They also demonstrated, by relating their firsthand experiences, how the military occupation of a foreign country inevitably leads to an increase in racism, dehumanization, and sexism directed both outward at the enemy and inward into the soul of the servicemember. Many of the veterans who testified apologized to their peers and to the American and Iraqi people. Others (and sometimes these were the same veterans) used their testimony to try to break their fellow citizens out of a collective apathy that allows the war and occupation to continue.
“These are the consequences for sending young men and women to battle,” former Marine Corps Rifleman Vincent Emanuele said in one of Winter Soldier’s opening panels. “What I’d like to ask anyone who’s witnessing this, or anyone who’s viewing this testimony, is to imagine your loved ones put in such positions. Your brothers, your sisters, your nieces, your nephews, your aunts, and your uncles, and more importantly, and maybe most importantly, to be able to put ourselves in the Iraqis’ shoes who encountered these events every day and for the last five years.”
In organizing Winter Soldier, IVAW took its inspiration from Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), which organized a precedent-setting gathering in 1971 in Detroit. At that time, the United States had reached a point in the Vietnam War very similar to the Iraq War in 2007. Public opinion had moved decidedly against the war, coalition partners like Australia and New Zealand were withdrawing their troops, and the Pentagon Papers, which had just been released, documented a long history of official lies. And yet the war continued, as President Richard Nixon pushed ahead with an expansion of U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia, which included the invasion of Cambodia.
Vietnam Veterans Against the War were determined to play a role in changing the course of the war. They gathered in Detroit to explain what they had really done while deployed overseas in service of their country. They showed, through first-person testimony, that atrocities like the My Lai massacre were not isolated exceptions.
“[The 1971] Winter Soldier heralded a significant change of opinion in the American public toward Vietnam veterans,” wrote historian Gerald Niccosia in Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans Movement, “not only in terms of a new willingness to hear their side of things, but also in the amount of respect and credibility they were accorded.”2
Over a dozen members of Congress endorsed the gathering. Senator George McGovern of South Dakota and Congressman John Conyers of Michigan called for full congressional investigations into charges leveled by the veterans at the Winter Soldier hearings. Three months later, twenty-seven-year-old Navy Lieutenant John Kerry, who had served on a Swift boat in Vietnam, took VVAW’s case to Congress and spoke before a jammed Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Television cameras lined the walls and veterans packed the seats.
“Many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia,” Kerry told the committee, describing the events of the Winter Soldier gathering. “It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit—the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.”
In one of the most famous antiwar speeches of the era, Kerry concluded, “Someone has to die so that President Nixon won’t be—and these are his words—‘the first president to lose a war.’ We are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”3
Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War hoped that Winter Soldier Iraq and Afghanistan would play a similarly historic role. So far, however, they’ve run up against indifference at high levels of Congress and the corporate media. Though the March 2008 gathering was timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and was held in Silver Spring, Maryland, less than ten miles from the White House, the personal testimony of hundreds of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans garnered scant coverage. The Washington Post buried an article on Winter Soldier Iraq and Afghanistan in the Metro section. The New York Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS ignored it completely.
Winter Soldier Iraq and Afghanistan did garner interest from the foreign press and military publications including Stars and Stripes and Army Times. Winter Soldier also caught the eyes of members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and on May 15, 2008, the caucus invited nine veterans to speak on Capitol Hill. “We now have an opportunity to hear not from the military’s top brass but directly from you,” Caucus Co-chair Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of California said, “the very soldiers who put your lives on the line to carry out this president’s failed policies.”
Again, the vast majority of mainstream media outlets passed on covering the Progressive Caucus forum on Winter Soldier, and, as of this writing, no standing committee of the House or Senate has extended an invitation to IVAW like the one extended to John Kerry in 1971 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its prestigious chair, William Fulbright.
Members of IVAW find these developments upsetting but not discouraging. Many say it’s more important to organize within the ranks of the military than inside the halls of Congress. Many observers believe the army is already close to its breaking point. In February 2008, General George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said, “The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance.”4
Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that cutting the time soldiers spend in combat is an integral part of reducing the stress on the force. In 2007, Senate Republicans and President George W. Bush sabotaged Democratic attempts to ensure troops as much rest time at home as they’d spent on their most recent tour overseas. Cycling troops through three or four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the only way Bush has been able to maintain a force of more than 140,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Many of IVAW’s most active members are veterans who served one tour in Iraq and then filed for conscientious-objector status or went AWOL to avoid a second deployment.
“We don’t need to rely on the mainstream media,” said Aaron Hughes, a former Illinois National Guardsman who drove convoys in Iraq. “We’re building up this community that’s saying: ‘I don’t have to follow these illegal orders. I do have a voice. And you know what, I’m not going to let a politician or a general or the media speak for me anymore. Let me tell you what’s really going on.’” Hughes added, “Let’s have those conversations in public, and together as a community we can end this war, because you know what—when the soldiers stop fighting this war, the war’s over.”
In the two months following Winter Soldier, IVAW increased its membership by 25 percent. Veterans around the country began holding smaller, mini-Winter Soldiers at which soldiers who had been unable to travel to Washington were able to tell their stories. Despite the media blackout, the grim reality of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is leaching out into the broader populace. Increasingly, veterans and active-duty members of the Armed Forces get reinforcement that they are not alone.
Indeed, immediately following the Congressional Progressive Caucus hearing, U.S. Army Sergeant Matthis Chiroux announced he was refusing orders to deploy to Iraq in July. Chiroux said the idea of a deployment to Iraq initially made him suicidal. “I just went into my room and shut the door and barely emerged for close to a month. I just sat in my room reading news about Iraq and feeling completely hopeless, like I would be forced to go and no one would ever know how I felt. I was getting looped into participating in a crime against humanity and all with the realization that I never wanted to be there in the first place.”
The turning point, Chiroux said, came when one of his professors at Brooklyn College in New York suggested he listen to a broadcast of March’s Winter Soldier hearings.
“Here’s an organization of soldiers and veterans who feel like me,” he said. “All this alienation and depression that I feel started to ease. I found them, and I’ve been
speaking out with them ever since.”
A Note on the Testimony:
The text of Winter Soldier Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations comes from testimony offered by veterans in Silver Spring, Maryland, from March 13 to 16, 2008, and in front of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on May 15, 2008. Due to space constraints, this book does not represent an exhaustive preparation of all the information presented at either gathering. Each testimony has been edited and a few of the testifiers could not be accommodated. Complete video archives of every veteran’s testimony are available on Iraq Veterans Against the War’s website, www.ivaw.org. Complete audio archives are available at www.warcomeshome.org.
Each veteran who testified at Winter Soldier went through an extensive verification before they were allowed to testify. A team of veterans and journalists collected documentation of every testifier’s proof of service, including their military discharge papers (DD214s), ID cards, and corroborating evidence to support their stories. Photos, videos, military orders, Standard Operating Procedures, Rules of Engagement cards, and anything else the testifier could provide was collected in the testifier’s file. Veterans and journalists also contacted testifiers’ battle buddies (people they served with) and located media reports that corresponded with the dates, locations, and units the testifiers mentioned in their stories. We placed a stringent burden of proof on testifiers to demonstrate that they were deployed when and where they said they were.
IVAW and Aaron Glantz
August 2008
Rules of Engagement
Introduction
War causes death. There’s no way around that, but over hundreds of years, the Law of War has developed. These internationally agreed-upon standards set out what legally can and cannot be done by soldiers deployed into battle. These laws are designed to keep soldiers on both sides safe from torture and ill treatment and to ensure that innocent civilians are not killed unnecessarily.
These standards, which are set down in the Geneva Conventions, require warring parties to distinguish between lawful military targets and unlawful civilian ones. The Law of War specifically forbids attacks on hospitals, schools, places of worship, and other central parts of the civilian infrastructure. Direct, intentional attacks on noncombatants are also prohibited.
Servicemen and women learn these rules in training, and when they’re deployed into battle they receive more specific Rules of Engagement that state what is and is not permitted given the mission at hand. In the Iraq War, the Rules of Engagement were initially quite restrictive.
“Do not target or strike any of the following except in self-defense: … civilians, hospitals, mosques, national monuments, and any other historical and cultural sites,” reads the Rules of Engagement card given to soldiers and marines in January 2003, before the invasion of Iraq.
Do not fire into civilian populated areas or buildings unless the enemy is using them for military purposes or if necessary for your self-defense. … Minimize collateral damage. Do not target enemy infrastructure (public works, commercial communication facilities, dams), Lines of Communication (roads, highways, tunnels, bridges, railways) and Economic Objects (commercial storage facilities, pipelines) unless necessary for self-defense or if ordered by your commander. If you must fire on these objects to engage a hostile force, disable and disrupt but avoid destruction of these objects, if possible.1
Those Rules of Engagement were not always followed, but initially they were widely respected and, as a result, civilian casualties were kept to a minimum. Once Saddam Hussein was overthrown, however, an armed resistance erupted against the U.S. occupation. With the Iraqi army defeated, many Iraqi civilians became involved as “insurgents”—Iraqis who dressed in regular civilian clothing and lived in civilian homes and apartment buildings with their families. They dropped their children off at school, went to work, and then after work spotted mortar rounds, buried roadside bombs, and fired rocket-propelled grenades at American soldiers.
Tailors, barbers, and car mechanics joined militias that attacked U.S. troops. Every Iraqi person was a potential insurgent. “Major combat operations” had been declared over, but by June 2003, American soldiers were being attacked over a thousand times a day. The military command structure responded to these developments by loosening the Rules of Engagement significantly. For most of the five-year-long occupation of Iraq, ROE has required American soldiers only to identify a “hostile act” or “hostile intent” before firing a weapon.2
As you’ll see in the testimony that follows, commanders have interpreted these terms very loosely. Hospitals, mosques, schools, and historic sites have all been targeted. Shootings of innocents at checkpoints and during house raids and convoy operations are excused. From 2003 to 2006, the Washington Post reports, only thirty-nine service members were formally accused in connection with the deaths of Iraqis. Just twelve of the accused served prison time, none of them officers.3
Innocent Iraqi civilians are not killed in a vacuum. Their deaths are not limited to a few headline-grabbing events like the killing of twenty-four civilians in Haditha on November 19, 2005. Iraqi civilians are killed every day, their deaths an unavoidable part of guerilla war in general and this occupation in particular. An example of this is in the way the command structure responds to specific cases in which civilians are killed—not the big cases spotlighted in the media, but the everyday killings most Americans never hear about.
In September 2007 the American Civil Liberties Union obtained nearly ten thousand pages of previously classified U.S. Army documents, which show how the government responds to civilian casualties. The court-martial proceedings and military investigations reveal that the definitions of “hostile intent” and “hostile actions” are so broad that virtually any activity by an Iraqi can be used to justify the use of force.
One army document describes a November 12, 2005, incident in Abu Saida, northeast of Baghdad.4 According to the document, an Iraqi driver was “killed (shot) by American soldiers at a checkpoint after being turned back…. While attempting to turn around, an American soldier shot him. The other three passengers took him to the hospital where he was later pronounced dead.”
Six months later, on March 25, 2006, a judge advocate captain at Forward Operating Base Warhorse completed his investigation (the captain’s name is redacted in the document). “There is insufficient evidence to prove US negligence or wrongful act,” it reads. “Such fire engagement by any checkpoint guardsman was likely a result of the deceased’s failure to follow written or verbal instruction at a checkpoint.”
Another document describes an incident that took place on December 2, 2005. “Claimant stated her husband was shot and killed by CF (Coalition Forces) while driving produce from his farm to sell at the market. Claimant also stated that CF brought her husband’s body to her house.”
Six weeks later, on January 12, 2006, a judge advocate captain exonerated the soldiers. There was no “negligent or wrongful acts of military members or civilian employees of the Armed Forces,” he wrote. “The shooting was lawful as it was initiated only after the victim demonstrated hostile intent by pulling into the middle of the convoy.”
According to research published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, approximately 186,000 Iraqis were killed by U.S. troops and their coalition allies between March 2003 and July 2006.5 Researchers from Johns Hopkins University, MIT, and Mustansuriye University in Baghdad traveled to all eighteen provinces of Iraq, used a GPS system, and randomly visited nearly two thousand households. To date, their casualty count is the only systematic effort to survey the number of civilian dead since the war began. Some have criticized their methods and said the estimate is unreasonably high. As you read through the Winter Soldier testimony on the Rules of Engagement and experience the occupation as lived by these veterans, remember that the killing they describe is the result of official policy, a natural outgrowth of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Jason Wayne Lemieux
Sergeant, United States Marine Corps, Infantry
Deployments: January 2003–September 2003, Karbala
February 2004–September 2004, Husaybah
September 2005–March 2006, al-Ramadi
Hometown: Anaheim, California
Age at Winter Soldier: 25 years old
During the invasion of Iraq, during the push north to Baghdad, the Rules of Engagement given to me were gradually reduced to nonexistence. When we first crossed the Kuwait-Iraq border at Azubad in March 2003, we were operating under Geneva Convention guidelines and, with the exception of medical and religious personnel, we were authorized to shoot anyone wearing a military uniform unless they had surrendered.
By the time we got to Baghdad, however, I was explicitly told by my chain of command that I could shoot anyone who came closer to me than I felt comfortable with, if that person did not immediately move when I ordered them to do so, keeping in mind I don’t speak Arabic. My chain of command’s general attitude was “better them than us,” and we were given guidance that reinforced that attitude across the ranks. I watched that attitude intensify throughout my three tours.
In January 2004, I remember attending a formation where we were given our mission for the second deployment. I was sitting there like a good marine with my pen and paper, and our commander told us that our mission was “to kill those who need to be killed, and save those who need to be saved.” That was it. With those words, he set the tone for the deployment.
At the start of that second deployment, our standing Rules of Engagement were that someone had to be displaying hostile intent and committing a hostile act before deadly force could be used. I won’t get into the absurdity of asking one to discern what is going on in the mind of another individual except to say that it was the individual marine’s job to determine the meaning of hostile intent and hostile action.
Winter Soldier Page 2
