Probably the most important lesson from the new details on the deaths in Haditha does not come from the narrative, which suggests, in my reading, both unjustified, wholly irresponsible killings committed under horrifically stressful circumstances, and mistaken killings that are more understandable, although still unacceptable. The key lesson is buried casually, near the end of the article, in a quote from the regimental commander, Col. Stephen W. Davis: “‘There was nothing out of the ordinary about any of this, including the number of civilian dead, that would have triggered anything in my mind that was out of the norm,’ Davis told military investigators, according to a transcript. ‘There is nothing about this incident that jumped out at any point to us.’” This remark, even if it wouldn’t have been made by many other officers, hints that unjustified and accidental killings are all too commonplace and accepted as part of the fabric of war. (Independent reporting also points to this conclusion.)

Conservatives’ comments about this incident have often been dismissive of accountability; filled with invective toward Rep. Murtha, whose account apparently has been vindicated; and reluctant to consider multiple witnesses and videotaped evidence judged by the military itself to have raised serious claims. It’s unnerving that the most complacent voices in discussions of wartime ethics are often also the most hawkish. Many hawks and conservatives (and certainly military personnel) obviously don't fit the pattern of callousness I've been describing. But those voices that do sometimes seem the loudest. In this worldview, the freewheeling use of violence by American military forces is generally considered a) necessary and b) excusable. But this pair of views is a bizarre combination. If you take horrors like Haditha seriously, regardless of the degree of culpability you assign to the perpetrators and their chain of command, you should be second-guessing our role in these events and in this ongoing war, and not, say, recommitting blithely to the same mission or disclaiming all responsibility by focusing on the role of insurgents in this tragedy. The insurgents seem to have played a major role here -- it was a combat situation -- and they have unquestionably wreaked horrors on Iraqi civilians and the country’s infrastructure. But insofar as you actively care about innocent life, when considering the Haditha and other such incidents, and when considering Col. Davis’s remarks, you will also insist upon asking, What can my forces do differently? Are the rules of engagement clear enough?

Other voices to comment on this situation, often on the left, have fully acknowledged the horrors of war, but they’ve done so not to dismiss the claims and fates of civilians but to raise these questions, to offer compassion to our forces and civilians alike, and then seriously to consider, rather than dismiss, broader questions, about the necessity of this war.

Certainly there are major questions needed about the training our personnel have been given to survive and make decisions in an urban combat environment. Counterinsurgency training has been late in coming to our forces in the Iraq war. Such training, recognizing the limited utility of military force, takes the battle for hearts and minds seriously, thereby protecting American and Iraqi lives simultaneously. Thoughtful observers, however, recognize that even with such training, and even with precision technology, we will make deadly errors. So they insist upon raising questions about strategic and moral fundamentals: What are we doing in this conflict? Is the good we are doing outweighing the harm? Why do I think so?

Worth reading. Not once in the mainstream press had I found real consideration of Ford's foreign policy decisions. I haven't read all the commentary, but the trend seems to be defensively and exclusively deferential. That the media apparently assumes Americans cannot tolerate, or learn to tolerate, honest reflection on our leaders and history -- that it assumes we require adherence to a superficial and sentimental script -- is condescending beyond belief. (Journalists' own habits and assumptions surely play a role.) Whatever the reason, we are told how President Ford cooked his own breakfast but not how his life-and-death decisions were made, let alone about their consequences. Obituary and appreciation do not require hagiography. In its quiet, pleasant way, this kind of journalism degrades citizenship and betrays history.