More On The Blackwater Incident
It has been learned that Blackwater security contractors that came under fire yesterday were protecting a US State Department official. According to US and Iraqi sources, their convoy was hit first by an IED and then small arms fire, after which a gun battle ensued with some 8 to 10 individuals, some in Iraqi police uniforms. It is obvious that Blackwater contractors acted in self defense, their roll being to protect their principle, and given the circumstances, one can’t begrudge them that. What I do have a very serious problem with is the murder of Iraqi civilians in that gun battle, and the wounding of others. That fact points to something very serious, the wanton use of force without regard for civilians trapped amidst such an incident.
Now that might seem ridiculous to some of you – to suggest that in such a situation they should have known better than to fire on individuals that they could not determine the intent of. But were that precedent to stand, then it would justify the killing of civilians in any such action, which simply cannot be tolerated.
Obviously the circumstances in Iraq, especially in populated areas, is confused. But this incident speaks to the unchecked force that private security companies have the ability to employ. Being that companies, such as Blackwater, cannot be held accountable for their actions by Iraqi authorities, nor Iraqi law, the use of excessive force in such situations becomes a very real option. In this instance, not only were innocent people killed and wounded, but the incident itself has caused significant outrage.
The severity of the situation can be measured by the fact that it was soon after the cause of a direct conversation between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, whose government has now somewhat relented and only placed a temporary ban on Blackwater rather than their full expulsion – something that should come as no surprise to anyone. To be honest, being that they are the largest security firm in the country and responsible for guarding US personnel, it wouldn’t come as a shock to discover that they were back to work within a week.
There has, of course, been pledges made that a full scale investigation will take place. While the number of civilians killed has been placed at 8, the Iraqi Defense Ministry initially put the total of those killed at 20 with the Interior Ministry putting the total at 11. So at this point it remains confused.
A Blackwater spokesman said in a statement regarding the incident…
“Blackwater regrets any loss of life but this convoy was violently attacked by armed insurgents, not civilians, and our people did their job to defend human life.” - Blackwater’s spokeswoman, Anne E. Tyrrell
In defending human life, employees of Blackwater took the lives of innocent people, yet claimed to have done so because they were defending “human life”. Funny how we perceive the worth of certain lives, isn’t it. Also of import is the extent to which this statement goes to downplay the deaths of civilians – slyly placing the onus on “armed insurgents” and completely downplaying the fact that innocent people were, in fact, killed.
The most damning of all of the claims made thus far about the incident is that, according to Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, helicopters opened fire on the crowd. Blackwater has claimed that no aircraft were used in the operation, though they are the only private contractor in Iraq with their own helicopters which are primarily used to provide aerial coverage of transport routes.
I believe that Blackwater will walk away from this unscathed. They are far too important with regards to supplying security for various US personnel and locations for the US government to simply allow the Iraqis to ban them, especially given the fact that when the surge comes to a end, if ever, they will be relied upon more heavily.
In Addition
Editor’s Note: The BBC has more on the Iraqi government’s plan to now review “the status of all private security firms operating in the country after a gunfight in Baghdad left eight civilians dead.”
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 at 11:19 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Interesting side note–the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee estimated in February that nearly $4 billion had been spent on security contracts amid the insurgency that followed the U.S. invasion in 2003 — costs that have forced the delay, cancellation or scaling back of some reconstruction projects.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Matt:
“In defending human life, employees of Blackwater took the lives of innocent people, yet claimed to have done so because they were defending “human life”. Funny how we perceive the worth of certain lives, isn’t it.”
EXACTLY
Like x amount of Iraqi lives are worth one American life. Hopefully something is done about it…although I’m sure we’re all pretty skeptical. One can’t help but wonder what the repercussions would be if the situation was vice versa…but it would probably end with an Iraqi Security firm’s head guys on Death Row at Sing Sing or some shit.
Utterly Hopeless!!!!!!!!!!!
September 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Have you ever been shot at or had someone try to blow you up….? I would reserve judgment until you know what that is really like.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
[quote comment="26519"]Have you ever been shot at or had someone try to blow you up….?
I would reserve judgment until you know what that is really like.[/quote]
Reserve judgement for how long, until there’s no one left in the country?
It’s clear that the US and it’s private contractors have been profligate in their use of force throughout the war. The Marines pretty much flattened Fallujah a few years back and even used white phosphorus rounds in civilian areas.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
In the middle - why does someone have to be shot at - to reserve judgement on those whose actions killed innocent civilians?
That “logic” isn’t really applicable.
But coming from someone who has been shot at:
The reason why they were “defending human life” is because the human life that was being defended was paying them to.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I saw “Battle for Haditha” at the Toronto Film Fest, and highly recommend it. It’s a dramatic retelling of the events in Haditha where US forces slaughtered a number of civilians in retaliation for an IED. The filmmakers did a really good job showing the complexity on the ground there, and the reality of the combat. It’s also very method- all the marines in the film were Iraq vets and the families were actually Iraqi refugees. In the end, you get the sense that the US Marines don’t have much of an out, but the Iraqis also have to live there when the inevitable pull-out occurs. Memorable quotes (paraphrased from memory)… US Marine: “I don’t know why we’re here… I mean, I know why… no actually, I don’t know why”… Iraqi Insurgent: “Whoever takes over when the US pulls out will be 10 times worse than Saddam”… Definitely a must-see if you’re trying to understand what’s going on over there.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Quoting Matthew Good:
“In defending human life, employees of Blackwater took the lives of innocent people, yet claimed to have done so because they were defending “human life”. Funny how we perceive the worth of certain lives, isn’t it.”
I really don’t understand the thought process of some people…
September 18th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
glad to see they were finally kicked out of Iraq…of course that just makes more room for other contractors such as Haliburton and CACI… Matt, have you ever seen the movie Iraq for Sale? It’s very interesting and takes an in-depth look at contractors in Iraq.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Even after four years the Iraqi government is dependent for its survival on 160,000 US soldiers who in turn are dependent on about the same number of private security personel who aren’t accountable to the Iraqi government.
Sounds like a failed state to me.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Does that mean they are actually kicked out, and going to leave? Or does it just mean that they should leave, but may choose not to?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I am of the belief that Blackwater will not be evicted from Iraq, it got a bit of a slap on the wrist, but the reality is that a lot of work is done by private security firms. If Iraq was to disallow them from operating (provided they didn’t just set up shop in the country and bypass a great number of the limitations that would be set up), I think it would provide a very stark reality to the citizens of humanity. They would be forced to view the real day to day life in Iraq, as well as acknowledge the death toll that these private firms had racked up (and because of their status, not counted in published numbers of American lives lost).
The very real lack of military numbers to replace those private firms leads me to believe that the US will push for this to be a public shaming, and then it will be a very prosperous business as usual.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
they’re temporarily banned as i read it….
September 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Ban the terrorists too, they’ve killed more than 8.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
And “temporarily banned” just means until the storm passes and people forget about the story. A week. Two at best.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Ferndave i promote thee to Captain Obvious.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I cannot understand how Blackwater’s statement attempted to “slyly” place the blame on the armed insurgents. Is that not where the blame for the death of these civilians should fall squarely? Disguising oneself in order to look like civilians, and in this case perhaps even police officers, provides one of the prime advantages of guerilla warfare; namely, the confusion of the enemy and the ability to essentially always strike the first blow (the insurgent cannot be discerned from the civilian, normally, until he makes his attack, and even then it is difficult).
When a group of combatants employs this strategy, they of course know that the difficulty their counter-parts will experience in identifying their enemies will lead to confusion and almost certainly to a greater number of innocent lives lost. Yet the insurgents pursue this strategy anyway, knowing full well the costs. To me, the fault obviously lies with them in this instance.
Imagine I was in a gun fight with the police. Were I to pull an innocent civilian in front of me as a human shield, and should the police accidentally kill this civilian while defending themselves from my gunfire, the blame for that death, legally and morally, would fall squarely on myself, and not the police officers. I see this situation as quite similar.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
What does it say when the representatives of a country that says it’s trying to bring democracy and the rule of law and civil liberties to a country have to travel through that country in armored vehicles with heavily armed bodyguards?
What does it say when Iraq isn’t the only country where they have to do this?
Now on the shooting. When I work in the States, I am armed. If somebody shoots at me and I return fire and hit a bystander I am subject to possible prosecution and will more than likely be sued by the family of the injured. That’s a given. It affects how I have to think.
That convoy was identifiable as a target to the bad guys. The people involved were highly trained and had to know of the risk involved. I think that these security people need to be held accountable for their actions just like me. That would change their operational thinking and make everybody safer.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
[quote comment="26540"]I cannot understand how Blackwater’s statement attempted to “slyly” place the blame on the armed insurgents. Is that not where the blame for the death of these civilians should fall squarely? Disguising oneself in order to look like civilians, and in this case perhaps even police officers, provides one of the prime advantages of guerilla warfare; namely, the confusion of the enemy and the ability to essentially always strike the first blow (the insurgent cannot be discerned from the civilian, normally, until he makes his attack, and even then it is difficult).
When a group of combatants employs this strategy, they of course know that the difficulty their counter-parts will experience in identifying their enemies will lead to confusion and almost certainly to a greater number of innocent lives lost. Yet the insurgents pursue this strategy anyway, knowing full well the costs. To me, the fault obviously lies with them in this instance.
Imagine I was in a gun fight with the police. Were I to pull an innocent civilian in front of me as a human shield, and should the police accidentally kill this civilian while defending themselves from my gunfire, the blame for that death, legally and morally, would fall squarely on myself, and not the police officers. I see this situation as quite similar.[/quote]
The US forces and Blackwater aren’t police though, they’re an occupying army in a hostile environment.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
There are what, 180,000 private contractors in Iraq? I”m not sure if that is all security detail, companies such as Blackwater, but the sheer number makes it impossible for Iraq to kick them out. The US will simply insist that they stay, becaues they can’t hold Iraq without the private companies. And lets be honest, should the US withdraw, the current Iraqi administration won’t last a week.
So no, those contractors aren’t going anywhere. Its all bluster and talk, and in the end it’ll be swept under the rug.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
[quote comment="26520"]These guys are professionals, they’re not kids, nor raw recruits Most of them are actually ex-special forces, so spare me that line.[/quote]
I can’t even imagine the itchy trigger fingers in that line of ‘work’
September 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
This issue has been brewing for a while now. “Civilian casualties” was simply the last straw (or next to last, since the ban is temporary).
Say what you will about “acceptable loss,” but Blackwater employees have become (in)famous in Iraq for their belligerence and lack of two shits for the people of Iraq. The thing that divides security contractors from military personnel is that the military must abide by a code of ethics. This is what makes contractors so useful.
It’s not that they “accidentally” shot at and killed civilians; it’s that their whole attitude up to this point shows that they will shoot at anybody within sight with no regard for life or consequences. It’s a “shoot everybody and let God sort them out” attitude that is well out of hand. Of course, that is what they are paid for.
They are dangerous in their recklessness and they should be banned. Too bad the real government of Iraq (ie, America) won’t ever allow that.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
[quote comment="26538"]Ferndave i promote thee to Captain Obvious.[/quote]
Captain? I was shooting for Major!
September 18th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I’m just getting into the Shock Doctrine, but from what I’ve read so far the Iraqi government is standing up to a lot more than security firms when they try to stop out-sourced warfare.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
[quote comment="26550"]
It’s interesting how guerrillas who attack occupational forces are now all deemed terrorists. Were these members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who constitute a sliver of the insurgency? Or were these insurgents? If they were the latter, then how are they not guerrillas attacking occupational forces - even if they are contractors? A majority of Iraqis support attacks on occupational troops actually - so the majority of the country must also be terrorists by that logic.
It’s amazingly interesting to me that so many of you are so quick to point to the actions of those you deem terrorists as being justification for the actions of those that are NOT supposed to be.
The truth is that Iraq is a nation occupied. That for four and a half years there has been an insurgency, and that there are two ways to go about approaching it. 1 - kill everyone and have no qualms about it. 2 - claim yourself just, and therefore leave yourself open to ridicule when you are responsible for the deaths of civilians.[/quote]
It doesn’t make a shred of difference to me what you call those who attacked the contractors. The military convoy that was attacked was a legitimate target in my mind. When I used the term “insurgent” I was simply doing so because that is the term used in popular discourse almost universally, though, admittedly, it makes little sense to call combatants in their own country “insurgents.” I don’t believe I called anyone a terrorist, nor did I mean to imply it. My point was that when a group of combatants deliberately weave themselves into the civilian population, attempting to make themselves almost discernible from the general populace, they are completely aware of the fact that this will inevitably lead to a higher civilian death toll. They are using civilians as a defensive tool, designed to confuse their opponents. Thus, I place the blame for these civilian deaths on them, and not the contractors.
In this specific case, I certainly can’t see how the blame can be put on the contractors. For that reason, I don’t see how the statement is being “sly” when it puts the blame precisely where it belongs. If it were in your hands, would you find it just to punish these men for the killing of these civilians? Certainly if they were blamable, they would deserve punishment. Yet in this case it would seem morally repugnant to hand down punishment.
If you want to take things to a grander level and place the blame for all civilian deaths on the United States for even beginning this occupation in the first place, that’s a far different matter. But that’s not what you did in your original post.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
You’re making such a fine point it’s meaningless fatuncle, the insurgency is made up of the local population despite the nonsense we’re being fed by Fox and other sources. It’s Blackwater that has no real legal justification for being in Iraq doing what it’s doing. In the grander level, Bushs “because I said so” really means nothing.
Matt is doing a great job responsibly describing a very complex and tragic war despite the efforts of some to twist his words.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:15 am
[quote comment="26550"]It’s amazingly interesting to me that so many of you are so quick to point to the actions of those you deem terrorists as being justification for the actions of those that are NOT supposed to be.[/quote]
Interesting, but not surprising, I hope. You know the motto of Bush Co. and their supporters:
“How dare they force us to commit these atrocities!”
September 19th, 2007 at 6:24 am
[quote comment="26536"]Ban the terrorists too, they’ve killed more than 8.[/quote]
While we’re at it, let’s ban the occupying power, too, for it takes the cake. Easier said than done.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:27 am
[quote comment="26517"]Like x amount of Iraqi lives are worth one American life.[/quote]That depends on who that ‘one American life’ is, for it seems the American government has as little regard for its own population as it does for those living overseas.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:44 am
[quote comment="26565"][quote comment="26517"]Like x amount of Iraqi lives are worth one American life.[/quote]That depends on who that ‘one American life’ is, for it seems the American government has as little regard for its own population as it does for those living overseas.[/quote]
true enough:)
btw…I changed my name (A to the D was getting old)
September 19th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Seems pretty convenient that Blackwater and other such companies are not easily held accountable for civilian death.
I guess I’m stating the obvious… but doesn’t that just mean that in such situations excessive force would TYPICALLY be used? If the main objective is to protect whoever hired them, and they cannot be held accountable for whoever happens to get in the way, then what rationale is there for them to be more careful?
September 19th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Here’s something interesting: “A U.S. government official tells TIME that when President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sit down for a scheduled bilateral meeting next Tuesday in New York they will discuss the recent episode in Baghdad involving the Blackwater security firm, which is critical to the way American diplomats operate in Iraq. Already, during a telephone conversation on Monday night, Maliki and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Iraq Prime Minister agreed that U.S. diplomats must be free to travel around Iraq, but how they will do that is now a point of contention. Since Iraq suspended Blackwater’s license following the Sunday firefight, American diplomats have not been able to travel outside the Green Zone to visit ministries and other Iraqi sites. “We’re there to strengthen the capacity of the Iraqi Government. We’re not able to do that all in the Green Zone,” Rice said she told Maliki in the conversation. And, she said, he agreed.”
Seems the generals idea of successes does not extend to the point were American diplomats can leave the Green Zone without the protection of Blackwater.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I’m not sure if we will ever know what really happened on sunday but it seems to me that both governments involved would like this to go away quickly. The Iraqis because they will appear complicit in the death of their own civilians, and the americans because they picked and paid for these mercenaries to be there. Below are quotes from one of the people shot by the mercenaries, this was not his first run in with them.
Quotes from Hasan Jaber Salman
“So we turned back, and as we turned back they opened fire at all cars from behind,” Salman said. “All my injuries, the bullets are in my back.”
“Within two minutes the security force arrived in planes — part of the security company Blackwater. They started firing randomly at all citizens.”
“No one fired at them, they were not attacked by gunmen, they were not targeted by an explosion,” he said.
The lawyer said he intends to sue Blackwater, which he already did in 2005 after his son was involved in a similar incident outside al-Muthana Air Base near Baghdad’s international airport. That lawsuit has not yet been resolved, he said
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/19/iraq.fateful.day/
September 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am
[quote comment="26520"]These guys are professionals, they’re not kids, nor raw recruits Most of them are actually ex-special forces, so spare me that line.[/quote]
My ex-girlfriend’s cousin is/was in Blackwater. After a few tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, he joined Blackwater “so he could kill more Iraqis” (his words). Apparently before all this he was a normal, well-adjusted young man. War does messed up things to people, but that’s no excuse. It sickens me that groups such as this seem to be above the law, and can do things the military aren’t allowed to. America’s attitude in general when it comes to international matters is that they can do whatever they want, because they’re America. Disgusting.