Gunmen speaking English, wearing U.S. military uniforms and carrying American weapons abducted four U.S. soldiers last week [...] and then shot them to death.This from the AP via the Houston Chronicle:
The attackers traveled in black GMC Suburbans — the type used by U.S. government convoys — had American weapons, wore new U.S. military combat fatigues, and spoke English, according to senior U.S. military and Iraqi officials.Chris Floyd certainly wasn't kidding when he asked:
Has anyone considered the possibility that these gunmen dressed as Americans, speaking English, driving American-style security vehicles and carrying American weapons were, well, Americans?And the answer seems quite clear, at least to me:
Would you outfit your guys in new US combat fatigues, get them some black Suburbans, arm them with American weapons, and teach them to speak English, all to kill a handful of American soldiers?
There are easier ways to kill Americans in Iraq, are there not?
And why didn't they just kill them on the spot? Was there a pressing need to kidnap them first? Or was somebody just trying to make people angry?
The AP report [which I've edited slightly, for clarity] continues:
The raid, as explained by the Iraqi and U.S. officials, began after dark Jan. 20, while American military officers were meeting with their Iraqi counterparts on the main floor of the Provisional Joint Coordination Center in Karbala.Whoever they were, they certainly knew where they were going and what they were doing. Hmmm...
Iraqi officials said the approaching convoy of Suburbans was waved through an Iraqi checkpoint at the edge of the city. The Iraqi soldiers believed it to be American because of the type of vehicles, the distinctive camouflage American uniforms and the fact that they spoke English. One Iraqi official said the leader of the assault team was blond, but no other official confirmed that.
A top Iraqi security official for Karbala province said that the Iraqi guards at the checkpoint radioed ahead to the governor's compound to alert their compatriots that the convoy was on its way.
Iraqi officials said the attackers' convoy divided upon arrival, with some vehicles parking at the back of the main building where the meeting was taking place, and others parking in front.
"The precision of the attack, the equipment used and the possible use of explosives to destroy the military vehicles in the compound suggests that the attack was well-rehearsed prior to execution," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl of the Multi-National Division-Baghdad.
"The attackers went straight to where Americans were located in the provincial government facility, bypassing the Iraqi police in the compound," Bleichwehl said. "We are looking at all the evidence to determine who or what was responsible for the breakdown in security at the compound and the perpetration of the assault."
The fog of war in this case looks like a dust storm:How did they know to go "straight to where Americans were located in the provincial government facility"?
And who would know about such a meeting, between the "American military officers" and "their Iraqi counterparts"?
Are "their Iraqi counterparts" working against the "American military officers"?
Or is this an operation that was set up so somebody could blame somebody else?
As for the attack itself, it was quick and vicious:
In its statement, the U.S. military said a soldier was killed and three wounded by a "hand grenade thrown into the center's main office which contains the provincial police chief's office on an upper floor."It's Shock and Awe in miniature ...
The attackers seized four soldiers and an unclassified U.S. computer.... and atrocity!
When they were found in a neighboring province, about 25 miles from the compound where they were captured, three of the soldiers were dead [two of them handcuffed together in the back seat of a sport utility vehicle, one on the ground] and one was mortally wounded with a gunshot to the head.
More utterly depraved stuff, and of course the question naturally arises: Who would do such a thing?Here's Chris Floyd again:
Given the Pentagon's never-repudiated plan to foment terrorism to achieve the Bush Regime's geopolitical objectives; given the fact that Iraq is filled with private military "contractors," some of whom are almost certainly on retainer to U.S. security organs for various bits of "wetwork" and other ops on what Dick Cheney calls "the dark side"; given that we are already being told that the people who carried out this killing were "Iranian operatives" or Iraqis funded, armed and trained by same; and given the fact that the Bush Regime is now openly seeking any half-plausible pretext to launch its long-planned attack on Iran – would it not be irresponsible of us not to speculate on the ultimate origin of this bloody strike?But the AP has a different opinion: It Musta Been Those Pesky Iranians!
After all, who benefits from such a raid? All those who want more war and chaos in Iraq. This desire is not exclusive to the Bush Regime, of course – but the latter are definitely the beneficiaries of continued bloodshed, as it justifies their current policies, obscures past policies -- their deep-dyed crime against humanity in launching the war in the first place -- and it will most definitely be used to justify future policies: the "surge," the coming hellstorm of intensified urban warfare in Baghdad and the attack on Iran.
The obvious benefits that accrue to the Bush gang from this atrocity don't necessarily mean they are responsible for it; but it certainly puts them in the frame along with several other suspects.
A senior Iraqi military official said the sophistication of the attack led him to think it was the work of Iranian agents in conjunction with Iraq's Shiite Mahdi Army militia, which Iran funds, arms and trains.
Right! Who else speaks English and rattles around Iraq in suburbans, carrying American weapons? The IRANIANS!!And look who else is implicated: Motqada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Another fine source of blond guys wearing American combat fatigues!
It gets even more
If Sadr's forces did it, then this too is an instance of "friendly fire" – because the Mahdi Army not only receives arms from Iran; many of its troops are even now being armed, trained, paid and deployed by the United States.So in effect the American troops in Iraq are being fed into
a circular firing squad, where they will, in effect, be killed with their own weapons. All questions of moral equivalency aside, you would have to go back to Nazi Germany to find a major power whose leaders act in such a howlingly stupid and self-destructive fashion.Howlingly stupid? Yes indeed. However...
I take a dim view of the "stupidity defense", and I would call the administration's chosen path "self-destructive" only to the extent that America's "leaders" identify with the American troops and the American people, and clearly they do not.
It's howlingly stupid unless they consider us the enemy, in which case it -- and everything else they do -- makes perfect sense.
They didn't send enough troops, they didn't disarm the Iraqi army before they disbanded it, they didn't secure the existing explosives caches (not to mention any of the other Iraqi infrastructure), they still don't give the troops enough armor, and they don't even make Halliburton deliver on its no-bid contacts. Not to mention the shameful way they treat the vets.
And yet they say "We support the troops."
The chimperor in chief says things like "Bring it on!", and declares "Mission Accomplished" just when things are going to start getting ugly. Why? Because they are in Iraq not to win, but to fight.
They say they want "success", whatever that means, but actions speak louder than words. And their actions consistently say they're looking for a longer, wider war.
This is why they've been telling us ever since 9/11 that it's going to be "a long war" -- "a generational war". This is why they've set up death squads in Iraq.
And their supporters have the nerve to call people who oppose their war "traitors"!