How US marines tried to hide a bloodbath

[bobalot]

'Delete them, or we will delete you': How US marines tried to hide a bloodbath

Brevity is the hallmark of military reporting, but even by those standards the description of one disastrous event is remarkably short: "The patrol returned to base."

It started with a suicide bomb. On 4 March 2007 a convoy of US marines, who arrived in Afghanistan three weeks earlier, were hit by an explosives-rigged minivan outside the city of Jalalabad.

The marines made a frenzied escape, opening fire with automatic weapons as they tore down a six-mile stretch of highway, hitting almost anyone in their way – teenage girls in fields, motorists in their cars, old men as they walked along the road. Nineteen unarmed civilians were killed and 50 wounded.

None of this, however, was captured in the initial military account, written by the marines themselves. It simply says that, simultaneous to the suicide explosion, "the patrol received small arms fire from three directions".

And the subsequent rampage as they drove away – which would later be the subject of a 17-day military inquiry and a 12,000-page report – is captured in five words: "The patrol returned to JAF [Jalalabad air field]."

The soldiers' initial concern, it appears, was a wounded marine – their only casualty. Forty-nine minutes after the initial bombing, they requested a "routine medevac" for a private with "shrapnel wounds to the arm". He was evacuated to safety.

An hour later came the first news of the trail of blood they left behind. A local government official told the marines there were "28 LN WIA", which in layman's terms means 28 Afghan civilians had been wounded. This later transpired to be a gross underestimate.

It was not the last one.

Two hours later Americans returned to the scene of the bombing to conduct an "exploitation of the blast site with pictures/grid cords as well as debriefing ANP leadership on scene". Journalists on the spot gave a more detailed account. They said angry marines tore their cameras from their hands, insisting they delete the pictures they had taken of bullet-pocked vehicles on the roadside. Rahmat Gul, a freelance photographer working for the Associated Press, said two soldiers and a translator came up to him and asked: "Why are you taking pictures? You don't have permission." Then they deleted his photographs.

Later, Gul said, one of the soldiers came up to him and raised his arm, as if to hit him. Taqiullah Taqi, a reporter for the private Tolo TV channel, said the Americans told him through a translator: "Delete them, or we will delete you."

But the Americans could not prevent anger surging through the local community. In those months, as the fighting escalated, concern about careless, trigger-happy Americans was rising in Afghanistan. The previous May, riots had spread across Kabul after a US military truck with faulty brakes careered into traffic, killing one man.

The logs report that nine hours after the shooting, the governor of Nangarhar province appealed to the marines to stay at home. "He did not want more CF [coalition forces] in the area due to public hostility." At about the same time the Americans stopped issuing internal reports. "Event closed at 1349Z" it read. But that was not the end of the affair.

Demonstrations ran through the streets of Jalalabad over the following days, the logs report, in which protesters broke windows and blocked roads.

A month later, in April 2007, the Afghan Human Rights Commission published a report into the shooting which said the victims included a 16-year-old newlywed girl carrying a bundle of grass and a 75-year-old man walking back from the shops. The report said the marines may have come under fire from one source straight after the suicide bomb but challenged the assertion they suffered a "complex ambush from several directions".

By then a US army colonel had admitted to the Afghans that the shootings were a "terrible, terrible mistake" and "a stain on our honour". He paid $2,000 to the families of each victim. The special forces commander in Afghanistan, Major General Francis Kearney, ordered the marines to pull the 120-man company out of the country, an unprecedented step.

But there would be no punishment. The marines, angered by the criticism of their unit by an army commander, held their own inquiry into the shootings and issued their findings a year later. It exonerated the marines. The troops "acted appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement … in response to a complex attack," said Major General Samuel Helland, the commander of marine forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The inquiry lasted 17 days and heard from 50 witnesses, including Afghans who testified by videolink. But it did not hear from the four soldiers who fired their weapons, because they had not been granted immunity from prosecution.

The findings of the court of inquiry, which ran to 12,000 pages, were not released. No criminal charges were brought against any officer, although some did receive an "administrative reprimand".

As the war logs might have put it: "Event closed".

Guardian

It looks like a bunch of marines lost control after an attack. Trying to hide what happened there afterwards was pretty stupid.

[Zixinus]

In a way, the suicide bomber succeeded in ways not imagined: instead of just killing the marines, he made the marines kill civilians.

I doubt it was that it was intentional, but still, it worked. Especially combined with how the marines acted and how they were treated.

Interesting is more how an Army officer came in and handled the crisis. You would think that the marines should handle what the marines do. Inter-departmental feud perhaps?

[Tasoth]

There's no doubt the marines messed up here, but what would have happened to them if they admitted they panicked and fled with guns blazing because of fear?

[Stark]

It's hilarious how Americans shield their own if they might be found responsible, even from their own processes.

Military justice!

[JointStrikeFighter]

It's hilarious how Americans shield their own if they might be found responsible, even from their own processes.

Military justice!

Really its a perfect microcosm of the american approach to war

[Ritterin Sophia]

My understanding from the Marines doing their AIT at Ft Sill is they don't even trust the Marines to stick each other when teaching them how to apply IVs in the Combat Live Saver class in basic, in contrast everyone in my Battery (B1/19) was required to properly apply an IV to another Soldier in our Platoon in order to pass the CLS class. My thoughts are that if they can't trust them with needles, why would you trust them with a gun?

Though that's second hand information so it could be more "Hoorah, we're more badass than you" bullshit.

[Shroom Man 777]

What do you think causes these USMC trust issues with IV lines?

[Knife]

My understanding from the Marines doing their AIT at Ft Sill is they don't even trust the Marines to stick each other when teaching them how to apply IVs in the Combat Live Saver class in basic, in contrast everyone in my Battery (B1/19) was required to properly apply an IV to another Soldier in our Platoon in order to pass the CLS class. My thoughts are that if they can't trust them with needles, why would you trust them with a gun?

Though that's second hand information so it could be more "Hoorah, we're more badass than you" bullshit.

That's ridiculous. I went to CAFR school and stuck my classmates with IV's.

[Alyrium Denryle]

My understanding from the Marines doing their AIT at Ft Sill is they don't even trust the Marines to stick each other when teaching them how to apply IVs in the Combat Live Saver class in basic, in contrast everyone in my Battery (B1/19) was required to properly apply an IV to another Soldier in our Platoon in order to pass the CLS class. My thoughts are that if they can't trust them with needles, why would you trust them with a gun?

Though that's second hand information so it could be more "Hoorah, we're more badass than you" bullshit.

That's ridiculous. I went to CAFR school and stuck my classmates with IV's.

I dont know... I have a friend who was a navy Corpsman over in Iraq and he was saying that the marines freaked the fuck out about needles. Maybe it is just where the fear goes in that unit. Kill anyone, get shot at, eat the banana in Okinawa, no problem! BUT KEEP THAT PIG-STICKER AWAY!!!

Not really sure it is relevant, but I am feeling a tad silly right now.

[Knife]

It's hilarious how Americans shield their own if they might be found responsible, even from their own processes.

Military justice!

What the fuck are you talking about? That the four shooters didn't testify in the Marine Probe? That's not shielding them from the process, that's recognizing their rights within the process. Or were you talking about the 'delete those pictures or we delete you' in which there is zero proof of and thus not part of the process.

These clowns may very well have done the worst things imagined, but the very vague assertions of the article show absolutely no sign of shielding them from responsibility or shield them from the process. Want to do a +1 post about silly American's ducking the process, either find a situation where they did that (Hey, I hear they actually did that with a pilot ramming a gondola some years ago) or wait till these chucklefucks actually duck a process.

[Stark]

The article says they didn't testify because they weren't guaranteed immunity, which obviously recalls America's desire to try the world's war criminals but never allow Americans to be tried in that way.

And sorry, the Marines clearly whitewashed the event. Let's hope they didn't do this just because they were butthurt about an Army Colonel (I don't find this hard to believe) but if you're saying these guys recieved a fair assessment I'd be surprised.

[Knife]

I dont know... I have a friend who was a navy Corpsman over in Iraq and he was saying that the marines freaked the fuck out about needles. Maybe it is just where the fear goes in that unit. Kill anyone, get shot at, eat the banana in Okinawa, no problem! BUT KEEP THAT PIG-STICKER AWAY!!!

Not really sure it is relevant, but I am feeling a tad silly right now.

Again, patently ridiculous. Marines on deployment, like any US serviceman on deployment, have various vaccinations and other shots routine during their tour of duty. Anyone freaking out over needles wouldn't make it past the first two days of boot camp. And, again, I was in the Marines and I went to Company Aid-man First Responder school and we stabbed each other with IV's in that training.

Are there people who don't like needles in the Corps. Almost certainly; however, in no way should that be interpreted as they'd 'freak the fuck out' nor any sort of systemic problem in the organization.

[Knife]

The article says they didn't testify because they weren't guaranteed immunity, which obviously recalls America's desire to try the world's war criminals but never allow Americans to be tried in that way.

Sure, they decided not to testify and rather have any sort of criminal probe do their own investigation. How is that ducking the process? Exactly what process are you talking about?

And sorry, the Marines clearly whitewashed the event.

Based purely off of the lack of detailed article the OP started with, sure. It very much looks like they tried to bury the whole thing.

Let's hope they didn't do this just because they were butthurt about an Army Colonel (I don't find this hard to believe) but if you're saying these guys recieved a fair assessment I'd be surprised.

Meh, Army smacking them was probably salt in the wound. If it is a cover up, I hope they fry, that said, nothing in the article even remotely says they're ducking the system. Looks more like the system is just spooling up and getting going.

[Aaron]

There's no doubt the marines messed up here, but what would have happened to them if they admitted they panicked and fled with guns blazing because of fear?

Actually thats what your supposed to do if your convoy is attacked/ambushed; put your foot to the floor and haul ass out of there. Your not supposed to fire at civvies but we were always taught to fire at what we could ID as we left. Mind you your also supposed to stop after you fight your way clear and if possible go back to engage them or wait for help.

[Sarevok]

Cant really blame the marines here. Put a military into a situation like Afganistan this kind of incident is bound to happen. Insurgencies sap away even the most noblest of armed forces. If anyone is to blame it is the higher level decision makers who created a quagmire that is nearly a decade old with no end in sight coming.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Cant really blame the marines here. Put a military into a situation like Afganistan this kind of incident is bound to happen. Insurgencies sap away even the most noblest of armed forces. If anyone is to blame it is the higher level decision makers who created a quagmire that is nearly a decade old with no end in sight coming.

Don't be ridiculous; other countries have run COINs perfectly well without massacring civilians left and right [the British in Malaya come to mind]. This kind of incident is entirely the result the complete failure of the US military's culture of treating every element of its nature as intended for massive fulda gap operations.

[K. A. Pital]

Cant really blame the marines here. Put a military into a situation like Afganistan this kind of incident is bound to happen. Insurgencies sap away even the most noblest of armed forces. If anyone is to blame it is the higher level decision makers who created a quagmire that is nearly a decade old with no end in sight coming.

Don't be ridiculous; other countries have run COINs perfectly well without massacring civilians left and right [the British in Malaya come to mind]. This kind of incident is entirely the result the complete failure of the US military's culture of treating every element of its nature as intended for massive fulda gap operations.

British in Malaya? Not without massacres, it seems.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Cant really blame the marines here. Put a military into a situation like Afganistan this kind of incident is bound to happen. Insurgencies sap away even the most noblest of armed forces. If anyone is to blame it is the higher level decision makers who created a quagmire that is nearly a decade old with no end in sight coming.

This is sarcasm, right? I'd defend the US Armed Forces' reputation any day of the week so long as in the specific situation they are in the right, but this isn't one of those times. As a serviceman one of your duties is to maintain your military composure and bearing regardless of whether you're scared shitless because you will be held responsible for your actions, that is the nature of the military.*

Yes, it is perfectly understandable to be afraid, yes it is perfectly acceptable to condemn the people who allowed Afghanistan to turn into a farce, but no it is not acceptable to absolve them of any culpability simply because the war is hard.

*Or at least it is supposed to be.

[Lonestar]

British in Malaya? Not without massacres, it seems.

Not to mention a few differences in terms of correlation of forces, a better serviceman-to-civilian ratio than in Afghanistan, a semi-functional government already existing, different ideologies on the part of the insurgents(one that is revolutionary, the other determined to stay in the 7th Century)etc. But other than that the two are COMPLETELY the same.

[Sea Skimmer]

Don't be ridiculous; other countries have run COINs perfectly well without massacring civilians left and right [the British in Malaya come to mind]. This kind of incident is entirely the result the complete failure of the US military's culture of treating every element of its nature as intended for massive fulda gap operations.

You know more people probably died in Iraq in one month then in the entire 12 year long Malay Emergency. For that matter drug violence in Mexico in the last couple years has killed more. The scale and intensity of fighting between Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam do not compare, and the insurgents in Malay never had support of more then very small portion of the population and only then in the Chinese portion. That is critical. The insurgents never had a credible support base, ever, during the war. It was basically hopeless, rather like the last 20 years of IRA terrorism. Your talking about over 300,000 government troops, against a max of 10,000 insurgents who were very lightly armed hiding in a hostile population, effectively forcing them to hide in the deep jungle all the time. Of course that makes life a damn lot easier to live and operate in. Of course, low death tolls in Malay also assume we completely believe British colonial records.

Meanwhile around around the same time the British were also busy fighting the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya, in which sort of won by forcing over a million people into concentration camps with the predictable results of massive deaths from malnourishment and disease. The lands the people had were declare free fire zones in which anyone seen was to be shot. In the end fighting only stopped when the British declared the colony independent.

[Kanastrous]

If Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace is a worthwhile primer - I'm not enough of a military historian to be sure - the US military has in the past done very effective COIN missions over protracted periods of time, with very positive results (Honduras, Nicaragua, the Phillippine Islands during the careers of people like Chesty Puller and Smedley Butler).

The problem as Boot identifies it is that collectively the US military has always disdained COIN missions and seems to purposely forget every lesson learned as rapidly as possible, in time to have to start all over again come the next conflict.

[Cecelia5578]

If Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace is a worthwhile primer - I'm not enough of a military historian to be sure - the US military has in the past done very effective COIN missions over protracted periods of time, with very positive results (Honduras, Nicaragua, the Phillippine Islands during the careers of people like Chesty Puller and Smedley Butler).

The problem as Boot identifies it is that collectively the US military has always disdained COIN missions and seems to purposely forget every lesson learned as rapidly as possible, in time to have to start all over again come the next conflict.

And didn't Butler later repent for what he saw as blantant imperialism on the part of American businesses? For that matter, I was always under the impression that MacArthur Sr's handling of the Philippine insurgency (feel free to correct me if Im wrong) was pretty ruthless and not at all textbook COIN.

It seems like a military geared towards COIN is by design going to be (or at least give the impression of being) imperialist. Whereas it's hard to occupy countries with F-22s.

[Sarevok]

Cant really blame the marines here. Put a military into a situation like Afganistan this kind of incident is bound to happen. Insurgencies sap away even the most noblest of armed forces. If anyone is to blame it is the higher level decision makers who created a quagmire that is nearly a decade old with no end in sight coming.

This is sarcasm, right? I'd defend the US Armed Forces' reputation any day of the week so long as in the specific situation they are in the right, but this isn't one of those times. As a serviceman one of your duties is to maintain your military composure and bearing regardless of whether you're scared shitless because you will be held responsible for your actions, that is the nature of the military.*

Yes, it is perfectly understandable to be afraid, yes it is perfectly acceptable to condemn the people who allowed Afghanistan to turn into a farce, but no it is not acceptable to absolve them of any culpability simply because the war is hard.

*Or at least it is supposed to be.

But what does punishing a few soldiers achieve ? Afganistan is at war nearly ten years after Americans set foot in the country. Given the current state of affairs the situation wont change much in the next ten years. The problem here is that this kind of conduct is inevitable in a farce like US occupation of Afganistan. The way the entire Afgan conflict was executed should not have happened at all. Bad incidents involving foreign military and Afgan civilians will continue to happen regardless of the outcome of this particular incident.

[Shroom Man 777]

Sarevokerritch, you are profound(ly retarded). Man, they rank and rate mentally challenged individuals, and so according to the mongoloid chain of command you'd be a superior officer, man.

Punishing a few soldiers achieves punishment of a few soldiers who killed civilians. Would you rather not punish war criminals who do atrocities and shoot pregnant women and shit (because blah blah blah bad incidents will continue to happen regardless of the outcome of this particular incident blah blah)? Yeah, Afghanistan is a shithole and the war is bad and they shouldn't have gone to war in the first place. But I don't get your point. So, unless the USA pulls out, they might as well not bother with punishing "bad incidents" at all? Yes, bad shit will keep on happening. But because bad shit will keep on happening, this is a good reason to not bother punishing bad shit? How the hell does that work? According to that shit logic, if the USA doesn't pull out of A-stan, it might as well not bother enforcing rules of engagement/Geneva Conventions/whatever, and the US military might as well have its troops degenerate into Vietnam-era style massacres or something straight out of Oliver Stone's Platoon or some shit. Man.

Man, according to Sarevokerritchfridge-logic, because murders/thefts/rapes/crimes haven't stopped, what does punishing a few criminals achieve, bad incidents involving criminals will continue to happen regardless of the outcome of this particular incident anyway, mang.

[Rogue 9]

The article says they didn't testify because they weren't guaranteed immunity, which obviously recalls America's desire to try the world's war criminals but never allow Americans to be tried in that way.

No, that recalls the fact that the accused is not required to testify against himself in any American court. A defendant has the right to say absolutely nothing from the moment of arrest until sentencing to avoid self-incrimination if he so desires, and if you say that recalls America's desire not to crack down on crime in general I'm just going to laugh.