Stop the Next My Lai

The New York Times saw fit to mark the fifth anniversary of the US invasion by inviting nine "experts" including not one soldier to reflect on the conduct of the war and occupation of Iraq. The Times chose to listen to Richard Perle and Robert Bremer III but not one soldier. The Times has no time for troops like Camilo Mejia or Kelly Dougherty. But the public must take the time.

Mejia and Dougherty were among the hundreds of young servicemen and women who shared wrenching, infuriating, riveting eyewitness testimony over the last three days at Winter Soldier hearings in Silver Spring, Md. While the Times's "experts," include men and women who personally played a disastrous role in urging on and then conducting this war, the Winter Soldier hearings, organized by Iraq Veterans Against the War, brought the public the occupation as seen by the very young men and women at the bottom of the chain of command whose lives have forever been transformed by what we and the US government asked them to do in our name.

It is testimony you have a responsibility to watch or listen to. Some addressed broad policy issues having to do with the rules of engagement, occupation, the treatment of civilians and detainees and the treatment of troops on their return. Some related to specific violations, including rape, indiscriminate killing, torture, desecration of the dead and the apparently common practice of dropping weapons on dead civilians to make them look like combatants. More than one soldier described being told to carry "drop weapons," in their vehicles.

The IVAW say they have corroborated these stories. Reporters urgently need to follow up. As one witness, Joshua Castell put it, "Moral slippery slopes go from top to bottom." Those at the bottom cannot be the only ones to take responsibility.

After Winter Soldier 1971, the proceedings were read into the congressional record and the Senate Foreign Relations committee held hearings that gave vets an opportunity to testify. Will this Democratic-controlled Congress give these men and women the same opportunity? These soldiers are willing to take oaths. On Sunday, Former US Army Captain Luis Montalvan, who served two tour of Iraq, said he'd be grateful to have the chance. His colleagues, agreed, "on a stack of bibles."

Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan wrapped up March 16, forty years to the day after the My Lai Massacre which started the Whole Winter soldier phenomenon. As Garrett Reppenhagen, the first active duty soldier to join IVAW put it Sunday, "It's time to stop this occupation before the next Tet Offensive." As IVAW are showing loud and clear, this occupation is not winnnable, it's is destroying Iraq, tearing apart this country and breaking down our military. It has to stop now. And not just the troops need to feel the pain.

Comments (22)

1. No expert or politician was ever brought into the dock for the war crimes the US committed in Nam.

   So why expect it now? Because we have a stronger Congress? Or perhaps it's because our president & vice-president are so highly moral, that of course they'll confess & repent?

   Accountablity ended with the '04 election, ChenyBush have told us, clearly. Impeachment is off the table, the Dem leadership have told us, clearly.

   So go after some grunts, those poor shnooks deserve it, clearly it's our American way, to stick it to the little people.

   Posted by sloper at 03/17/2008 @ 1:48pm

2. Now, now Ms Flanders...as our local neo-cons will be happy to tell us....

   those soldiers represent a "TINY minority" of the troops..."a miniscule fraction"...."merely a blip"...

   and "most of the troops in Iraq are die-hard Republicans who love the President, even Vice-President, AND Senator McCain...and want us to stay until 'victory'...even if that takes 100 years!"

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2008 @ 2:05pm

3. I asked one of those neo-cons how many soldiers standing in opposition to the war would be enough and never got a response. So I have to assume as long as ONE soldier is still gung-ho with us still being there then it's fine with them to invest the money and their lives. But since I've noticed that nothing exists beyond what directly affects them, they probably honestly don't care for the young men and women doing the bidding of King Georgie.

   Posted by yutsano at 03/17/2008 @ 2:34pm

4. Posted by SLOPER 03/17/2008 @ 1:48pm

   Don't forget to add that we are all too dangerously close to electing a guy with a foreign policy that is perhaps worse than Bush (if that's even possible)! The voters will have told us, clearly!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 03/17/2008 @ 3:27pm

5. Posted by MASK 03/17/2008 @ 2:05pm

   It's not just the local neo-cons. Turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. and the "experts" and cherry picked soldiers still only have good things to say about the "success of the surge", the "progress in Iraq", and how "things are really starting to turn around". One still has to look far and wide within the liberal media to find a dissenting perspective on the war.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 03/17/2008 @ 3:31pm

6. Posted by MATTMAN 03/17/2008 @ 3:31pm

   Well, they buy the idea that going from 50 deaths every 6 weeks to 15 deaths every six weeks shows "the light at the end of the tunnel" (despite the fact, that it stalls at 15).

   Plus they've got McCain rah-rah'ing for it (and they still love "Maverick John") and Hillary still fence-straddling with her Kerryesque line of 'I oppose this war and I'll win it!'

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2008 @ 4:22pm

7. I feel like calling animal control after that post. Amazing how he refuses to acknowledge that the people making these statements had the huevos to go pick up the gun and follow orders and defend his right to espouse that senseless vitriol. They are obviously anti-American ands anti-USA though, cause Rio said so!

   Posted by yutsano at 03/17/2008 @ 6:17pm

8. Don't like the message? Malign the messenger! Dunno why you bothered since your mind's already made up there LVL. Oh and BTW you just proved Mask a prophet, he saw the "tiny minority" comment coming a mile away.

   Posted by yutsano at 03/17/2008 @ 6:25pm

9. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/17/2008 @ 6:21pm

   So essentially, if a soldier disagrees with the political use of the military (including themselves)...they're a "coward"?

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2008 @ 7:40pm

10. Posted by YUTSANO 03/17/2008 @ 6:25pm

    The simpler the mind, the easier the prediction.

    Armchair warriors (as most neo-cons are, even old vets like LVLIB, who I think was a supply sargeant in Saigon) are convinced that Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard, and Fox News know more about what's going on in Iraq...than soldiers that have been there.

    And of course that any who disagree with the 30% neo-con club are "malcontents, miscreants, and some cowards".

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2008 @ 7:42pm

11. Dammit Mask stop making my points before I can get to typing them!

    In all seriousness, since that was almost his exact same grouse regarding every single Iraq War vet protestor, I guess it's like barrels and fishes. Yet my question still goes unanswered: how many need to say they don't agree before they stop being "malcontents, miscreants, and...cowards"?

    Posted by yutsano at 03/17/2008 @ 8:16pm

12. 2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

    www.votenic.com [votenic.com]

    Results Now Posted Instantly!

    Check Back Weekly For New Polls!

    Posted by votenic at 03/17/2008 @ 10:03pm

13. I listened to many hours of this gut pouring testimonies, a long litany of regrets and pain over indefensible and irreversible acts. Such powerful and historical event, should reach the broad audience that is financing this ill advised universal war on terror. It is in the interest of the american people to stop this mad-men war before it burn us all. abdo

    Posted by abdosoliman at 03/18/2008 @ 03:53am

14. When the peace movement started during 'Nam, everyone involved were labeled communist pinko anti-American fags. Local, state, and especially federal governments did every thing they could to "diffuse" the situation. Ditto for the civil rights movement. If history were left up to the neocons, white men would be the only Americans to have any rights at all. Back to 'Nam. The peace movement finally got some teeth when middle-class Americans finally woke up and started asking theirselves "Why are our American sons(and daughters) dying?". I would guess that a vast majority of these people were against the "hippies" and the movement until they started seeing that their elected leaders were the ones that were anti-American. Coincidentally, this was also the time when our Constitution started being hi-jacked. See Watergate, illegal phone taps by the FBI, and possible involvement in assasinations. The parallels of then and now are too obvious to ignore. The biggest and most important comparison is that the neo-cons wave the flag of patriotism high and mighty when any one person questions their motives. Yes, our military have given their lives so even these neo-cons have the right to espouse their opinions. I do not, however, believe their lives were given to allow the neo-cons to lie to the American people as well as walk all over the Constitution. It is one thing to pursue a political ideology. It is quite another to do so at all costs, financially as well as morally.

    Posted by UTByrd at 03/18/2008 @ 08:47am

15. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/17/2008 @ 11:53pm

    You said "some cowards"? The rest?

    And did Mejia desert because he didn't want to fight...or did he actually GO TO IRAQ, serve six months there, and then apply for consciencious objector status?

    Seems if he had been "cowardly" he NEVER would have gone to Iraq,huh?

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2008 @ 09:30am

16. Also for Yutsano and any others who want to slam me for my comments; I earned the right to label these people. I paid the price. How about you?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/17/2008 @ 11:53pm | ignore this person

    Sorry, but you didn't earn the right to make things up.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/18/2008 @ 09:59am

17. It seems to me that people are cherry picking evidence to stop this war.

    Posted by abell12ct at 03/18/2008 @ 1:16pm

18. Hyping the bad. Downplaying the good.

    Posted by abell12ct at 03/18/2008 @ 1:17pm

19. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/18/2008 @ 12:18pm

    LVLIB, question. All those times you saw combat in 'Nam...you never questioned the validity of the war?

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2008 @ 1:44pm

20. Posted by ABELL12CT 03/18/2008 @ 1:16pm

    Posted by ABELL12CT 03/18/2008 @ 1:17pm

    I'm sorry, are you doing a parody? A satrical "reverse" of how we got INTO the war, by painting that as 'the same as' why we shoud get out of it? i.e. "cherry-picking" and "hyping" and "downplaying"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2008 @ 1:46pm

21. I don't think ABell can figure out what angle it's trying to get at (it sounds dehumanizing but I can't assume a gender, although it's behind Her Majesty) but logic certainly ain't one of them.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/18/2008 @ 8:39pm

22. Am I supposed to give you credit for an illegal police action that ended when I was three years old LVL? Do you think that gives you more rights than me, the son of a proud Navy sailor of 21 years? I grew up knowing more about the military than you ever did shooting at brown people in the jungle, so if you think I can be lectured by the grizzly ol' vet who has learned nothing of the lessons of his own actions in the jungle, you definitely got another thing coming.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/18/2008 @ 8:42pm