The recent exposure of a possible massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians at the hands of US coalition troops, has worked the media into a frenzy. There have been comparisons made to the MyLai massacre in Vietnam, where between 500-600 people were mowed down, in trying to prove that the US is deliberately and willfully targeting Iraqi civilians “to help send a message” to the Iraqis.
Both claims are ludicrous and without merit when considering the facts. Yes, for a moral army, the killing of 24 civilians should never be an option, but lets be realistic. First of all, not all the facts are in, but yet the media has already tried and convicted these soldiers. Some media reports are calling the way the Marines have handled the situation a ”cover up”, while simultaneously reporting that a pattern is emerging, that speaks of a standardized practice than the difficulties a soldier faces when fighting an enemy that hides behind civilians:
“Del Gaudio said he made a tough call after a roadside bomb killed four of his men in April. While securing the scene, he was shot at by a machine gun in a follow-up attack. When he aimed his weapon to return fire, he saw that the gunmen had a line of children standing in front of them and two men filming with video cameras. He held fire until the children moved out of the way but was shot in his hand, which was only inches from his face.”
Claims of “cover up” used along side claims of an “intentional policy of killing civilians” is completely nonsensical as it is ludicrous. One policy cancels out the other, and IMHO, neither are true. The Finnish media has also been eating this up with a silver spoon, throwing out one obnoxious assertion after another. Any claim made by a jiahdi is more worthy than a claim made by a US General, with the exception being if that General is retired and against the present administrations handeling of the war.
This whole situation reminds me of how the Palestinians use children as cannon fodder (human shields) when attacking Israeli soldiers.