I'll take Neither for $600, Alex. Sgrena is obviously talking nonsense. However, the benign explanation requires that Italian intelligence officers are clueless about how US checkpoints work. Unless these particular officers are T0tal Iraq N00bs, I can't see them not expecting hair-trigger responses at US checkpoints.

I suspect an honest, though tragic, fvckup on the part of the soldiers, though I suspect there are plenty of Americans for whom "fvkcup on the part of the soldiers" is nonsensical by definition.

1) The US knows that Mr. Calipari is negotiating for her release. They know he's in country. They suspect he's offering money for her release (T or F?)
2) The US cannot possibly have survellience (predators, counter-intel, GPS, whatever), watching targetted vehicles/persons within Baghdad (T or F?).
3) It is of course, completely unreasonable for the US to track Mr. C, as they have absolutely no interest in a foreign national who is trying to meet with insurgents (terrorists, whatever). Terrorists getting paid ransom with which to kill Americans is perfectly kosher, and they have no problem with that setting a bad example (T or F?)

That all said, I would assume it was all an accident... Until they said Mr. C. got it with a headshot. If true, makes me wonder.

Yes, because accidental shots never strike the head, after all. And if the U.S. had surveillance good enough to track down the insurgents negotiating with the Italians, they would doubtless much prefer to whack the Italians rather than go after the insurgents, because it's actually to the U.S.'s advantage to have as many insurgents as possible in Iraq. And look at the great publicity killing Mr. Calipari brought the U.S.: why wouldn't they plot to kill him? It all makes sense when you put it that way.

You could tell us from your experience if/how snipers are deployed at checkpoints. If they're not, then I'll agree that it's likely accidental. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I didn't intend to imply that they could track down the insurgents. Only that Mr. C. would likely be a candidate to surveil/follow (I would have thought of it, but maybe it's just me). One would assume the insurgents are smart enough to take precautions for that. What levels/skills Mr. C. had to foil survellience is probably unknowable (I'll put in a FOIA for the predator tapes).

As far as publicity, this administration couldn't care less. And maybe they shouldn't. Killing her would have sent Italy ape. Killing him is something we could get away with.

That all said, while I think we have plenty of people who think like this, implementation would be a bit tough. But always believing the gov't line hasn't worked out well for me statistically.

And as far as "ambush" goes. There are only limited corridors to the airport, right? It was at/near a checkpoint. The Italians had to come to them.

I know we don't train units based on the assumption that there will be snipers available; I don't think the number of snipers we have available in Iraq is large enough to place them routinely at TCPs, although permanent TCPs could be different. Bottom line: I don't know.

But even assuming the Bush administration doesn't care about the bad publicity, what do we gain from killing this guy? (Also, based on Ms. Sgrena's testimony, the agent threw himself in front of her just before he was killed, so it still sounds more like the shot was heading for her and not him.) What do we gain with him being dead? I can't conceive of any advantage to killing any of the Italians, whereas I can think of numerous reasons not to.

I assume we move the TCPs around, so randomly, we could not control the conditions this accurately.

But - a member of the coalition of the willing and agents of their Secret Service (civilian or military?) may have negotiated with, and/or aided/abetted the paying of a ransom to Iraqi insurgents who kill Americans. Reports of $1M (dollars, euros, lira?). What's our policy? Thankyou, come again? Hey, Zarqawi, stop cutting their heads off and help fund the insurgency with more high profile foreign hostages?

Honestly, not that I think we're that smart, but I couldn't conceive of a better way to send a message while limiting the fall out (not killing Sgrena too). From this administrations perspective, how was Mr. C. different from anyone wearing orange at Gitmo?

1) Well, if the US is targeting journalists, why wouldn't we encourage the terrorists to take more of them hostage.

Oh, maybe we're not.

2) There's a little timing issue here. Why try to kill her or the agent AFTER they've paid the ransom? Doesn't pre-empting the payment work better than pre-empting her return?

3) What does the US gain from killing the agent IN IRAQ? Wouldn't we have prefered to get the debriefing transcript? How much great intel did we lose by shooting the wrong person? And if we'd really wanted him dead, how about a traffice accident in Rome instead?

4) Oh, but perhaps he learned something from the terrorists that undermines us in Iraq. We'd kill him for that, right?

Hmmm, if the terrorists had infomation that hot, wouldn't we be seeing it on Al-Jazeera?

Spare me the conspiracy theories. If you don't slow down for a checkpoint, you have a high risk of not making it through. Pretty simple, really.

You may be right. I hope you are.

The tragedy is that after lying about WMD's, lying about Jessica Lynch, lying about Pat Tillman, lying about the extent of US torture and its authorization - in fact, lying about nearly everything they've done, are doing, or plan to do, there is simply no way any rational observer can trust a thing coming from an official mouth of the Bush government.

Oh sure, you can nitpick and say exaggerating WMD intelligence isn't exactly a lie, yadda yadda. It's the sheer mass of duplicity, and the astounding number of false statements, of all kinds, that justifies calliing into question anything this administration says.

So when a reporter for a communist newspaper gets shot up by American soldiers, it *could* have been an accident, the Italians *could* have screwed up.

But you expect me -more importantly, the world- to believe the Bush version without a long, hard, and careful look?

Not a chance. As Bush himself said, "Fool me twice...Won't get fooled again."

Addendum to my previous post.

"The issue of whether American troops were adequately protected received wide attention in December, when an Army National Guard member complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that troops were scrounging for armor to fortify their Humvees and other vehicles. The Pentagon has maintained that it has moved steadfastly to protect all its troops in Iraq.

But an examination of the issues involving the protective shielding and other critical equipment shows how a supply problem seen as an emergency on the ground in Iraq was treated as a routine procurement matter back in Washington."

Today's Times.

Y'might wanna read the whole thing, how the Pentagon pooh-poohed the issue right up to the point of lying about it.

Again: And we're supposed to accept without questioning their account of how a reporter for a communist paper was shot up?

Let's make this clear: I have zero interest in Sgrena; I loathe communism and have worked in the past to defeat it. Also, the scum who kidnapped her deserve the worst fate.

That said, the Bush administration lies. And the real victims of this administration's lies are the people who need to trust them: the soldiers and the American middle class. I'm not a soldier but I am a middle-class American.

This administration's behavior towards us is far beyond the pale.

I`m in the military. There is no way that this was deliberate. 1. You can`t get that many people to keep their mouth shut. 2. I haven`t been to Iraq, but knowing how the military operates, they are told to engage suspect vehicles and try not to kill the occupants for two reasons. The first is that they occupants can provide intel (which is why they assisted and confiscated weapons immediately after). The second is that it may be a mistake. 3. They are also told that the worst thing they can do is worry about the occupants so much that the vehicle gets through and kills them. (see, that`s the difference between you guys at the keyboard and the soldiers in Iraq. They have those dilemas they have to think through in the fraction of a second) 4. Sounds like they were able to stop the car before they had to unload on the occupants. I think the biggest problem you left guys have is that you see the millions in uniform as "The administration" or the "U.S." and you somehow don`t belong to this group. The military is made up of fellow Americans. Some are Reps, some Dems, most strait, a few gay. If YOU wouldn`t lie or do the wrong thing in a situation, the people in the military won`t either. Get over the fact that the only difference between you and military people is that military people actually see what you pontificate about and are called upon to act while you just comment. If you got a problem...Join the miitary and change it! Didn`t think so.

Andrew, further to your update. I suspect the Italians were driving pretty fast. It's the airport road out of Baghdad, still one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in Iraq. Everyone drives it at breakneck speed. And apparently it was night and, as so often, there was no electricity. So checkpoint construction that may have suited more benign circumstances may have been inadequate to the facts of that evening.

It's a shame that the preposterous "death squad" story allows the set-up of bogus either-or type comparisons on the order of "since it obviously wasn't an assasination, let's tentatively assume that the DOD story is correct in every particular."

So, let's continue the "which seems more likely" line of attack offered by our host. Which is more likely:

Scenario A: A car full of journalists and intelligence officers ignored flashlights, hand signals, and instructions to stop, which they surely knew would result in a hail of deadly accurate American small-arms fire.

Scenario B: Pissed-off and frightened young soldiers bent their ROEs, lit up a vehicle they shouldn't have been shooting at, and the DOD is scrambling to put the best possible face of the fsckup.

Laertes, what's the motive for attempting to kill some obscure journalist? Assuming there is one, are we to assume then that the Army let her live after shooting up her vehicle and killing her escort? "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

Not relevant to this case but in general: are U.S. soldiers taught some basic Arabic words for these situations? (Like, "stop" "stop the car" "stop or I'll fire")

Thanks, Mark, for providing another example of the false dilemma.

Seriously, what part of "pissed-off and frightened young soldiers bent their ROEs and lit up a vehicle they shouldn't have been shooting at" implies an assasination attempt?

One side says it was an assassination attempt. One side says that a car full of fairly bright people suicidally ignored simple, clear warnings. Either story is preposterous, but some folks feel compelled to accept one or the other.

Feh.

Think Katherine....How close do you have to be to a moving car with the windows rolled up for the driver to hear you? Go to your local highway and try it. I think you`ll find it is less than 3 ft. Probably well within range of the bomb inside the car.

She mentioned a spotlight in one of her many statements.

Do we use those as TCPs?

Would we use them in an ambush? (Since we have night vision goggles and it was 8:55 p.m.)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: