to have "sanctioned" anything in order to be held accountable. There's got to be something said for leadership that creates an environment in which something like this won't happen, regardless of whether or not it was officially sanctioned. A well lead military simply will not do something like this.

[strat-0]

True dat.

Although they can't control everybody all the time.

[chrisfan]

I can see what you're saying Rocky, but I just don't think I can go there. For a comparison - should the principal of Columbine High School have been held accountable for the actions of Harris and Klebold?

[rockysigman]

I don't think the principal of a high school has the same responsibilities towards students as military leaders have towards their subordinates. It's a false comparison. A slightly closer comparison would be to hold the parents accountable for something like that (which, I might add, many people did call out for at the time of Columbine), but even then it's not a fair comparison. In civilian society, people have a whole lot more freedom in regards to the actions they take. In the military, the commanders are in charge, plain and simple. And they usually even say as much, when things are going well. It's only when something disastrous happens that they try to push the responsibility off on the soldiers (not that the soldiers aren't responsible--of course the ultimate responsibility is on those who committed the acts).

The fact of the matter is that a massacre like this would not happen if the military leadership was better. It's entirely possible (hell, likely) for one soldier to go off his rocker and do something horrible when confronted with the horrors of a warzone. But for a large group of soldiers to do it all at once indicates that there was something greater happening, whether it be poor directives (if these guys actually thought that this was something they were supposed to do) or because the leadership simply failed to prepare their soldiers for the realities of war.

[chrisfan]

I just flat out don't agree Rocky. The military here is an employer. Yes, it's an employer with some very strict rules and regulations, but it is an employer nonetheless. The facts we know about this do not indicate that it was ordered. To the best of my knowledge, we don't even know enough facts at this point to know how many soldiers were involved. The military, or any other employer, can do a great deal to set standards and demands on subordinates - and they do. That does not mean that they can remove all bad behavior from subordinates, nor that they should automatically be held responsbile for shitty behavior of others.

[Kensterberg]

chrisfan said:

I just flat out don't agree Rocky. The military here is an employer. Yes, it's an employer with some very strict rules and regulations, but it is an employer nonetheless. The facts we know about this do not indicate that it was ordered. To the best of my knowledge, we don't even know enough facts at this point to know how many soldiers were involved. The military, or any other employer, can do a great deal to set standards and demands on subordinates - and they do. That does not mean that they can remove all bad behavior from subordinates, nor that they should automatically be held responsbile for shitty behavior of others.

But in the military, superiors are responsible for their subordinant's actions. If a private is continually screwing something up, it's up to his sergeant to correct him and train him to do it properly. (I'm using male pronouns out of convenience only, BTW). If the private is screwing up and his sergeant doesn't fix it, then both of them are going to have to answer to higher-ups. If a unit doesn't accomplish its mission b/c of a private not properly executing his job, his sergeants and the officers in the unit -- all the way up to the unit commander -- are going to feel the repercussions. That's the way the military works -- you're responsible for your troops' actions. Period.

Somebody was in charge of these men. There was a senior enlisted man out there, and could well have been a junior officer (most likely a Lt.) as well. That guy has to answer for what happened. Also, his commander, whether there or not, has to be held accountable for what he did (or did not do) that might have contributed/prevented this tragedy.

That's the way the military is supposed to run. Unfortunately, in the Bush era all government positions seem to have become "accountability free zones" where no one with any real power is ever saddled with blame ("You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie"), and so officers are getting away clean from situations that would've at least resulted in serious reprimands, if not career ending decisions, ten or twenty years ago.

Finally, even if we look at the military as "just like a private employer," employer's are responsible for the actions of their employees when the employee is acting within the scope of his employment. These soldiers, in patrolling and rounding up "suspects" were acting as soldiers, doing the sorts of things that soldiers do. Therefore their employer (the US military, including their immediate supervisors and chain of command) is responsible, even though the result of their acts (murdering civilians) may have been outside the scope of their employment.

[Kensterberg]

BTW, I think the Columbine comparison just doesn't fit here. This is more like if you had teachers who were beating up students -- if the principal knew about it, then you'd hold him liable, and if he wasn't doing anything to prevent it when he could have, you'd hold him (and the school) responsible.

Imagine if a teacher was sleeping with a student and the principal knew about it and allowed it to go on -- should the principal be punished, or just the teacher?

[chrisfan]

kenholzman said:

chrisfan said:

That's the way the military is supposed to run. Unfortunately, in the Bush era all government positions seem to have become "accountability free zones" where no one with any real power is ever saddled with blame ("You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie"), and so officers are getting away clean from situations that would've at least resulted in serious reprimands, if not career ending decisions, ten or twenty years ago.

That is horseshit Ken. Finish out that Brownie line of thinking ... where is he today? And why are military promotions being put on held until this incident is investigated?

[chrisfan]

kenholzman said:

BTW, I think the Columbine comparison just doesn't fit here. This is more like if you had teachers who were beating up students -- if the principal knew about it, then you'd hold him liable, and if he wasn't doing anything to prevent it when he could have, you'd hold him (and the school) responsible.

Imagine if a teacher was sleeping with a student and the principal knew about it and allowed it to go on -- should the principal be punished, or just the teacher?

This comparison does not work because you're talking about an ongoing action, rather than a one-time occurance. You're also talking about the higher up being aware of what was happening, which we don't know to be the case here.

[Kensterberg]

The point about Brown is that the President's first response to him (and to everyone else in this administration who has screwed up) has not been to hold him accountable, it's been to reward him.

But I really meant to refer to the fact that (despite credible evidence of officer sanctioning of the events in Abu Graib) no one of any significant rank was really held accountable for previous military abuses in Iraq. Similarly, friendly fire investigations have proceeded so slowly as to be non-existent, which in the past the military was quick to investigate, adjudicate, and dish out responsibility for.

IMO it's a very good thing that the military has had the good sense to hold all promotions for anyone who may be involved in this incident -- given the total lack of accountability the last three years, it seems to me to be a sign that there is beginning to be a restoration of normalcy to our military, a sense that we cannot simply justify any behaviour as "necessary to the war on terror" and hide it away. Or maybe they just know they've been caught here, I dunno.

Does all that make my position seem a little less like "horseshit"?