With friends like these...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


An Italian secret service agent was shot to death recently by US. soldiers when he was taking a freed Italian hostage to the Bagdad airport. Italy has sent the 3rd largest coalition contingent to Iraq, the govt. prides itself on being US-friendly, but the population is less happy about the deployment.

After the shooting (which also injured the ex-hostage and two other agents) an American military commentator said:

Edward Luttwak, an American military commentator interviewed yesterday in La Repubblica, said Mr Calipari's death was "the sort of thing that happens all the time in a war", and he advised Italy to "take an aspirin and go to bed, you'll feel better in the morning".

How is that for damage control? The US. embassy in Rome must love that statement.

Today, the agent, Nicola Calipari, is recieving an state funeral. He already has gotten the highest medal of valor posthumously.

More on this can be found here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=617569

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/in...r=MOREOVERNEWS


Peter Gustafsson

[Gav]

Yeah , we are seeing a lot of coverage of this here in the UK as well.

Have a look at: Hostage's shooting 'no accident'

As previously noted "Friendly fire isn't".

I'd love to know what happened here. It's probably down to a bout of incompetence.

[Have At You]

What a tragedy. At least the US military does a real investigation when these things happen, and if people are to be held accountable they will be. Whatever the story, I have a hard time believing the soldiers simply shot at an approaching car without any provocation, however.

From what I've read in the papers (though who knows if they're accurate?) the Italian car didn't slow down and tried to speed through the checkpoint, and the soldiers shot at the engine to stop it. If that's true, why the heck was the driver being such an idiot? When the soldiers raised their weapons, why didn't he stop at once and keep his hands visible?

[Gav]

So, Have at You are you laying the blame at the guys in the car?

I find the reported soldiers account ... lacking. We'll have to keep an eye on this and see what comes out of the investigation. It seems that this "failed to stop" is the normal reason trotted out.

You can read some of the accounts here.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

{snip}
How is that for damage control? The US. embassy in Rome must love that statement.

To be fair--it doesn't seem that the "commentator", Edward Luttwak, is affiliated with, or speaking for the Government.

Here is an article by a journalist in Iraq explaining how confusion can happen at checkpoints. I thought it was interesting.

--Philistine

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Gav

So, Have at You are you laying the blame at the guys in the car?

I find the reported soldiers account ... lacking. We'll have to keep an eye on this and see what comes out of the investigation. It seems that this "failed to stop" is the normal reason trotted out.

You can read some of the accounts here.

Depending on the car, if they didn't notice the checkpoint, which it sounds like they didn't, it was daytime, which I think it was, they probably didn't notice the warning shots either over the sound of the engine or through the sound insulation. The only warning they had that the group of soldiers standing at the side of the road were a checkpoint was when the rounds started impacting the vehicle.

Sounds like a tragic mistake in an environment where people are going to pull the trigger before asking questions. Yes, the Italian operatives should have been paying better attention, but the checkpoint should have been well labeled, marked and impossible to miss.

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by Philistine

To be fair--it doesn't seem that the "commentator", Edward Luttwak, is affiliated with, or speaking for the Government.

Thank you. You can't blame an entire country for one talking head, even in a state that prides itself in its free speech.

It sounds to me like the Italians are trying to turn this into a huge conspiracy theory against their government, that the soldiers on the ground had information about the car the two were riding in and were told to shoot it on sight. I think the proposition is proposterous. Even if this were the case, there is no way that type of information would get disseminated lowest Private (or Platoon leader, for that matter).

It was a horrible, terrible mistake but a mistake nonetheless.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

Thank you. You can't blame an entire country for one talking head, even in a state that prides itself in its free speech.

It sounds to me like the Italians are trying to turn this into a huge conspiracy theory against their government, that the soldiers on the ground had information about the car the two were riding in and were told to shoot it on sight. I think the proposition is proposterous. Even if this were the case, there is no way that type of information would get disseminated lowest Private (or Platoon leader, for that matter).

It was a horrible, terrible mistake but a mistake nonetheless.

And from what I read it isn't all Italians either. Il Manifesto (the injured journalists newspaper) appeals to a specific group of Italians who were already opposed to the Italian government's decision to maintain troops in Iraq as an ally of the United States. This accident provides them just with some fuel to step up and continue the protests they have had since before the war.

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

And from what I read it isn't all Italians either. Il Manifesto (the injured journalists newspaper) appeals to a specific group of Italians who were already opposed to the Italian government's decision to maintain troops in Iraq as an ally of the United States. This accident provides them just with some fuel to step up and continue the protests they have had since before the war.

Good point. My position wasn't very balanced or consistant. My apologies.

It appears that most of the conspiratory theories are coming from Giuliana Sgrena herself (the injury journalist), though many in her country are echoing her concerns.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

And from what I read it isn't all Italians either. Il Manifesto (the injured journalists newspaper) appeals to a specific group of Italians who were already opposed to the Italian government's decision to maintain troops in Iraq as an ally of the United States. This accident provides them just with some fuel to step up and continue the protests they have had since before the war.

I can't edit my post (timing,) but I mean to correct the the last sentence to read:

"the protests they have had since before the checkpoint shooting incident."

(I have no idea what the Italian Communists were protesting before the war!)

[Inquartata]

In her first account, Sgrena said she was talking with someone else in the car when the incident jumped off. Now she was paying scrupulously close attention to speed, surroundings, etc.

It's going to be Rashomon, this one: what "really happened" is going to depend on the motives and worldviews of the observers. Sgrena, as a reporter for a communist newspaper and a recently-freed traumatized hostage is bound to see things differently than the American soldiers on the scene, the driver, the Italian intelligence guys, Iraqi bystanders, etc. Then we add media and governmental spins to that. We may never get anything remotely resembling an accurate account...

[mrbiggs]

I doubt that this incident was done on purpose. It's understandable under the circumstances...it seems that every week another checkpoint is bombed by a suicide bomber. The soldiers there are probably quite tense. I can imagine, a car doesn't stop, someone shoots, then everyone shoots. A tragedy, unquestionably, but I don't think there's anyone to whom we can really point fingers honestly.

[Soldier]

I also don't envy the people at the post themselves. In an area where car bombings had previously been a problem, they see a car (possibly speeding) coming at their checkpoint, and apparently not slowing down. They have to make a decision, with little or no time for checking with superiors, on whether (and how) to try to stop the vehicle, or to chance getting blown up. Can't be a good situation to be in. I'd also be willing to bet large sums of money that none of the Americans even remotely involved will be sleeping very soundly for a while.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Philistine

To be fair--it doesn't seem that the "commentator", Edward Luttwak, is affiliated with, or speaking for the Government.

Here is an article by a journalist in Iraq explaining how confusion can happen at checkpoints. I thought it was interesting.

--Philistine

This article puts into perspective how much of a battle cultural misunderstnding is. I tend to give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt, as to motivation. Split-second, life or death decisions are never fun. The link in the story is a perfect example.

[scrapinpeg]

Is this the link you referred to? Yeah, definitely good perspective.

from the March 07, 2005 edition

A speeding sedan and a close call for one marine unit

By Dan Murphy

HIT, IRAQ – Sgt. Jim Beere of the 23rd Marine Regiment Bravo Company knows something about protecting people.
Back home he's an undercover cop in Oakland, Calif., where he works on a special-victims unit tracking rapists and child molesters. He's usually responsible just for himself and, at most, the safety of a partner.

But early on Feb. 22, he saved his own life and quite possibly the lives of a dozen other marines from Bravo Company who were taking a well-deserved catnap after an all-night operation in the city of Hit.

The split-second decisions by marines like Sergeant Beere are often made in the fog of war. During the same operation, his platoon accidentally killed two unarmed Iraqis who failed to obey orders to stop. Each situation reveals just how much pressure and how little time troops have to determine whether approaching cars mean them harm.

At about 5 a.m., the streets of the city were all but deserted when a sedan turned onto the road leading to the marines' temporary headquarters in a schoolhouse. The driver began to speed up toward the Abrams tank guarding the road, so the machine gunner opened fire with two long bursts that sent the car careening into a sewage canal in the middle of the road.

The driver, who was hit three times but still alive, rolled out of the car, and marines ran over to investigate. He was a Syrian who claimed in perfect, almost unaccented, English that he'd been forced to drive the car. (He later died on the way to the hospital.)

Beere then went over with another marine to check out the car.

As the marine in front of him leaned in the passenger-side front door to take out an AK-47 propped against the steering wheel, a man lunged out of the muck in the canal on the driver's side and went for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher in the back of the car. Beere quickly pulled his buddy back and to the side, swiped his pistol from his holster, and shot the man five times. The man fell back into the canal.

Beere took a few steps away to catch his breath and, turning back, saw the man coming out of the canal again, this time hitting a "clacker" in his hand - a detonating unit for mines and improvised bombs. Beere shot the man four more times, and he fell dead.

"I thought that was it for me, I really did," Beere said a few minutes later. He says he expected the whole car to go up in a ball of flames. "The best I can figure is that he had a mine down there with him and was trying to blow up all the explosives in the car. I think the wet ruined the detonator," he says.

In this case Beere was right: the trunk was loaded with explosives. But troops don't always make the correct decisions. The marines of Bravo Company, who are finishing a six-month tour in Iraq, have fired on and killed unarmed Iraqis in cars on more than one occasion. In each case, they say, confused drivers either ignored or didn't notice warning shots and shouts to slow down as their cars sped toward Marine positions.

But with the suicide car bomb a favored insurgent weapon at checkpoints - in December, 9 Iraqis were killed and 13 were wounded by a suicide bomber at a checkpoint south of Baghdad, while in October, 16 people were killed and 40 were wounded by a car bomber at a Baghdad checkpoint - the troops aren't inclined to take chances. And their rules of engagement let them open fire if they feel threatened.

Such confusion, and the civilian casualties they create, are part of the tactic of using suicide bombers since it serves to drive a greater wedge between US troops and ordinary Iraqis.

"You feel awful when it happens," says one Bravo marine, who remembers treating an Iraqi who probably lost his arm after being shot by this marine's unit. "But I don't doubt the decision to shoot."

Marines interviewed for this story said they were willing to risk civilian casualties if it meant potentially saving the lives of their comrades.

[Larrison]

Some of the pictures of the car that the journalist claims was "hit by 400 machine gun rounds" and tank shells, to the point that she was "picking up handfuls of spent bullets from the back seat" are starting to be published, starting with an Italian paper http://www.repubblica.it/index.html (click on the images subtitle on the left side -- I don't know how long this front page will stay up, though).

It appears that the driver's window was shot out, or smashed at some point. There is at least one bullet hole in the front window in front of the driver. I didn't see any others in the front window. The front tire that you can see was flat, presumably shot out. The back tire on that side (you can't see the other side) appears to be still inflated. In better quality pictures at http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Picture...ar-ap-1-lg.jpg and http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Picture...ar-ap-2-lg.jpg there appear to be other holes in the front grill of the car, including low down at the bumper level. In general, the car does not appear to be riddled with holes.

From other reports, the incident took place in the dark, at night. It's been noted that the checkpoint stopped multiple other cars that night, but only fired at one.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1240-1847r.htm

The car was apparently going at a fairly high rate of speed, since the reporter claims "The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would really be a tale I would not be able to tell.". The driver was constantly on a cell phone calling the embassy and back to Italy. But there is no reference anyone called ahead to alert the checkpoints around the airport that a car with a special passenger was coming in fast.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe.../il.manifesto/

Plus, it appears that the agents of Italy’s SISMI military intelligence service intentionally may not have notified any other authorities in Iraq they were there to try to retrieve the reporter, since both the Iraqi government and the US-led coalition forces don't approve of paying large ransoms to return kidnapped foreign citizens. In this, the military intelligence agents who flew in that day apparently did not coordinate with US forces around the airport that they might be returning that night, nor did they coordinate with the Italian forces available in Bagdad area before setting out.

So in the middle of the night, a car come driving back at a checkpoint at a high rate of speed. From the reporter's interviews, they troops at the checkpoint flashed a light at the car [ http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...431436,00.html says "flashlight" and http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/06/italy.iraq/ says "lit them up with a spotlight"]. The driver was making multiple calls from a cell phone, while driving [previous cite], and possibly didn't slow down. To stop the car, it appears the troops fired at the engine compartment, and front tires, with at least one round going through the front window in front of the driver. From the pictures, the troops did not riddle the car with "300 to 400 bullets from an armoured vehicle" as reported [http://www.corriere.it/english/edito...a/070305.shtml, and http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...31436,00.html]

I'll be interested to see what the investigation shows.

[Soldier]

Does the allegation of "picking up handfuls of spent bullets from the backseat" strike anybody else as rather absurd? Bullets don't usually just land like that...I'd think they'd be embedded in the seat, or completely deformed by whatever they'd just passed through. It seems strange to me that any bullets would have enough energy to pass through the windshield and probably front seats (at a minimum), yet not enough energy to sink into the back seat.

[jeff]

In a place where cars come to deliver suicide bombs, I have a lot of sympathy with the troops who have to stand posts and quickly tell the difference between a bomber and somebody innocent in a hurry. The idea that US soldiers did this deliberately strikes me as either paranoia or propaganda - just a ridiculous idea. Of course, I have deep sympathy for the person who was killed, and for the journalist, but also have the notion that you approach jumpy, highly armed troops who have been attacked with cars very, very carefully. Irwin Luttwak having a big mouth doesn't help anything.

Is there any reason that the Italians couldn't have coordinated with US forces to say "we're evacuating a hostage - keep an eye out for us"?