First shoot, then lie
The rules of engagement at US checkpoints in Iraq are an outrage to humanity. We all need to demand to know, first and foremost, what they are. This is essential for the wellbeing of the many millions of people who live in the vicinity of these checkpoints and have to pass through them as they conduct their daily business. Yet the Bush administration has thus far steadfastly refused to announce publicly what the ROEs at checkpoints are.
They claim that this will endanger security. I don't see it. If the rule is: When you see a checkpoint or someone clearly signaling you to stop, you must stop your car, get out of it, and walk 30 feet away, or whatever, everyone involved--checkpoint soldiers and checkpoint passers alike-- will know what the rules are, and the nervousness of evenryone involved and possibilities for lethal misunderstandings will be mightily diminished.
Instead of which, the ROE at many checkpoints seems to be, "Shoot first, and then if anyone later challenges your action, lie."
Certainly, that seems to have been the ROE used by the checkpoint soldiers who killed Nicola Calipari and nearly killed Giuliana Sgrena.
Except that in that case, the soldiers' ability to sustain their account under later questioning has already been strongly challenged by the Italian government, who base their view of what happened at that fatal checkpoint last Friday on the report of the Italian intelligence agent who was driving the car in question.
It'll be interesting to see what becomes of the "full investigation" into the incident now promised by the Pentagon.
At a broader level, though, it is ways past time to have stable, predictable ROEs used by all personnel staffing checkpoints. "First shoot, then lie" isn't really a good way to build longterm stability.
I don't believe the shooting of Calipari happened at a checkpoint at all. I think they just got close to US troops, and that made the troops nervous, so they stopped the car by firing. I don't believe they knew who it was at all. I don't think the Italians were targeted.
I think it is pretty much the same as the shooting of the two parents (of six children) up in Tal Afar in January.
If there was a checkpoint in this case, it was not a permanent one or a well marked one. The Italians claimed they went past all the checkpoints, and I believe that story.
It's Giuliana Sgrena. Not Giuilana Sgreni. I think.
Oops, thanks for catching that Dominic. I was running around this afternoon. (Had to make a couple of new signs for our regular Thursday afternoon peace demonstration; then go to it... then a reception organized by Virginians for Alternatives to the death Penalty... then, then, then... )
Anyway, I corrected it.
To Susan
My truth
Giuliana Sgrena
The common theme in a lot of the stories is that the driver did not know what to do -- was willing to be cooperative but was confused. Traffic lights would help. Given the bureaucratic screwups in getting armor to US troops, I don't expect quick action on the traffic lights.
How can Helena say 1) the rules are an "Outrage to humanity" and then 2) she doesn't know what they are? Keeping tactics and strategy secret is normal in combat situations. Sometimes the rules of engagement include tactics and strategy.
Sgrena is an anti-American Communist (which may have saved her from death at the hands of the kidnappers) who apparently exaggerates, possibly out of fear, possibly out of hatred. She said her car was hit by hundreds of bullets, but photos of the car contradict this. Perhaps she heard many bullets being fired. Perhaps these were the warning shots. A driver could panic on hearing warning shots, and accelerate, triggering a lethal response. Warning shots seem to be counterproductive. Maybe a siren could substitute.
Apparently photos of Sgrena's car aren't of right car, ignore my mention of it.
WarrenW,
Helna can't say because the rules are secret:
"The military says it takes many precautions to ensure the safety of civilians. But a military spokesman in Baghdad declined in a telephone interview on Sunday to describe the engagement rules in detail, saying the military needed to maintain secrecy over how it responds to the threat of car bombs."
see swopa's post http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1180 ,
with the appropriate title "An occupation designed by Kafka"
1) the rules are an "Outrage to humanity" and then 2) she doesn't know what they are
Usually, shooting people for violating secret rules/laws is a symptom of a totalitarian state.
So, we're happily bringing totalitarian "democracy" to the Middle East, I guess?
If the Rules of Engagement are secret, then the military people should make separate set of rules to be made public for the civilians in Iraq, both Iraqis and foreigners. Yes, of course, then the insurgents would know the rules and can somehow better blend in with the populace, too--but, since the soldiers are rather busy shooting everyone in sight, civilians or not, I don't see anything that can be lost by making some rules public.
Warren, I think the reason so many people are suspicious of the incident -- quite apart from the testimony of the Italian intelligence agent who was also in the car -- is what seems to be a very large number of such incidents altogether.
It got attention this time because the victims were European, not Iraqi. But anyone who was already wondering why so many seemingly befuddled Iraqis keep getting slaughtered at checkpoints was bound to look at the Italian witnesses and glimpse what is probably going on in reality.
This last incident also touches a raw nerve in Italy where people are still resentful over the death of 20 people killed when a US marine pilot flew a jet into a cable car at an Italian Alpine ski resort back in 1998.
There were lots of testimonies in the region (which I happen to know well), that the US crews were bored and playing odd dangerous game, like betting they would be able to pass under the cables etc.. The planes were constantly flying out of the time/tracks allowed. It was there at the wrong time and wrong place. But the crew was completely acquitted by a US court who judges the case not in Italy, where the incident took place, but in the US. I don't think that any Italian had an occasion to testimony about the fact.. how impartial can that be ?
One marine however was condemned to six months for the destruction of critical information concerning the flight.. Now just tell why would a marine destroy critical information if he wasn't guilty of something ? If the crew wasn't guilty, that information would have proven it.
The Italian don't want another whitewash of this kind.
It is a good occasion to attract attention to the case of ordinary Iraqi who are the most common object of this "shoot first, then lie" technique.
Christiane, it is always really useful to have your Europe-based eye on things. Thanks so much for the v. significant extra context above. (I mean, of course I knew about that USAF incident but not being in Europe I hadn't really factored that in this time.)
Anyway, big thanks!
Salah, I think you're in Europe too, aren't you? Thanks for that useful link, too.
JWN at its best really does pull together the perspectives (and PDF production skills!) of people all around this tiny planet of ours. What a blessing!
Having left Iraq in April 04, I may no longer be current, but it's a sad fact that the rules of engagement and appropriate use of force, at least when American soldiers and security contractors are involved, heavily favors the protection of American life above all else. There are clauses indicating that we should be sensitive to local popular moods and the potential for escalation and such. But while not specifically addressed, the implication is that if comes down to us or them, it's always us.
If someone throws a brick at your vehicle and you feel that you were in iminent danger (i.e., your vehicle doesn't have bullet proof glass), you can use deadly force. I don't know whether any records are being kept, but I personally know of one incident where a young Iraqi male was shot dead after he threw a brick at a non-military civilian security contractor vehicle. I'm told that reparations were arranged for his family.
I'm not a lawyer and I had mixed feelings about the rule, but it's hard to overstate the vulnerability (and thus fear) of well-armed forces in a hostile neighborhood/city/region/country. That's basically a good argument for not being there in the first place.
"hard to overstate the vulnerability (and thus fear) of well-armed forces in a hostile neighborhood/city/region/country."
I guess that is why 1500 them have died compared to the tens of thousands of helpless Iraqi men, women, and children whose lives those poor, vulnerable innocent forces have blown away.
Shirin, I think I understand your point. The tragedy of war is that everyone loses in some way.
Not to defend specific actions, but at the policy level, the occupation forces are in a lose-lose dilemma. If they (we, because I'm an American) stay, they are lightning rods. If they leave, they will be blamed for any subsequent chaos. But if they leave, then at least (a) the soldiers, who are also human beings, believe it or not, will no longer be tempted by baser motives and/or forced into moral dilemmas, and (b) the departure will force but also enable Iraqis to confront the difficulties that simply exist around them, which is the first step to any meanigful, long term solution towards a peaceful Iraq/region.
But I've been accused of being hopelesslly naive, so what do I know.
sad rules, I am 100% with you on the necessity of complete U.S. withdrawal, and the sooner the better. That includes dismantling that damned colonial administration they call the "embassy", sending every last one of its personnel home, and taking with them all the contractors, the "rebuilding" (aka deconstruction and transformation) programs, and all other U.S. (and Israeli) presence resulting from the invasion. But do not forget to leave your checkbook at the door to pay for all the damage, death and destruction you have caused.
When Iraqis have sorted out their situation and have a real government, they can decide whether to have any relations at all with the U.S., and what will be the nature of those relations.
My issue is simply that I get sick and tired of being asked to view U.S. forces armed-to-the-teeth with deadly and destructive power beyond anything any normal person can even imagine as vulnerable. I am particularly sick and tired of it when I think of the thousands of helpless men, women, children, infants and elderly they have buried alive in the rubble of their homes. I am particularly sick and tired of it when I think of the reports and photos from Abu Ghraib, particularly when I know that what happened in Abu Ghraib happened in every other prison and detention facility run by the U.S. I get sick and tired of it when I remember that those poor, vulnerable U.S. forces hold power over the lives and fates of 25 million Iraqis in their hands. And I am sick and tired of it when I look at the numbers, which make it very, very clear who is vulnerable.
" If they (we, because I'm an American) stay, they are lightning rods."
More important than that, they are the direct cause of the overwhelming majority of the violence. Despite the distorted picture presented by the Bush administration and the media, U.S. forces have perpetrated the overwhelming majority of, and the worst, deadliest and most destructive violence. They have also caused by their actions, whether deliberately or out of ignorance, the majority of the other violence. The history of their presence in Falluja is a case in point. They brought that entire mess on themselves with their own violent and ignorant actions.
"If they leave, they will be blamed for any subsequent chaos."
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them because of that? They took on that dilemma when they decided to launch a war of aggression with the intention of "reshaping" Iraqi society. Deal with it.
And I am always amused at the "there will be chaos if we leave" argument. What do people think there is now? Order and peace? Given the history of the two years of U.S. presence in Iraq, there is, in fact, a far greater likelihood that chaos and violence will decrease sooner if you leave than if you stay. At the very least the violence you perpetrate, which is the majority of, and the worst violence, will be elminated. So will the violence that is directed specifically at the occupation and its agents. The separation will also become clear between those who are resisting the occupation and its manifestations, and those who have other agendas. And there will also be less support for violence among the population.
Sorry for three successive postings, but I forgot in my first one to mention that when the Americans leave they should take their imported "Iraqi" agents with them, if only for their safety.
On the large number of "Checkpoint incidents" which seem to remind people of totalitarianism:
There is a systemic problem in the management of the checkpoints that any good administrator (democratic or totalitarian) would want to fix. Traffic engineering is a well-understood field and applying basic technologies (instead of warning shots) would probably save a lot of lives very quickly. If just one of the leaders (Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, US) would start belaboring this point I'll bet action would be much faster.
It's hard to tell, from inside a car, what direction shots are coming from. I'll bet that's a significant cause of loss of life. Red traffic lights are not ambiguous regarding their location.
... And it's not exactly the ROE's that need to be made public, but the Traffic Rules the drivers are supposed to follow at checkpoints.