The Haditha incident
The past two days have returned a couple of conflicting takes on what happened Nov. 19, 2005, in the Iraqi village of Haditha. Lt. Col. Paul Ware, in a report released Tuesday, urged that charges of murder against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt be dropped.
In a written report, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said the evidence shows that Sharratt's actions Nov. 19, 2005, “were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force.”
Sharratt's attorneys made the report public yesterday.
At a preliminary hearing last month, Sharratt, who faces three counts of murder, said he shot the three Iraqi men only after one of them pointed a gun at him. In the report, Ware, who presided over last month's hearing, said Sharratt's version is “strongly corroborated by independent forensic analysis of the death scene.”
Wednesday, a different investigator had a drastically different take on the responsibility of one of Sharratt's superiors.
The leader of a battalion involved in the killings of 24 Iraqis in Haditha should face a court-martial for dereliction of duty, the investigating officer recommended in a report obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, 43, was charged in December with dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order for failing to report and investigate the deaths of the men, women and children in the biggest U.S. criminal case involving civilian deaths to come out of the Iraq war.
The investigating officer, Col. Christopher Conlin, wrote that Chessani should face all charges.
So, Chessani should face charges for not investigating an incident where another officer determined that no crime occurred.
Both rulings cannot stand -- their conclusions are mutually exclusive.
There's an old axiom in the military that it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. But that's something that men and women in the field trying to kill terrorists and protect themselves from insurgents wearing civilian garb shouldn't be spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about. The so-called "gray area" in a combat zone should be large enough to encompass all but the most egregious or outrageous behavior.
Both Sharratt and Chessani should walk.
0 comments on “The Haditha incident”
Tags
Not so fast, Matt. The issue with LtCol Chessani is that he allegedly failed to thoroughly investigate and forward "credible" reports against men under his command. This could be overzealous prosecution, but I'd hesitate to say it's totally speculative. OTOH, based on what I have read, if I were on the court martial board, I'd vote to acquit him. It is a combat zone, and he didn't whitewash anything. It's not like you can send out a forensic team, and the "witnesses" believe lying to an unbeliever is a virtue.
The case against the enlisted Marines should never have gotten this far. From what I've read, the marks from the bullets impact support the Marine's stories, not the Iraqis.
I think the Marines are a little too quick to prosecute their own. Recall the case of Lt Pantero, now the Haditha 8 or whatever it is. I'd like the Commandant to require JAG prosecutors to serve a tour with a rifle platoon before being qualified to prosecute a combat zone case.
My enlisted service is Vietnam era, but I'd hesitate to join, now, after this.
Seems the US military wants to throw a few snuffies under the bus in every confrontation since Viet Nam. Facts don't matter, but it is probably supposed to mollify the hippies.
The thoroughness of Chessani's investigation -- or alleged lack thereof -- is based entirely on the fact that Chessani didn't come up with charges similar to those of the follow-on investigation spurred by media reporting of the incident. Now you've got another officer looking at the follow-on investigation and determining that it doesn't hold water -- which was Chessani's position in the first place.
We've apparently got two lessons here if you want to avoid possible prosecution based on 20/20 hindsight: If you're an enlisted man -- make sure you get shot first, preferably a flesh wound if you can manage it. If you're an officer, and there's the slightest bit of doubt as to whether a violation of the rules of engagement might have occurred -- indict the grunts to cover your own butt.
Unfortunately, those lessons are not only bad for morale, but they're sure to get troops killed.