Gen. Petraeus and the $2000 Payoff

RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Visit Us
LinkedIn

By: Greg Mitchell

Until recently, the press has rarely covered the U.S. military program that occasionally offers ?condolence? payments to Iraqis and Afghans whose loved ones have been killed or injured by our troops. But a number of high-profile incidents involving the killing of noncombatants has drawn some long-overdue, if fleeting, attention to the subject.

On Tuesday, in the latest example, the U.S. military apologized for a not-accidental atrocity near Jalalabad back in March and agreed to make the usual maximum payment — don?t laugh — of about $2000 to survivors for each of the 19 Afghan lives lost.

That?s an improvement in some ways. Last month I titled a column on this subject, “Sorry We Shot Your Kid, Here?s $500,” referring to a documented case in Iraq.

Those 19 deaths in Afghanistan (and 50 wounded), by the way, were not the result of some unintentional air strike. Troops, angry about a bomb attack on them, carried out a rampage along a ten-mile stretch of highway, shooting villagers apparently at random. Well, we got around to saying we were sorry — two months later.

Not that we don’t kill civilians from the air. Today, AP reports that a U.S. air strike killed 21 noncombatants in southern Afghanistan, including many children, on Tuesday.

The war zone killings, the justification for most of them — we rarely apologize even as we sometimes pay up ? and the amount of the restitution, are all appalling, and a debasement of our values. It?s time for the press to ponder all of this deeply as the war — and the suffering of U.S. troops and civilians in Iraq — continues with no end in sight.

This also serves to reminds us of several disturbing questions: How many innocent Iraqis have been killed or injured, accidentally or on purpose, by our troops? And what is the price of a human life — in our view, and in the view of the survivors whose hearts and minds we are attempting to win?

Reporters should also ask Gen. David Petraeus, who is directing the “surge” effort in Iraq, why he lied in responding to a reporter’s question this week concerning widespread abuse by U.S. troops.

At the Associated Press? annual meeting in New York on Tuesday, I sat in the audience observing Gen. Petraeus on a huge screen, via satellite from Baghdad, as he answered questions from two AP journalists. Asked about a U.S. Army Surgeon General study of over 1,300 troops in Iraq, released last week, which showed increasing mental stress — and an alarming spillover into poor treatment of noncombatants — Petraeus replied, “When I received that survey I was very concerned by the results. It showed a willingness of a fair number to not report the wrongdoing of their buddies.”

That’s true enough, but then he asserted that the survey showed that only a “small number” admitted they may have mistreated “detainees” — a profoundly misleading statement.

Actually, the study found that at least 10% of U.S. forces reported that they had personally, and without cause, mistreated civilians (not detainees) through physical violence or damage to personal property. So much for the claims by President Bush, military leaders and conservative pundits that 99.9% of U.S. troops always behave honorably. Of course, that kind of record has never been achieved by any country in any war.

The survey also noted that only 47% of the soldiers and 38% of marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. More than 40% said they backed torture in certain circumstances. Even worse, nearly one in five said that all noncombatants “should be treated as insurgents.” About 30% said their officers had not made it clear that they should not mistreat civilians.

Only 40% of American marines and 55% of soldiers in Iraq said they would report a fellow service member for killing or injuring an innocent Iraqi. Of course, this only guarantees that it will happen again, and again. But that?s okay, a few American dollars will make that right again.

Or maybe not. Last month I spoke with Jon Tracy, a former Army captain who helped administer and make day-to-day condolence or ?solatia? payment decisions in Iraq as a Judge Advocate in 2004 and 2005. This came after I found on the Web a paper he had written about his experience which critiqued the program in a balanced way. At the time I was deeply troubled after examining files on hundreds of Iraqi claims forced into the open by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Every Iraqi he had dealt with Iraq, Tracy revealed, “expressed shock and disbelief” when he told them he could only offer them, at most, $2,500 for a precious life lost. He observed that this “limits the unit?s ability to adequately assist in the most egregious cases.? Under the rules, ?the full market value may be paid for a Toyota run over by a tank in the course of a non-combat related accident, but only $2,500 may be paid for the death of a child shot in the crossfire. … The artificial limit leaves survivors bitter and frustrated at the U.S.?

In other words, it can do more harm than good. The solution, of course, is to make such payments unnecessary — by removing our soldiers from what Robert Jay Lifton memorably labeled “an atrocity-producing situation.”
**

UPDATE:

(AP) A Marine sergeant testified Wednesday that he repeatedly told higher-ups that the November 2005 killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha warranted an investigation, but he was told not to worry about it.

“Knowing what happened on Nov. 19, I knew something had to be done with an investigation,” said 1st Sergeant Albert Espinosa, who maintained casualty reports for Kilo Company at the time of the killings.

Espinosa testified on the second day of a preliminary hearing for Capt. Randy W. Stone, a Marine lawyer from Dunkirk, Md. Stone is accused along with three officers of dereliction of duty for failing to investigate the deaths, which followed the death of a Marine in a roadside bombing.

Espinosa said in the days after the killings, he told Stone and the company’s commander, Capt. Lucas McConnell, that an investigation should be launched. “They said don’t worry about it, battalion will handle it,” he said. “It wasn’t the answer I was looking for.”

Espinosa also testified that log books from Nov. 19 were incomplete or missing.

The hearing is part of an Article 32 investigation, the military’s equivalent to a grand jury proceeding. Maj. Thomas McCann, the investigating officer, will hear evidence and recommend whether the charges should go to trial in the biggest U.S. criminal case involving civilian deaths in the Iraq war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *