Lies and Coverups

by Mark Follman

"Kill counts," coverups and the chain of command

The infamous "few rotten apples" explanation for the catastrophe at Abu Ghraib prison may finally be receding as the Pentagon confronts a recent string of alleged atrocities elsewhere in Iraq -- and a necessary accountability up the chain of command. The Los Angeles Times reports today:

"Military prosecutors and investigators probing the killing of three Iraqi detainees by U.S. troops in May believe the unit's commanders created an atmosphere of excessive violence by encouraging 'kill counts' and possibly issuing an illegal order to shoot Iraqi men. At a military hearing Wednesday on the killing of the detainees near Samarra, witnesses painted a picture of a brigade that operated under loose rules allowing wanton killing and tolerating violent, anti-Arab racism.

"Some military officials believe that the shooting of the three detainees and the killing of 24 civilians in November in Haditha reveal failures in the military chain of command, in one case to establish proper rules of engagement and in the other to vigorously investigate incidents after the fact. 'The bigger thing here is the failure of the chain of command,' said a Defense Department official familiar with the investigations."

Yesterday, the Pentagon also announced the completion of its primary investigation into Haditha, which found that Marines had deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children. The Los Angeles Times adds today that while the investigation doesn't explicitly accuse the Marine command in Iraq of a coverup, it "cites several instances of information being ignored or evidence being destroyed, including log entries from the day the killings took place."

Initial findings indicate that results of a probe into the Samarra incident could be "even more troubling," the Times reports. "Military officials are investigating Army Col. Michael Steele, the commander of the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade, whose soldiers are accused of killing the three Iraqi detainees.

Investigators are trying to determine whether Steele issued an illegal order to 'kill all military aged males' and encouraged unrestrained killing by his troops."

Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, who back in May charged that the Haditha slayings were done "in cold blood," and who is now being sued for defamation by one of the Marines involved, clarified his remarks in a statement Thursday. According to the Washington Post, he also reiterated his call for the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. "When I spoke up about Haditha, my intention was to draw attention to the horrendous pressure put on our troops in Iraq and to the cover-up of the incident," Murtha said in a written statement. "Our troops are caught in the middle of a tragic dilemma. The military trains them to fight a conventional war and use overwhelming force to protect U.S. lives. I agree with that policy, but when we use force, we often kill civilians. What are the consequences?"

Combat soldiers are trained to dehumanize and kill the enemy, and the rules of engagement no doubt can get clouded in perilous guerrilla war zones, as many parts of Iraq have become. Murtha's question about consequences must indeed apply not only to hardened leaders like Steele, but to the leaders back in Washington who thrust him and his men into the whole mess in the first place.

Rumsfeld and the fine art of lying

You could probably understand why Donald Rumsfeld initially refused to testify publicly before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. Aside from the demands of his very busy schedule, the defense secretary probably had a hunch that he'd face some uncomfortable questions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did an about-face after his plans to snub the committee sparked an uproar on Capitol Hill Wednesday -- and, in deciding to make an appearance after all, apparently went ahead and prepared a new-and-improved version of his perspective from the get-go.

"We hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, ripping into him at today's hearing, "but because of the administration's strategic blunders -- and frankly the record of incompetence in executing -- you are presiding over a failed policy." She added that Rumsfeld had appeared before the committee numerous times since 2002 and "made many comments and presented many assurances that have frankly proven to be unfulfilled."
Rumsfeld's response was, well, not pretty. "I have never painted a rosy picture. I have been very measured in my words, and you’d have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been excessively optimistic. I understand this is tough stuff."

Anyone who hasn't been stuck in a cave in Tora Bora for the last four years knows that's a flat-out lie. There are, of course, many examples that could be gathered from when Rumsfeld and other top Bush officials sprayed a rhetorical puff of perfume over the rising stench of destruction from Kabul to Baghdad. Here's one, from a month before the invasion of Iraq: Appearing on PBS' "News Hour" on Feb. 20, 2003, Rumsfeld was asked by Jim Lehrer if the American soldiers would be greeted as liberators. "There is no question but that they would be welcomed," Rumsfeld replied. And then he painted a picture indeed: "Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaida would not let them do. Saddam Hussein has one of the most vicious regimes on the face of the earth. And the people know that."