Desecration?

I haven't yet written on the latest "desecration" story involving the burning of bodies by the US military in Afghanistan, simply because there wasn't very much information on the story yet. It now seems that the bodies were incinerated because they were on a mountain-side next to a military emplacement, overlooking a village suspected of harbouring further Taliban operatives. The troops in the post send word to the villagers asking for them to take the bodies but this offer was refused (possibly because they were Pakistanis and not Afghans). As the bodies began to swell and stink in 90 degree heat, the lieutenant in charge of the unit took the decision to burn the bodies.

I spent a little time in a forensics lab over a decade ago as part of my school work experience and the smell of decomposing flesh is awful- I can still remember it quite vividly. There's also the health hazard posed by rotting bodies right next to a position where men are eating and sleeping.

Did Lt. Nelson, the man in question, do the right thing? Seems to me that he did- he offered to allow the villagers to take and bury the bodies and they refused. In a combat situation- the two men were killed the previous day on a firefight- he didn't really have any other options open.

What's most galling about this is the comment by a Pentagon spokesman- he described the incident as "repugnant". Burning bodies to prevent the possible outbreak of disease in a combat situation? I don't think so. What is repugnant is his apparent attempt to appease offended Muslims and a lack of loyalty to the troops in question. He might have been better served in explaining the actions of the men involved and stating that they had no real alternative- what about the LT's duty to his men. As for a criminal investigation? Seems like a complete waste of time to me.