In an interesting development this weekend, five Blackwater guards involved in the September 2007 shooting that killed 17 Iraqi civilians are facing charges.  BBC News reports that the men are expected to surrender in Utah, the home state for one guard.  Iraqi officials are happy with the news, and one Iraqi man who lost his wife and son in the shooting said he had not even received so much as an apology.  He later rejected a compensation offer of $10,000. 

The guards claim that they opened fire after being ambushed by insurgents, arguing that it was self-defense.  However, an FBI investigation concluded that 14 of the deaths that day were unjustified.  Now, the International Herald Tribune reports that Iraqi investigators, with the assistance of witnesses, cannot put together a story of ambush, and many believe that the Blackwater guards provoked the fight.  One Iraqi man involved in the ordeal described watching a woman and young man burn to death in the car in front of him after it exploded due to gunfire.  He tried to drive to his house, but the Blackwater guards followed him, shooting holes in the roof of his car, one of which hit him in the arm.  Weeks after the attack, he stated that FBI agents came to his house to question him about the events, and even inspected and purchased his car.  Another witness stated (BBC), “They just kept shooting.  They shot in all directions.  At the trees.  At the police hut.  They kept shooting at the first car until it burst into flames.”  Yet another Iraqi man who lost his father in the ordeal believes that the guards should be executed. 

CNN reported this morning that the guards will be charged with manslaughter and weapons charges, and the BBC article states that the US Justice Dept has been considering these charges for weeks.  Interestingly, this comes after the Status of Forces Agreement, and with that, the decision that Iraqi officials will be able to prosecute contractors for criminal activity. 

I’m left wondering if the charges being brought against the guards are the US government's way of addressing the attack, but saving the guards from being prosecuted in Iraq, where a jury would most likely ask for the greatest penalty.  A very important question of ethics comes into this discussion about military contractors: how far are we willing to go to protect them?  These companies and guards are being paid bigger bucks than the 19-year-olds that give up their lives for their country, and yet we go to extreme lengths to protect them from prosecution, and possibly even cover up their actions.  With the new laws recently passed and a better functioning Iraq, this situation will most likely not occur in the future.  But what happens the next time we come into (or even create) another stateless situation where law doesn't yet exist? 

My very first FPA Blog was on the topic of Blackwater, so it seems that I have come full-circle for 2008.  In that article, I argued for stricter laws controlling military contractors, perhaps enacted by the UN.  I believe that one of the most important issues with a contracted military is a lack of honor.  These people are paid to act in defense of the US, whereas our troops have it in their heart.  They are putting their lives on the line for minimal pay, but out of honor for their country.  They (or at least most of them) know that their actions represent those of the US, a place they love protecting.  Contractors, it seems, do not have that same sense of responsibility. 

I believe that issues surrounding military contractors will continue to grow in the future, as they have become a very inexpensive yet efficient way to fight wars.  A very scary thought: if the US is having problems controlling their paid guards, do we even want to imagine a second- or third-world country hiring the same type of contractors? 

The International Herald Tribune reported last week that the US is turning security control over the Anbar Province to Iraqi security forces.  As you may remember, Anbar has been a violent area in the past, once serving as a stronghold for Sunni insurgents.  This is a big development for the both countries, as Anbar is the first province bordering Baghdad to be turned over to Iraq.

BBC reported Thursday that a US jury acquitted a US ex-marine charged with voluntary manslaughter and assault during a 2004 battle in Falluja.  Other marines had claimed to witness Jose Luis Nazario kill two prisoners while their house was being searched, and further, ordered two marines to shoot two other unarmed prisoners.  Nazario was acquitted when the marine witnesses refused to testify. 

Muqtada al-Sadr, influential Shi’a leader, indefinitely extended a ceasefire last week.  In a written statement, Sadr claimed that anyone in violation of the ceasefire would no longer be considered part of his militia, the Mahdi army.  Instead, he is urging his followers to peacefully protest each year on the first Friday of Ramadan until US forces leave.  He did not, however, specify if his militia would disarm. 

The BBC also reported last week that a group of Nepalese citizens are suing the US company KBR for human trafficking.  One man and the relatives of 12 others claim that the firm recruited the men to work in a hotel in Jordan.  However, their passports were later seized, and they were told that they would have to work on a US Air Force base in Iraq, providing menial labor.  12 of the men were kidnapped and killed by Islamic militants, and the 13th was still forced to work at the base against his will. 

Iraq has signed an oil deal with the China National Petroleum Corporation worth up to $3 billion.  The New York Times reported Thursday that this is the first major Iraqi oil deal with a foreign country since 2003.  However, the contract still needs to be approved by the Iraqi cabinet.  This is considered an extension of a 22-year deal signed in 1997 under Saddam Hussain, and Iraq is slated to provide some security for Chinese workers.  The contract further states that China will be paid in money, not oil. 

Finally, I leave you with the newest edition to the Baghdad Bureau blog from The New York Times.  Anwar Ali, an Iraqi journalist for the Times, describes his experience traveling in and out of Iraq.  While Americans are hearing that security conditions have drastically improved, this blog entry shows that this may not be the case.  I’m still not sure what to believe about safety for Iraqi civilians. 

US soldiers have killed three members of a family in Tikrit, after US officials said that the troops were fired on before entering the house. However, The New York Times is reporting that an AP correspondent quoted a relative as alleging that the US soldiers kicked open the door of the house and began firing with no warning. This is comes on the heels of yesterday's statement from the US that the nine civilians killed in Iskandariyah were in fact not insurgents, but mostly checkpoint guards. The Tikrit area is north of Baghdad, unlike Iskandariyah which is to the south and not the focus of the US insurgent clean-up.

The US is dealing with a string of accusations of abuse lately that are dominating the headlines far more than the political logjam of the country or of the intra-Shi’ite fighting in the south of the country. After the twin bombings in Baghdad, the heat is on for the US to polish their lacklustre campaign in Iraq this year.  Despite US assertions that violence levels and casualties are going down, the headlines suggest something quite different.

The big story out of Iraq this weekend was the admission by the United States that it had killed nine civilians accidentally in an airstrike targeting Al-Qaeda forces in Iskanadariya. The Guardian's piece is quite descriptive, saying that an Iraqi officer described the victims as Sunni members of the Al-Ghrir tribe. What's interesting is the fact that this happened in a town so close to Baghdad, which according to the US military, has been free and clear of militants for some months, hence the need for the big push in Mosul. On Saturday, President Maliki said that a ‘decisive battle’ was imminent, after meeting with officials in Mosul. Why is the US military still pursing Al-Qaeda militants in the areas close to Baghdad if they’ve all been supposedly pushed out and into Mosul and other northern areas? Understandably there are stragglers everywhere, but conducting an airstrike seems to suggest that perhaps the operation was big to deal with a big AQ cell or unit.