Mercs gone wild

The rampaging private armies that guard State Department and CIA personnel in Iraq have finally gone too far to ignore.

On September 16, a Blackwater convoy entered Nisour Square in the Mansour district of Baghdad. Spooked by the sound of a car bomb a quarter mile away, but not under attack from anyone, the guards strafed the cars that had stopped at the side of the street to make way for the convoy. The mercenaries fired not only from beside their armored SUVs but also from one of two 'Little Bird' helicopters overhead onto the cars trapped below, using a grenade launcher to set one car on fire. They killed at least 11 people and wounded 18 more.

As always in these kinds of incidents, Blackwater insisted that they were fired on and that those killed and wounded were "armed enemies", or at best unfortunate victims of a "firefight." But this time there was video, along with the testimony of survivors, Iraqi police, and witnesses in the buildings nearby -- all giving the lie to the killers' story.

The Iraqi government threatened to eject and ban Blackwater from the country. Citing the apparent absence of such an outraged reaction to earlier incidents, Prof. Deborah Avant found the Maliki government's response "puzzling", and put it down to political positioning. My reading was simpler: everyone has a breaking point.

The Iraqi government had been complaining to the State Department for the last year about shooting after shooting, and nothing ever came of it. Ordinary Iraqis seethed with anger, fear, and humiliation at the behavior of the thousand Blackwater mercs always present in and above Baghdad's streets. They drive their black armored SUVs wherever they feel like it, ramming vehicles, knocking over obstacles on the sidewalks, pointing their machine guns and often shooting at anyone who gets too close, and laying down a curtain of fire if they see or hear anything that they interpret as an attack.

Here is a list of some of the most serious incidents of the last year, fewer than half reported in the U.S. press or attributed to Blackwater at the time they occurred:

1. December 18, 2006 - Blackwater team busted out of a Green Zone prison a former government minister convicted of embezzling billions. The prison was overseen jointly by U.S. and Iraqi guards. Former Iraqi Electricity Minister Ahyam al Samarrai was awaiting sentencing on charges that he had embezzled $2.5 billion intended to rebuild Iraq's decrepit electricity grid. The only Iraqi cabinet official convicted of corruption so far, he subsequently was spirited out of the country and is believed to be living in the United States (and is said to have dual U.S.-Iraqi citizenship). This "raises questions about what American officials might have known about the breakout."

2. December 24, 2006 - An off-duty Blackwater guard, drunk after a Christmas party, shot and killed a bodyguard of the Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi in the Green Zone. Blackwater immediately flew him back to the U.S. and says that they fired him. The story broke in the U.S. in mid-January; the company only admitted to it under questioning during a Congressional hearing in early February. The case was referred to the Justice Department, but there have been no charges nor any further reports from an investigation.

3. February 4, 2007 - Blackwater guards were involved in a shooting near the Foreign Ministry, in which Iraqi journalist Hana al-Ameedi died. [She is not in the Reporters sans Frontieres or Committee to Protect Journalists lists for 2007, but if she was shot in traffic by convoy gunspray or as a bystander, she might not make any of the tracking lists.] Update: 12:30 pm, 29 Sept - The name and date above were from the Interior Ministry's list of six incidents. A McClatchy report on what sounds like the same incident says that Suhad Shakir, with the Al Atyaf channel, was shot while driving to work and died outside the Foreign Ministry on February 2. Shakir is not on the RSF or CPJ lists, either.

4. February 7, 2007 - Blackwater operatives shot and killed three guards working for al-Iraqiya TV (government-owned), mistaking them for gunmen intending to attack a delegation guarded by Blackwater that was visiting the Justice Ministry building across the street in the al-Salihiya neighborhood of Baghdad.

5. February 14, 2007 - Blackwater staff smashed the windshields of Iraqis' cars by throwing bottles of ice water at them from their speeding SUV. Update: 12:45 pm 29 Sept - Throwing frozen water bottles appears to be a routine for Blackwater; it shows up in stories about at least four separate incidents, including their own account of the Nisour Square events ("to get the driver's attention").

6. May 24, 2007 - Blackwater guards shot and killed an Iraqi driver outside the Interior Ministry gate who "veered too close to their convoy." The day before, a Blackwater team reportedly came under attack, triggering a furious gun battle involving the security guards, U.S. troops and Apache attack helicopters in Baghdad's municipal center. [I believe at least one bystander was killed in this May 23 incident, too, but can't document that now.]

7. August 2007 - Blackwater guards led a convoy the wrong way down a Baghdad street. When a taxi driver failed to stop quickly enough as the convoy approached, the Blackwater guards opened fire, killing him.

8. September 9 - Killed five people and wounded 10 near the Baghdad municipality building. Update: 28 Sept - Harrowing details:

As Hussein walked out of the customs building, an embassy convoy of sport-utility vehicles drove through the intersection. Blackwater security guards, charged with protecting the diplomats, yelled at construction workers at an unfinished building to move back. Instead, the workers threw rocks. The guards, witnesses said, responded with gunfire, spraying the intersection with bullets.

Hussein, who was on the opposite side of the street from the construction site, fell to the ground, shot in the leg. As she struggled to her feet and took a step, eyewitnesses said, a Blackwater security guard trained his weapon on her and shot her multiple times. She died on the spot, and the customs documents she’d held in her arms fluttered down the street.

9. September 12 - Severely wounded five people on Palestine Street in east Baghdad. [This and the previous two are sourced only to the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which cited them among six previous incidents in explaining the government's reaction to the Nisour Square massacre.]

No one who knows, if anyone does, will say how many mercenaries are operating in Iraq. Estimates range from 20,000 (Pentagon) up to 50,000 (Int'l Contractors Assn.) in the close-to-200 private armies of Triple Canopy, DynCorp, Aegis, Custer Battles, Cohort International, Global Strategies, etc. Their behavior is only marginally better than Blackwater's; a video that's circulated on the net for the last two years shows Aegis mercs firing on civilians as they drive down a street. Who could have predicted this kind of behavior from heavily armed foreigners supporting a violent occupation, men who appear to be legally accountable to no one?

That question of accountability is murky at best. Much of the press coverage since the Nisour Square massacre has noted the decree issued by Paul Bremer in the waning days of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004 that grants full immunity from Iraqi law for private contractors. The Iraqi government has just submitted a bill to its legislature to change that.

Doug Brooks, head of the mercs' trade association (the International Peace Operations Association -- nice Orwellian touch), said last week that private military in Iraq are subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and to "MEJA, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which essentially says that a person working for a contractor can be brought back to the United States and tried for a felony." Presumably that's the basis on which charges could result from the supposed Justice Department investigation into the Christmas eve shooting. I'm not holding my breath.

Nor do I put much stock in anything Brooks says. A Congressional Research Service report this past July found that while mercenaries might technically be subject to the UCMJ, prosecution in military courts would raise constitutional questions, and logistical difficulties might inhibit U.S. civilian courts' ability to bring cases under the MEJA.

Rep. David Price (D-NC) has been trying for some time to bring the private military under federal law and increase oversight. The recent unpleasantness has also stirred rumblings in the Senate, where the defense spending bill is still being amended.

Update: 4:00 pm, Sept 25 - Edited, links and image added.

Webb amendment

Watching this video of Jim Webb making the case for his amendment to require adequate time between deployments for troops serving in combat zones, I can forget for a few moments how furious I am with his FISA vote. He's direct, simple, and blunt (note he says "occupation", a word most pols won't use). Please take a look and do what he's asking.

I did. Here's my email, and as soon as I publish this post I'll make my phone call:

Dear Senator Warner,

Please announce your support for and vote for the Webb amendment to allow troops deployed to combat zones adequate "dwell time" before redeployment.

This is the absolute minimum that we owe to those serving. The crushing deployment schedules of the last several years violate the implicit contract that makes a volunteer armed forces possible.

Congress has the right and obligation, under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Your obligation is even greater, as you have acquired a reputation as someone with the trust and respect of the military.

This issue is not something to be treated as the subject of some political deal you are striking with the president. It is a core obligation to the country and the armed forces that serve it.

You voted for this amendment earlier. Withdrawing that support now sends the wrong message to your constituents about your party's respect for those serving and its ability ever to work across partisan lines.

Your relationship with the junior senator has appeared to be refreshingly cordial and mutually respectful up to now, unusual for today's highly partisan Congress. If you now abandon Webb's amendment, Virginians will be forced to conclude that even the most supposedly independent and moderate Republicans are more focused on their relationship with the White House than their commitment to the country.

I hope you will support the Webb amendment.

Update: 4:10 pm, 19 Sept - Within hours of my email to Warner's office, it became known that the silver-haired fraud is putting forward a toothless 'sense of the Senate' resolution to compete with Webb's amendment; it would recommend more time between deployments to the Great Decider. No notice to Webb, who found out the same way I did -- from McCain's comments on the Senate floor. Webb is handling it masterfully, hitting back on all the ridiculous GOP talking points (see here and here).

But now the Democratic leadership needs to back him up: If Warner's slimy maneuver means we don't win the cloture vote, then let the Republicans filibuster this for real. Bring. it. on. I can't imagine a better moment for Dems to stick a fork in the "all bills now require 60 votes" nonsense. (See this Daily Kos diary or Mark Kleiman {h/t Taylor Marsh via Digby} for more.)

No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

John Edwards is making sense:

Our troops are stuck between a president without a plan to succeed and a Congress without the courage to bring them home.

But Congress must answer to the American people. Tell Congress you know the truth - they have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice: a firm timeline for withdrawal.

No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

It is time to end this war.

Pelosi Pentagon supplemental has the votes

Rep. Maxine Waters reports in a conference call with 98 United for Peace & Justice representatives, still going on as I write, that the Democratic leadership appears to have the votes to pass its version of the supplemental. There are now only ten Democrats who will vote to oppose, which gives the leadership 222 (one Democratic member will be absent for the vote).

Last night the Rules Committee passed a rule for the bill that will give four hours of debate, starting right now. Louise Slaughter (Rules chair) is reading the rule on C-SPAN; no amendments will be permitted. There could in theory be a vote tonight; it may end up being tomorrow. (I'm puzzled about how this situation complies with the House rule, restored under Pelosi, that there be 24 hours to read legislation; I guess the clock starts running when the rule is voted in.)

Waters said there was considerable nervousness among the leadership, given the very tight margin they have, that the whole thing could pass and then fall apart on the motion to recommit -- if Blue Dogs get cold feet and bolt at that point. That'd be fine with me; let them get the blame, vote with Republicans, and feel the wrath of Steny Hoyer now and voters in their district later.

MoveOn's poll had a significant effect, giving enough cover to liberal Democrats already under pressure to peel off the last four or five to the leadership position.

This is the last time the regime will push a Pentagon supplemental on the Congress; future funding for the war and occupation will be contained in budget proposals. And there are avenues for ending the occupation apart from funding: withdrawing authorization for the occupation, simply mandating withdrawal, and/or impeachment.

Bring 'em on.

Bad faith and bitterness

It's been clear for a long time now that the Pentagon supplemental funding bill would be a tough call for almost everyone involved. Unfortunately, as too often happens when there are genuine policy and strategy disagreements, the leadership is trying to paper over them instead of allowing an honest discussion, and that ends up just deepening the division.

There's a perfectly respectable case to be made for the leadership proposal; Thomas Nephew makes it well. But to be able to settle for the half-loaf that the Pelosi bill represents, genuinely anti-occupation members need to get a shot at the whole loaf. Barbara Lee's fully funded withdrawal bill is the alternative.

If the Dem leadership were to allow a vote on that actual withdrawal bill (which is also 'clean' in the sense of not containing a bunch of domestic spending lures that no Pentagon supplemental should have), it would probably get close to 100 votes. If Pelosi and co. had enough guts/integrity to allow that vote before the vote on the leadership version, they'd probably end up getting all but three or so of those votes on the leadership bill, too.

As it is, the leadership is forcing antiwar Dems to take their bill or nothing (unless the Rules Committee chooses this moment to defy the Speaker; I'm not holding my breath). That could cost them as many as 15 Out of Iraq votes. Whether it does or not, that approach is definitely costing goodwill both within the caucus and at the grassroots. And the bitterness will only be escalated by the kind of strong-arming and threats Pelosi is using.

Meanwhile, conservative Dems and Republicans are being lured with honey: every compromise made has been in their direction. This double standard is what's made the Out of Iraq caucus members resentful to begin with; if the sweet talk doesn't attract enough votes to give the Pelosi proposal a chance, then things are only going to get uglier.

Speaking of dishonest, manipulative treatment of "the grassroots", MoveOn's email member poll on Sunday is infuriating on several grounds. If there'd been any intent to be transparent and actually express the will of their members, they'd have:

mentioned the existence of the Lee 'fund withdrawal' bill,

let members know the deadline for having poll votes counted, and

committed to reporting back as soon as possible after that with a vote count.

Instead, just over 24 hours after putting out the poll, Tom Matzzie told reporters that MoveOn is backing the leadership proposal, and that it got over 80 percent support in the poll -- while declining to quote any numbers. A Daily Kos poll on Sunday, which only allowed a 'support' vs.'oppose' choice, came in at 51%-48% (7500 votes). MoveOn's report-back to its members hours after they talked to the press gave percentages, but no information on how many votes were received. Reviews ranged from harsh to balanced and sympathetic.

Update: 21 March, 4:30 pm - John Stauber got MoveOn to admit that only 126,000 members voted in the poll, and has more harsh words for the organization's tactics. One of his points should be added to my criticisms above: In addition to there being no deadline given for voting, the subject line of the email, 'Important decision on Iraq', gave no hint that the reader's participation was urgently required.
End update

TrueMajority's poll of its members included the Lee bill as a choice, and resulted in their urging a 'no' vote on the leadership proposal. Potentially awkward, since TM is one of the sponsors of StandUpCongress, but that just increases my respect for them. The site, first announced by Tom Andrews at the United for Peace and Justice lobby day in late January, was clearly intended from the get-go to organize support for Murtha's original proposal, but that got off on the wrong foot.

To put it mildly. That snake John Harris (closet Republican operative, former Washington Post editor, now co-founder of the Albritton-owned Politico, filling the Fox News niche for Capitol Hill) inserted the phrase 'slow bleed' as a characterization of the Murtha proposal in the first paragraph of his reporter's story on Feb. 15. The RNC picked it up and ran with it within an hour of the story appearing (grim details via ThinkProgress). Pelosi and company backed off immediately, and it's been all acrimony all the time ever since.

Last week's charade in the Senate did nothing to curb suspicions that Democrats want to distinguish themselves from Republicans far more than they want to end the occupation of Iraq.

Harry Reid's H.J.Res.9, a binding resolution to start troop withdrawal within 120 days and complete it by March 2008, was only announced late the week before. But it unexpectedly came to the floor on Wednesday, March 14, after a deal between the Majority and Minority leaders late Tuesday night. Evidence of bad faith:

Majority Leader Reid agreed to rules requiring 60 votes for passage.

There was no effort to involve grassroots antiwar organizations in pressuring possible swing Republican senators. Two Senate offices and an antiwar lobbyist were as surprised as I was by the sudden floor action. All assured me on Wednesday when I called that the debate would go on for a while, and there'd be no vote until sometime this week.

Yet the final vote on the resolution came just over 24 hours from the beginning of debate. Had there been any intention to gather the votes of any Republicans wavering on the issue, it would have been delayed until after the events marking the fourth anniversary of the invasion, filled with news and editorial coverage of antiwar activities and reflections on the issues surrounding the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Democratic leaders expressed great satisfaction with the outcome, failing 48-50 on a vote almost completely along party lines. It couldn't be clearer that they didn't want more Republican votes, and that they were relieved not to be in danger of actually ending the occupation.

Democratic leaders have failed to treat antiwar members of Congress and activists with respect by backing off of agreements immediately in the face of conservative opposition, not enlisting the help of grassroots organizations early in the process to move swingable Republicans and conservative Democrats, and not offering anything but threats to bring antiwar members back onside. Then they're going to blame us when the vote fails.

It didn't have to happen this way.

The curse of self-appointed liberal "leadership"

Via Laura Rozen, this news (from a subscription-only story at National Journal) makes my heart sink:

Deciding not to pursue their individual agendas, about a dozen liberal groups that united at the beginning of the year to help House Democrats pass their first-100-hours legislative agenda are continuing to work together, this time on a campaign opposing President Bush's troop surge in Iraq.

The groups are using the same grassroots strategy that proved successful in the previous Congress in helping Democrats to block GOP proposals for Social Security reform and budget cuts. These left-of-center organizations have traditionally worked only on domestic issues, but they are now fully engaged in pushing Congress to impose limits on the country's future involvement in Iraq.

Led by three large organizations -- the Campaign for America's Future, MoveOn.org, and USAction -- the groups have formed Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and have agreed to spend a combined $9.4 million on an electoral-style effort that includes canvassing and field operations, media advertising, phone banks, polling, and a press strategy.

"Though we don't work on Iraq as an issue, the debate on the war was crowding out our domestic agenda," says Alan Charney, program director at USAction, a progressive economic advocacy group with field operations in 30 states. "Until Iraq is solved, we know it will be difficult to push the progressive agenda, so we decided that it was time to fight for a responsible redeployment of the troops."

Why does it make my heart sink? Because these organizations aren't led by the grassroots, but by electoral operatives. They don't want to end the war; they want to get it out of the way as an issue. "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq"? As a representative of "Americans for Getting U.S. Troops Out of Iraq Two Years Ago," I see this as a party front, a potential obstacle to ending the occupation -- at best a high-maintenance ally. Americans are already against escalation in Iraq, in huge numbers. The point is to turn that into effective pressure on Congress to end the war.

MoveOn is the only one of the organizations listed here that's at all vulnerable to pushback from large numbers of individual activists, and the only one that's made any significant contribution to antiwar organizing until now.

USAction is the descendant of Citizen Action, with which I was involved for many years. This is completely typical of their politics: issues are instruments, nothing more. There's no recognition in that crowd of the need to work in a respectful way with the organizations that have been organizing for the last five years to prevent, and then to end, the war. Those of us who think the lives of Iraqis and Americans shouldn't be sacrificed to avoid any risk to the chances of Democratic candidates are "issue-heads" in the USAction worldview.

No, they're not the enemy. But their arrogance, cynicism, and complacency make them dubious allies.

Dems oppose escalation

It's a whole lot easier to rev up for pressuring Congress when it's a matter of holding them to a position they've taken rather than trying to drag them into the general vicinity of the right approach.

The choices in Iraq are narrowing. All but a distinct minority understand that no 'victory' is possible. Bush, Cheney, McCain, Lieberman and their 30% claque are for escalating; everyone else is for some version of getting out.

For once, Democratic leaders are speaking up with and for the people. Here are some highlights of yesterday's letter from Reid and Pelosi to Bush opposing his escalation plan:

No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. ... [W]e believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months ... A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement.

In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq.

There's room for improvement, sure, but they're facing in the right direction. Help push them forward: Come to DC on January 27 for the demo and/or January 29 for the lobby day.

Feeding frenzy

Watching Jim Webb and Jon Tester taking the oath of office in the Senate today was cheering, even with The Penguin doing the swearing-in. [image at Raising Kaine]

But then I came across some news that cast a pall over everything:

The coming supplemental [Pentagon funding request] is being used by the military services for more than replacing what has been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is being used to acquire future weapons that normally would be funded through the regular Pentagon budget.

An October directive from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England opened the floodgates by allowing the services to request emergency funds to replace equipment and upgrade to newer models for the "overall efforts related to the global war on terror," not just operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It's a feeding frenzy," says an army official involved in budget planning. "Using the supplemental budget, we're now buying the military we wish we had."

An October directive, eh? The regime's idea is clearly that Congressional Democrats won't be willing to cut or oppose the supplemental for fear of being thought not to "support the troops" -- no matter how bloated it is.

I wish I thought the bastards were wrong about that.

Update: 12:05 am 6 January - Wonder where they get that idea? Maybe from the bold, principled stance of fearless leader Kos:

Democrats and the growing ranks of war-weary Republicans can pass whatever legislation they want, Bush will just thumb [his] nose at them and the public. And short of pulling funding -- which would get more people killed -- there's little that Congress can actually do.
...
[D]on't fret that Congressional Dems can't unilaterally get us out of that mess. That power is vested in the president. But the bigger the mess Republicans make of the war, the bigger our victories in 2008. And if we make those big gains in Congress and the White House, ending this war will be tops on our 2009 agenda.

Thankfully, his commenters aren't buying. What's Kos thinking? Imagine a recently elected member of Congress making this 'we're helpless, but just wait until 2009' pitch to fend off pressure from the people who elected her to end the war.

We will hear a lot of the paralyzing myth that opposing further funding will hurt the troops. Dean Baker dispels it: [my emphasis]

Congress has the authority to require the top military commanders in Iraq to produce a plan for safely withdrawing our troops from the country. It can also require these commanders to give their best estimate of the cost of this plan. It can then appropriate this money, specifying that the funds be used for the withdrawal plan designed by the military.

President Bush would then have the funding required to safely withdraw our troops from Iraq. He would not have the money to continue his war. If he chose to defy Congress by misusing the funds (and thereby jeopardizing the lives of our troops), then the law provides a simple and obvious remedy: Impeachment.

Reasonable arguments could be made that this sort of decisive measure from Congress is not desirable. It could be argued that allowing President Bush more discretion in the conduct of the war would be the better route. But it is important to understand that Congress does have the authority to shut down the war without abandoning our troops. If Congress does not pursue this option, then it is because it has chosen not to. President Bush cannot continue to wage a war in Iraq if Congress is really determined to stop him.

Out of the mouths of babes

Someone should resurrect the famous New Yorker cartoon of the mother and young daughter at dinner, with the mother as the Bush administration and the child as the U.S. public:

Mother: "It's a surge, dear."

Child: "I say it's escalation, and I say the hell with it!"

The inspiration for this is today's front-page story in the Washington Post, in which it becomes clear that the Joint Chiefs of Staff share the child's opinion, if not her frankness.

I wrote a letter to the editor urging an end to the use of the 'surge' euphemism, given the damage done by a year's worth of calling the civil war 'sectarian violence'. If sending 20,000 more troops to Baghdad isn't an escalation, I don't know what is.

Update: 19 Dec 2:00 pm - Pat Lang and Ray McGovern know what's going on, and make the case against escalation while bemoaning it as a done deal with Cheney and Bush at the helm:

once an “all or nothing” offensive like the “surge” contemplated has begun, there is no turning back. It will be “victory” over the insurgents and the Shia militias or palpable defeat, recognizable by all in Iraq and across the world.

I and tens of thousands like me should be marching on the White House and obstructing traffic with die-ins in D.C., holding signs like We say it's escalation, and we say the hell with it!

But I'm taking my first homemade wreath to my cousins' house instead.

P.S. Yes, I failed once again to deliver on the garden blogging. I'm a terrible blogger.

End the war on Iraq

The election results should have sent a clear signal that voters want U.S. troops to leave Iraq. For a day or so, the media got that across. Now, the message is already being muddied as pundits and reporters immerse themselves in more comfortable themes like Congressional infighting. Members of Congress, the administration, and the media need to hear that call clearly, loudly, and repeatedly until the demand is met.

Help make January 27 the largest stop-the-war demonstration ever. Start today to publicize it through your own networks and in your community. Write letters to the editor to publicize the demo and encourage pressure now on your Senators and Congressperson.

The dithering and wishful thinking must end. Bring 'em home.