At Official End of Iraq War, NYTimes Performs Front-Page Psychoanalysis of Haditha 'Massacre'
The day the war in Iraq was officially declared over, the New York Times returned to the 2005 Haditha “massacre” on Thursday’s front page. Baghdad-based reporter Michael Schmidt uncovered classified military documents about to be burned for fuel to cook a fish: “Junkyard Gives Up Secret Accounts of Massacre.” Just above the story stood a photo of President Obama greeting crowds at Fort Bragg, N.C. with the subhead “Obama Thanks Troops as He Observes End of Iraq War," teasing the paper's actual end-of-the-war story, which only made page A20.
As the war marked its official end, Schmidt let his feelings show, accusing "traumatized" troops of having grown "increasingly twitchy, killing more and more civilians in accidental encounters. Others became so desensitized and inured to the killing that they fired on Iraqi civilians deliberately..."
Schmidt began:
One by one, the Marines sat down, swore to tell the truth and began to give secret interviews discussing one of the most horrific episodes of America’s time in Iraq: the 2005 massacre by Marines of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha. “I mean, whether it’s a result of our action or other action, you know, discovering 20 bodies, throats slit, 20 bodies, you know, beheaded, 20 bodies here, 20 bodies there,” Col. Thomas Cariker, a commander in Anbar Province at the time, told investigators as he described the chaos of Iraq. At times, he said, deaths were caused by “grenade attacks on a checkpoint and, you know, collateral with civilians.”
The 400 pages of interrogations, once closely guarded as secrets of war, were supposed to have been destroyed as the last American troops prepare to leave Iraq. Instead, they were discovered along with reams of other classified documents, including military maps showing helicopter routes and radar capabilities, by a reporter for The New York Times at a junkyard outside Baghdad. An attendant was burning them as fuel to cook a dinner of smoked carp.
The documents -- many marked secret -- form part of the military’s internal investigation, and confirm much of what happened at Haditha, a Euphrates River town where Marines killed 24 Iraqis, including a 76-year-old man in a wheelchair, women and children, some just toddlers.
Schmidt treated as damaging, not vindicating, the fact that no Marine has actually been convicted of what the Times has long touted as a “massacre” of innocent civilians.
Haditha became a defining moment of the war, helping cement an enduring Iraqi distrust of the United States and a resentment that not one Marine has been convicted.
But the accounts are just as striking for what they reveal about the extraordinary strains on the soldiers who were assigned here, their frustrations and their frequently painful encounters with a population they did not understand. In their own words, the report documents the dehumanizing nature of this war, where Marines came to view 20 dead civilians as not “remarkable,” but as routine.
Iraqi civilians were being killed all the time. Maj. Gen. Steve Johnson, the commander of American forces in Anbar, in his own testimony, described it as “a cost of doing business.”
Schmidt provided front-page psychoanalysis of the entire military in Iraq.
The stress of combat left some soldiers paralyzed, the testimony shows. Troops, traumatized by the rising violence and feeling constantly under siege, grew increasingly twitchy, killing more and more civilians in accidental encounters. Others became so desensitized and inured to the killing that they fired on Iraqi civilians deliberately while their fellow soldiers snapped pictures, and were court-martialed. The bodies piled up at a time when the war had gone horribly wrong.
Charges were dropped against six of the accused Marines in the Haditha episode, one was acquitted and the last remaining case against one Marine is scheduled to go to trial next year.
That sense of American impunity ultimately poisoned any chance for American forces to remain in Iraq, because the Iraqis would not let them stay without being subject to Iraqi laws and courts, a condition the White House could not accept.
....
All of this set the stage for what happened in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005.
That morning, a military convoy of four vehicles was heading to an outpost in Haditha when one of the vehicles was hit by a roadside bomb.
Several Marines got out to attend to the wounded, including one who eventually died, while others looked for insurgents who might have set off the bomb. Within a few hours 24 Iraqis -- including a 76-year-old man and children between the ages of 3 and 15 -- were killed, many inside their homes.
Townspeople contended that the Marines overreacted to the attack and shot civilians, only one of whom was armed. The Marines said they thought they were under attack.
When the initial reports arrived saying more than 20 civilians had been killed in Haditha, the Marines receiving them said they were not surprised by the high civilian death toll.
Schmidt has a looser style that some of the paper’s war correspondents. In May he wrote insensitively of the “scourge” of tasteless buildings going up in Iraq: “Baghdad has weathered invasion, occupation, sectarian warfare and suicide bombers. But now it faces a new scourge: tastelessness.”
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Allow me to quote an expert.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:28pm.
Below are two paragraphs I lifted from an interview of Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola gay, with Studs Terkel in 2002, before Tibbets death.
Studs Terkel: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?
Paul Tibbets: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.
"War is Hell." General William T. Sherman
To put it in a modern context, "Shiite happens. Get over it."
Even though the insurgents,
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:49pm.
Even though the insurgents, much like the Iraqi Army, lost, the Make Believe Media helped them run PSYOPS against the USA. The MBM are traitors to our country.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
What does the NY Times think war is?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 7:11pm.
I'd be willing to bet that soldiers in every war became desensitized to dead civilians. How could they survive if they didn't? Twitchy? Undoubtedly. They couldn't tell which of those "civilians" was willing to commit suicide to insure the deaths of Americans.
Try reading "Sole Survivor" for a taste of the difficulties of fighting a war in this era of political correctness.
Rad, the NYT has been like this since the 60's.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:34pm.
Ever since "good" old Punch Sulzberger decided that he'd rather the North Vietnamese triumph, and he'd rather see an American soldier/Marine/sailor/airman or coast guardsman die, than a North Vietnamese soldier.
Also. those interested could read "House to House" or "New Dawn, The Battles for Fallujah". Those books explain vividly why most in the military would get "twitchy", and to what lengths those not Islamist terrorists go to to minimize civilian casualties.
I think you meant Lone Survivor, Rad, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:33pm.
... and you're right. By Marcus Latrell?
A lot of good men died because they allowed someone to live who turned them in to the local Taliban thugs. They paid a huge price for their humane act.
To anyone who hasn't red the book, do yourself a favor and do so.
Where is your license to practice, Michael?? Hmm????
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:34pm.
This kind of liberal wholesale psychobabble and comfortable office cube analysis is routine for the New York Times. Of course, none of their garbage is ever supported by information from a qualified mental health practitioner's notes or a definitive diagnosis. Instead, it is the usual tripe of words like "desensitization" and "horrified" that convey no actual psychiatric implications but a lot of rhetorical fire power. As usual, to the trained eye these stories come off like the trash sifting nonsense of tabloid writers.
So this idiot's basis for his psychoanalysis is not rooted in any clinical notes, but instead in observations that never rise above hearsay. These condescending, smug and perpetually wrong liberal moron reporters are getting to be too much for any civilized society to tolerate. They wonder why they have no credibility when they publish the sort of crap that would have had Rona Barrett fired immediately.
Any NYT reporter who wants to bandy about the psychobabble with me is more than welcome, assuming they can find their way out of their comfortable cubicles long enough to actually do real work.
It would serve me right that if I ever...
Submitted by sherlock1 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:26am.
It would serve me right that if I ever get anywhere near the Pearly Gates (a longshot), the many fantasies I have enjoyed about the really nasty things that could befall the management of the New York Times would be just enough to disqualify me to enter.
But they easily could be. And more so every day.