Looks like this turned into another "Haditha".
Marine officers won't face charges
JENNIFER HLAD
May 23, 2008 - 1:49PM
The Marines of Marine Special Operations Company F "acted appropriately" when they fired in response to an attack March 4, 2007, in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland said Friday.
The written statement from the commanding general of Marine Corps Central Command came in response to a January court of inquiry into the shootings, which Army officials said killed Afghan civilians. Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney with Special Operations Command Central expelled the Marine special operations company from Afghanistan after the incident.
Two Marines, Maj. Fred Galvin and Capt. Vincent Noble, were named in the court of inquiry into the events in Afghanistan's Nangahar province on March 4 and March 9, 2007.
Both men were accused, but not charged, with conspiracy to make a false official statement, dereliction of duty, failure to obey a lawful order and making a false official statement.
"Appropriate administrative actions based on the findings of the court of inquiry" will be taken against Galvin, who served as the company commander at the time of the incidents; Noble, the platoon commander at the time; and Capt. Robert Olsen, the unit's intelligence officer and second-in-command, according to the press release from Marine Corps Forces Central Command.
Galvin's civilian attorney Mark Waple said he believed the actions would be related to the March 9, 2007, incident that hasn't been publicly discussed in detail.
"This is a concurrence that all the Marines on the patrol did the right thing," Waple said.
Galvin and Noble are still based at Camp Lejeune and assigned to the Marine Corps special operations command; Galvin is the unit's senior training officer, and Noble is a platoon leader.
"Obviously, I am delighted about the findings," said civilian attorney Knox Nunnally, who represented Noble before the Court of Inquiry. "From a legal standpoint, it was overwhelming that this was going to be the result."
Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a spokesman for Marine Corps Forces Central Command, said the finding of the Court of Inquiry will not be released to the public. Helland wasn't available for comment, he said.
A message left Friday afternoon by The Associated Press with Afghanistan's embassy in Washington was not immediately returned.
During the three-and-a-half week court of inquiry, two colonels and a lieutenant colonel heard from more than 45 witnesses and examined more than 12,000 pages of documents about what happened March 4 and 9.
On March 4, the company was traveling in a six-vehicle convoy on a busy highway when it was attacked with a vehicle-borne suicide bomb as it neared a bridge.
The first witness called in the inquiry, a former Marine who was serving with the unit at the time, told the panel he did not see or hear anyone shooting at the Humvees after the explosion, but that some of the Marine gunners did shoot at vehicles on the road.
"At the time, I knew there was an inherent danger in the area, but at the same time, I thought it was a little bit excessive," then-Staff Sgt. Nathaniel Travers said.
But more than a dozen other witnesses - including Marines and a translator who was riding next to Travers - testified that they were involved in a "complex attack" and fired their weapons only when fired upon.
Travers told The Daily News on Friday that he was not suprised with the results.
"If they didn't (find the Marines acted appropriately), it would look pretty bad for all of the upper echelon staff who rushed to get MSOC F out the door and into action in a kind of warfare they were not prepared to fight. Afghanistan is not Iraq, the training and experience base were insufficient, too much emphasis was placed on Direct Action and too little place on counterinsurgency basics, ..." he wrote in an e-mail. "I testified true to my heart for my family, for my son. It doesn't matter what the General's verdict is, my conscience is clear, and I know I have set a moral standard for my son to live up to."
The panel also heard testimony about the events of March 9, in which two Afghan civilians were injured and two vehicles damaged. However, testimony about those incidents was classified and closed to media and members of the public.
The proceedings ended Jan. 29, and Helland received the panel's recommendations March 7. Friday, he released a statement saying the Marines acted appropriately "and in accordance with the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures in place at the time in response to a complex attack."
The inquiry also identified administrative, manning and training issues, and those have been forwarded to the commander of Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command for action, the statement said.
jdnews.com
U.S. MARINES AND TRUTH
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
28 May 2008
An article published yesterday in the New York Times, focuses on a crack group of leathernecks with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, who have been taking the fight hard to the Taliban in Afghanistan since landing in that country earlier this year. The Marines' performance has been exemplary – in very tough environs I might add – as would be expected of America's few good men.
The Times cannot deny this fact. But the Old Gray Lady also and obviously cannot pass up an opportunity to get in its personal dig against U.S. Marines – or any other soldiers, sailors, or airmen who might give it the opportunity – even when the dig is based on an obvious untruth (at the very least, a public deception).
Here's what the Times says regarding the 24th MEU:
"It was their first major combat operation since landing in March, and it stood in stark contrast to the events of a year earlier, when a Marine unit was removed in disgrace within weeks of arriving because its members shot and killed 19 civilians after a suicide bombing attack."
What the Times fails to explain in this piece (but to its credit, did mention in a Saturday piece), is that the Marines in 2007 – WHO WERE NOT REMOVED IN DISGRACE by the way – have since been exonerated. And there never was any proof — forensic or otherwise — that 19 civilians were killed.
This is the kind of thing that shames me as a journalist (Far too many in our profession are too quick to publicly condemn – thus convict in the court of public opinion – and then fail to adequately retract the inaccuracies which have the potential of ruining peoples' lives.) and boils my blood as a former Marine.
In a statement released Friday, Lt. Gen. Samuel T. Helland, commanding general of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Central Command, determined that the officers – including Maj. Fred C. Galvin, commander of Fox Company, Second Marine Special Operations Battalion; and Capt. Vincent J. Noble, special ops platoon commander — and the troops in the Marine convoy "acted appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures in place at the time in response to a complex attack."
Galvin's Marines were ordered out of Afghanistan – far too hastily in my professional opinion – pending an investigation that dragged on far too long, and in which too much political correctness and perhaps (based on my own personal musing) a bit of inter-service rivalry were infused: Not to mention the fact that the word of the locals, and a human rights group that was not there at the time, was considered more believable than that of the Marines.
The locals, whose stories often conflicted with one anothers,' never could come up with a firm casualty count (though U.S. Army officers reportedly made cash payments to Afghans who said they were survivors or members of survivors' families).
Fact is, there is no proof – much less evidence – that any civilians were killed: No bodies or forensic evidence, except for that of the suicide bomber, were recovered.
"No civilians were killed," says Galvin's mother, Toni Galvin, who along with her family and an entire network of Marine Moms, have been fighting to get their sons vindicated in the public eye. "Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney took the word of the area locals. Yet many of our guys withstood nearly a year of interrogation by the NCIS [Naval Criminal Investigative Service] trying to get them to break."
But truth can't be broken.
Maj. Galvin, Capt. Noble, and the other brave Marines who have had to endure this shabby treatment after serving our country honorably in one of the world's most dangerous places, are the true victims: These young men deserve medals and promotions. Why aren't those Americans who say they support the troops demanding that?
Instead, most Americans reading the Times on Saturday would have simply picked up the paper, read about a Marine unit being "removed in disgrace," shaken their heads (wrongly assuming the report to be true), had another sip of coffee, and gone on with their lives. Meanwhile, Galvin, Noble, the other Marines wrongly accused of "overreacting" in a firefight, were hung out to dry.
Yes, the Marines were exonerated – as they should have been – which means they will not be sent to prison. But what about their careers? Their reputations? The one-plus year of hell they've had to endure? And what about the third-largest newspaper in the nation still reporting that they were "removed in disgrace?"
analyst-network.com |
