Thursday, May 18, 2006

Murtha: US troops" killed innocent civilians in cold blood".

The phrase “in cold blood” means with callous disregard or lack of emotion doesn’t it? Whatever the other circumstances, I doubt this very much. The “in cold blood” crack (crock, probably) is political hyperbole.

Over on ESPN we have “analyst” Deborah Robinson complaining that the Duke Lacrosse Team Captain is “tainting the jury pool” by doing a press conference after approximately 70 press conferences held by DA Nifong. Here we have John Murtha, a politician (once you become one of those, why should anyone believe you about anything?), who can have direct influence over a soldier’s career, making charges not yet adjudicated by a court martial board. I have sat on three boards, and I am incensed that this jackass is trying to make political hay before the facts are in.

Wasn’t the way that journalist was injured a while back was not by the IED but by small arms fire coming from surrounding houses immediately after the blast? The soldiers attacked the ambush and suppressed it. Is it just too much TV? Is that why the initiated don’t connect the blast and the followup fire into one event? The operating standard is to attack when you are drawing fire after the opening rounds of an ambush. The fastest way out is through.

Now consider construction values and the ammunition types that might be used to suppress that “possible” fire. I have participated in a “mad minute” put on as a demonstration at Ft. Sill in 1970. Four of us with M60 machine guns totally destroyed  a 10′x10′ brick building (all four walls) in less than sixty seconds. Our sweetness and light enemies do not tend to evacuate their womenfolk or their children from the line of fire and it is harder to see through walls than to shoot through them.

Was it a “My Lai” moment? I don’t know, it could have been. Was it a doctrinaire attack through an ambush? I don’t know. It could have been. But my kneejerk reaction when Time magazine and a politician are on the same page is to cover my wallet and dive for cover. The fact that is still under investigation in this conflict means very little. With all the second-guessing being done by media, I’m quite sure the Marines want to dot every i and cross every t. Back in March, Lieut. Colonel Michelle Martin-Hing, spokeswoman for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, told Time the involvement of the NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) does not mean that a crime occurred. And she says the fault for the civilian deaths lies squarely with the insurgents, who "placed noncombatants in the line of fire as the Marines responded to defend themselves."

Let’s wait for the determination from the people who know something about warfighting and don’t stand to make political points by railing into any loose microphone.

I personally think he is maneuvering for political advantage by getting "face time" and counting on the public to never notice if the findings of the investigation don't lead to any charges. If charges are brought he will be the “crusading leader”. It will be a few months and will never be brought up by the Main Stream Media Party if charges aren't filed and it lasts long enough, only his opponent for November will bring it up and then we will hear from him about "ongoing investigation". So it is pretty much a win-win for him either way. A little sound and fury now may smudge his face time by the election but most voters (they have to be memory-challenged to have kept re-electing him anyway) won't remember it, just that he was "tellin' truth to Power" a few months ago. They'll never even remember what it was about.

1 comment:

Christopher Taylor said...

My primary concern with Murtha's report is that it didn't need to be said. The media doesn't need to cover this kind of thing, and Mr Murtha doesn't need to be making speeches about it. The military deals with this kind of thing, true or not, and the only people helped by publicizing it is our enemies.