« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
While the State Department has frequently covered for Blackwater, particularly over the Nisour Square incident, the military has tended to be more candid. "It may be worse than Abu Ghraib," a senior officer said last week, at a time when diplomats were, at most, conceding "there's an issue here" and urging calm in the aftermath of the shooting. That shouldn't be surprising: after all, it's the 160,000 troops in Iraq who suffer by association with reckless contractors.
Now, after Blackwater got off lightly at a Congressional hearing Tuesday -- in which Nisour Square was not explored -- the military is pressing the point harder. U.S. military reports from the scene at Nisour Square, separate from the initial Blackwater-penned "first blush" inquiry, portray Blackwater guards as out of control and trigger-happy, firing on Iraqi civilians and Iraqi security forces almost indiscriminately. "It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong," a U.S. military official tells The Washington Post.
The most significant new detail added by the U.S. military account about the chaos at Nisour Square on September 16: Contrary to Blackwater's frequently-repeated account, no Iraqi civilian or policeman fired upon its guards. The small-arms fire was, in other words, all coming from the contractors.
Unfortunately, there's no further elaboration in the Post piece. But let's review. Blackwater initially said that its convoy came under complex attack on September 16, first from an IED and then from small-arms fire at the Square. Then the Iraqi Interior Ministry, relying on videotape from a nearby police command center, found the explosion occurred far from the attack site, and that the proximate cause of the violence was a car's failure to heed a traffic instruction to halt. It further came out that the car failed to stop because Blackwater guards had killed its driver as part of its "escalation of force" rules of engagement, causing the car to lurch forward.
That picture doesn't reflect well on Blackwater, but if its guards were under fire from Iraqi gunmen, overzealous force would be, at least, understandable. If Blackwater wasn't fired upon, though, the firm has no such excuse. It's worth remembering that Iraqi eyewitnesses have consistently said Blackwater was the only one firing: "Not a single bullet. They were the only ones shooting," a traffic cop told the Post. If one Blackwater convoy was returning fire, then, that fire was coming from the other convoy at the opposite entrance to the square. By contrast, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince told the House oversight committee in his prepared written statement that "Some of those firing on this Blackwater team appeared to be wearing Iraqi National Police uniforms, or portions of such uniforms. As the withdrawal occurred, the Blackwater vehicles remained under fire from such personnel."
Now the credibility of Prince's account is undercut by the U.S. military, which has no interest in falsely accusing Blackwater. After all, if it portrays Blackwater as a band of psychotics, its soldiers will pay the price from outraged Iraqis. A joint U.S.-Iraqi investigation into Nisour Square may be continuing. But Prince needs it to unearth a mountain of exculpatory evidence -- and to explain why his testimony, delivered under oath, directly contradicts the military reporting from the scene.
Comments (32)
MN USA wrote on October 5, 2007 9:57 AM:Unlike our soldiers, who are in Iraq out of a sense of duty, the Blackwater employees are there for dollars. Perhaps they don't feel any need to follow the rules and risk dying so that Erik Prince can pad his pockets. Remember they are contract workers. It would be interesting to hear their side of the story. The buck should stop with Bush & gang who want to privatize our entire government. It's all part of funneling our tax dollars to the wealthy and the Bush loyalists. I doubt if they care about either the Iraqis or our soldiers.
ARG in Chicago wrote on October 5, 2007 10:01 AM:This whole mess is simply disgusting. I mean, it literally turns my stomach to think about it.
It seems pretty clear that this was a case of frontier justice delivered by trigger-happy commandos, who may have actually been firing at each other.
The hair on the back of my neck stands on end when I think that they are training over there so that they can one day be deployed over here. You know, to restrain us, the unpatriotic war questioners.
-- ARG
bluestatedon wrote on October 5, 2007 10:20 AM:It will be fun to watch the Limbaugh "Phony Soldier" Chickenhawks and the End of Days Blackwater Kooks tie themselves into knots spinning this story. Will the unmatched lying ability of Rush and his hypocritical legions prevail against the supremely confident religious nuts inhabiting Erik Prince's fantasy world? And will the winner be determined in overtime by the most imaginative way to blame Bill Clinton?
Akonitum wrote on October 5, 2007 10:22 AM:Mercenary volunteers take money to kill. In my mind, this greedy fact eclipses all others. Prince is no better; indeed, he's worse.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on October 5, 2007 10:29 AM:Prince can't be all that bad. Darrell Issa says he contributes to "Green" candidates.
wingnut2 wrote on October 5, 2007 10:37 AM:The fired Blackwater employee accused of killing a bodyguard of an Iraqi VP, who now lives south of Seattle,was quoted this week in the local paper: '"There's a lot of dust being kicked up, and I'll be glad when it settles," he said.'
I'm wondering how quickly he thinks "the dust" of losing a husband, son or father "settles". The whole idea of actual Iraqi sovereignty is so ludicrous, it makes me sick.
TheraP wrote on October 5, 2007 10:43 AM:I would be interested in a personality contrast between those who remain in the military and those who prefer to leave and be contractors, paid hugely and with no legal constraints on their behavior. I suspect we would find that the mercenaries have a much higher percentage of sociopaths and narcissists and that these are the very personality types who would most chafe at military discipline. Once you fill units with lots of these people that kind of thinking can feed on itself, magnifying the sense of power, elitism, and even the glorification of sadism.
I agree with ARG above. Especially since we seem to have a lawless administration, filled with sociopaths and narcissists or with those who admire such pathology. Put these two together, leaders who feel above the law and mercenaries ready to distinguish themselves as thugs for hire, and you have the recipe for a fascist declaration of martial law to keep We the People "safe."
Read the books of Alexander Solzhenizen. You will see the mindset and all the risks. The gulags. The camps. The informers. The group think. Loss of a free press. Pick any of his books.
We are in grave danger. The wisps of smoke, if not the giant forest fires can clearly be seen.
Where are our elected leaders? We know many people in the press are in the pay of these thugs. Is that true of Congress as well? Or are they all cowed by threats?
Merle wrote on October 5, 2007 10:43 AM:Please stop perpetuating the idea that Blackwater properly followed its rules of engagement.
You support your statement: "[i]t further came out that the car failed to stop because Blackwater guards had killed its driver as part of its 'escalation of force' rules of engagement, causing the car to lurch forward," by linking to your article earlier in the week. That article posited that they "may" have been harmed by the rules of engagement. But by your own admission there was no evidence that they properly "escalated." Nor is there any evidence that they needed to fire on the car.
I understand your point is that they may have mistakenly killed the driver when they fired at his car and that firing at a car is part of their rules of engagement. But there is no evidence that they were following those "escalation" rules.
Phill wrote on October 5, 2007 10:43 AM:Why the hell aren't our soldiers guarding our diplomats? I am not sure what jobs Blackwater should have, but guarding our diplomats is not one of them. Why would the State Department choose this alternative? Wouldn't their diplomats be safer being guarded by less controversial American soldiers and thus less apt to be attacked?
Wally wrote on October 5, 2007 10:44 AM:Akonitum's comment raises a good point: Why aren't the employees of Blackwater called mercenaries? They are soldiers for pay and that's the usual word for them. It's odd, but I wonder if the history of Blackwater in Iraq would be any different if they were referred to as mercenaries - which is what they are - instead of as "contractors," a much more neutral and somewhat misleading term in this context.
j in nj wrote on October 5, 2007 10:45 AM:The whole Blackwater/Dyn Corp., private Contractor phenomena is very troubling.
We are watching the creation of private militas funded by the taxpayers and staffed by our own ex-special force members whom the military/taxpayer trained to be elite soldier's. To whom do they answer to? To whom is their allegence?
Where can they operate? In the US? Does this trump "posse comitatus"?
Fascism is at our doorstep. We need to act quickly to defend the constitution and our Bill Of Rights.
Mafalda Hopkirk wrote on October 5, 2007 10:48 AM:Phill, you ask: "Why the hell aren't our soldiers guarding our diplomats?"
I ask: Why the hell are there diplomats in a war zone?
Ferruge wrote on October 5, 2007 10:52 AM:Blackwater is the new "Republican Guard".
When it comes to explaining the strategy here, Michael Moore said it best: "Socialize the costs, privatize the profits."
wagonjak wrote on October 5, 2007 11:32 AM:I tuned into the hearings to listen to what questions would be asked about the incident at Nisour Square.
As usual the gutless Dems were pressured by their Repub colleagues to not bring this up because it was "under investigation"...
This is the usual pattern in these matters. The Government cannot comment on a a serious matter because it is under a "ongoing investigation".
Months and years later, when the investigation is cleared, usually in secrecy, and questions are again raised, they are dismissed as "old news"!
AAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
chard wrote on October 5, 2007 11:34 AM:Blackwater is the future "mano blanco" of the USA.
anonymouse wrote on October 5, 2007 11:44 AM:They'll become the paramilitary that our elite will use to protect their privilege as has occurred in Central and South America. We need to know more about them, as in names and faces of their personnel.
It's sad, but these stories have been published for the past 3 years and NEITHER party thought it was wrong until this story made such broad headlines.
We (at least I) voted for the democrats because I actually believed they would attempt to stop the decline of our nation while putting an end to the war.
These travesties have been going on since the war, along with the corruption, illegal activities, etc.
Has anyone else noticed that Conress seems to do absolutely nothing (this is both sides folks) until headlines and public opinions put the issue blatently in fron of their faces?
These clowns (both REPS and DEMS) are so busy with fundraisers and parties and trips and ... the only time they want to do anything is when they may perceive themselve not getting the headlines they deserve...
I'm discusted with the whole bunch and hope that these two parties become a footnote in American History as a corrupt system finally overcome by society...
Tim wrote on October 5, 2007 12:42 PM:Phill, you ask: "Why the hell aren't our soldiers guarding our diplomats?"
I don't have a definitive answer, but I would posit that it similar to the reason that the US Army has hired Blackwater for security ops and is hiring out "support positions" to private contractors.
In short, the uniformed troops are stretched to near breaking point. This is the practical reason for it. If the military was required to go it alone, they'd have to do something DRASTIC like, oh....have a draft and mobilize the country as if we really WERE at war.
The political reason is that a significant portion of the private work is being done by KBR (a subsidiary of Haliburton) and companies like them in a no-bid contract atmosphere.
SeeDee wrote on October 5, 2007 12:52 PM:Phill asks: "Why in the hell aren't our soldiers guarding our diplomats?"
Not as a 'put-down', but what a needless question...to which everyone already knows the answer.
If the duty of guarding our diplomats (and other U.S. gov personages) were performed by our own military personnel, there would be no opportunity to funnel over $1-Billion to a sleazey GOP-orientated family enterprise...an enterprise which then continues to contribute (bribe) large sums to Repugnican politicians.
This is, indeed, the prime reason for the Iraq War from the Get-go...huge no-bid, negotiated-in-secret contracts to PRIVATE corporations and firms friendly to Dick Cheney, George Bush's immediate family and other utterly corrupt Republican politicians from Podunk to Pittsburgh.
How (and WHY)in the Hell have we been subjected to such outright conspiracy to commit fraud by our elected officials?...And WHY do we continue to tolerate it? Those are the pertinent and proper questions for which we should demand answers.
foggylady wrote on October 5, 2007 1:04 PM:Wally asked....Why aren't the employees of Blackwater called mercenaries?
Technically, mercenaries are defined as those who fight for "foreign" governments.
If it is your own gov't who is paying, you are not **technically** defined as a mercenary.
Hired killer, maybe.
But then, we pay soldiers to kill other people.
Guess there are now two kinds of "armies"...
and one of them is answerable only to the highest bidder.
synykyl wrote on October 5, 2007 1:12 PM:yeah, scary.
The fact that we are employing these Blackwater thugs, is the biggest outrage of the whole damned war.
Jeff wrote on October 5, 2007 1:22 PM:Please stop the stigma of mental illness.
From wiki "psychotic": "Psychosis should be distinguished from psychopathy, a personality disorder associated with violence, lack of empathy and socially manipulative behavior.[11] Despite both being colloquially abbreviated "psycho", psychosis bears little similarity to the core features of psychopathy, particularly with regard to violence, which rarely occurs in psychosis"
Harry wrote on October 5, 2007 1:29 PM:The whole thing comes down to the question of why the US is employing mercenaries at all. I haven't seen anyone pose that question, or address it it any other way. If this is a military endeavor by the United States for legitimate purposes (hah!), let the military deal with it.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on October 5, 2007 1:59 PM:If we are the second coming of some renaissance city state, I guess mercenaries are appropriate. What are we?
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is a defender of Blackwater and its brethren mercenery outfits, so they must be legit. Who would question Darrell Issa's word?
anna missed wrote on October 5, 2007 2:09 PM:If the Blackwater folks were attacked, as they asserted, then there should be ample physical evidence, like damage/bullet holes in their vehicles or on their persons etc. and disinterested corroborating eyewitness accounts. If they were ambushed in an surprise attack one would expect that they would have taken a relatively equal amount of damage that they inflicted.
Otherwise its another Haditha type rage massacre, except this time there was no provocation.
bob reid wrote on October 5, 2007 7:47 PM:out of iraq now. the reason blackwater is running protection, well they have not lost one politician. as for as i know. they may have killed half of iraq doing it. american pols and diplomats are in those vehicles. they must approve.
Gary Anderson wrote on October 6, 2007 1:51 AM:There was some information about contracting that came out about the time the 4 contractors got killed in fallujah.In fact it may have been about the contracting of those 4 men. I don't remember the details but Blackwater was contracted by another firm who was contracted by another firm who was contracted by KBR. Andthe amazing thing was each firm made money on the contractors. And who paid the ticket, you guessed it, us, the US taxpayer.
R. Miller wrote on October 6, 2007 2:48 PM:RE: Jeff's "Please stop the stigma of mental illness." I assume that wasn't a snark post, but was rather a legitimate effort to prevent people from calling bad behavior "psychotic." Given that the med rules seem to shift with time over what is termed "psychotic" I believe it is fitting that in this current atmosphere the general population should be allowed to call aberrant and destructive behavior (by Blackwater thugs for example) by the commonly-accepted term, i.e. "psycho." Most of us don't have time to read great books like Robert D. Hare's "Without Conscience"--a book, incidentally, that in my opinion comes closer than anything out there to describing the dark world of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Bush, Addison, and John Bolton.
Sociopath, psychopath, without conscience, it doesn't matter. The people who got us into this mess are dangerous and should be tagged with the appropriate appelation: psycho.
Captain Nemo wrote on October 6, 2007 4:39 PM:All crimes already committed by Blackwater and their "employees" should be prosecuted by the U.S. Military according to U.S. Military law. The fact that Blackwater was not under U.S. command and held accountable to U.S. Military Law is a crime in itself; and those officials responsible for this "oversight" should be held accountable. Blackwater should pay restitution to all its victims, and should go the way of Arthur Anderson.
wordvarc wrote on October 6, 2007 8:30 PM:W'S 'CORPORATE' DEREGULATED MERCENARIES REMAIN ABOVE ALL US, MILITARY, AND IRAQ LAW.
Even if Rice's new cameras record another atrocity by Blackwater there is no system for arrest, trial, or prosecution of the mercenary perpetrator.
Despite w's claim of nation building democracy, the puppet Iraq government has no legal power over US military citizens, or contractors in their 'country.'
.
wordvarc wrote on October 6, 2007 8:33 PM:W'S 'CORPORATE' DEREGULATED MERCENARIES REMAIN ABOVE ALL US, MILITARY, AND IRAQ LAW.
Even if Rice's new cameras record another atrocity by Blackwater there is no system for arrest, trial, or prosecution of the mercenary perpetrator.
Despite w's claim of nation building democracy, the puppet Iraq government has no legal power over US military citizens, or contractors in their 'country.'
.
jimijazz wrote on October 8, 2007 11:04 AM:When you think about it, this is a lot like money laundering. At the very least fraud. Erik Prince gets huge federal contracts(taxpayer money) for Blackwater and is funneled thru Prince's former company. And in turn Erik Prince contributes large sums of money to Bush and his cronies. Not to mention making a profit at the same time. If that isn't another Bush scam I don't know what is.
p mac wrote on October 25, 2007 3:10 PM:There is a term that gets 'mercenary' and 'contractor' and 'corruption' across all at once:
"condottiere". Thepicture by Leonardo at wikipedia says it all.