"...similar to the vehicles used by top U.S. military officials -- drove up to the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center wearing uniforms similar to those worn by the U.S. military."

Larry, I get a little different read off of this, although you're in a better position to know. I get an image of a convoy manned with impersonators of Blackwater employees, instead of US Military personnel. They would be wearing "similar uniforms" to the US Military, especially if it were an Iraqi eyewitness' account, who would first see the body armour, green fatigues, the US GI rifles, and not notice nuances that an American in Iraq would be likely to notice, notably rank insignia, and grooming of facial hair. This would also give them a logical rationale for ignoring differences to US GI, if any were noted by the perimeter guards.

Last I read, Blackwater was still holding the contract for guarding State Dept. Personnel, and in fulfilling that contract, they would drive around in heavily armoured black luxury SUVs. Many are likely to be Arrogant M-----F--king_A--h--es, which would also account for the quick cursory wave through at a perimeter checkpoint, if it was manned by only Iraqis, who have probably learned the survival technique in the last few years of treading extremely lightly around the Corporate Mercs.

In some ways this would be worse than imitating US military, because the military has methods to counter infiltration, but would be hard-pressed to keep those methods effective if they were required to share the ever-changing challenge/response codes globally with the corporate freeboots. Security would be shredded from the git.

Even if I am way offbase, this is way beyond over the top , especially with the deceit in the early official accounts. What the hell is a possible reason for distorting the truth? Need for Classification would be extremely lame, since the perps obviously knew the facts. It was hiding it from people with an immediate need to know, those who are in Iraq, including the natives, and hiding it from the people who have a right to know, the American citizenry.

One thing that stands out for me in this story is the report that the combat fatigues were new. That suggests that they weren't taken from the bodies of dead soldiers, salvaged from the trash, etc. Somewhere somebody with access to the supply chain sold some US combat fatigues. Perhaps the buyer persuaded the seller that the uniforms were only wanted as "souvenirs". Perhaps they were just sold to a black market hustler who then sold them to someone else. Is the supply chain leaking other commodities - like ammunition? Can people who want to buy US combat fatigues in the Middle East easily do so at "surplus" stores or somesuch outlets?

Similarly, how were the suburbans acquired? Can these be purchsed from legit car dealers in Karbala? Are used US military vehicles sold on an open market? Were they stolen by people who had obtained access to the keys?

We're probably nowhere near the bottom of this story. The initial lies and half truths are just being covered up with new lies and half truths.

Somewhere somebody with access to the supply chain sold some . . . .

Anyone seen Elliot Abrams, lately?

Hard to vet them death squads. 

At least the bodies were recovered, and the families got more back than DNA, which was all that was left of the F-16 pilot lost in Anbar. link

A mini-surge in Baghdad, from a NYT reporter: link

......As the morning wore on and the troops came under fire from all directions, another apparent flaw in this strategy became clear as empty apartments became lairs for gunmen who flitted from window to window and killed at least one American soldier, with a shot to the head.

Whether the gunfire was coming from Sunni or Shiite insurgents or militia fighters or some of the Iraqi soldiers who had disappeared into the Gotham-like cityscape, no one could say.

“Who the hell is shooting at us?” shouted Sgt. First Class Marc Biletski, whose platoon was jammed into a small room off an alley that was being swept by a sniper’s bullets. “Who’s shooting at us? Do we know who they are?”.....One Iraqi soldier in the alley pointed his rifle at an American reporter and pulled the trigger. There was only a click: the weapon had no ammunition. The soldier laughed...

Bushistan....George Dubya's Horror Show in the Middle East.

I agree that this report is very disturbing. Even more so, since I read nothing in the report to indicate that the American-speaking, American-uniform-wearing attackers were not Americans.

Before anybody dismisses this thought as completely whack, consider the strong opposition to the US occupation that a great many of US troops have. I'm just suggesting that the situation in Iraq might be even more chaotic than the media is willing to admit.

Peter Miller

Do we know if they were infiltrators?

While technically BlackWater employees are not mercenaries, could they have been bought off to hand the soldiers over (say just thinking it was a kidnapping not an execution if you're squeamish)?

A few random events speak to me about military credibility, and the credibility of things filtered through political spokesmen. I would be the last to say that the military is always truthful, but my general experience is that especially the modern military, as opposed to Vietnam, tends to prefer truth.

GEN Petraeus' recent confirmation hearings broke new ground, to the best of my knowledge. He is the first field commander to agree to a consultative relationship with Congress, in a way that appears to be quite constitutional but puts him in a position that will make his statements hard to distort. Once you pin on that fourth star, you are certainly near the pinnacle of a military career; while some other four-star posts might be senior, they don't necessarily appeal to everyone.

There are several press reports that retiring GEN Abizaid, Central Region Commander, had some agreement with Rep. Murtha, and, even though his retirement was in process, it's unusual for this sort of thing to go public.

At a different end of the spectrum, a friend, now an enlisted photojournalist back from a tour in Iraq (her husband is there on his second tour), has accepted an appointment in Officer Candidate School. I know her well enough to know she reported the truth, whether or not it was approved in the chain of command or used fairly by media that published it. She did write a public letter to a website that used some of her photographs, giving her credit, in a manner that she felt was incompatible with her political beliefs. In the letter, she said that while the site had every right to use US government pictures, she preferred not to have her name on them in a way that suggested she approved of the associated article. That was a delicate line of honor.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Speaking of these Blackwater thugs, what are we going to do with them when their excellent Iraq adventure ends along with the big money, and they all come home and want to be cops?

As much as I disagree with policies in Iraq, including invading in the first place, I cannot accept some of your summaries as representing my views.

I disagree with #1, in that I will not say that the US has no allies. It has allies on two levels: foreign troops such as the British, and Iraqis who see some benefit to cooperation. Those Iraqis see that for many reasons, ranging from sharing in a (dubious) vision that a meaningful nation of Iraq can form, to potential benefit to their faction, to possibly limiting threats to certain policies.

#3 is probably true. I don't think #2 is black-and-white, although the insurgents certainly have more help.

Nothing I said would reasonably support my holding the position you describe in #4. Challenge-response has limitations, and must be kept up-to-date to have any value.

Especially given your introduction of "very verbose", and then proceeding to summarize points that I did not make, I must conclude you are, for reasons of your own, distorting my words. If you want to differ with me, fine. If you have any sense of intellectual honesty, don't do it by attributing things I did not say and calling it a "summary".

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Time to outsource the Border Patrol? or the War on Drugs? SWAT teams is our Business! Yee-haw!

The planning evident in this operation is sophisticated and points clearly to the uncomfortable fact that someone within the Iraqi military, who was knowledgeable about the meeting, tipped off the bad guys. It could have been Iranians retaliating for the earlier U.S. attacks on Iranian diplomats inside Iraq or maybe it was someone with a militia group with a grudge to settle. Regardless, it is bad news all around.

What accent to the English?

What features the "Americans"?

What evidence of the bodies?

Who debriefed?

What likelihood are we, during the investigation and pursuit, to be told anything that might telegraph where in the investigation or pursuit the investigators and pursuers are?

Blackwater or other contractor vehicles missing?

Blackwater or other contractors missing?

Diplomatic security convoys all accounted for?

Diplomatic entourage attacked in Mosul killing Eric Sullivan long ago -- any vehicles taken then?

Brits "got information" on missing vehicles, personnel etc.?

Was intel information captured at the outpost?

The vehicles were said to be abandoned which could suggest they were stolen or missing from somewhere, or their original occupants were SUV-jacked and replaced.

These kinds of questions go to the issue of commanders and leaders taking head counts, property inventory and keeping their ears to the ground. If nothing and no one is missing, then when something like this happens, where can attention reasonably turn?

If an investigation is to be useful, then it makes sense to leave open all possibilities and follow the evidence, and evidence of planted evidence, of inconsistencies and of the marks of a veiled message sent. For instance, here, if bodies were found as reported, they had bullets in some of the victims' heads, indicating execution style shooting. Where in the head? The back, front, side or what? Were all shot the same way? What sort of weapons were used? It was said the men were carrying "American weapons," however, how was that verified if the men were inside the black tinted window vehicles by and large? If waved on, presumably they weren't searched? And, in their raid, what sort of raid techniques were utilized, and did anyone flip on some audio, or call on a cellular phone, or something similar? Did any security camera catch anything? Was there any in operation? Walmarts have them outside, what about combat and or civil affairs outposts in Iraq?

Many, many more inquiries, questions and techniques could be applied to learn more about the incident and find the real bad guys. There may have been satellite footage. What was the weather like? Cloudy? Did the convoy travel under satellite surveillance?

And so on.

Another point being missed here is that force protection is supposed to be the Army's Job #1, and these soldiers are dead because they were prevented from doing that part of their job.

These soldiers were captured (not "kidnapped" -- only non-combatants can be kidnapped, and the use of the word implies a false equivalence between combatants and non-combatatants, degrading the role of these soldiers) because some higher-up officer decided that a handful of Iraqi military (read "Sadr militia members") were sufficient to provide security for this meeting.

That is wrong, wrong, wrong, and Congress needs to investigate where this policy decision came from.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

Heh. This brings to mind the video of Zarqawi misfiring that machine gun - a video, if I remember correctly, that the guys over at Faux News and associates showcased to attempt to make a fool of him.

I say attempt, because the gun was an M249. I thought the video was more of a damning statement on arms smuggling than the idiocy of Zarqawi. While the armies of several other countries use the SAW, I bet you dollars to doughnuts that it had US stamps on it. Just a hunch though.

Outstanding post Mike7Woodson and your cutting questions expose the fact that this tragedy and catasrophic breach of security was an inside job.

Our enemies in Iraq walk amongst us.

The Bush government is arming, training and pouring billions of dollars into the pockets of individuals in Iraq who will for any one of several reasons use those arms, that training, and that money against our soldiers, American's collaborators, and American interests.

There appears to be two or more elements within every office, branch, department, organization, or service in the government.

Simply put, there are the lockstep partisans and truebeliver fanaticus who bow to the fascists in the Bush government, (ie. neocons, Vulcans, and their loyal minions), with blind religious fervor, - and there are others who dare to disagree with the Bush governments deceptive, secretive, failing, abusive, predatory, supremist, imperialist, corporatist, fascist ideologies and designs. There are various circles with degrees of shared opinions or shades of gray as well, - but the point is no one with any opinion outside the WH bubble can express that opinion without suffering the career ending reprecussions, or worse.

The sad fact is true in the intelligence community, the pentagon, state, justice, et al. and the military.

We all know the military is unique in that they obey orders, and follow the chain of command and don't ask questions. Our soldier are dependent on the decisions made by our civilian leadership. In cold terms, our military and our soldier are simply tools to be applied in what general Odom's calls the most "extreme form of politics'.

Can we trust our civilian leaders? Obviously not. So can we trust anyone in the military or any other component of the government? Tragically no.

Eventually the truth will seep out as it almost always does, as those who oppose the fascists in the Bush government find relatively safe means to release information.

Until then, we are told exactly what the fascist in the Bush government want us to hear, framed in the Bush government terms and constructs, - and totally absent of any semblence of truth.

Cheney's recent delusional tirade on the Situation Room is the perfect example.

News reports have made it clear that the Baghdad police and the Iraqi army have been deeply infiltrated with Mahdi Army Sadr loyalists. There's no way that Iraqi army forces can be trusted to provide security for American soldiers anywhere. All of Iraq is hostile territory to the occupying forces.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

I feel your pain: it was M1 thumb, although, for myself.

Here's the video (leave it to youtube). Note the video is partially entitled "...bloopers," which speaks to the intent with which it was released.

Were all of our soldiers armed, with fully loaded weapons?

Your last comment reminded me of a documentary I saw on Beirut and the US Marines rules of engagement (ROE) before the marine barracks bombing. It has been too long to remember the details or provide a citation, but it seems the ROEs were fairly restrictive. 

Like today in Iraq, our solders were faced with taking sides in a civil war or standy by the wayside, watching, while in harms way.  This may be a straw man... I realize there alternative approaches that would fall somewhere in between these two extremes.  Or outside...  like getting out.

For those that have a better recollection or resources, are there any real parallels between then and now or am I off base?  Are the ROE putting our solders in danger in Iraq like they were in Lebanon?

Are there other relavent compare and contrasts to Lebanon beyond the rules of engagement?

______________________________________________

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."