HADITHA MARINE SPEAKS PUBLICLY FOR FIRST TIME: SORRY CIVILIAN DEATHS HAPPENED BUT WOULD DO IT AGAIN

HADITHA MARINE SPEAKS PUBLICLY FOR FIRST TIME: SORRY CIVILIAN DEATHS HAPPENED BUT WOULD DO IT AGAIN
Thu Mar 15 2007 15:05:11 ET

He's sorry that civilians -- including women and children -- died when he and his men reacted to an attack that killed a comrade in Haditha, but Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich says today he would make the same decision that caused their deaths. Wuterich is charged with killing 18 civilians. He led three other Marines also charged with murder. His interview with Scott Pelley, the first time any of them has spoken publicly about that day, is part of a report to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, March 18 (7:00-8:00PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

"There is nothing that I can possibly say to make up or make well the deaths of those women and children, and I am absolutely sorry it happened that day," says Wuterich. Despite the outcome, Wuterich insists it was the right decision. "What I did that day, the decision that I made, I would make those decisions again today," he tells Pelley. "Those are decisions that I made in a combat situation and I believe I had to make those decisions."

One of those decisions, which Wuterich admits to in the interview, was shooting five unarmed Iraqi men in their backs. Wuterich says the men were running from a car that had appeared on the scene at about the same time their comrade was killed by a roadside bomb. Wuterich says their killing was justified; he says he identified them as having hostile intent toward the Marines. Wuterich also maintains that the Iraqi men disobeyed the orders of one of his squad members and that the Iraqis should have known what to do.

"Normally the Iraqis know the drill...if something happens...get down, hands up...They started to take off, so I shot at them," Wuterich says. Other Marines have told investigators that the Iraqis appeared to be following orders and were not fleeing. Pelley asks Wuterich how running away from the scene could have constituted hostile intent. He replies that he thought they may have detonated the roadside bomb. He adds, "But also at the same time, there were military-aged males that were inside that car. The only vehicle, the only thing that was out, that was Iraqi, was them. They were 100 meters away from that IED. Those are the things that went through my mind before I pulled the trigger. That was positive identification," Wuterich tells Pelley.

Another decision Wuterich made that day was to lead an attack on two houses. That attack killed three women and six children. The Marines attacked the first house with the permission of a superior officer because they thought two or three shots were fired at them from it. Wuterich says the Marines tossed a grenade into a room in the dwelling before determining who was inside. They pressed the attack with a charge through the door and gunshots to kill any survivors. According to Wuterich, this was the best way to clear a house safely, and he has no compunction about doing it. "You can't hesitate to make a decision. Hesitation equals being killed, either yourself or your men... That's what we do. That's how our training goes."

Wuterich says he saw that the attack on the first house had killed women and children. But he did not stop the assault, because he says he saw a back door open in the house and assumed the sniper had gone through it to the next house. "My responsibility as a squad leader is to make sure that none of the rest of my guys died ...and at that point we were still on the assault, so no, I don't believe [I should have stopped the attack]," he tells Pelley.

"We went through that house much the same, prepping the rooms with grenades, going in there, and eliminating the threat and engaging the targets," says Wuterich. In the second house, a man, two women and four children who ranged in age from 2 to 14, died. "Did we know that civilians were in there? No. It would have been one thing if we went in those rooms and looked at everyone and shot them," Wuterich tells Pelley. "We cleared these houses the way they were supposed to be cleared."

END

LIBERAL ARTS SCHOOL PRICK SPEAKS PUBLICLY FOR THE FIRST TIME: IF YOU SIGN UP TO DO THIS SHIT YOU ARE A MORON. REGRETS PAIN CAUSED BY STATEMENT BUT WOULD SAY IT AGAIN.

wot about all the rapey bits?

different people

I get kind of creeped out by this kind of language that tries to make total moral negligence seem like a principled, moral stance: "My responsibility as a squad leader is to make sure that none of the rest of my guys died." I.e., I am courageously on-mission and protecting my men -- but this also actively prohibits me from making moral judgments about what happens to other people, or balancing harm to others versus risk to my men, or anything of the sort. Which may even be a worthwhile way of going at combat, really, but it seems important to note what it means -- it means "I am amoral, I make no such judgments" -- especially when the same kind of rhetoric actually extends out into our political sphere, where there's no kind of heat-of-the-moment life-or-death pressure to keep you from thinking morally. (The president's job is to protect the country, full stop -- or are there moral judgments to make about protecting the country, maybe?)

isn't saying you'd do something again the opposite of being sorry for doing it once?

Kinda like the Milgram Experiment: i was just following orders, so am morally inculpable. One of the weird factors of the massive authoritarian follower part of the army is that they too follow the man, not the law. I.e. I'm commanded to do this, and this somehow overrides the standard UCMJ ordering me to disobey any illegal orders. With the unquestioning obeisance(and instantaneous shedding/transferring of guilt), it negates the very concept of "illegal orders."

FWIW, many Milgram Experiment participants subsequently experienced severe guilt and trauma, which is part of why experiments like that aren't done anymore.

isn't saying you'd do something again the opposite of being sorry for doing it once?

I was going to say this earlier, but note that he's not sorry for doing it -- he's sorry about the consequences and results, not the actions themselves.

Kinda like "I'm really sorry you're broke and jobless, but I had to fire you because you weren't doing good work."

IF YOU SIGN UP TO DO THIS SHIT YOU ARE A MORON.

That's putting it mildly. I think the word you're looking for is psychopath. I can think of some other things that deserve to be "prepped" with grenades.

Kinda like "I'm really sorry you're broke and jobless, but I had to fire you because you weren't doing good work."

thats a poor analogy

I am courageously on-mission and protecting my men -- but this also actively prohibits me from making moral judgments about what happens to other people, or balancing harm to others versus risk to my men, or anything of the sort. Which may even be a worthwhile way of going at combat, really, but it seems important to note what it means -- it means "I am amoral, I make no such judgments"

I'm not sure that it really means that, in fact I think it means the opposite, i.e. a very specific judgment:

"My duty is to my men, and not to these civilians; if civilians die, it's unfortunate, but their well-being is specifically less important -- in fact, specifically disregarded, with regard to that of my men. I take no pleasure in killing civilians, but their safety is not a priority in any way, and I will not endanger my men in any way to ensure their safety. If I'm assigned a mission that could lead to civilian casualties [like attacking a house], I will incur no extra risk of any kind to my men to prevent those casualties, even if it might save civilian lives."

The question is, of course, how many civilian lives = one soldier's life (from "our" side)? Five? Ten? Ten thousand? I mean, this is basically tribalism: "Better that a thousand of you should die, than one of us." But in fairness, survival in war generally depends on some degree of tribalism.

That being said, there's a hell of a difference between rolling a grenade into a house, and shooting someone who's running away from you in the back. The former is basically saying "Yes, there might be kids inside, but I'm not going to endanger my men to find out"; the latter is saying something much closer to "Kill 'em all".

http://www.vinylmusic.co.uk/images/cover_pix/4024.jpg?osCsid=fa895f2c6ba845c34c6dff22a073637c

MIKE LOVE, NOT WAR

thanks nabisco, for articulating my anger

although i am even more creeped out by the ease with which people can be made to these things

ie milgram, world history, etc