23 June 2006

The Costs of War: The Haditha Massacre Controversy

By Mark Patterson, Guest Contributor

I am proud to carry a distinction that few Americans ever do. I am a combat veteran. Having served in Iraq during the initial phases of its invasion, I feel I know something about the horrors and costs of war. I have experienced the loss of fellow Marines and soldiers to enemy bullets, as well as to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. War is a savage and brutal endeavor; one in which we paradoxically witness the best attributes of humanity such as selflessness, courage and resolve along with the unfortunate manifestation of the potential for barbarism within each of us. I am not proud to be a combat veteran because I have killed the enemy or because I subscribe to some sort of self-satisfying notion of machismo or heroism. I am proud to be a combat veteran because when those first bullets flew by my head, I proved to myself that I am willing to fight and die for an ideal. That ideal is the Constitution of the United States. It is an ideal which all members of the military take an oath to defend against all “enemies foreign and domestic.”

I am also proud to be a combat veteran because I know that the United States Military is the most honorable, noble and professional military in the world. Throughout my entire experience as a United States Marine Infantryman, I was taught to honor principles of just warfare. I learned a warrior’s code that one never intentionally kills or harms noncombatants.

I began following the news of the Haditha Massacre when it was first reported by the Arab and European press. I have continued to read the reports, study the evidence, and examine the fallout of the alleged events of Nov. 19 2005. Although I respect the time honored judicial tradition that the accused Marines are innocent until proven guilty, I believe the facts demonstrate the unfortunate reality that a crime was indeed committed. Whether it was intentional murder, “execution style,” as alleged by Iraqi witnesses and human rights groups, or merely “negligent homicide," the reality is that someone failed to do their duty and they should be punished.

I find the thought that any Marine representing the United States of America could degrade his title, service, and country by murdering innocent people to be morally repugnant, inexcusable and thoroughly depressing. However, we can’t rewrite the past. What happened that day cannot be reversed, but as a country we must ensure that it is not repeated. It is our duty as citizens of this country to hold our servicemen and women to a higher standard then our enemies.

Amidst the politicization of this war by both the Right and the Left I am disappointed to see the events of Haditha being manipulated for political gain. The Left would have us believe that Haditha is merely the tip of the Iceberg, that similar massacres have occurred all over Iraq. Some go so far as to portray American soldiers and Marines as trigger-happy thugs. This is completely untrue. The Right seems content to criticize anyone who even mentions the possibility that the accused Marines are in fact guilty of being, in the words of Sean Hannity, “un-American.” The political polarization in this country is a tragedy in its own right. The controversy surrounding Haditha and the war at large is representative of what I believe is a population of citizens too far removed from the realities of war. No, Mr. Hannity, it is not “un-American” to wonder if our Marines are capable of war crimes and no, Mr. Hannity, having concerns that our military could have committed war crimes does not help terrorists. However, ignoring it and covering it up does.

For the liberal critics who like to spin every event into some sort of “I told you so” moment against the war in Iraq, I would ask, what they have done to constructively support the success of the mission despite criticizing it? Where is their objective analysis of positive progress in Iraq? What is their alternative? Criticism without constructive proposals is not criticism, it is whining.

Finally, I would ask any young man who reads this to search his own heart and ask himself “why aren’t I in the military?” Despite record high enlistment bonuses, incredible benefits and incentives, an ever growing number of young American men are not willing to serve their country. I know that most of the men and women in our armed forces are of superb character. I also know that some are not. Now more than ever, our military needs intelligent, capable, and patriotic men and women in its ranks. If these Marines did indeed commit such a horrible crime, perhaps it would not have occurred if they had better leadership or Marines by their side who exercised moral restraint.

In the end, our military represents our nation in all facets, both the good and the bad. We have to face reality. As citizens we must be willing to hold our armed forces accountable when they let us down. It is our duty as citizens to constantly honor the sacrifice of those who serve in ways that go beyond the ubiquitous yellow-ribbon. There are few things more indicative of a true democracy than an all volunteer military force. Who will join if we cease to respect those willing to serve?

To those afraid to criticize the administration or military, I say that nothing is more patriotic then holding your leaders and military accountable. For those who criticize unfairly or incorrectly I ask, “what have you done to make things better?"

[Editor's Note: Mr. Patterson was in one of the first Marine battalions to enter Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom]

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr. Patterson,
Let me be the first (in this blog) to thank you for your selfless service and willingness to step up. I have great respect for those Americans you wrote about, those soliders who are of a superb character.

But I can't help but question the premise with which you seem to base your convictions for, that is:

I am proud to be a combat veteran because when those first bullets flew by my head, I proved to myself that I am willing to fight and die for an ideal. That ideal is the Constitution of the United States.

I simply cannot see how the invasion of Iraq was, in any way, supporting the US Constitution.

Regardless, I appreciate that in this brutal game of war, at least many of the pawns are noble.

Anonymous said...

I never contended that it was. I was merely pointing out that in the Oath of Enlistment a United States Military Servicemember takes an oath to the Constitution and not the President, people or nation. I think it is significant that our military takes an oath to an ideal rather than to a Nation.
I completely agree that any direct correlation to "defending the constitution" and the invasion of Iraq is protracted at best and deeply flawed at worst.... At least as a Pawn you play on the board. Spectators who just watch the game and contemplate are irrelevant.... Oh and remember that in Chess Pawns can become Queens. Even Pawns make a difference. Better to be a Pawn than to be nothing at all.

Anonymous said...

As for your initial question. In a democracy the quality of both our politicians and military are a reflection of our efforts as citizens. We elect our leaders and are offered the oppurtunity to join our military. I did not join the military to fight in Iraq. In fact, I joined before Sept. 11. My reasons for joining had to do with my personal belief that in our democracy people must be willing to serve in the military. Soldiers are not politicians we do not have the luxury of deciding what war to fight.
The Congres gave Bush the authorization to go to war not me. In my mind, because I have been in combat I have "proved to myself" that I am willing to fight and perhaps die for the Constitution because I view the mere act of being willing to join the military as a manifestation of my support for the Constitution. However, I also believe that I have duty to defend the principles of Constitution as a citizen in discourse like this.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Mark

Very well put. I deeply respect the service that you and your brethren are rendering. Three cheers for the US troops.

Anonymous said...

As Mark said, very well put.

Unlike the issues of Abu Graib or Guantanamo, there is no reason to believe that Haditha was anything other than an awful aberration from the norm. Those who are against this war should stop using it as a political football.

You are also correct that those who back this war are wrong to use the "un-American" card at every step. That is un-American.

LaurenceB

Anonymous said...

Spectators who just watch the game and contemplate are irrelevant.... Oh and remember that in Chess Pawns can become Queens. Even Pawns make a difference. Better to be a Pawn than to be nothing at all.

It's the spectators that pay your salary, and the spectators that elect your Commander-in-Chief, and the spectators that are ultimately affected by the wars and military decisions. Don't delude yourself into believing that being the tip of the sword makes you more important than the arm that swings it.

Anonymous said...

I did not mean to imply that I think I am "better than the arm that swings it" although I take issue with your imagery. I resent it when people use the term "we" in the context of this war. I am quite certain that no one is fighting or dying in this war other than the American citizens serving in the military along with the civil servants and contractors in Iraq. So although citizens play a necessary part (I was in fact encouraging activism on all levels in my piece) clearly it is us veterans who bear the real burden.
I also pay taxes. So if you are claiming that because someone pays taxes and votes (I do that too) that they make the same sacrifices as those of us brave enough to actually be willing to fight for our country than I fear it is you that is deluded.
By a spectator I meant someone who watches and does nothing. I would not consider an activist..even an anti-war activist a spectator. ANYONE who participates in their government constructively is NOT a spectator. My criticism was meant for those who ride the fence and choose apathy over activity and rhetoric over understanding. Before you feel the need to write such a vitriolic post please take the time to understand my points. Furthermore, I resented your arrogant use of the term "Pawn" so if this has descended into the unfortunate realm of emotional responses to personal attacks than I would remind you that you brought it there. Why don't you read what I write instead of assuming you have me all figured out. I think you will realize we agree on more than you initially thought.

Mark

StatCounter