Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Marines & Morality in Haditha

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

By Nicholas Provenzo, cross-posted from The Rule of Reason



I was recently asked about my thoughts on the alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians by Marines in Haditha last November. I think we all can agree that current US policy is not to target non-combatants, and certainly not wantonly as is alleged here (I for one think justice demands the investigation be concluded before flying off the deep end).

Nevertheless, here are a few observations:

1.) There is no charge of a cover-up, like there was in My Lai during the Vietnam War. The top Marine commanders seem resolute in finding out exactly what took place in Haditha, determine if it was a crime, and prosecute those responsible.

2.) What does bother me, is if the charges do prove true, this incident indicates a severe loss of moral in at least one Marine unit in Iraq and a general disrespect for the commander's intent. No one has authorized the massacre of civilians as retaliation for the death of American forces. Marines must understand what their commanders seek to achieve and follow their lawful orders to the letter, even if their rage and contempt for the enemy gets in the way.

3.) That said, I deeply disagree with the idea of an enemy "non-combatant" under the so-called "law of land warfare;" that is, a policy that separates the enemy's fighters from the civilian population that makes the war against us possible. The insurgents don't exist in a vacuum; they move freely in the towns and villages and are given comfort and aid by the local populations. Why then should the Iraqi "non-combatants" who support them be exempt from the full effect of this war, if by targeting them, the war would end sooner, and American lives would be saved? If the Iraqi people are guilty of action against the United States, why shouldn't they pay for it until they chose to surrender? I can think of no honest reason--except the view that the US must sacrifice its men to utter savages.

4.) And that's why although I would disagree with the actions of the accused Marines if the charges against them prove true, I can understand why it happened. One can only suffer savagery (and the seeming indifference to savagery) to a point. Beyond that point, one does become susceptible to rage and the unjustifiable conduct that comes from rage. If there was a practical plan for victory in Iraq, I don't think men would be driven to massacre innocents. I wonder then if this alleged incident indicates a sense of hopelessness on the ground in Iraq, and if that's the case, I hold that it would be us back home who would be to blame for that.

At root (and I've said this several times before), the population in Iraq that opposes our troops should feel as much of the horrors of war as did those Southerners who opposed the Union during the American Civil War. I believe America ought to let lose a modern day General Sherman to break the back of the civilian population that supports the insurgents. Let the jihadists come to learn that fighting against the US equals death to everything they hold dear--and a pointless, futile death at that. The men we ask to fight on our behalf deserve nothing less.



http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000871.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I don't know whom I loathe more, the politicians whom ask our soldiers to come up with last minute solutions to impossible problems that they helped create, or the damned media that keeps portraying them in the worst possible way they can. Unfortunately we can not visit the true justice upon these insurgents until we clean up our culture of self-hatred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Nicholas Provenzo, cross-posted from The Rule of Reason

1.) There is no charge of a cover-up, like there was in My Lai during the Vietnam War. The top Marine commanders seem resolute in finding out exactly what took place in Haditha, determine if it was a crime, and prosecute those responsible.

I am just curious to know why the military paid compensation to the victims' families but concluded in their final report that the deaths as the result of an IED. The military pays compensation only when it is responsible. This raised some questions in my mind as to whether there was a larger cover-up.

If the soldiers are guilty, then they were wrong to do what they did. What bothers me so much about the military's handling of this is the fact that it thinks that ethics training is the answer to keeping this from happening again. Ethics training? Who is the teacher? Just what is it that they are teaching?

Why isn't anyone asking whether this reflects the psychological effects of serving in a war where you can't tell friend from foe (much like in Vietnam) and are constantly at risk of death everywhere you go and from everyone you see. Even the corpses of animals in the road must be avoided as they may be booby-trapped. Children are being used as suicide bombers. How can any of us even imagine what living in such conditions must be like? Again, I'm not saying that what they (allegedly) did was OK, but, instead of ethics training, perhaps the military should be screening soldiers for mental illness and getting them out of there.

Oh, wait. Then we might not have anyone left to continue this mess of a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...