|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings & Torture |
|
July 25th,
2009 - After the Shooting, Another Showdown |
|
After the Shooting, Another
Showdown Deadly Clash Underscores Rift Over Interpretation of U.S.-Iraq Deal By Ernesto Londoņo Washington Post July 25, 2009 Abu Ghraib, Iraq - When
insurgents attacked an American convoy with AK-47 rounds and a couple of
grenades on a dusty highway in a Baghdad suburb this week, U.S. soldiers
returned fire, chased the suspects through narrow alleyways and raided
houses. Tuesday's clash killed two
Iraqi adults and a 14-year-old and wounded four people, including two
children. When the shooting subsided,
another confrontation began. A senior Iraqi army commander who arrived at the
scene concluded that the Americans had fired indiscriminately at civilians
and ordered his men to take the U.S. soldiers into custody. The U.S. military
said the soldiers had acted in self-defense and had sought to avoid civilian
casualties; U.S. commanders at the scene persuaded the Iraqis to back down. The incident, apparently the
first time a senior Iraqi commander has sought to detain U.S. soldiers,
signals a potential escalation of tensions between U.S. and Iraqi forces
trying to find a new equilibrium as Iraq assumes more responsibility for its
security. Both sides have starkly
different interpretations of vaguely worded restrictions on the authority and
movement of U.S. forces that went into effect more than three weeks ago.
Those differences, and the friction they are causing in U.S.-Iraqi military
relations, have been sharply underscored by the Abu Ghraib attack, which
appears to be the first time U.S. soldiers have used deadly force since the
new restrictions were imposed. Word of the incident quickly
spread among U.S. soldiers in Baghdad. Several said it heightened concerns
that the split-second decisions they make now have the potential to draw a
sharp rebuke from Iraq's increasingly assertive security forces. And reaction
from Iraqi military officials seemed to confirm those fears. "What happened is a
crime," the Iraqi commander said Friday during a brief interview in his
office. "Civilians were killed." The commander and a senior
Iraqi police official, who also characterized the American response as a
"crime," spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing ministry
regulations that bar them from speaking to the news media without written
approval. Maj. David Shoupe, a U.S.
military spokesman, said the two slain men were assailants. "The response of the
[U.S.] patrol was within the rules of engagement, appropriate and
proportionate to the attack on them," Shoupe said in an e-mail. "It
is important to note that the patrol used aimed fire to kill their two
attackers - stopping the attack that could have resulted in many more [U.S.]
and Iraqi deaths." Hospital and police
officials said the two wounded children were 9 and 12. Conflicting accounts of
attacks involving U.S. forces in Iraq are common, and versions are often
skewed by how the troops are viewed in the area. Interviews with residents,
hospital officials and Iraqi army police commanders in the suburb of Abu
Ghraib suggest that conventional wisdom holds the Americans killed civilians. Many in this former
insurgent hotbed are seething. "They shot
randomly," said Hussein Neda, 47, the father of one of the slain men.
"They were running with weapons, and they killed my son before we got to
him." Neda's 9-year-old son,
Sufian, said he was wounded when a bullet grazed his left shoulder. "I hate the
Americans," the boy said quietly. "I never liked them, even before
this happened." Sami al-Fahad, a doctor, was
on duty at Abu Ghraib Hospital on Tuesday when the victims of the crossfire
arrived. "This is an old habit
of the U.S. Army," he said nonchalantly, sitting behind a desk as he
checked a man's blood pressure. "They kill the people in the street,
even if they are civilians or children." As the wounded were being
treated, the father of one of the victims, awaiting news of his son, began
chanting "tha'ar, tha'ar," which means revenge in Arabic. A few months ago, such an
incident probably would not have been more than a footnote in this
six-year-old war with no front lines, in which U.S. troops have had to fend
off hundreds of attacks in crowded areas, where discerning between assailants
and bystanders is sometimes impossible. But because the conduct of
American troops increasingly is viewed through a political prism here, and
because Iraqi and U.S. officials remain at odds over how the security
agreement should be applied in urban areas, commanders from both countries
are closely reviewing the incident and its ripple effects. In recent days, Iraqis have
questioned American soldiers at checkpoints in Baghdad, at times preventing
them from driving into neighborhoods. In one incident, an Iraqi soldier drew
a weapon on a U.S. armored vehicle, American officials said. Senior U.S. commanders have
played down the tension, saying that the relationship remains fundamentally
strong and that "hiccups" are to be expected at a time of
transition. But soldiers and junior commanders called the situation alarming. "I worry that an Iraqi
army soldier will shoot at my truck with his 20 AK-47 rounds and my gunner
will shoot back with his 100 50-caliber rounds instead of ducking down,"
a U.S. officer said on the condition of anonymity. Another officer said U.S.
soldiers have been taken aback by the sudden intransigence of their Iraqi
partners. The Iraqi army seems
"more and more willing to conduct operations on their own and less
willing to accept our operational guidance," said the officer, who spoke
on the condition of anonymity. "But they continue to look to [us] for
support. Their independence is like a 16-year-old who just got his license
and doesn't want to listen anymore but still wants you to pay for the gas and
the insurance and bail them out of jail" when they mess up. The police major overseeing
the Iraqi investigation into the incident said he knows who the real culprits
are - and intends to arrest them soon. "All the ones who were
shot are innocent," he said, sitting on a sofa in his office while
smoking a cigarette. He said he holds no ill will
toward the Americans and appreciates the training and support they have given
Iraq's security forces. But he said he does not want his men going on
missions with U.S. forces. "We don't need
them," he said. After a pause, he added: "except for fuel." Special correspondent Aziz
Alwan contributed to this report. Š 2009 The Washington Post
Company External link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/24/AR2009072403877.html |