Polimom spent a great deal of yesterday in limbo, unable to bring my thoughts together in a way that makes sense. All of my inner turmoil was rooted in Iraq, and it was this story, in particular, that blew my thoughts to the winds:
TRACY, Calif. — The Pentagon waited nine months after completing an investigation into the deaths of two U.S. soldiers before notifying relatives the men were killed by Iraqi troops, the military acknowledged Wednesday.
[snip]
Soldiers who witnessed the attack have told Nadia McCaffrey two Iraqi patrolmen opened fire on her son’s unit. The witnesses also said a third gunman simultaneously drove up to the American unit in a van, climbed onto the vehicle and fired at the Americans, she said.
Iraqi forces who had trained with the Americans had fired at them twice before the incident that killed Patrick McCaffrey, and he had reported it to his superiors, Nadia McCaffrey said.
This story shook the very foundations of Polimom’s position on Iraq, and the war there. I’m steadier now, having finally managed to digest the concept more fully, but the residue left behind is bitter.
I have written consistently about my conviction that we are committed to Iraq, and must do everything possible to repair the chaos invoked there. I cannot (and still do not) support withdrawing on the grounds of “we should never have gone in”.
However, when Iraqi troops that we’ve trained, and are working beside, start turning on us from within, there’s no chance left for success.
According to the wire service report, this was a totally unique event:
A Pentagon spokesman knew of no other incident like the shootings. Boyce said the U.S. military remained confident in its operations with Iraqis
Polimom believes that, actually, at least to some degree. If it were happening regularly, there’s no way the military could “sit” on the stories that would inevitably surface. They did, however, sit on this one — for nine months:
Military officials visited Tyson’s family on Tuesday and McCaffrey’s on Wednesday to deliver the report, which was completed on Sept. 30, 2005, according to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. She called the nine-month delay troubling.
“If the American people knew that the people we are directly helping train turned on our soldiers, support for this war would slip,” Boxer said. “It’s very disturbing to think that the Pentagon might be told to keep this kind of thing close to the vest.”
Given my own reaction, I have no trouble understanding why the Pentagon might want to keep something like this out of the limelight. It wouldn’t make much difference whether those who turned on the soldiers were infiltrators or newly-minted ideologues; it would be an untenable situation in either case.
Polimom hopes – truly, deeply hopes – that this was as unique as they’ve said.
An ugly story. And one that reveals one of the problems with our approach to Iraq: the official view (which you see in administration statements and in the resolution passed by the House last week):
1. All “good” Iraqis like us.
2. Everyone fighting us there is an Islamist terrorist that wants to destroy western civilization.
The truth, of course, is that some Iraqis are glad we’re there, some are glad Hussein is gone but dismayed by the chaos, and others view us as an occupying force and think it’s patriotic to attack our troops. Some of the people fighting us are, indeed, Islamist terrorists; some are Iraqis who think they’re helping their country.
A big part of any plans we make there needs to be an honest evaluation of whether we’re helping move the country toward stability, and how we might do that better; but when you start with the simplistic and incorrect story of what’s happening there, it’s really hard to see that happening.
I know people who are used to news being propogated at the speed of the Internet don’t like these delays, but they serve a purpose. Specifically, the time allows for a thorough investigation to be carried out, and the facts of the “incident” determined. This really does need to be carried out without the media/blogosphere/politicians clamoring for “the facts, and NOW, Dammit!” Unlike the Web, where you can find out all type of information (most of it completely bogus, but that is another rant), real investigations are painstaking, and often you have to tie up all the loose ends (OK, was it “friendly fire”? Or was it a disgruntled ex-Baathist, an AQ ‘plant’ who infiltrated the unit, or simply a free-lancer with an AK-47 and a hard-on for those two soldiers?) And, if it is determined that someone infiltrated the unit, how compromised *is* the unit? Who can be trusted, who needs to be investigated further, and who needs to be tried and shot? Oh, and make sure all the Is are dotted and the Ts are crossed, else the case may fall apart, and you have to roll up the whole network before the Bad Guys find out.
With all this to do, and the need to make damn sure we are correct before we take any action, getting anything done in 9 months is a miracle!
~EdT.
It could be a unique incident if it was in fact an Iraqi soldier, or it could be just another attack from someone who stole the uniform off of the countless Iraqi soldiers that have been killed. I don’t get the impression with all the chaos there that Iraqi equipment and uniforms would be hard to find for terrorists that may never have been trained by us.
Jack,
I didn’t get the impression that this was somebody in a soldier’s uniform. They were, apparently, training and working with the Iraqi unit.