Blackwatergate

“Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon.”

The Rabbit had to once again shelve our regularly scheduled subject as we’re compelled to dive into the sludge of the ongoing Nisour Square media frenzy one more time.

We’ve traced before the trajectory of stories about PSCs, and Blackwater in particular, with our discussion of the ole Super Tucano air wing. And we’ve warned that the Nisour story was heading down the same road to hysteria and rushed conviction—pushed along by the fervent desires and various agendas of an accidental coalition of MoI, media, and “anti-” forces (anti-U.S., anti-Administration, anti-war, anti-PSC, and so forth).

“Histories are more full of examples of the fidelity of dogs than of friends.”

But what has really been interesting is watching the rest of the pack turn their fangs on Blackwater. The competitors making not-so-veiled comments impugning the professionalism of Blackwater (while conveniently fishing for some business of their own); the various State staffers playing out internal power struggles via press comments; and the military folks looking to shiv both State and Blackwater as they push for complete domination of the Iraq effort.

There’s been more cattiness than a month backstage with the skanks of The Bachelor.

Now, we’re not so naïve as to think that if you look under the skirt of any of these outfits (public or private), including Blackwater, you will find anything vaguely resembling a shortage of dirty laundry. They’re run by humans, and we are all too fallible—even when embarking on the best of well-intentioned missions.

“The ruling passion, be what it will. The ruling passion conquers reason still.”

But the slagging of Blackwater has been intriguing because whenever people en mass turn on someone or something so quickly and so venomously, to our small minds there must be more going on than meets the eye. Much more.

For example, we previously threw out a few lines about the possibility that there just might be some MoI ulterior motives at work.

Of course, to even suggest such a thing—or to fail to obligingly damn every armed contractor, oops, mercenary this side of Grinnell and McGiffin—is to be branded a fool and a charlatan.

But, easy as it would be to simply lie down with the dogs, that would not change the fact that there is more going on than it seems.

“The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, and wretches hang that jurymen may dine.”

So let’s take a look at another piece of this puzzle. To be frank, it is a painful one. But while we’re happy to see every last Blackwater guy from the 16th put under the prison if they did intentionally kill unarmed civilians, we’re equally willing to see lying conniving bastards shipped off to Leavenworth if in fact they have been dishonorable. We have no stomach for those of low character, be they in or out of uniform.

“And all who told it added something new, and all who heard it, made enlargements too.”

So let us look at what those in uniform have made a point of saying in the press about this Nisour incident. After all, this was a State debacle. They could quite easily have laid low. But they did not:

• “The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they’ve built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event,” the [military] official said. “This is a nightmare,” said a senior U.S. military official. “We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we’re trying to have an impact for the long term.” Washington Post, September 26

• “It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong,” said the U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident remains the subject of several investigations.“The civilians that were fired upon, they didn’t have any weapons to fire back at them.And none of the [Iraqi Police] or any of the local security forces fired back at them,” he added.Washington Post, October 5

• “They tend to overreact to a lot of things. They maneuver around town very aggressively, they’ve got weapons pointed at people, they cut people off, of course their speeds—I mean a whole bunch of things they do fairly consistently. But when it comes to shooting and firing, they tend to shoot quicker than others,” the U.S. military official said. Washington Post, October 5

• “It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting,” said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers reached Nisoor Square 20 to 25 minutes after the gunfire subsided. His soldiers’ report—based on their observations at the scene, eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraqi police—concluded that there was “no enemy activity involved” and described the shootings as a “criminal event.” Washington Post, October 12

• “I was upset this happened,” [Army Captain Don] Cherry said. “This was uncalled for.” … “I wanted our guys to be on the ground, to look people in the eye, to listen to their anguish, listen to their outrage, to let them know we’re going to help those people personally affected,” Tarsa said. “I was concerned about acts of vengeance and misinformation somehow indicating we were part of this event,” he said. Washington Post, October 12

“At ev’ry word a reputation dies.”

Now, one approach would be to say, “Gee, these guys share the outrage of all true Americans over the wild-eyed bloodlust of those crazed psychopaths in the mercenary business.”

But it is interesting that they have gone out of their way to make this out as “worse than Abu Ghraib,” “obviously excessive, obviously wrong,” “excessive shooting,” “criminal event,” “uncalled for,” and the crown jewel, “to listen to their anguish, listen to their outrage, to let them know we’re going to help those people personally affected.”

No slight on the CSI-like abilities of our field artillery pals from the 1st Cavalry Division during their impromptu visit to the Square, but does it strike anyone else as an intentional and solid indictment, nay, damning of Blackwater and the State Department security apparatus?

Why could that be?

Actually, there are several reasons—power, resources, or effectiveness. But none would seem to justify such a fierce response.

“The difference is too nice—Where ends the virtue or begins the vice.”

What could?

Let’s look at one more press story on the incident. This past weekend, our friends at CNN ran a piece titled “Survivors of Blackwater shooting in Iraq tell FBI their stories.” The “harrowing” stories, as CNN put it, were indeed tragic. Whether those individuals were shot by Blackwater guards, or by someone else, they are as heartbreaking as the dozens of other Iraqi and U.S. casualties that occur each and every day in Iraq.

What may have been the most tragic of the lot, however, may have been the killing of Ali Hafez, the nine-year-old son of businessman Mohammed Hafez. No father should have to bury his child.

Apparently the folks at DoD didn't think through this whole "let's leak" thing. You see, the problem with fostering a climate of leaks to advance an agenda is that once you open that tap, it’s hard to tell what will come spilling out. Say for example, a letter floating around the Pentagon saying something like this:

Would the venom and fiery rhetoric coming out of DoD make more sense if they were trying to bury their own conduct and pin the killing of this child on Blackwater?

We hope we're misunderstanding something in this whole mess.

"Amusement is the happiness of those who cannot drink." Ooops. "... cannot think."

“We are contractually prohibited from commenting on government efforts to punk us. And your blog sucks,” Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrrell would have said if she bothered to provide statements to obscure blogs.

“It’s all classified, Blackwater is evil, and your blog sucks,” Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell didn’t say.

“I was concerned about acts of vengeance and misinformation somehow indicating we were part of this event,” Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa said—in what will prove to be either a quite well founded concern, or one of the most ethically challenged and sleazy statements of this whole Mesopotamia morass. “Your blog sucks,” he would likely add.