The Sunday magazine ran this long, solidly reported, thoughtful story by Luke Mogelson about the 5 soldiers stationed at FOB Ramrod (shall we take a glance at language here?), who were accused of murdering unarmed civilians in Afghanistan for sport or vengence or self-aggrandizement or excitement or, hey, whatever. Lots of theories, especially now that some of them are coming to trial. Their names are Calvin Gibbs, Jeremy Morlock, Michael Wagnon, Adam Winfield and Andrew Holmes. The men they killed were named Gul Mudin, Marach Agha, and Mullah Allah Dad.
(And for the record, a "weapon drop" -- putting a gun or grenade or shovel next to a dead civilian to imply that he was a threat -- is, if not exactly routine, common enough for several of the veterans I've talked with to mention.)
Mogelson raises the question of who is responsible, sounds skeptical of the aberration explanation, makes good use of an expert on war crimes who names the misbegotten nature of the conflicts as a factor in such behavior, and and points a finger up the chain of command to a Col. Harry D. Tunnell IV, who apparently wanted little to do with counterinsurgency ops. He gets bad apples in there somewhere too.
What doesn't get mentioned, or at least, not explored, is that we have no business being in Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place.
If the premise of an invasion is corrupt, then the invasion and its aftermath and everyone involved will be too. That's not to exonerate these soldiers. They did what they did and their courts martial will (or won't) deal with that. Also, it can be useful to try to affix blame at some point in the hierarchy, instead of letting it float free as collective guilt or moral injury, although those can be real.
And yet, and yet.
Ding dong, bin Laden's dead, and we're talking about whether, after nearly 10 years of war and deaths that will never be counted accurately, it was waterboarding that lead to hideout.
I'm beginning to think that we're all bad apples.
