Military Honor, Right Wing Pundits, and Haditha

The military’s honor is a function, in part, of how it responds to the bad behavior of its own. Militaries are large things; the US military contains over 1 million active and reserve members. It stands to reason that under the stresses of combat some will cross the line and commit crimes, including war crimes. The military preserves its honor not by pretending these events never happen and basing its public and self-image on an impossible standard, but by taking these events seriously and punishing the offenders. Criminal investigations of alleged war crimes are what make a group of men real soldiers rather than a murderous rabble out of the Thirty Years War.

The evidence about the Haditha incident is murky.

But it appears various Iraqis accused a squad of Marines of retaliating for the IED killing of a comrade with the systematic execution of Iraqi civilians (including women and children) in nearby homes, as well as the “lighting up” of a nearby taxi filled with young men who may or may not have behaved suspiciously. Further supporting evidence for these charges include photographic evidence reported by intelligence analysts inconsistent with earlier accounts (i.e., that showed well aimed fire rather than room clearing fire), the arrest of the Marines in question, the relief of various elements of the chain of command, detailed leaks that appear to emanate from higher-ups with knowledge of the facts, and the existence of three separate investigations: one by an Army Major, another by the NCIS, and a third by the Iraqi government.

I do not know what happened, but I do know that more evidence will be required ot make a final judgment. If nothing else, though, these charges appear to be at least minimally credible and worthy of consideration. The concept of a “presumption of innocence” in a criminal case should not bear upon lesser conclusions reached by the Chain of Command, the media, and the American citizens of what likely happened here and whether we should be deeply concerned by this possible war crime. (Under this view, we should be happy to have OJ and Lieutenant Caley’s platoon as neighbors).

The Marine Corps’ response to this has been mature, measured, and laudable. The Commandant, recognizing the serious strategic and morale consequences of well-publicized atrocities, went to Iraq to speak to Marines directly on the importance of Corps’ Values, including the high value Americans place on the innocent lives of noncombatants. This type of response is not political correctness, nor does it downplay the importance of a presumption of innocence for the accused; this is prudent, and these actions preserve the military’s honor in a situation where it has been threatened. The Commandant cannot wait for criminal processes to run their course before restoring good order and discipline through actions that simply require his authority as a commander.

In contrast to the measured and manly response of the Marines’ leadership, certain right-wing pundits–Sean Hannity and Michael Savage in particular–have responded like jingoistic nut-jobs, with Savage saying the Marines under investigation deserved medals and with Hannity stating inaccurately that there is no evidence against the Marines in the public record. A videotape of the incident, Rodney King style, will likely not emerge. The NCIS and the Marine Jury on any court martial will have to piece together the facts as best they can based on the evidence, drawing reasonable inferences when necessary. As shown above, certain evidence does point to the possibility of some kind of war crime.

Two things are disturbing about the response of Hannity and Savage and others like them. First, like the jingoist equivalent of the schismatic Society of Pius X, they purport to be more John Wayne than the military’s own officials. In other contexts, including the actions of the squad in question, they repeatedly stress the importance of deference owed to the military because of its unique conditions and the specific insights of its lifelong professionals. But, when other parts of the military for sound institutional reasons discipline their own for war crimes and other offenses, the jingoists arrogate to themselves the right to apply criticism that they think liberal and other critics are unworthy to deliver even though the jingoists labor under the same conditions. Of course, any citizen can have his opinion and voice it on military or other government affairs, and, to be persuasive, that opinion must be made with due regard to one’s own level of knowledge and the military’s unique conditions. But in other areas, Savage and Hannity advocate, instead, enforced silence by citizens on military affairs. Yet here they would criticize the military officials of the NCIS, the intelligence officers who reported the killings in question, actions of Marine MPs holding the accused Marines in custody, and even the actions of the Commandant himself, who has implied something at least unprofessional took place in Haditha.

Second, Hannity, Savage, and other bellicose neoconservatives never tire of reminding us that Iraq is now free, that its regime will have growing pains, that its people are showing their competence at self-government, and that to question Iraqi capabilities is to engage in a type of racism. I don’t share this kind of faith in the Iraqi people. That said, I don’t think every Iraqi is a liar or that every charge labeled against American troops by Iraqis are false. Some are true, and some are false. Some will be unverifiable, and others will result in conflicting, though reasonable, viewpoints based on opposing perspectives. But such charges constitute, at least, a type of evidence. Without knowing more, it would be irresponsible (and contrary to every historical account of counterinsurgency) to think such charges are fanciful or inherently unbelievable. Such a cartoonish view of the character of the average American soldier and Marine sets us up as a nation for the kind of ham-handed arrogance that made so many of America’s Cold War interventions ineffective and counter-productive, the indelicate stompings of the “Ugly American.”

Most important, though, to dismiss such charges by Iraqis when one at other times praises them for their capacity for self-government and politically maturity shows a kind of cognitive dissonance. In the neoconservatives’ world, Iraqis are moderate, self-governing, mature, educated, secular, and decent people, so long as they do and say and act exactly the way Americans want them to. When they do not, they are “vermin” and liars. It can’t be both, and the selective praise and dismissal of Iraqi opinions is an inherent problem of supporting a democracy in a country where most of the people don’t like us, won’t govern themselves in a way conforming to our interests, and who possess values very alien from our own.