THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

Finally, we are getting the other side of the Haditha story. According to this Washington Post story, through their lawyers, some of the accused Marines are giving their account of the action. Based on what I read in this story, which is presumably only the first in a number of stories to come as the lawyers get their client's version out to the public, these Marines did not kill civilians "in cold blood" as Congressman Murtha said, but may have killed them through actions that went beyond the rules of engagement (finding out exactly what those rules were for these men will go a long way toward determining their culpability). If these Marines, responding to AK-47 fire from some houses, then entered those homes, kicking down doors, throwing grenades, and firing through the smoke to 'clear' those homes, then they may have not taken the required care to ensure that no civilians were present in the line of fire. That would be a mistake and a tragedy, but not murder 'in cold blood', not executing women and children while they begged for their lives, as we have heard from some Iraqi 'witnesses'. As I wrote in an earlier post, I find the story of Marines murdering civilians deliberately hard to believe, but not impossible to believe. I still hold out hope that what happened in Haditha was either simply the result of some poor decision-making by the on-scene leadership, or something that was caused by insurgents who do not care that their actions place civilians at risk.