Seeing Through Blackwater's PR Strategy

As long as we allow private military contractors in Iraq to commit human rights violations with impunity, we are complicit in the reckless endangerment and deaths of innocent civilians. All contractors must be held accountable under law, and every innocent life – American and Iraqi – must be equally protected.

Today’s New York Times editorial Legal Loopholes in Iraq concurs:

It is folly to outsource the tasks of combat to private contractors with no commitment to the nation’s broader goals in Iraq, undermining the already hard job of gaining Iraqis’ trust... That folly was compounded by the decision to allow gun-toting mercenaries to run around Iraq without any clear legal tether holding them accountable to Iraqi law, American criminal law or military law. The killings in Baghdad last September were not the first crimes involving private contractors working for the American government. Still, four years after the start of the war, not one contractor has been prosecuted for crimes committed against an Iraqi. That is no way for a nation to behave if it prides itself on following the rule of law.

Last month, the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight held a hearing on the Blackwater killings. In opening statement, Chairman Henry Waxman offered the following interesting stats: According to Blackwater’s own incident reports, the security firm has been involved in at least 195 ‘escalation of force’ incidents in Iraq since 2005. In 80% of those cases, the company reports that its people fired first. Furthermore, the company acknowledges that (prior to the Sept. 16th incident) it was involved in 16 Iraqi civilian casualties and 162 incidents with property damage, primarily to Iraqi civilian vehicles.

So how did the chief witness at the hearing, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince respond? He simply downplayed the deaths of innocent civilians as “traffic accidents” while emphasizing Blackwater’s record in providing protective services for U.S. diplomats. Sadly, a few lawmakers appeared to know of Blackwater’s public relations strategy in advance, and eagerly played along. Here’s an example, courtesy of Dana Milbank’s play-by-play commentary on the hearing for the Washington Post:

"How many individuals under your protective service have been injured or killed?" asked Patrick McHenry (N.C.).

PRINCE: Zero.

McHENRY: Zero?

PRINCE: Zero, sir.

McHENRY: Zero individuals that Blackwater's protected have been killed in a Blackwater transport?

PRINCE: That's correct.

McHENRY: Zero?

PRINCE: Zero.

Yet by far, the biggest disappointment was to see 60 Minutes help Blackwater get its message points out there unchallenged. Fortunately, most lawmakers and Americans aren’t buying it. The more Blackwater CEO Erik Prince and his defenders insist that the only thing that matters is the safe escort of Americans in Iraq, regardless of how many innocent bystanders are killed along the way, the more Americans see the dangers of allowing such contractors to run amuck in Iraq.

Every time Blackwater fails to safeguard Iraqi civilians in the conduct of their “protective services,” they foster an environment that prolongs the war and further endangers Americans. Recognizing this, the U.S. House passed a bill (389 to 30) to make all private security contractors in Iraq and other combat zones subject to prosecution by U.S. courts. Now it is time for the Senate to follow suit.

EPIC Guest Blogger: Sarah Holewinski on Blackwater Killings

Sarah Holewinski is the executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), a group founded by slain U.S. aid worker Marla Ruzicka that works with civilian victims of wars to make sure they get the recognition and assistance they need. Sarah wrote the following commentary shortly after the Sept. 16th shooting deaths of 17 innocent Iraqis by Blackwater personnel. It was published by United Press International on September 28, 2007.

When someone is shot in America, there’s an investigation, a trial, damages might be paid. Not so in Iraq.

The U.S. military has the power to investigate wrongful killings by its forces and can make condolence payments to the families of those it kills unintentionally. But too often security contractors -- hired to guard everything from convoys to diplomats -- just drive away, leaving shattered lives behind.

In the wake of allegations that armed guards working for the private security contractor Blackwater opened fire unprovoked on a crowded traffic circle last week in Baghdad, killing at least 11 and injuring a dozen more, that may all change.

Saying he did not know how often such incidents occurred and pressed to find out by public and media attention, Defense Secretary Robert Gates Thursday announced he was sending a five-person fact-finding team to Iraq. Although he had been “assured … that we have the proper procedures, policies and legal authorities in place to oversee and manage these contractors,” he told reporters, “I want to be confident that that is in fact the case.”

What he will find is that it is not the case at all. In fact, human-rights groups and Iraqis alike have been asking for years when the U.S. military was going to finally hold contractors accountable.

There is a third party to the contracts made between the U.S. government and private security firms -- the Iraqi people. They have not only been overlooked but literally removed from the equation. In 2004 the U.S. occupation authorities issued a directive granting contractors immunity under Iraqi law. They could not be sued by Iraqis, and even within the U.S. government and commanders on the ground, there is confusion as to whether they can be court-martialed.

In this legal limbo, contractors are under no obligation even to report incidents in which they shoot and kill Iraqis, and are unlikely to be investigated or face trial for causing wrongful deaths. Innocent Iraqis suffering death and injury at the hands of contractors have little recourse.

The Gates fact-finding team and a joint State Department-Iraqi government commission also looking into the matter are not the first to do damage control when it comes to the role of private security contractors in Iraq.

Last fall Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a former military lawyer and member of the Armed Services Committee, led an effort to include contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- a set of standards used by the U.S. military to hold its own personnel accountable for bad behavior.

But that legislation was later found to be inadequate by military lawyers, and while it is true contractors can be sent home and prosecuted in the United States under the Military Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction Act, less than a handful ever have for serious crimes.

Most contractors with their boots on the ground aren’t even American, hailing from places where no justice system will ever follow through on prosecution.

Iraqis are left with unjustified, unexplained killings and horrifying injuries and an example of the rule of law lying in ruins.

Finding a solution isn’t an academic exercise, it’s a strategic imperative. Every civilian killed or wounded undermines the U.S. mission in Iraq. Gates himself admitted the U.S. military had to “do everything in our power to make sure that (contractors) are not only abiding by our rules but are conducting themselves in a way that makes them an asset in this war in Iraq and not a liability.”

The lack of uniform accountability for those responsible for civilian casualties tarnishes our reputation and puts American soldiers on the receiving end of anger and resentment. For the families suffering as a result of contractor shootings, finding a solution also happens to be the right thing to do.

Whatever recommendations emerge from the Gates probes in Iraq, three things are essential.

First, there should be official recognition of the severity and scope of the problem. Heartening is a Sept. 25 directive issued by Gates’ deputy calling for clearer rules for contractors. It’s late in coming, but it’s a good first step toward uniform accountability.

Second, the U.S. military must negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government. The SOFA is a compact clarifying the rules for U.S. armed forces, and the United States has one with every nation in the world where U.S. troops are based -- except Iraq and Afghanistan. This oversight needs to be remedied. The SOFA should formally apply to all U.S. government contractors -- including those working for the State Department -- the same rules it applies to the U.S. military.

That includes transparent investigation and prosecution of those who break the rules and hurt or kill civilians.

Third, the United States should extend its condolence and compensation systems to cover civilians harmed by private contractors. The U.S. military has the ability to pay a symbolic condolence to Iraqis it unintentionally harms and, separately, can provide full compensation to civilians wrongfully or negligently hurt by American troops.

It is unfair and strategically unwise to leave Iraqis harmed by contractors -- whether accidentally or intentionally -- with nothing. To ensure accountability, payments made to civilians should come out of their contract with the U.S. government. If a contractor does not agree to pay, they should not get a contract, plain and simple.

Blackwater security details are back on the streets of Baghdad. The U.S. government doesn’t have the forces to replace them, so the atmosphere of unaccountability continues. If the Gates team does not return with clear legal standards for contractors and make compensation for casualties mandatory, they will have failed the Iraqi people and betrayed American values.

Death Toll Rises in Yazidi Blasts

Initial reports about the August 14 bombings in the northern Iraqi towns of Qataniyah and Adnaniyah indicated that anywhere between 60 (according to the US military) and 500 Iraqis (according to local authorities and health officials) had been killed. Sadly, the largest of these figures is being confirmed as each day passes, meaning over 500 have been killed along with another 1,500 wounded.

This devastating attack has far-reaching implications for minority populations all over Iraq. Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, wrote a somber op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday expressing concern for the safety of "Christians and non-Muslims in Iraq". Indeed, she goes so far as to say that the very existence of such minority populations is at risk:

"Sixty years ago, Iraq's flourishing Jewish population, a third of Baghdad, fled in the wake of coordinated bombings and violence against them. Today, a handful of Jews remain...

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice argues that reducing violence will help all Iraqis, but non-Muslims may have been purged from Iraq by the time the dust settles. It could already be too late for the Mandeans, followers of John the Baptist who have roots in ancient Babylon. A spokesman of the sect told the commission that only 5,000 Mandeans remain."

Upon reading this article I decided to call Suhaib Nashi, General Secretary of the Mandaeans Associations Union, with whom I had advocated on behalf of Iraqi refugees on Capitol Hill this summer. As it turned out, it was Suhaib who quoted the 5,000 estimate, which "is probably an exaggeration, meaning there are at most only 5,000 left". According to Suhaib, if things continue to deteriorate in Iraq and minorities like the Mandaeans are expelled to various parts of the world, it could spell the end of the Mandaeans.

Religious and ethnic minorities require a cohesive community where they can prosper. As Nina Shea argues, "It is in America's national and moral interests to help Iraq's Christians and other non-Muslims. The most vulnerable must be given asylum. We must also help those determined to stay". The U.S. faces an opportunity to do what is responsible by creating communities for religious minorities here in the United States, by working with other host countries to provide a safe and secure home, and by protecting them in the region as a whole.

Brutal Attack on Yazidi Civilians

Tuesday was an exceptionally grim day for Iraq. Trucks loaded with fuel detonated in Qataniyah and Adnaniyah, devastating infrastructure and killing hundreds. Estimates now range between 300-500 dead, with entire families wiped out in the coordinated attack. Newspaper outlets such as the Telegraph are calling it the deadliest attack since the 2003 invasion and "one of the deadliest global attacks" since 9-11.

Qataniyah and Adnaniyah lie in northern Iraq and are populated by the Yazidi, who ascribe to a pre-Islamic religion.

This attack, like many others, targeted civilians, but is distinguished by a number of things. First, the sheer scale of the attack and level of destruction sets it apart from others. Second, that it occured in the northern Kurdish region populated by a small religious minority shows the commitment of terrorist groups to attack "soft targets", even if it means going to the most remote areas of Iraq to do so.

While such attacks can dash hope that something can be done to protect innocent civilians in Iraq, there are opportunities for everyone, including concerned citizens like you and me, to make a difference.

NPR's Morning Edition interviewed Elias Kassem today, a Yazidi immigrant who resettled in the United States after the 1991 Gulf War. Today, he lives with his wife in Lincoln, Nebraska where, after learning they lost family in the attack, Lincolnians reached out to support and console them. "I was thinking of leaving Lincoln", Elias said, "But it's changed my view of how I look at Lincoln, especially the people. I'll probably never leave Lincoln."

I was proud to hear the story of this Yazidi who has been welcomed into the Lincoln community. It's a story that speaks to the American tradition. And minorities such as the Yazidi are exactly the sort of population that the "Crisis in Iraq Act" (S. 1651) and the "Resposibility to Iraqi Refugees Act" (H.R. 2265) aim to protect. We have the opportunity to continue our tradition of moral leadership by supporting these bills in the House and Senate and to provide protection for those who cannot protect themselves. It's our opportunity to support positive change for the people of Iraq.

[Image: The Chermera temple (meaning “40 Men” in the Yezidi dialect) on the highest peak on the Sinjar mountains in northern Iraq.]

Question: Are You Following the Latest Trends?

On July 5th, the Washington Post printed a chart depicting the "Ups and Downs in Iraq Violence." In the first section of the chart, showcasing the number of unidentified bodies found in the country, the total in Baghdad from January to April fell substantially (321 to 182 respectively). And while May and June have shown increased numbers (a combined total of almost 900), in the provinces, the data has displayed a marked decrease from April.

The second section, depicting the aggregate number of civilians killed, and the aggregate number of people slain in bombings that killed over 20, signals hope as well. Again, while May and June highlighted a jump in the number of civilians killed in Iraq, the aggregate number of deaths shows a 34% decrease since January. Also, the number of civilians killed in mass bombings is at a six month low (after a significant spike from February through April). However, these numbers do not include the three provinces in the Kurdish North -- an area that is apparently peaceful enough not to demand statistics.

To make best use of this data, we need to look at the reasons why civilian casualties took a downward turn. A number of sources in the current political discourse attribute these numbers to the troop surge. They are quick to point out, however, that while the surge may be successful in the areas where the new strategy has been deployed, it is not a sustainable policy. The successes realized are too focused to represent a substantial change in the expected outcome.

In other words: It's not enough. Read former USAID worker Kirk Johnson's take on what is needed for real security in Iraq.

We should harness these successes and continue to improve the security of Iraqi civilians, but we can't fool ourselves into thinking the current positive aberration in the progress our policy is making is anywhere near a reliable phenomenon. A lot of areas are improving, but there are still a number of locales that are not. As long as we keep our thinking sharp and continue to build upon the successes we are having, we can keep improving upon the Iraqi's security -- making sure the graphs never show increases again.

CIVIC Releases Devastating Report on U.S. Military Claims System for Civilians

EPIC holds a standing partnership with the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), which aids small, community-based projects assisting families directly affected by U.S. and coalition actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, we have teamed with them in promoting the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S.594). This act would prohibit the use of U.S.-made cluster bombs in civilian areas, where they cause untold devastation.

Today, CIVIC released a white paper on U.S. military successes and failures regarding Iraqi and Afghan civilians, based on the more than 2,000 pages of documents released to the ACLU in April 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act. CIVIC found the U.S. military system "inconsistent and arbitrary," and points out "major problems with the way the US compensates civilians harmed by its military forces."
CIVIC’s findings include:

1. Ad hoc application of the two programs used for compensating (one for in-combat and one for outside of combat);
2. Low and seemingly arbitrary valuations of life;
3. The exclusion of important documentation backing up civilian cases (such as witness reports)
4. Denial under one program of compensation without referral to the other more appropriate program.

EPIC agrees with and supports these findings, and joins with CIVIC in calling on the US military to "keep as transparent and accurate account of civilian casualties as possible, release all documentation referring to civilian casualties in times of war, fairly valuate lives lost, install a consistent system of claims adjudication for civilians harmed as a result of US actions, and provide better training to military lawyers who deal with civilians in wartime."

Suicide Bombings shift from Anbar to Diyala

On May Day, I came across a smugly penned speech by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. He had written an apology and a warning for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to deliver to Arab and Muslim nations on behalf of President Bush and the American people.

The apology: “I’m sorry that I rushed into the invasion of Iraq... I was wrong, and I now realize that in unilaterally launching the war the way I did,... Not only did that alienate you from us, it made us less effective in Iraq. We had too few allies and too little legitimacy. I’m most sorry, though, because my bungling of the war has prompted all of us to take our eye off the ball. I messed up the treatment so badly that people have forgotten the patient really does have a disease.”

The warning: “We are being defeated by nihilistic Islamist suicide bombers, who are proliferating across the Muslim world. We are losing to people who blow up mosques, markets, hospital emergency wards and girls’ schools.”

Friedman then detailed the rise of suicide bombings in Iraq and the region, including what he believes to be the handy work of “12 suicide bombers in a little over a week.” The man is definitely a columnist, not an academic -- in other words, imminently readable yet imprecise.

With the help of EPIC Spring intern Dominique Arvanitis, I tracked down the details of the “suicide bombings” that Friedman listed, to see where al-Qaeda and its allies have been focusing their attacks lately. All of the bombings Friedman writes about occurred from April 18th to April 30th, although the wave of car bombings in Baghdad on April 18th that killed 191 people and wounded 250 may not qualify as "suicide attacks." While al-Qaeda may have been involved, it may have not required foreign fighters or homegrown militants committing suicide.

So here are details of the only 6 confirmed suicide attacks that occurred during the last 13 days of April:

On April 23rd in Diyala Province, a pair of suicide bombers detonated explosive-packed dump trucks outside a U.S. patrol base, killing nine U.S. soldiers.

On April 25th, not far away in Balad Ruz, a suicide bomber killed four Iraqi policemen.

On April 26th in the Diyala town of Khalis, a suicide car bomber rammed an Iraqi checkpoint killing nine soldiers. On the same day in Zamar, a town just west of Mosul, two suicide car bombers attacked the local headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party killing five people.

On April 30th, Khalis suffered a second attack. A suicide bomber walked into a crowded funeral tent and blew himself up, killing 32 mourners. The funeral was for the son of a Shi'ite family who had been killed by gunmen.

That's 6 suicide attacks carried out by 7 suicide bombers, killing 59 people in one week and a day. All but one of those suicide attacks took place in Diyala province.

So why are there noticeably less suicide bombings taking place in Baghdad or in the predominantly Sunni Arab cities of Fallujah, Ramadi, and Samarra? Last year, there were plenty of suicide bombings throughout the country. Why are most occurring in Diyala now?

It can be partly explained by the increasing difficultly al-Qaeda is finding in trying to operate in much of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. Following President Bush’s announcement in January of a “military surge,” the recruitment of foreign fighters picked up in response. The New York Times reports: “…Iraqi intelligence had concluded that Al Qaeda was in effect surging at the same time in Iraq to counteract the American program, damping any immediate gains.”

So what’s a terrorist organization got to do with so many would-be suicide bombers including the variety from Zarqa, Jordan (see Emily’s May 10th post Radicalization Spillover). The result has been increasingly ruthless and abhorrent bombings of innocent civilians, some even involving the use of trucks filled with chlorine gas.

That has led to a backlash particularly in Anbar province. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius writes:

In al-Qaeda's stronghold of Anbar province, tribal leaders have begun allying with American forces against the Sunni terrorists. According to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, who commands day-to-day military operations in Iraq, there were just 60 attacks in Anbar last week, compared with 480 per week a year ago.

The tribal leaders formed the Anbar Salvation Council in fall 2006 to fight al-Qa'ida. Also called the Anbar Awakening, the coalition began with dozens of tribes and now boasts more than 40 tribes or sub-tribes from Anbar. The Sunni Arab leader of the movement, Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, lost his father and three brothers to al-Qaida assassins. AP quotes al-Rishawi as saying insurgents were "killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, enough is enough."

Early this year, as the council gained new tribal members and strength, cooperation with U.S. forces began to improve especially in and around Ramadi, Anbar's provincial council. Last month I talked with a Marine fellow in Senator Reed's office who served in Ramadi two years ago. He stays in touch with fellow Marines, including men serving there right now who confirm a remarkable turnaround in Ramadi.

Gates: Under US Redeployment, Ethnic Cleansing Likely

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates underscored a dire consequence of the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq:

"One real possibility is, if we abandon some of these areas and withdraw into the countryside or whatever to do these targeted missions, you could have a fairly significant ethnic cleansing inside Baghdad or in Iraq more broadly."

U.S. actions in Iraq have served as the catalyst for the collision of many underlying, dangerous elements of Iraqi society. One of these elements is corruption; coming of age under Saddam's regime, many in the current generation of Iraqi politicians use their political clout to advance their own group's agendas rather than the well-being of all Iraqis. Another element is sectarianism, with the major political parties defining themselves along sectarian lines. As a wartime sense of criminal immunity propels sectarian violence, and political parties back militias that "cleanse" neighborhoods until they are entirely Shia or entirely Sunni, the chances for large-scale ethnic cleansing in parts of Iraq are high.

But what is stopping it? Ironically, it seems to be the presence of U.S. troops. In a January hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Cornyn and the Secretary Gates pointed to the role that U.S. forces are playing in maintaining a fragile level of peace--and, as a result, warding off large-scale ethnic cleansing:

SEN. CORNYN: "What would be the humanitarian consequences [if US forces in Iraq are redeployed]? What would be the likely outcomes in terms of loss of life to innocent men, women and children in that region if some of these dire consequences do occur?"

SEC. GATES: "I think one of the consequences -- we're already seeing some internal immigration and to a limited extent ethnic cleansing. And I would suspect that one consequence would be a fairly dramatic increase both in internal immigration, the number of displaced persons, but also ethnic cleansing. Sir, clearly in my mind there would be additional increased murders, sectarian violence. I don't know how much, but certainly a large increase in that..."

SEN. CORNYN: Well, if I could just say in closing that many people in this country are justly concerned about the genocide in Darfur, where hundreds of thousands of people have died. And I've -- with others who've traveled to Iraq -- I remember traveling with the chairman to Iraq in 2003 and standing on the edge of a mass-grave site where the United Nations said in that and similar sites 400,000, perhaps, Iraqis lay dead at the hand of Saddam Hussein, and perhaps a million more people had simply exited the country during his regime in order to avoid a similar fate. So I hope that we will focus a little bit more on the consequences of failure in Iraq. And that will fuel us and encourage us to at least try to heed the advice of the president's most expert military advisers, present company included, to try to avoid that failure, because I agree that the consequences of failure are simply unacceptable."

In all of the political posturing and agenda-advancing taking place in Washington over the president's request for a $100 billion funding bill, our leaders must not lose sight of the need to protect Iraqi civilians. With 3.9 million displaced Iraqis clinging to a hope that normalcy can be restored to their fractured lives, childhoods being destroyed as children are used as decoys in car bombings, and dozens and dozens of sectarian-motivated murders taking place every day, the U.S. must do everything it can to protect civilians and care for those who have been affected by this war.

Mohammed Hayawi

While we know the names of each and every U.S. soldier who has died in Iraq, the names of killed Iraqi civilians are rarely recorded. Some organizations such as IraqBodyCount.org try to put a number on the tragedy, but rarely are they able to put a face on it.

It is with this in mind that I would like to point you to this article by Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post. Shadid is one of those journalists who dares to venture outside the Green Zone to capture the realities of everyday life in Iraq. Today he writes of Mohammed Hayawi, an Iraqi bookseller whose life ended far too soon:

After the invasion and the government's fall, Hayawi described himself much as other Iraqis did in that first uncertain year: as neither for Saddam nor happy with the Americans. He was angry, of course -- at the chaos, the insecurity, the lack of electricity.

"The American promises to Iraq are like trying to hold water in your hand," he told me in one conversation. "It spills through your fingers."

But he was never strident; he was filled with a thoughtfulness and reflection that survival in Iraq rarely permits these days.

Hayawi resented the occupation but voted in the elections the United States backed. He was a devout Muslim, but feared the rise of religion in politics. In his bookstore, once-banned titles by Shiite clerics, imported from Iran, vied with books by radical Sunni clerics, among them Muhammad Abdel-Wahab, the 18th-century godfather of Saudi Arabia's brand of Islam. Profit may have inspired his eclectic mix, but Hayawi also seemed to be making a statement: Mutanabi Street, his Baghdad and his Iraq would respect their diversity.

And back to the bad...

Regardless of whether you believe the number proposed by the recent Lancet Survey, the death- rate of civilian casualties is completely out of control. Yesterday, the United Nations reported that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October. As the AP notes, this is:

"...the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq's sectarian bloodbath."

Quick aside: When will the press begin referring to the conflict as the civil war it has become instead of using phrases such as "sectarian bloodbath"?

In other news, the possibility of negotiations with Syria were further reduced with the assasination of Pierre Gemayel, a Lebanese cabinet minister and strong opponent of Syrian influence in Lebanon. Syria has of course denied any involvement in the assassination, but this will regardless complicate US efforts to engage Syria in a dialog over Iraq. You'll remember that the US originally withdrew its ambassador to Damasus in 2005 when Syria came under suspicion for the assassination of Rafik Hariri.