Marine Corps reinvigorating its battlefield ethics training
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer | ∞
NORTH COUNTY ---- Faced with a series of war crime cases and a recent survey finding that a majority of troops would not report the slaying of an innocent civilian, the Marines are getting a renewed lesson in battlefield ethics.
In the wake of that survey, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway set up a values and ethics panel this month and has ordered new ethics lessons for troops.
"I have put out guidance to my commanders that we need to go back to the basics, and we need to make sure every Marine understands the importance of ethics as an American trooper and the importance of maintaining these core values as we go about a counterinsurgency fight," Conway said in remarks to reporters in Washington on May 17.
The directive comes as a hearing gets under way at Camp Pendleton on Wednesday for a Marine officer accused of failing to order an investigation into the largest civilian killing case arising out of the conflict in Iraq.
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani was commander of the base's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment when 24 civilians were killed in the city of Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005. Chessani and three other officers face dereliction charges for not ordering a probe of the incident. Three enlisted men from the battalion face murder charges.
Court proceedings are also scheduled to continue soon for two of three remaining defendants in the April 2006 abduction and slaying of a retired Iraqi policeman in the village of Hamdania. Five of eight Camp Pendleton troops charged in that incident have pleaded guilty.
Those two high-profile cases were joined by a third earlier this year, causing more angst for Marine Corps leaders. In the third case, members of a Marine Corps special operations unit based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., are under investigation for possible criminal wrongdoing in the deaths of 12 civilians in Afghanistan on March 3.
Civilian killings and detainee abuse cases have put a tarnish on the U.S. involvement in Iraq in Afghanistan. Some of the cases have been blamed on frustrations coming from confronting a nontraditional enemy ---- one that doesn't wear a uniform and mixes in with the civilian population.
Survey raises concerns
When he issued the new directives on ethics training, Conway did not cite those cases but did make reference to a survey released two weeks ago that found 40 percent of more than 400 Marines questioned would not report a fellow Marine for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.
Seen as equally troubling from commanders was a finding that 39 percent of the respondents said torture should be allowed to gather information from an insurgent despite it being against the law in the handling of enemy combatants and detainees. The survey was conducted by U.S. Army researchers last fall and released May 4.
Gary Solis, a former Marine lawyer who teaches military law at Georgetown University, said he was encouraged by Conway's edicts.
"The survey results require some kind of response and as a Law of Armed Conflict teacher, I'm glad to see it," Solis said. "Although we are not a nation that shoots unarmed people and we are not a nation that tortures, our recent history demonstrates there is reason for concern."
Conway's directive calls for combat-experienced, noncommissioned officers to teach the rules of engagement and battlefield ethics. The rules allow troops to respond with appropriate force when under attack or threat, but require steps to identify the enemy before an attack to limit civilian deaths or injuries. The rules forbid assaults of any kind against noncombatants.
His memo also called for re-emphasizing what he termed the "essence of the Marine Corps warrior ethos."
"Our core values do not diminish our ability to fight and win," he wrote, adding that ethical conduct can win over the civilian population.
Initiatives include reviewing the entry-level ethics training recruits now receive and improving the service's ability to measure the effectiveness of its laws-of-war training.
In the end, the general said, it is each Marine who is ultimately accountable for his or her own actions. And in a line seemingly applicable to the ongoing Haditha prosecutions against officers for dereliction, Conway wrote: "Accountability for a unit's performance rests with its leaders."
Balance elusive in combat
Thad Coakley, an Iraq war veteran and former Marine Corps lawyer now working in private practice, said the new emphasis on ethics strikes him as a "muscle" exercise.
"In a firefight, they're certainly not going to be thinking about ethics," Coakley said last week. "But this is about how you translate thought into action. The purpose of all this reinforcement is not to pull out a rules of engagement card and write 'justified' and 'ethical' in each action. The purpose is because combat happens so quickly and this is to imbue a sense of muscle memory to support all the other training."
The law-of-war doctrine holds that warring parties will do their best to prevent unnecessary suffering and destruction and establishes guidelines for protecting civilians and treatment of prisoners and the wounded. The Defense Department requires the instruction for all service members.
Marines first get the training at boot camp and each unit sent to Iraq or Afghanistan receives additional training as they prepare to deploy.
An adviser to commanders on legal issues during his time in Iraq, Coakley said that using combat-experienced officers makes sense.
"Marines are big believers in training by personal example, so a key will be making sure the NCOs are correctly trained themselves and can transfer that knowledge," he said. "The fact they have combat experience gives them instant credibility because they can talk about what they did in certain situations.
"The flip side is they have to know the rules and be very clear in what they are teaching.
'You're going to be tested'
Solis said that despite what Americans may think, all is not fair in war and the rules are intended to minimize any unnecessary suffering.
"There are limits on the battlefield and as time goes on and the world becomes more civilized, the rules become more exacting," he said.
Lt. Gen. James Mattis recently told Marines in Iraq's dangerous Anbar province to make contact and wave at civilians even if a fellow Marine has just been killed or injured.
Mattis and other commanders stress that mistreatment of civilians helps the insurgency.
"They want us to become racist and to hate every Iraqi," Mattis told Marines, according to a dispatch from a Los Angeles Times reporter traveling with the general. "You're going to be tested, and there are going to be some tough times. We're defined by those who keep their cool."
The Times story also quoted Mattis as telling his Marines to "kill the right people and protect everybody else. Protect, protect, protect."
Ethics issues confront Mattis on a regular basis as head of Marine Corps forces in the Middle East and commander of Camp Pendleton's I Marine Expeditionary Force.
He also is the convening authority over the Hamdania and Haditha cases under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and must review and approve all case results as well as decide whether Marines charged with a crime should stand trial.
Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Gordon wrote on May 27, 2007 5:41 AM:Ethics about the torture scene, yes.....but NOTHING to slow down a Marine's reaction to danger ...or possible danger. If you don't want civilians injured or killed...don't go to war! Especially against an "insurgency look-a-like".
Hate breeds wrote on May 27, 2007 9:31 AM:Hate breeds hate, torture breeds torture. When an American is tortured by these insurgents, don't complain because we are doing the same. Show how we are Americans and don't have to stoop so low. Iraqi's are people, humans. Wait the republicons accept torture of humans so this training is for naught.
John1 to Hate wrote on May 27, 2007 10:19 AM:You're kidding, right? Islamist fundamentalists torture because that is what their imams (and the Koran) teach to do.
John1 wrote on May 27, 2007 10:22 AM:Mattis, the rest of the General staff and the legal advisors of the Marine Corps need to serve on the front lines in the exact places where these rules are to be applied before casting judgement or implementing insruction.
Torture? wrote on May 27, 2007 10:29 AM:The average American's idea of torture is so petty. Why don't you look at the handbook of Al Qaeda torture technqiues. Our brand of interrogation comes nowhere close to being real torture. Why doesn't America look at the way our service members are tortured every day. Our politicians use us as a prop in order to promote their political agenda. The American people torture us as a means of trying to make our country look better in the eyes of the international community. Another torture is watching our brothers and sisters die every day while we are hamstrung by politics. If you really want this war against terror to succeed, then let us take the political gloves off and really go after the terrorists. If we were able to use the same "interrogation techniques" our enemies are using, then we would be able to end this war sooner. The average American doesn't have the stomach to let us do what needs to be done. Geneva Convention be damned. We are the only country in the world who adhered to it. Look where it has taken us.
Real-ist wrote on May 27, 2007 10:42 AM:What don't they understand about WAR? Our troops must be allowed to do whatever it takes to kill the enemy! This is some liberal feel-good idea. Hoo-Rah!
AW4cryinoutloud wrote on May 27, 2007 11:07 AM:Please tell me I didn't just read a ludicrous comment that said,... "don't complain because we are doing the same" as the enemy. Get real! Humiliation is not the same as Mutilation. "Iraqi's are people"! So what's the point? The enemy can NOT be classified as "people". The enemy is Uncivilized, Barbaric, Inhumane, and downright Evil. Where did the..."Republicans accept torture..." ignorance come from? Did I miss a national poll that says each and every Republican accepts torture, or that not one Democrat accepts torture? Go ahead. Buy into that line of thinking. Give the enemy what it wants; Division Within. Let it happen. Don't stand up for your own. Turn against your own. But,4CRYINOUTLOUD, DON"T COMPLAIN when you find yourself kneeling before Al Qaeda or Whatever your new leaders may call themselves.
Karl wrote on May 27, 2007 11:23 AM:Repulicans do this, they do that, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm a Repulican and don't follow all party lines and talking points like "Hate" does. If you got to know me you would actually find me a nice guy. Lighten up "Hate".
Democrats should Quit... wrote on May 27, 2007 11:56 AM:Emboldening our Enemies by Sympathizing and Agreeing with them. Those Civilians are not Innocent. They know where the Insurgents are and allow the Insurgents to attack American Troops.
Mark wrote on May 27, 2007 12:37 PM:Is this the same Marine Corps that thinks it's ethical to give underage kids alcohol?
To John 1 wrote on May 27, 2007 12:44 PM:Aren't you forgetting the right wing Christian literal interpretation of the very, very violent and bloody bible: an eye for an eye, cast her out and stone her. Where is the difference between your naive interpretation of the Koran and your own bible? Violence begets violence...whether you're religious or not that is a biological fact. You have to live with the war crimes of this adminstration and figure out a way to justify the wholesale slaughter of civilians and the thousands of deaths of innocent soldiers while you're at it.
Heck with Ethids wrote on May 27, 2007 12:44 PM:Let's just go get drunk on base. Hoo-rah!
AW4cryinoutloud wrote on May 27, 2007 1:49 PM:HOW does the military hierarchy PROVE whether a civilian is an innocent? Why should our troops report the death of an innocent when they Don't Know if that person is innocenct? There isn't one person on this planet who isn't aware of the enemy's use of civilians as pawns in making our troops appear guilty. I certainly am aware. Please don't tell me that the leaders of these young men and women, and this administration, isn't aware. Donald Rumsfeld was aware and commented on that and our media being used to further the propaganda of the enemy against our troops. What is the matter with these leaders, with our Congress, with the American people who buy into this BS? Maliki accused our Marines of murder. He doesn't know what happened. Where does he get off taking it for granted? Before any investigation? Without PROOF? This is the man who consorts with Al Sadr. We all know HE isn't innocent. Does that alone not cast doubt on everything that comes out of the mouth of Iraqi's who accuse our troops? General Conway and the Marine Corps can spout all the Values and Ethics they want but, values and ethics are not more important than the lives of those who put themselves in harm's way for this country. What in the hell are "Battlefield Ethics"? How do you "Identify the enemy before an attack"? Good Gravy! That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Perhaps our Marines should yell, "Innocents raise your hands and we won't shoot". No? If we, civilians, are aware that our guys can't tell the difference between innocents and combatants, what battle is Conway fighting? It can't be THIS one. He says their core values don't diminish their ability to fight and win. He's got to be kidding! It's what is not allowing them to fight, to defend, to be persecuted, and to be killed. He did make one brilliant statement;"Accountability for a unit's performance rests with its leaders". SO! When is that going to happen? When are the Generals like Conway and all the rest going to be held accountable? I don't understand Solis. He says that "as time goes on and the world becomes more civilized, the rules become more exacting". Well; according to that premise, the rules should become "less" exacting because the world is NOT becoming "more" civilized. The Extremists are proof of that. Heck, I don't understand Mattis either. He told his Marines to "kill the right people and protect everybody else"? Could he possibly have told them also HOW to know whether they're killing the "right" people? What if they firmly believe they ARE killing the "right" people? Their own mentors persecute them no matter what they do. Their own leaders turn their backs on the accused and desert them. What kind of example of Values or Ethics is that? OH, Sorry. That doesn't seem to be the objective. The objective seems to be to sacrifice the few for the good of those in power. Are they not also supposed to have Values and Ethics???
eljefe wrote on May 27, 2007 1:51 PM:I would be curious to know the background, motivation & qualifications of this author-reporter who seems anti war & anti military in the first place. Does he really think he has any fair perspective on this entire issue while writing in a vacuum? Suppose a radical terrorist killed your friends or loved ones would you wave at them? It so easy to be a reporter and have an opinion in the peaceful North County of San Diego. So far from wars reality!
Reardon wrote on May 27, 2007 2:32 PM:While some may draw a moral equivalency between having to wear underwear on the head, or a dog collar – and eye removal and beheading – I suspect if they were given the choice in real life, they would reach the right decision. Darn few would reply, "Whatever!"
Karl wrote on May 27, 2007 2:42 PM:John 1, lighten up
GOOD GOLLY MOLLY wrote on May 27, 2007 2:45 PM:Good golly molly, war is not an endeavor for the timid and the delicate. Just think of what it took to knock out the Japanese in WWII. Hey, those atomic bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed literally millions of non combatant civilians. Same with the fire bombing of Dresden and other German cities. Horrible, but it had to be done or we would be Heiling Hitler and/or be the slaves of the Japanese Emperor. Of course we shouldn't torture like putting people on the rack or burning them, but harsh methods are needed to extract vital information from a wily, clever enemy who hides among the civilians and uses children as suicide bombers. When the Word Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by suicide pilots, about 3,000 innocent civilians were killed. Grunts in combat are going to snap under the ghastly pressure and shoot somebody they see as the enemy even though the luxury of a long and careful analysis after the fact reveals that they erred. The only war crime I am seeing is the trial of these same grunts who did snap under pressure ~ the horrendous pressure of combat in that hell they call Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh yeah, that's where beheading American captives is a sport and dragging their mutilated and maimed corpses through the streets is met with cheers and celebration. Gimme a break.
GOOD GOLLY MOLLY wrote on May 27, 2007 3:03 PM:Just to add. Don't forget that President Truman PERSONALLY authorized the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and when the Japanese refused to surrender, he authorized the bombing of Nagasaki. Then the Emperor called it quits, ending WWII and saving countless thousands of American lives. Now let's say you have captured a high level leader of Al Quieda, the terrorist enemy. Further, you know that he has information that would save thousands of American lives. He won't talk, of course. Now ~ do you just say, "Oh, OK. Sorry for asking. We know you have your rights and now how about a nice shihkabob and then you can relax after a nice hot bath." You'd put the screws to that guy until he tells you what you need to know! If you needed to transfer him to a friendly Arab country like Egypt for "extraction" of the infomation, you would. Or you'd be crazy if you didn't. Reality differs widely from theory.
AW4cryinoutloud wrote on May 27, 2007 4:53 PM:To eljefe: Hi! Join the ranks of being wrong every now and then. It wasn't the reporter who said to wave. It was the Convening Authority in all of these cases against our Marines: General Mattis. I'm with you 100% on the (wave even though your buddies have been killed) comment by Mattis. Treating Iraqi's with respect is one thing, but how much more sucking up do Mattis, Conway, Hagee, and our politicians expect of these Marines? Especially when they may be sucking up to the enemy when they wave. Just seems that these so-called leaders are eroding the respect our troops should be given. Let Mattis and his Generals get out there and wave. Let THEM show the Iraqi's how brave they are as the leaders of our Marines. Let THEM suck up to WHOEVER!!!
To Mark... wrote on May 27, 2007 5:28 PM:You don't Really feel these Marines are Old Enough to die for Your Rights and Freedoms and Too Young to Drink?! That's a REAL Double Standard.
Pea Shooter Service- wrote on May 27, 2007 5:54 PM:This is not a WAR. This is playing cop with pea shooter weapons. A war destroys cities, food and the ability of a country to wage war. Unleash the USAF bombers, the real firepower in our military arsenal. The powers to be want more boots on the ground at the expense of USAF firepower,and manpower- cut by 40 thousand Airmen, . The B-52 is fifty years old! The wings are falling off. The day of the big wars are over-YOU Think! What are we going to do when Iran goes nuclear - call in the marines with small arms? China is building a new bomber every month and Russia is re-arming. The world sees us floundering in Iraq -they see how weak we are- going door to door with pea shooters- winning hearts and minds.
To Mark wrote on May 27, 2007 7:28 PM:No ... it's the same Marine Corps that thinks it's ethical to send underage kids to die.
Skip wrote on May 27, 2007 7:35 PM:Gee.... How much "ethics" do you need to kill people. War is ugly. If WW2 was held today, I do not think we would win.
To : Pea Shooter Service wrote on May 27, 2007 7:36 PM:Your comment is really frightening. Especially since I serve on a ship that is almost 30 years old.
To Good Golly wrote on May 27, 2007 8:00 PM:Obviously you aren't aware of history. The Japanese attacked our homeland at Pearl Harbor. Last time I checked Iraq did not attack us. Get your facts straight before you condone the ultimate in violence. And we should all mourn the millions who have been killed as a result of wars that cannot be justified.
Pea Shooter Service- wrote on May 27, 2007 8:17 PM:Both the Navy and Air force equipment is getting very old. The USAF is already in a readyness crisis. Recapitalizaton funds have been diverted from Navy and Air Force to pay for operatins in Afghanistan and Iraq.
MorallyRight1 wrote on May 27, 2007 10:28 PM:....quoted Mattis as telling his Marines to "kill the right people and protect everybody else. Protect, protect, protect." And, just how, General Mattis are the men on the front lines supposed to do that? Tell the difference between the right and wrong people to 'kill'? Are you going to send them different colored t-shirts so our boys can tell them apart? You can't just send memo's to your underlings and expect it to just happen. You see, that is the difference between being on the front line and talking about it. And, you, Sir, just aren't qualified. Furthermore, the decision should be made as to either we are there to 'kill' the enemy, or 'protect' the residents. Because they are, or could be, one and the same. The command needs to make up it's mind. That is just what is at the bottom of all of these cases. You cannot have a foot on either side of the fence and be in the Military in Iraq. But General's should know that, shouldn't they, had they ever been there? Ethics, logic, justice, politics, faith, skill, morals and protecting our freedom are all thrown into one pot not large enough to come out tasting appetizing. And the men who oversee the kitchen need to realize they can't have it all. These are men and women, not robots.
GOOD GOLLY MOLLY wrote on May 28, 2007 8:54 AM:to blogger of 8pm, 5-27: Hey, do yourself a favor and at least take American History 101 before you try to pass yourself off as some kind of historian. Get this: Saddam Hussein gave the family of ANY suicide bomber $25,000. Last time I checked (to use your clever little words), Hussein was President of IRAQ then and the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked by SUICIDE BOMBERS. Hussein was complicit in that and many other ways in attacking us either directly or indirectly. Hussein beat the drums of war against us, loud and clear. A clear line can be drawn from Iraq to 9/11 as any historian worthy of the name can attest. Or do you think it was OK to allow Monster Hussein to continue his reign of terror?
Gee, how'd this happen? wrote on May 28, 2007 9:35 AM:Just imagine... if the numbskull currently occupying the White House had gotten some Ethics Instruction before it was too late, we wouldn't even BE in this immoral war.
pam wrote on May 28, 2007 12:44 PM:Wow!! This numbskull as you call him that got us in this war!! There could also be a possiblity that none on us would be here either. I can not say what I would do if I were in the shoes of any of our military. If you aren't there, if you have never experienced it, neither can anyone else. Please just let them do their job! I would dare to say that if anyone has a loved one over there fighting for our country and our freedom, they are not going to like having any set policy as to how they act while in combat or in a dangerous situation. How are you to tell a terroist from a friendly person? They wear no uniforms!! I certainy would not want a loved one to ask questions or follow any rules that could harm them.
AW4cryinoutloud wrote on May 28, 2007 2:45 PM:I re-read Solis' comments. The more I learn about the idiocy of what the Generals of our military demand of our Marines, it disgusts me. They are the leaders. They are the reason for the end result of everything that has happened; yet there is nothing more expected of "them" than to keep their brass shiny. MorallyRight1 was right (pardon the pun); Our troops are NOT robots. Solis says the rules are intended to minimize any unnecessary suffering. Does anybody with power in this military or this country give a damn about the unnecessary suffering of our troops and their families? I'm sick and tired of hearing about everybody else's suffering. Mattis stresses that mistreatment of civilians helps the insurgency...BULL! Sucking up to the insurgents and cowering to every stupid expectation of Human Rights groups, our mainstream media,and politicians is what helps the insurgency. Pentagon officials who speak on condition of anonymity in order to influence the persecution of our Marines, is what helps the insurgency. THEY are the ones causing division within. If our troops are expected to "Protect, protect, protect", every cottonpickin' civilian in Iraq...then we may as well surrender because it is humanly, politically, and militarily freakin' impossible. Did Mattis and his fellow Generals miss the memo that must have informed them that NO Human can tell the enemy from those who should be protect, protected, protected? There is NO Feel Good thing we can do that will EVER keep the insurgency from doing exactly what it has done from day one to present. You who lead; Stop putting all of the weight on the shoulders of our troops and take some of it yourselves. Give yourselves a real reason to keep that brass shiny!!!
esteban wrote on Jun 2, 2007 1:12 PM:With training like this, the USA will NEVER, EVER, win another war.
wilie wrote on Oct 17, 2007 7:27 PM:Hey AW4cryinoutloud......especially when everyone is a insurgent look alike.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement