Is Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich a murderer?

I've just finished watching the 60 Minutes interview of the marine accused of killing 24 Iraqi civilians following a car bombing of one of the vehicles in his convoy. He was the senior marine on the mission and in the interview he described how 2 minutes after the bomb attack he and his men stopped a nearby car in the area and opened fire on the 5 unarmed men who tried to run away, killing them. He then heard "2 or 3 rifle shots" coming from the south. Wuterich spotted a house that appeared to have the area in its line of fire and made a decision to raid the house. He and his men approached the house and Wuterich told his men to "shoot first and ask questions later". In the interview Wuterich described how they made the decision to crack open the door and throw in a grenade without having visually spotted anyone with a weapon in the area. His men then entered the house and killed the civilians inside several of which Wuterich admitted were women and children. The killings didnt end there because they spotted an open back door and proceeded to enter 2 other nearby houses in the same manner killing a total of 11 women and children in the process.

I realise that war is hell and that a senior marine needs to make decisions to ensure the safety of his men but what struck me about the interview was how Wuterich kept refering to his training as the reason he took the decisions he did and killed so many people indescriminently. He even said that in the same situation, he would repeat the tactics he used again.

Frank Wuterich currently faces possible court martial and jail time for his actions and its worth noting that at the time of the incident, this was his first experience with actual combat. When questioned about the way he decided to throw grenades into a civilian residence without even verifying who was inside, he responded "this is what we do" and again cited his training. He gave me the impression that he felt like he hadn't done anything wrong.

Is it just me or does this seem a bit disturbing? What exactly is the current training that the marines are receiving in Iraq and is it consistent with the way this situation was handled?

This is not a political thing nor is it a not "supporting the troops" thread. I realise that this person is an individual and doesn't represent the other soldiers currently fighting in Iraq. That said, the training that the military provides needs to be consistent with a certain moral code worthy of the traditions of warfare waged by the United States previously and that includes trying to avoid the wanton killing of innocent civilians, especially women and children.

Please give me your take on this incident.

Here are some links to media sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010502248.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wuterich

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/60minutes/main2574973.shtml

It appears that the unarmed men in the car did not try to run away, but were simply shot.

There is a lot of circumstantial stuff here. For instance,

(my underline)
That leaves some questions. If I read that correctly, he was about to leave the USMC, but he deliberately went to war anyway. Is that part of his defence? And did he deliberately go to war in order to kill people?

M hm. If Sgt. Wuterich is judged to have killed innocent people in "combat", does that mean there is a set of Marines out there who have mislearned from Sgt. Wuterich?

The CBS interview does not show Sgt. Wuterich in a good light:

So, by his own admission, after having killed these five men for the bombing of his patrol (whether they did it or not), then Sgt. Wuterich went to look at the Marines he was responsible for.

After that, if the reports are to be believed, he led his patrol in the killing of other Iraqis, including nine women and children.

It's hard to resist the conclusion that Wuterich is guilty of killing unarmed civilians, and of neglecting his duty to his men.

This may be the most worrying part of the whole sorry business:

Again, my underscores.

From what I've read it seems like him and possibly others killed people who had nothing to do with the bombing out of anger. Unacceptable but expected in a situation such as Iraq. Shit like this is gonna happen as long as we fight wars of this kind.
Also, of course this is not the training marines receive. I don't think anywhere in Marine training you will find literature or trainers telling marines to execute civilians, no matter what just happened. If they are unarmed and you suspect them, you detain them.

Here's a good diagram in the Washington Post that gives a series of the events:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/01/06/GR2007010600173.html

Before I get into my personal opinion, I just had to say that a bit of your circumstantial evidence is kind of far fetched.

I would think that taking out what was believed to be a threat before checking on the injured soldiers would be priority. Now, what he did whenever he found that they weren't a threat is another story. But the act of going to find the threat to neutralize it and any other possibility of casualties and injuries to the remaining troops in itself doesn't appear to be (in my civilian mind) a strike against him.

Personally, I believe that more than likely, he snapped. Some people cannot handle the arena of war. It is like a horrible version of the guy who finds out his girlfriend has been fucking his brother and goes around punching walls and screaming.

I've never been to war, so I don't know his mindset or that of the troops following him, but it seems to me that with that many soldiers on the mission, someone, somewhere in this chain of events should have questioned his leadership and actions. There appears to be several moments where someone should have realized that they were not following good orders.

After the first people in the vehicle were killed and then found unarmed would have been a good stopping point. After going into the first house and killing the civilians inside would have been another. Before repeating the actions taken at the first house in the second and third.

Referring to his training doesn't seem to me to be a good defense. Unless I'm badly mistaken, 'shoot first and ask questions later' is not allowable in Iraq. There has to be a known threat. I've heard many soldiers speak about having their hands tied because of the rules of engagement in Iraq, leaving them almost unable to defend themselves in certain situations.

From the Rules of Engagement in Iraq:

I don't know if he is a cold blooded murderer, if he had snapped, or if he was just a really poor decision maker and shitty senior NCO.

Everything I quoted comes from one or other of the three sources given above. My interpretation is another thing, of course.

I take your point; his action in checking the car makes more sense than I first thought. Thank you.

I agree entirely.

Nor me. As I say, I have the suspicion that he wanted an excuse. It's a miserable business, whatever happened.