“The Battle for Haditha” is
misnamed as it is actually about the Haditha Incident (alternately called the
Haditha Massacre or Haditha Killings).
It was probably the most infamous atrocity (or so it was claimed) of the
Iraqi War. The reenactment was filmed in
documentary style by British filmmaker Nick Broomfield. Broomfield cut his teeth on documentaries and
used the minimalist approach for his second feature film. He produced, directed, and co-wrote the
movie. Broomfield filmed in the city of
Jerash, Jordan and used some ex-Marines in the cast and Iraqi refugees. The cast was allowed to improvise some of
their lines. The finished product is
controversial, to say the least.
The film opens with a montage of
several Marines describing their feelings about being in Iraq. One says he’s only interested in surviving
and does not know what he is there for.
Another mentions the problem of having civilians turn into combatants. A third likens the situation to being similar
to hunting because you have to think like the enemy. Cpl. Ramirez (Elliott Ruiz) likens Iraq to
the asshole of the world and the insurgents are like dingleberries.
Words on the screen preview that
the movie is about an incident in 2005 that involved an IED (improvised explosive device) killing a Marine
and then subsequently the Marines killed 24 civilians. (The perceptive viewer gets an inkling of
what is to come by noting that the word “marines” is not capitalized.) The Marines of Kilo Company, 3rd
Battalion, 1st Marines are young and immature. They listen to heavy metal in their Humvees
and delight in pranking each other. The
barracks banter feels authentic. The
video game generation goes to war.
The movie has three
threads. The second revolves around
Ahmad (Falah Flayla) who is a disgruntled Iraqi Army vet who is now
unemployed. He does not like the foreign
Al Qaeda jihadists, but agrees to plant a command-detonated IED for
$500. He is assisted by a younger man
who is just as immature as the Marines.
They plant the bomb in broad daylight along a road.
The other thread follows a
typical Iraqi family that is preparing to celebrate a toddler’s
circumcision. Hiba (Yasmine Hanani) is
pregnant and in love with Rasheid. The
family and neighbors are aware of the bomb, but try to go about their lives and
do not take sides. One remarks that if
they tell the Americans about the bomb, the jihadists will kill them. If they don’t tell, the Americans will blame
them. Spoken like a South Vietnamese
civilian. The party is a good taste of
Iraqi culture, but there is a heavy layer of dread.
On Nov. 9, 2005, Ramirez’s squad
of eleven Marines in four Humvees are hit by the IED. The last Humvee is destroyed and a Marine is
killed. At the same time a white car is
stopped on the other side of the road.
Ramirez, who is deeply affected by the death of his mate, executes the
occupants. A relative of the men opens
fire from a nearby home. Ramirez is
given permission to take out the house, but it’s not the house the fire came
from. He interprets the “Rules of Engagement”
to justify shooting first and asking questions later.
House 1 is greeted with a
fragmentation grenade. Ramirez and a few
comrades indiscriminately kill most of the occupants although they are clearly
noncombatants and none are armed. Hiba
and her boyfriend survive by hiding behind a chest. The Marines move on to House 2 with similar
results. The “battle” is being monitored
back at headquarters where a colonel orders a helicopter strike on a group of
individuals walking together. Hibas’
boyfriend is shot by a sniper because he is running (as per the ROEs = rules of engagement). He high-fives his mates. House 3 yields prisoners, but the killing is
finally over. A captain arrives and in a
prayer for Cpl. Terrazas mentions the battle they have won. He gives Ruiz a field promotion and
recommends him for a Bronze Star.
The Marine Corps issues a press
release that 15 civilians were killed by the IED and another 8 were insurgents
that opened fire on the convoy. The
story drew little media attention until a video made by the jihadists was
released. It contains eyewitness
accounts which force the military to investigate. Ramirez and three others are charged with
murder.
Taken at face value the movie is
entertaining. It’s definitely low
budget, but Broomfield overcomes the vibe by giving it a vibrant documentary
feel. This is through mostly hand-held
cinematography. The negative side of
this is some might swallow all of it as a factual documentary, although I am
not accusing Broomfield of trying to put something over on the audience. However, it is clearly apparent that
Broomfield is offering an alternative view to the Marine Corps version. The movie is obviously pro-Iraqi and
anti-Marine Corps, but it is somewhat balanced.
Ramirez is depicted as suffering from stress and the rest of his squad
are not evil. The acting is adequate and
does not get in the way of the story.
Ruiz is good, if a bit too earnest.
Hanani seems to have a future in the business.
The movie has some noteworthy
themes that could be enlightening to anyone with little knowledge of the Iraqi War. Civilians get caught in the crossfire in a
conflict like this. Rules end up being
bent sometimes in stressful combat situations.
Atrocities happen. Young
Americans who view war as a game sometimes react outside the rules when
confronted with its realities.
I spent the whole movie
wondering how much was true and looking forward to finding out. It had some head-scratching moments like the
planting of the bomb in plain sight.
Earlier, the bombers had gone through a check point without the Marines
bothering to check the back of the truck where the bomb was hidden. I suppose that was possible. When running away from the scene, the bombers
open fire for no good reason. There is a
scene where Ramirez goes to his commanding officer to admit to stress and ask
to see a doctor. The officer denies the
request and cites Marine Corps policy. I
could not determine if this was factual, but it does not seem so.
I did a lot of research on the
Haditha Incident and still cannot say definitively where the truth lies. Although it is compared to the My Lai
Massacre, it is a lot less clear exactly what happened here. The movie presents the Iraqi version of what
happened. The American version goes
something like this. Ramirez represents Frank
Wuterich. The IED explosion is the same
in both versions, but from there the stories diverge. When the white car is stopped it is suspected
of being involved in the ambush. One of
the men runs so Wuterich shoots him and then proceeds to shoot the others. Fire
comes from the direction of House 1 and Wuterich leads a fire team in. He did apparently tell them to shoot first,
but it was dark and confusing inside. It
was unclear the victims were unarmed and supposedly an AK-47 was heard being
“racked”. The second house was taken
because it was assumed someone from the first house ran there. The group admitted to firing through the door
which happened to have a man on the other side.
The situation inside this house was basically a replay of the
first. Only prisoners were taken in
House 3 ( as per the film ). At House 4,
two men with AKs were shot and two others that were using the house as a
refuge. This incident was surprisingly
not depicted in the film, but the Iraqi version contends that the four were
innocent and were executed.
The film adds a few things that
even the Iraqis don’t claim. The bombers
were fictionalized. There was no
helicopter strike on a group. No one was
shot by a sniper while running. The
video was not by jihadists, it was done by a journalism student (who granted
may have sympathized with the insurgents).
At the time the film was made
the latest development was the charging of Wuterich and three others for murder
and the charging of several higher officers for a cover-up and non-investigation. In the subsequent trial, all but Wuterich got
off. He was found guilty of a much
lesser charge and basically given a slap on the wrist. This lack of justice aggravated many, but
NCIS did put 65 agents on the case and although the prosecution may have done a
less than stellar job, it was understandably difficult to prove a case like
this. For instance, no Iraqis would
testify. Forensics tended to disprove
the two execution scenarios and lenient interpretation of the ROEs left
reasonable doubt as to premeditation or revenge. It is instructive to note that the military
tightened up the Rules of Engagement after this to no longer condone shooting
of clearly unarmed civilians.
So who is telling the truth –
Broomfield and the liberal press or the military and Fox News? As usual in cases like this the truth is
somewhere in between. Although I cannot
discount the possibility that Broomfield is accurate, I lean towards the Marine version. With that said, I do not feel that even under a flexible
interpretation of the ROEs, what happened in Houses 1 &2 and with the white
car was justified. Like an ex-Marine
said, the Marines were the baddest asses in this situation and they should have
been capable of asking questions first and then shooting. To shoot civilians in two houses where they
had not taken any fire from within indicated either payback or the desire to
take no chances whatsoever. As far as
the white car, it seems logical that confronted with a group of very pissed off
Americans, one might run and Wuterich would have snapped. I do feel Wuterich got off easy. In this respect he reminds of Lt.
Calley. The coverup also is reminiscent
of My Lai and again the higher ups got off.
The press release was ridiculously false and there was no attempt to get
to the truth until Time magazine broke the story.
So, what to make of
the film? I recommend it provided you
realize it is one point of view about an historical incident. I also suggest that you watch the Front Line
documentary "Rules of Engagement" afterwards.
Then keep in mind that the truth is somewhere in the middle and we may
never know what actually happened that day.
GRADE = B
the trailer
the whole film
I thought it was very well done. Maybe a bit sketchy on the actual events but it didn't feel as low-budget as some other movies. On the other hand, it's not a film that sticks in your mind. I've seen it twice and have forgotten most of it. I will have to watch Rules of Engagement.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed doing this posting because it was interesting to see both sides of the story and the story was perfect for the "he said, she said" scenario. I think people are too blindly patriotic when they automatically support the troops. The fact is that we are talking about young men of the current generation (which in my opinion is not a strong generation) who are put into situations they can not handle and then bad things happen sometimes.. We should not be surprised. We should be understanding of the stress, but should not excuse the results.
ReplyDelete