Ace--

We got civilian control of the military here in the USA, thank God. So it's our business how they run it. That's not an excuse for minute social engineering--I think they know best about what makes an effective fighting force--but there's nothing wrong with having an opinion on these things as long as we try to keep perspective.

I mean, lawyers are qualified professionals, but we're free to comment on the legal system and trials and frivolous suits and malicious prosecutions, even when we're not lawyers. And hopefully people will consider the source and give our comments whatever weight they deserve.

--See Dubya

Ace--

Not a totally analagous situation, but perhaps an illuminating one.

I've worked with some officers who personally knew the pilots and crews involved in the "friendly fire" Blackhawk shootdown in Iraq, back in 1994.

Their opinion was pretty much along the lines of "trust, but verify."

Of course you stick up for your brethren. But the unit, and the mission, is more important than any one man or woman. Soldiers don't follow the "leave no man behind" rule for the dead friends they carry from the battlefield. They follow it as a social contract-- you *must* do this if you hope to have any confidence that the same would be done for you, and your family.

When that discipline breaks down-- when someone makes a mistake (intentionally or otherwise) that jeopardizes that cohesion-- it has to be resolved, period.

The Marine is innocent until proven guilty. But the Marine Corps owes it to itself to ensure that nothing untoward was committed here. If the Marine's actions stand up to the scrutiny of other Marines, fine. THAT'S the scrutiny he deserves, not the scrutiny of civilians and citizens.

Our job is to ensure that the military justice system is fair and equitable-- and to *not* to execute that justice ourselves.

I'm sure that won't last, however. I bet Greta Van Susteren and Dan Abrams are just itching to report this court martial as sensationalism.

Just. Can't. Wait.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Ace,

Your post along with the comments of CW and Dave are all well taken.

The filter that you employ seems to be one of "either-or" in the way you look at the public's support of the Marine in question.

If you remove that filter and allow for competing or contrasting reactions to the story to be "in addition to" you may end up with a slightly different result.

Here:

Millions of Americans whether for or against the War in Iraq and GWOT are inherently or reflexively support of our Armed Forces. Within the context of the hysteria of quagmire and other hyperbolic defeatism and hostility generated by the MSM, celebrity and academic cultures, some of the military supporters are understandably even more protective of the well being of this Marine.

And yes, the espirit d'corps and cohesion within our military is first the responsibility of the appropriate chain of command and any adjudication of misbehavior must be done, for the good of the service, by the service in question.

And finally, we as a free people, and through our elected representativess, maintain oversight and control of the military. Ultimately, in some way therefore, we do have a say as to what happens to this Marine.

We all should care about what happens to this and every Marine, Airman, Sailor, or Infantryman, but not for one reason alone.

MTT

Well, my post is slightly more nuanced. I tend to defend the Marine as well, but the post that I originally linked to (Boyd's post) scolds people that make unequivocal declarations without room for additional context or information. And the larger point is that people (including me) tend to opine about a lot of things for which we lack complete info.

Another great example is when people criticize the use of terror alerts as political tools; there's so much secret info that the average blogger/pundit can't possibly know, thus, making an unequivocal declaration about motivation sort of makes arrogant assumptions.

Ace,

Again, your points are well taken.

I read the post from Bill INDC, as well as the the linked items, including the Slate piece.

I was responding to what you wrote, "I'm just saying that the first impulse -- to defend a soldier or Marine -- may not be the response most military men actually prefer. We civilians may be assuming that soldiers and Marines want us to defend this guy from the get-go, whereas they might -- might; I don't know -- actually prefer a strict interpretation of the rules of war and possibly harsh sentence if the facts so warrant."

And yes, the admonition to "cool it" with regard to judging the Marine and his actions, as well as the MSM (see the comments there) are well founded.

But my point was that it is well within our right and responsibility as citizens to vigorously stand in support of this Marine, while at the same time we allow for the Navy to investigate and adjudicate the matter.

Furthermore, we have the right to support this Marine even if his colleagues do not, or at least are withholding judgement at this time. Civilian support for servicemen and women is distinct and independent from the support they get within the military.

We do not have to either support this Marine or leave it to the Navy to investigate him. We can do both.

And we can do this without making assumptions as to the correctness of this Marines behavior, just as the Navy will investigate the matter (hopefully) free of prejudice or bias.

MTT

What I'd like to defend against most loudly is the mistaken notion I've seen reported in the MSM that the dead man was a prisoner.

He wasn't and the video makes that pretty darned clar.

Bill's wrong on this one. We already know the only facts that matter:

1) The insurgents were and are boobytrapping their wounded.

2) This guy was a hostile, using a mosque as cover. The Marine did not shoot a kid flying a kite or a woman begging for her life, he shot an enemy soldier who was already violating the Geneva convention.

3) The guy was seen first lying still, then began moving. He represented a threat.

Our Marines were and are doing a horrific job that no sane person would want to do, but that is absolutely necessary to have someone do. They deserve maximum slack unless there is overwhelming evidence against them.

Above post by TallDave

Have to disagree. Not in a knee-jerk "support our boys & girls no matter what!!" mode, but being ex-military, seeing military justice do what is expedient..and serves higher up's careers and objectives.

Right now, the Left and Al-Jeezera have the kid already convicted as a war criminal. And certain people in the Pentagon who blew off the screw-ups at Nariryah in order to make Jessica Lynch a phony Pentagon PR Dept.- hatched war hero, are no doubt saying it would be nice if they could throw the Marine to the wolves as long as it doesn't compromise morale too much.

Those who advocate making no supportive noises or gestures until "all the facts are in" and a court martial rules forget that by that point, forces may have gathered that make punishment necessary - guilt or innocence aside.

"Breaker Morant" was all about military CYA and legitimating the killing 4 innocent soldiers to make a discipline point with the rest of the troops. "Tailhook", ten years later, appears to be a femmenazi power trip that targeted "spit" mennn..for the crime of mostly being there...ignored the frolicking gal soldiers..and the Pentagon did not wish to fight - it was far easier to destroy 2 dozen careers than achieve a measure of justice on. Anyone in the military or who has served is familiar with upper officer's prediliction for witch hunts and scapegoating.

So I think the appropriate thing to do is go with the idea that a person is innocent until demonstrated to be guilty, and fight those who wish to condemn beforehand a Marine doing his duty. Because if that kid goes to trial with unchallenged negative publicity forming a media and political lynch mob - he will be made an example of. And remember that war is quite different that criminal law enforcement. You kill enemy trying to flee - shoot them in the back. You kill a civilian if an enemy is firing from behind them in order to protect your comrades. You face enemy far more fanatic and dangerous than 99.9% of the criminals cops face. You do this in a state of exhaustion, injury and death all around you, and you kill or die yourself based on split second decisions while knowing that you may die anyways at any moment over days weeks, months - from simple bad luck.

I played paintball with some fellow military guys - in an urban combat setting. We managed to shoot our own guys now and then, hesitated too long and got shot on other occasions, and shot some players that were already "out" - missing their armband was off. We all learned how tough it was - even though we were all "trained" and generally fairly sharp people who made good judgments - when we had TIME to make them . The Marines in Fallujah were obviously far, far better trained than we were - but the stakes for them were literally life and death - and they had been at it for several days and nights....

Rab defends, MacKenzie prosecutes.

The irony is, we just an election where a Presidential contender received a Silver Star for doing something less right - shooting a fleeing soldier in the back - than this Marine did, and then falsifying the after-action report. Somehow, the media managed to ignore that.

As alqays, trust but verify. My initial response is support of the Marine. Innocent until progven guilty, with a large presumption of circumstances on his side. Without even knowing the details, the basic facts of the situation lend belief in the Marine's correctness. That said, there is enough international press and media contamination of the incident to require an investigation. That's fine too. Investigate it, use the standards of law, the rules of engagement at the time, and by all means, a jury of his peers. That would be other Marines/Soldiers who have been there.

While the civilian public is right to question and inquire, they do not have the right to judge. They are not peers.

TallDave: Many thanks for putting it so clearly and succinctly! I couldn't agree more with you.

Frank Villon

The point of the protests of the footage is not the Marine's innocence or guilt. That should rightly be decided by the Marines' own folks. The point also isn't Kevin Sites' filming of the incident. The point is about this asshole posting this up for pool access knowing full well (and though he claims contrary on his website, he must have known) that this would instantly turn into a propoganda coup for Al-Jazeera, et al. Which would be acceptable if the Marine were proven to be guilty of a crime, but not before. Sites' should be removed immediately as an embed.

Geez, Ace! Were you and your site taken over by pod people? -- Sailor Kenshin

Don't rush to defend?? Fuck You. If you're clearing a building and someone makes a move and is not actively surrenduring, they are to be shot without hesitation. END OF STORY.

What IS the best way to support the troops, Ace? Is it by writing shitty posts that contradict your earlier rantings because you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about? Is that a good way to support the troops???

Ace, stick to (not funny) comedy, serious commentary is NOT your thing.