Marines Defend Decision to Stay Out of Falluja After Killings

Marines Defend Decision to Stay Out of Falluja After Killings
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/international/middleeast/01CND-IRAQ.html?hp

Published: April 1, 2004

ALLUJA, Iraq, April 1 — Marine commanders defended their decision today not to send troops into Falluja to quell the macabre disturbances that followed after four American civilians were killed and their bodies dragged through the streets.

More than 4,000 marines are stationed near the restive town in the Sunni Triangle but when the violence broke out on Wednesday and the streets of Falluja exploded in mayhem, Marine commanders decided not to intervene.

"Should we have sent in a tank so we could have gotten, with all due respect, four dead bodies back?" said Col. Michael Walker, a civil affairs commander. "What good would that have done? A mob is a mob. We would have just provoked them. The smart play was to let this thing fade out."

Col. Walker's statement makes me angry because if those four dead had been Marines they would have sent the entire division in there to get the bodies out, and rightfully so. But it's sheer hypocrisy. Is this the value our soldiers are being taught to place on human life, even that of their own fellow countrymen? :mad::mad::mad:

edit: Wonder if the families of those men killed think they were just "four dead bodies?" I'd like to see Col. Walker say that to their faces.

"With all due respect"
Exactly what are Col. Walker and his band of 4000 doing at their station? I think it his time to bring him and his crew back, to join the ranks of the unemployed, for all the fucking good they are doing in Iraq.

I'd be curious to know what the feeling was among the rank & file Marines, if there were at least a few of them ready and willing to go in there.

"Col. Walker's statement makes me angry because if those four dead had been Marines they would have sent the entire division in there to get the bodies out, and rightfully so."

My husband (a soldier in the army) was appalled when he heard that they did not immediately go to retrieve the bodies. Military or civilian, it was disrespectful.

Going in would have only led to civilan and marine casualties. If they were dead, it wasn't worth the risk.

Should the firefighters on 9/11 run back into the buildings, as they fell, to secure the bodies of the dead? You dont run into a mob with a can of mase unless you have a nuke to finish it off. Asking our troops to go in at that time would have meant much more death for us and them.

And the fact that Marines are absolutely fanatical about retrieving their own dead. From that perpective, it's sheer hypocrisy. Not to mention completely disrespectful to the dead and their families. Whether or not going in would have cost more lives, he still shouldn't have said it. Or he should have chosen his words more carefully.

All of the Branches of the armed forces use common sense 1st. To go in would only make matters worse and have more on both sides killed. Are you telling us all that if a family member you knew was allready dead, You would go in and risk your life for the body?

The Marines would do the same for thier own as they did for civilians. They are not a video game that can grow forces with a magic apple. They are numbered in Iraq.

:shrug: I thought we having an good rational debate until you started shouting at me. Nor did you apparently bother to read any of my other posts in this thread. Anyway, you missed the whole point of my reply, which was that, regardless of the situation, it was wrong for the guy to say what he did. We can argue all day about the pros/cons of mounting a retrieval mission, but that be a pointless waste of time. Bottom line is, with regards to the article, and the Col.'s statements, there is such a thing as tact. And the apparent lack of value our commanders are placing on their own civilian casualties , as indicated by statements such as this, are something to be concerned about. If, even in war, our respect for human life (and death) is declining that much, than we are truly in trouble.

I am reponding honestly and with some common sense. You need to answer my ? if you want to brand me as wrong. I will look for that in the morning as I have to go to bed. It is wrong to accept more lifes on both sides to go after bodies. I will stick to that till I die. Sorry you are offended, I was posting to preserve lifes. Have sweet dreams and hope to talk soon.

But I was trying to be descriptive, and I didn't intend it in any kind of negative context. Sorry about that. Catch you later.

Col. Chickens is probably talking out of his arse (Not that it makes his words any less disrespectful). That our commanders are unwilling to send soldiers into that city unless they have to, not even to retrieve the bodies of four Americans, is an indictator of how grim the situation has really gotten.

If I understand your whole argument right, he is a hypocrite for not mounting a rescue attempt for four corpse, when the idea is that you never leave behind an fallen comrade. Plus, he is something else bad which you really didn't define because he said as much publicly. And this incident is an indication to how badly the situation is.

Hmmm.....I'm not buying. As an indicator, I'd say whoever is in command in Falluja made a good call by staying away from that situation. Your version of Marine Corp Semper Fidelis is laughable. I doubt you've ever served in the ranks by your lack of understanding. As for your insults of a man you don't even know, walk a mile pal.

the Colonel there. It's easy for us to say they should've retrieved the bodies immediately out "respect".

That would've been REAL people putting their asses on the line.

Would you prefer Col. Walker have to face some other families and tell them their boys died to rescue men who were already dead? "Is this the value our soldiers are being taught to place on human life" let me repeat LIFE! Corpses = not-life

Or have him face some Iraqi parents to say their kids had died for
messing with corpses?

They ARE just empty shells that used to be people. When they are buried, worms and fungus will eat them. Don't fall for the propaganda. Take the Horror you feal at seeing the bodies mistreated and attach it to the ending of their lives, Much more important to those men than anything that happened after they ceased living.

Now hold the image and its horror and remember it when you see the headline almost DAILY - XX U.S. kids died today in Iraq.

Maybe they need to re-release Saving PvT Ryan. 20 years of growing, living, caretaking, schooling - BLAT - gone - BLAT - another one - BLAM - 3 more. A 20 year old is a huge investment, but it's so easy to kill them. Make it really hard to send them to war. Make our President look some families in the eye and tell them why he sent their kids to die.

Those who think a corpse is just a corpse, and those who believe it still has some sacred value. We could start a whole nother (rather morbid) discussion on that alone.

But I still think the guy was a** for saying what he did.

I totally agree with you that the Marine and other personnel in that area were probably ready to rock and go recover those bodies. As they should; the people on this board who squawk about mercenaries just desserts are fools at best. Had those guys been active mil it wouldn't have been an issue; there would have been a response on scene before a mob gathered.

But, as it was, the Marines had a choice. They either could have gone in there and prevented those bodies from being desecrated or they could sit back and wait until the sit calmed down to recover them. While it would have been honorable to go get those corpses, it wouldn't have been a good move.

Going into that mob would have involved some shooting, and "innocent" (Little Bill Daggett: Innocent? Innocent of what?)
Iraqi civilians would have died. That would have been an unacceptable operational developement, all other factors aside.

Garrison in Somalia had the option to go after the crowds with Little Birds choppers, mini-guns blazing. He could have recovered the bodies of the chopper crew and the Delta guys, sure. But he would have killed a lot of civvies doing it. Unacceptable. Just like this situation; unacceptable morally, politically, and operationally.

It's decisions like that by the US military that make those on DU who claim they are nothing but bloodthirsty murderers look so damn foolish.

Sorry, Mrs Smith, your husband's remains cannot be returned to you because he is being used as a soccer ball.

> Sorry, Mrs Smith, your husband's remains cannot be returned to you
> because he is being used as a soccer ball.

All they did is wait till half-time to avoid a riot on the pitch ...

Getting some already burned and mangled bits back a day earlier would
(not might, *would*) have cost lives.
It would have resulted in some injured and dead Iraqis.
It would have resulted in some injured and possibly dead marines.

For what?

For an unrecognisable bit of charred meat? For a bucketful of rags?
For a slightly used flak jacket? For a singed DoD ID card?

If that is how cheaply the US Marines' lives are valued, you are not
helping their cause at all.

We are not talking about sending out a rescue party for a bunch of guys
holed up under fire. We are not discussing escorted ambulances for
the wounded. The subject matter of the "recovery" operation didn't
care whether it was scooped up on Monday, Wednesday or Friday.

Why waste more life on things that no longer have life?

Nihil

count me among the "a corpse is a corpse" contingent. NOTHING could've been gained by sending troops in there. It would definitely have escalated the violence and many more people would've been killed.

I understand that seeing the bodies treated the way they were is very emotionally upsetting to a lot of people. But that doesn't warrant further loss of life.

The mercenaries were there by choice. The Marines are there because they were ordered there. I'm glad they stayed out of it.

.

Sorry, but the people died, it wasn't worth the risk to living humans to retrieve some "bodies", but that's just my 2 cents. That may be a "disrespectful opinion" but screw that, let the living stay alive and not die trying to rescue the dead. That's just stupid and illogical. There was nothing those Marines could have done to return the four mercenaries to life, so why risk their own lives??? No reason to have more dead to "rescue" some corpses. Just wait for the Red Cross or the Red Crescent, that's their part of their frickin' job and they do it without bloodshed.

I mean no disrespect to the dead or their families, but I wouldn't want some poor 21 year old kid coming after my body if it meant risking his life and likely dying, fuck that.

Seriously. Wheres Saddam? Gone. How can a foreign country act out the peoples will, especially with a foreign crook like Chalabi.

Meaning: from the viewpoint of the Iraqis and that of the Resistence: what kind of message did they get? They kill 4, chop up the bodies, burn/hang them, and we do nothing? To me we showed weakness. Yes we saved some lives by not going in but to me, we will lose a lot more because we didn't.

This incident sets the stage for worse attacks in the future. We know not what we do there, it is obvious.

This event was for us at home. To shock us, appall us, to provoke us. There will be a response, you can bank on that.

*jr. is sliding. His war is not as popular as it was a year ago. Those flags aren't flying on every available surface like they were then. The rah-rah support war rallies have quieted. People are beginning to question what's going on, even some of those who were gung-ho at the start. There's no shock and awe, no 'glory', no 'grab the popcorn Wilma - they're bombing the shit out of Baghdad again', no Jessica Lynch, no toppling statues, the deck of cards is wearing thin, the Power of Pride stickers are disappearing.

Any news that gets through is quiet news. Our military are being bunkered so *jr looks good. Those that come home injured are hidden, those that come home flag draped are never seen. *jr's war is disappearing. He calls himself the war pResident. Can't be one if you don't have one.

I condemn the brutal killings. All of them, each and every one. Most of them, we'll never hear of. Why not? This particular incident, we did. Why? Much has been made of it. Why? Horrifying pictures played again and again. again, Why? Why such a high profile?

Has it been played and replayed to rekindle the get yer war on sentiments? to fire up the 'kill them all and let God sort them out' base? Is that what we're seeing? Billions and billions of dollars spent - justified? So many lives lost, so many destroyed. They're animals, they're less than we are, we must rid the world of 'them'. Is that the conclusion we're supposed to come to? Is that what we're being told? Good vs. evil, baby. Ain't nothing but. Is that why we were made aware of this particularly gut-wrenching incident?

I question motives. I question everything. I question my own sanity.

Thank you for your post. Sorry for the sleepless night ramble.

May the families of the four people killed find some comfort and peace.

I disagree. It would show weakness to respond with immediate, indiscriminate force. That would show a lack of political will and a disregard for the lives of Iraqi civilians. Either one of those outcomes would have been desirable as far as the perpetrators of this attack are concerned.

The right thing to do is to step back, allow things to calm down, and then to find and kill those directly responsible. It shows a calm, just, measured attitude on the part of the US.

Remember, the West is on top of the world today because of our ability to employ ORGANIZED violence.

They get the message that we are above the kind of tactics Saddam employed. Be patient, then investigate, seek out and arrest only those responsible.

Besides, I'm sure most Iraqis are just as appalled by these acts as we are.

.
.
.

The decision to stay out, regardless of motive, was the better avenue.

The words were not well chosen. These are military, in a very stressful situation, not the silver,split-tongued devils that are in the WH with dozens of speech writers -

As far as the "weakness/strength" argument, remember one thing that the Iraqis can't forget

- these people are in THEIR country

- to the Iraqis they are defending their homeland from an invader, mixed in with revenge for the tens of thousands of dead and maimed family and friends at the hands of their "liberators".

- for the Military(read invaders) to enact "revenge" on the Iraqis will only fuel their anger and determination more . . .

Bush blew it,

It's that simple

"Are you fucking crazy? We go in there, that's our bodies swinging from a bridge"--they have been very cautious about even entering al-Fallujah for weeks now. The only occasions where they do, they end up making things far worse:--harassing or kidnapping the imans of mosques they invade, destroying houses or firing on a hospital, shooting random and/or non-random bystanders, arbitrary house to house invasions and kidnappings..

So I can see why they're hesitant to get in there, considering what they have to account for with the locals. That's not flowers that they'll be throwing, and the songs they'll sing are not what Vulcan Wolfie's propaganda lightning bolts had in mind.

how the heck did the Marines know that these folks were already dead?

Without going in and taking control of the situation, it is impossible to save anyone who might have still been alive. Besides how did the Marines know who was in there or whether or not they private contractors?


These folks were Americans and maybe they shouldn't have been in Falluja to begin with but does that mean, that your own people should just sit on the sidelines and not lift a finger to help get you out, dead or alive?

... the black, crispy finish gave them a clue ...

:spank:

and according to international law, the rules for occupying powers are pretty clear. Providing security and protection for ALL people in the country, Iraqis, Coalition Troops, and US workers is a prime responsibility. For the US Military to just sit there while an attack is in progress is a serious violation of their duties.

Besides since the troops were sitting safe and snug at their base, they couldn't have seen the black, crispy finish until the video came out.

> according to international law, the rules for occupying powers are
> pretty clear

Don't tempt me.

> For the US Military to just sit there while an attack is in progress
> is a serious violation of their duties.

Actually, as the first that anyone knew of the attack was two explosions
in quick succession, the attack would have been over by the time the
first soldier stood up and said "WTF was that?"

Iraqi police were reportedly in the vicinity and would have been able
to confirm no survivors as soon as someone answered their call.
No violation of duties as there were no living members of coalition
forces, US troops, whatever in the area after the attack - their "duty"
does not extend to getting shot while collecting body parts (before or
after being dismembered).

Remember the success of double ambushes? You spring a surprise on
some unsuspecting target then wait and twat the recovery team as they
turn the corner. By the time the necessary team had been put together,
it would have been blatantly obvious that there was no point in
charging into the killing zone.

Beats me why people are getting so het up about what happened to a
few dead bodies. Save your energy for the living instead.

Nihil

how could anyone know without going in whether of not there were survivors or possibly hostages?

Just because you have an explosion doesn't mean that all the victims were killed instantly.

'you hotshots are on your own, don't be expecting the military to keep pulling your nuts out a tight'.