MARINES KILLED THEIR OWN
Conquistador
with Marine field historians shortly after the March 23, 2003 ugly fire
incident at An Nasiriyah,. Segments were played on March 19, 2004 during an
NPR report by Jackie Northam. See this site's article on killing of Marines
at An Nasiriyah. The Marines described the deadly strafing by the A-10's,
which according to one sergeant accounted for most of their dead.
On March 29, 2004, the US Centeral Command issued a press release on the US
Air Forces, Central Command report on the incident. The press release stated
that:
A total of 18 Marines were killed and 17 were wounded. Eight of the deaths
were verified as the result of enemy fire; of the remaining 10 Marines
killed, investigators were unable to determine the cause of death as the
Marines were also engaged in heavy fighting with the enemy at the time of
the incident. Of the 17 wounded, only one was conclusively determined to
have been hit by friendly fire. [sic - the fire in question was anything but
'friendly' - we prefer another term (suggestions welcome) and will try to
avoid the Department of Defense term unless quoting.]
Three Marines were wounded while inside vehicles that received both friendly
and hostile fire, and the exact sequence and source of their injuries could
not be determined.
Listening to the NPR report, and then reviewing the findings of the
investigation, one may almost wonder if these were describing two different
incidents.
When this incident was first happened, US authorities said that the Marines
had been ambushed by Iraqi's who first pretended to surrender. FoxNews,
March 24, 2003. Then, on March 29, 2003, the Charlotte Observer reported "
Nine N.C.-based Marines killed Sunday in the battle for Nasiriyah may have
been victims of friendly fire, not Iraqis pretending to surrender as
originally believed." (Scott Dodd's story is reprinted below, for reader's
convenience, under 'fair use.')
The military first told us that the Marines were killed by sneaky Iraqis.
Was this a ruse to cover-up the incident which included the strafing of
Marines with uranium rounds? (These rounds were so-called 'depleted' but
retain most of the radioactivity of the original uranium, with small amounts
of U-236, plutonium and neptunium from reprocessing.) Now, after NPR's
report during which we hear Marines - soon after the battle - describe the
deadly attacks by the A-10's - the military comes out with a press release
on its report, saying that it cannot confirm a single death due to friendly
fire.
A total of 18 Marines were killed and 17 were wounded. Eight of the deaths
were verified as the result of enemy fire; of the remaining 10 Marines
killed, investigators were unable to determine the cause of death as the
Marines were also engaged in heavy fighting with the enemy at the time of
the incident.
Of the 17 wounded, only one was conclusively determined to have been hit by
friendly fire.
Three Marines were wounded while inside vehicles that received both friendly
and hostile fire, and the exact sequence and source of their injuries could
not be determined. (from Central Command press release)
The military 'investigation' is in multiple parts - available currently at
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/newsfeatures.asp (includes links to
graphics files not provided below)/ See Section 1 Section 2 Section 3
Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 If the report is becomes unavailable
on the military site, please contact us as we have downloaded each
section.(Controversial material on DoD sites have been known to disappear.)
The Central Command's common explanation for each of the 10 Marines whom it
said were not clearly killed by enemy fire, was that each was killed by an
"indeterminable source." See Section 1, pages 31-44 of 100. In other words,
it could not tell the difference whether enemy fire or friendly fire caused
the death.
Did Colonel Reed Bonadonna foresee an outcome like this Central Command
report, when he talked to NPR's Jackie Northam: (includes comments by
Marines in the battle):
I think that most of the Marines felt that with the kind of price that is
being paid by this war, by a lot of people, and with the stakes being what
they are, that falling back on some kind of no comment or bland, evasive or
euphemistic language is really inadequate to the situation. That this kind
of sacrifice, only the truth is good enough. That to try to protect
somebody's nasty little career or to try to throw a gloss over this as if it
didn't exist. The proper function of military history is to instruct people
so we do it better next time, save people's lives.
Lastly, I invite the reader to listen to the Marines' vivid accounts of the
battle with the A-10's and compare it to the Central Command report (with
over 700 pages of material and photographs in graphic files.) Although they
are referred to in the Central Command report, the autopsy reports were not
present. The military cites these as evidence in showing that Marines were
killed by Iraqis or that their deaths were 'indeterminable.' One would think
that for Marines killed after being hit by DU rounds that tissue samples
would confirm such. As noted by Tedd Weyman, below, "A-10 30-mm rounds are
devastating anti-personnel ordnance. It is rare to survive a direct hit on
the body." Thus, if dead Marines were determined to have been hit by DU
rounds, it seems disingenuous and evasive to claim that their causes of
death were 'indeterminable.'
Concerning Marines who were wounded, it seems inconceivable that DU (both
radioactive and toxic as a heavy metal) would not be detectable by proper
testing. The report refers to Marines injured in a vehicle that was hit by
both Iraqi and A-10 fire. Yet it says it cannot determine what caused
injuries to these Marines. On April 4, 2004, the New York Daily News
reported that returning NY guard soldiers who were complaining of persistent
ailments had tested positive for DU. These soldiers had simply inhaled DU in
the war zone. Yet the military cannot determine if Marines wounded during
the A-10's attack had been injured by the DU rounds? (These Marines, sadly,
inhaled DU at the least, as noted by Tedd Weyman, below.)