On November 19, 2005, US troops responded to an improvised explosive device (IED) that claimed one marine’s life by slaughtering 19 people near the explosion in cold blood. The events are no longer a matter of dispute. The investigation now seeks to find the guilty parties.
Assuredly, the incident will be dismissed as an anomaly, just as Abu Ghraib was. Assuredly, assurances will be given that justice will be served in the end. Perhaps, the price tag of $1500 to $2500 that the US military has paid as compensation for each life that it took may even be raised to some amount greater $5000 per life.
But assuredly, the dark cloud that hovers over this conflict will only get darker. Is this the purpose we envisioned for our best trained soldiers? Why is this question considered an act of heresy?
Why is it that in Iraq and elsewhere, the British soldiers and the Australian soldiers can effect much greater change without firing any bullets? See what Australian troops did in East Timor recently.
Are Americans out for blood or for peace? If it is for blood, then the terrorist won, assuredly.