Firing on Italian Journalist May Lift Veil on "Check Point" Practices

You have to feel for U.S. troops in Iraq, and with Iraqi civilians when it comes to car bombs. The issue around checkpoints has come up as a bone of contention before, but the firing on rescued Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena which resulted in the death of her negotiator - Nicola Calipari, may bring much closer scrutiny to what is happening at check points (and elsewhere). The U.S. account of the incident is totally at odds with the survivors' stories. This presents an even bigger problem for the U.S. who has largely passed off firing on cars at check points as justified.

According to the U.S., "the car was 'traveling at high speeds' and 'refused to stop at a checkpoint.'" The U.S. also says that the car did not respond to hand, arm signals, flashing lights and warning fire. One must presume that all of these are part of the official procedure, and that the report matches the formal procedure.

According to Sgrena, the car was not moving at high speed as it approached the check point approximately one mile from the Baghdad airport. Rather they were traveling at 25-30 kph (roughly 20 miles an hour). She states that a bright light was shone into the car followed by approximately a 10 second barrage of gun fire. In that gun fire, she and the driver were wounded and Calipari was killed trying to protect her.

As the kidnapping and release of Sgrena have been high profile, this was a bad case to mess up on - unless there was reason to silence yet another unfriendly reporter. Which is what Sgrena and others suspect.

Regardless, the incident is high profile in light of other complaints of hair trigger responses at check points. Not surprisingly, U.S. Checkpoints Raise Ire in Iraq.

"But the conditions for the journey, up a road that is considered the most dangerous in Iraq, were broadly the same as those facing all civilian drivers approaching American checkpoints or convoys. American soldiers operate under rules of engagement that give them authority to open fire whenever they have reason to believe that they or others in their unit may be at risk of suicide bombings or other insurgent attacks.

Next to the scandal of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, no other aspect of the American military presence in Iraq has caused such widespread dismay and anger among Iraqis, judging by their frequent outbursts on the subject. Daily reports compiled by Western security companies chronicle many incidents in which Iraqis with no apparent connection to the insurgency are killed or wounded by American troops who have opened fire on suspicion that the Iraqis were engaged in a terrorist attack.

The complaints of Iraqi's are that the rules are unclear, and that even when trying to follow the rules, they may be fired upon. There are rules for check points and rules for convoys. The signals used may not mean much to civilians - for example raising a clenched fist to indicate "stay back." Further, there are reports of drivers (including drivers for private contractors in Iraq) accelerating when they are fired upon under the belief they are under attack. Obviously this would only aggravate the situation.

I do not underplay the difficulty and potentially deadly situation of troops in Iraq. I do not overlook the fact that military convoys are targets. But this is a situation that dramatically effects perception of US forces, and relationships with civilians. Nothing is likely to raise hatred faster than the unjustified wounding or killing of a family member. The response to every incident is "under investigation." While it is critical to investigate, response in the moment (not 3 or 6 months down the road) is what people remember. Who sees the findings of the investigations? What happens in the interim to stop "accidents" from happening again. The perceptions of lack of credibility only increase, when the US report directly conflicts with credible sources (by US biased standards - in this case the victims are allies) then ordinary Iraqi's may well feel there is no justice for them.

It is beyond bad press for U.S. forces - it dramatically increases the danger which dramatically increases the likelihood of more injured and killed civilians and troops. Whether the incident is high profile - as with Sgrena - or not, the actions need to take place quickly and in a well publicized manner. Otherwise, the spiral continues downward. The perception of the US as not just occupiers, but brutal occupiers, increases. This only fans the increased active resistance to the US presence that place more civilians and troops in grave danger.