Haditha Pushback

A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his attorney said.

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

This is apparently the first statement from anyone who has direct knowledge of the events relating to the Haditha incident. Other soldiers and witnesses have thus far made statements relating to what they saw after the alleged incident occurred.

Still, it would behoove anyone reading Sgt. Wuterich's statements to await the results of the investigation, including forensics and potential autopsy results. Thus far, the families have not agreed to allow forensic examination of the remains of those alleged to have been involved in the incident. Such an examination could yield exculpatory evidence that could exonerate those Marines, or else find that some of the Marines committed criminal acts in Haditha.

UPDATE:
Quite a few folks have taken notice of the Washington Post article that relates statements made by Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, who is the only person to have been actually involved in the alleged incident. Will this particular news story get nearly the same kind of widespread coverage as the initial reports, and attendant statements from politicians, including one Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)? I'm not convinced.

Democracy Project notes that Wuterich states that the rules of engagement were followed, and while there were civilian casualties, they were not purposeful or intended. Indeed, it would fit the modus operandi of the terrorists and insurgents who hide behind civilian populations - so that the US can be blamed for any resulting casualties.

In Search of Utopia shares my observation that we should wait for the investigation to be completed before pass judgment. The truth about Haditha will lie somewhere in the murky middle.

Rick Moran thinks that there needs to be better reporting and more investigations into Haditha:

This much is clear more than two weeks after the story broke that Marines in Haditha allegedly massacred 24 civilians “in cold blood,” a descriptive used by Representative John Murtha who supposedly has seen excerpts of the military report on the incident.

One side or the other is lying in spectacular fashion.

And not just little inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony that one would expect in a war zone either. There are extremely disturbing indications that press reports detailing eyewitness accounts have failed to reconcile what Iraqis in Haditha were telling them with other known facts that were either conveniently left out or ignored altogether. There are also clear and unambiguous cases where Iraqi eyewitnesses have changed their stories 2, 3, and even more times.

While it is not unusual for small details to be lost or found in different translations, these discrepancies are huge, up to and including one 12 year old girl (or 13 or 15 depending on which report you are reading) being in different houses, being shielded from the wrath of the Americans by 3 different family members, and telling completely different and ever more bloodcurdling details of how the Marines killed her family.

Hot Air has a roundup and asks the key question - what would you have done?

Mudville Gazette notes:

The accounts given are actually consistent - on the broader story - with reports from Iraqi civilians (houses were entered, non-combatants were killed). But the Devil's in the details, as they say, and in this case (as with most such cases) that's where divergence occurs.

The issue will indeed be settled by a determination of whether the Marines followed rules of engagement for the circumstances. Two questions that are key to that issue are 1) did they correctly assess the situation and 2) did they respond appropriately to that assessment. On-the-scene decision makers have broad latitude to act in response to attack (this is not to imply they can shoot children with reckless abandon), must rely on training and experience to do so (the Marines had both), and obviously can't pull out an instruction manual to determine what to do in any combat situation.

It's worth noting that there are two investigations ongoing into events at Haditha, and that this report addresses both. The first is to determine what happened, the second to evaluate if a "cover up" followed. Obviously, initial reports that civilians were killed by the IED were wrong - but initial reports more often than not are wrong.

Sweetness and Light, who's been all over the inconsistencies and misleading reporting on the Haditha incident thinks that Wuterich's explanation and description of actions and events is the most likely explanation for what happened.

Still others blogging: Sister Toldjah, Blue Crab Boulevard, AJ Strata, Stop the ACLU, Confederate Yankee, Ranting Profs, Politburo Diktat, Dan Riehl, Blue Star Chronicles, and Atlas Shrugs.