BCT Editorial – 6/4/06

This page was last updated on June 4, 2006.

No excuses; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 4, 2006.

I’m withholding judgment on the Haditha incident until we have all the facts. That won’t happen until the Pentagon completes its investigation or until after the courts martial if charges are filed. All we have right now is a “trial by leaks.”

If the allegations turn out to be false, it would not be the first time. In the most recent example, Reuters reported, “A U.S. military probe has exonerated U.S. troops in the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Ishaqi in March [2006], finding American forces followed standard procedures and committed no misconduct.”¹ In another example, a Marine officer was charged with premeditated murder.² Only after his name was dragged through the mud was autopsy evidence presented that corroborated the marine’s testimony that he acted in self-defense.³

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“This is not to excuse the Marines involved if the allegations in regard to the killings in the Iraqi town of Haditha turn out to be true, but they should never have been there in the first place.”

[RWC] I hope I’m wrong, but based on the content of this editorial, I believe the Times would love it if the allegations turned out to be true.

“They would not have been there if the Bush administration had heeded warnings by experts that the United States needed a large military force to occupy Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The resulting chaos the Marines [sic] Corps, the Army and others are dealing with in Iraq is the direct result of this administration’s dismissal of advice it didn’t want to hear.”

[RWC] Exactly how would having two to three times as many troops in Iraq have helped address this issue? The enemy isn’t standing up and fighting on battlefields. Whether former Saddamist or terrorist, he’s wearing civilian clothes, hiding among the general population, and using innocents as cover during attacks.

Unlike the editorial author, I don’t believe I’m a military expert. Would more troops have made a difference? I don’t know, and neither does the editorial author. Let’s be clear. In the eyes of the opposition, any decision made by the Bush administration is wrong by definition.

Regarding the “advice it didn’t want to hear” comment, that’s BS. Had the decision been made to go with “a large military force,” we’d be reading editorials claiming that the large number of troops sent the wrong message to Iraqis and was the reason for the instability.

One last point. Many of those who allegedly wanted to involve more troops also predicted our troops would be slaughtered during the invasion phase of the conflict.

“They should not have been there because Marines are not police officers. Marines are not occupiers. Marines are not social workers. Marines are trained for combat.”

[RWC] Where to begin? This is the most ridiculous paragraph in a ridiculous editorial.

It’s true marines are not police officers, occupiers, or social workers but are trained for combat. That’s true for Army soldiers as well. Of course, that’s the very reason we have marines and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In case the Times doesn’t know it, you don’t attack and/or defend against the enemy – especially well-armed terrorists – with “police officers” and “social workers.” Let’s say terrorism like that in Iraq broke out in the U.S. Would the Times lobby for keeping the Army and Marine Corps in their barracks because they aren’t “police officers” and “social workers?”

Based on this paragraph, it appears the Times feels combating terrorism is a law enforcement exercise. That’s how we treated terrorism prior to 9/11.

“No American wants to see the Corps’ name dragged down by this incident. No American wants to think that it is possible for other Americans to commit such atrocities. No American wants to excuse what took place. But no American should put the blame solely on the men involved in this incident. The Bush administration is to blame, too, for misusing the Marines Corps.”

[RWC] “No American wants to see the Corps’ name dragged down by this incident.” If only that were true. In the minds of too many, and it’s my opinion that includes the Times, I believe the goal of bashing the Bush administration is worth any cost. It’s the old “the end justifies the means” philosophy.

“Allegations” in the first paragraph changed to fact by the fourth. Note there is no use of “alleged” in “But no American should put the blame solely on the men involved in this incident. The Bush administration is to blame…” Apparently the author went to the Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) school of jurisprudence. Guilty until proven innocent appears to be a philosophy of those who claim to support the troops, just not their mission.

If the Haditha allegations prove true, outlets like the Times will use the incident to tar the entire military because that would be the only way to dump it into President Bush’s lap. The Times is laying the foundation for that tactic with this paragraph.

If the Haditha allegations prove false, and I hope they do, outlets like the Times will ignore the exoneration and move onto some other anti-Bush attack. You will read no apology to the accused marines from the Times or any others in the assume-the-worst crowd.

“We can only repeat what we have written before: The Bush administration is destroying a first-class military organization. There can be no excuse for that.”

[RWC] It’s true the Times has made this assertion before and for quite a while, since at least September 2004. Given how long the Times has been making this allegation, our military should no longer be “first class” if the allegation were true.

1. Troops cleared in Iraqi deaths in Ishaqi; Will Dunham; Reuters; June 2, 2006.

2. Marine Officer Cleared In Killing of Two Iraqis; Tom Forman, Jr. – Associated Press; The Washington Post; May 27, 2005.

3. Mr. Murtha’s Rush to Judgment; Ilario Pantano (letter to the editor); The Washington Post; May 28, 2006.