In former insurgent havens in Iraq, knowing the enemy is sometimes difficult

By: KATARINA KRATOVAC - Associated Press | Sunday, October 7, 2007 7:15 PM PDT

PATROL BASE HAWKS, Iraq -- When U.S. sentries fatally shot three guards near an Iraqi-manned checkpoint south of Baghdad, they thought they were targeting enemy fighters planting roadside bombs, according to the American commander of the region.

The shootings, which are still under investigation, underscore a new dilemma facing U.S. troops as former fighters join forces against extremists and Iraqis are increasingly forced to take up arms to protect themselves -- how does one distinguish them from the enemy?

The U.S. military said the American troops shot the three civilians Thursday near a checkpoint manned by local members of a U.S.-allied group helping provide security in the village of Abu Lukah, near Musayyib, a Shiite-dominated town 40 miles south of Baghdad.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division that controls territory south of Baghdad, stressed the investigation was continuing but said initial results showed that U.S. troops fired on the checkpoint after spotting what appeared to be enemy forces planting roadside bombs.

"We are not looking to see who made a mistake but rather see what we can learn from that particular event," Lynch told The Associated Press Saturday during a whirlwind tour of patrol bases in the area.

Lynch said it's critical to "better coordinate between coalition forces, Iraqi security forces and concerned citizens," as he calls the vigilante-style groups that have sprouted up across the country to fight extremists.

The comments reflect rising concerns about possible friendly fire killings that could threaten to undermine the U.S. strategy of seeking alliances with local Sunni and Shiite leaders to fill the vacuum left by a national police force that has been plagued by corruption allegations and infiltration by militants.

Incidents of shooting of civilians at checkpoints has drawn allegations by many, in Iraq and beyond, that U.S. troops and contractors are quick to fire and ask question later.

Such criticism was widespread after the March 2005 fatal shooting of an Italian intelligence officer at a checkpoint near Baghdad airport. The officer was traveling at night shortly after securing the release of a kidnapped Italian reporter, who was wounded along with an Italian driver when a U.S. soldier opened fire. The U.S. military has said the soldier acted appropriately in the incident.

After the Abu Lukah shooting, the so-called North of Hillah Awakening Council staged a three-day strike to register its anger over the loss of three of its members, but guards resumed their posts on Sunday.

"Such acts will create a gap between us and the Americans. We are trying to restore security in the area while the Americans are killing us," Nabil Saleh, 37, said as he stood with his AK-47 slung over his shoulder at his post in Abu Lukah.

Jabar Hamid, a 33-year-old Shiite from the village, said the U.S. military had paid $2,500 to each family of the three men killed.

"It is a tragedy and regrettable thing," he said.

In a bid to distinguish the recruits from potential militants, the groups have been given vests with reflective stripes, similar to those worn by traffic police in many countries. Others wear brown T-shirts with Iraqi hats similar to those worn by the national army.

Capt. John Newman, 31, of Columbus, Ga., said the soldiers believe they can discern volunteers from the insurgents.

"We've given them their road guard vests," Newman said. "So, he'd better be wearing that vest if I see him carrying an AK-47."

Lynch stressed the Americans are not arming the groups because the men already have weapons, primarily AK-47s that are legally permitted in Iraqi households.

"We are allowing the people of Iraq to secure their own areas and they are using their personal firearms to do that," he said.

The southern belt of Baghdad is a mosaic of Sunni enclaves, such as Arab Jabour and Jisr Diyala, once al-Qaida havens, and all-Shiite strongholds, such as the town of Nahrawan. In that community, the country's strongest Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, has lately been overshadowed by rogue Shiite elements and "gangs," as the U.S. military describes them.

Iraqi volunteers -- both Sunnis and Shiites -- mostly watch over their neighborhoods, guard mosques and man checkpoints. The theory is that, as natives to the area, they can better recognize foreign fighters and al-Qaida loyalists in their midst.

The tactic was first implemented in the Sunni western Anbar province, and later in Diyala, a province northeast of Baghdad.

Now it is being tested in Lynch's territory, such as the wind-swept planes surrounding U.S. patrol base Hawks, 20 miles southeast of Baghdad -- one of 36 small bases Lynch's troops have built up as outposts in their region.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Shiite leaders have expressed concern over the American policy of sponsoring armed Sunnis, many of whom were likely former insurgents.

"Acceptance rules for these recruits should be within a legal framework so that we do not allow the emergence of new militias," al-Maliki said Friday during a meeting with the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen.

The U.S. military says the ultimate goal is to bring the volunteers into the Iraqi security forces, which the Americans hope will be eventually able to take over the country's security so they can go home.

Lynch insisted that every volunteer is nominated by tribal leaders and vetted by Americans with retina scans and fingerprinting. The serial numbers of their AK-47s also are logged.

"We know who they are, where they are," Lynch said, adding that his region now has more 20,000 Sunnis and Shiites who have come forward to join the alliances.

He said the formation of such groups has been a major factor in the success achieved since his troops arrived in April as part of President Bush's troop buildup. He cited a 64 percent reduction in attacks and a 60 percent drop in the number of local casualties, although he didn't give specific figures.

Lynch also acknowledged the volunteer groups could become a problem later if they are not brought into the mainstream.

"They want recognition," he said. "If they get a sense that they are not recognized or treated as legitimate, they could potentially go back to their rogue ways."

Next Previous
Bookmark and Share

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

tom wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:44 AM:doesn't anyone pay attention to history? In Vietnam there was the complaint that you couldn't tell who the enemy was. And we LOST the war. So as others have learned, to fight a war and WIN against the USA, don't wear uniforms, dthen take it a step farther, don't have your army claim a country, that the the 'enemy' (us) will just call them extremist. If you like the USA at all you better wake up and smell the coffee. Like Iran's leader said 'we don't have gay people in our country' he would also like to say we don't have American's either, He doesn't think Israel should exist nor America. Once 'they' control the region and the flow of oil, then they choke America to death. So no more SUV or any vehicle for that matter, no more heating oil, that means no job, which means no food. NO AMERICA as you now know it...think about it. It means we HAVE to win this war, your kids life counts on it!!-

Chris to Tom wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:50 AM:We invade another country without justification, kill or cause to be killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, destroy the country and now self-righteously you come out here and talk about how we need to win the war and how the bad guys, who's country we invaded, don't wear uniforms. I want to know why you justify what we have done. As far as the story goes I want to know why our troops don't challenge the people and find out who they are. But instead they see some people doing something and just shoot them without finding out who they are. Don't give me a bunch of bull about how they have to shoot first and ask questions latter. But here we have three dead people and the military doesn't care about blaming anyone but just finding out what lessons can be learned. We have had over four years to get it right so how many other people have to die because of this shoot first attitude.-

Lame Duck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:24 AM:Stop looking into the fish bowl Chris, it's a shallow view.

Harry wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:32 AM:Since it is hard to distinguish the enemy from the people we are supposed to be helping, some of our troops seem to feel the best policy is to shoot them indiscriminately! It is time to bring them home.-

To Harry wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:18 PM:Boy, you must belong to the Ministry of Misinformation. It's getting almost funny, if it wasn't so pathetic. This is what you say about information given to you that VERIFIES that this is a differnt kind of war and more difficult that our military has faced. Instead of giving our military the benefit in this difficult situation...you chose to again slander and put out false statements as to what YOU THINK our military does. PATHETIC!!

Harry wrote on Oct 10, 2007 6:37 PM:Oh, For Crying Out Loud! It is not slander or misinformation to point out that our troops are in an impossible situation, where all the Iraqis hate them even more than they hate each other. Some of them have responded by committing atrocities--perhaps when their training fails them in the heat of battle, perhaps when their superiors fail them, perhaps when there worse instincts come out. Whatever, it is time to bring them all home. There is no way they can win the the civil war and sectarian violence that our invasion unleashed. There is no reason for one more American to die to save GWB's face until he leaves office. It is over and the mission was never accomplished and cannot be.

To Harry wrote on Oct 11, 2007 7:45 PM:You have a history of slandering and disrepecting the military in your posts. Your attempt to pretend otherwise by bolding the words "Some of them" is hypocritical. You have insulted me as a military parent, you have insulted my son as a brave and intelligent Marine over and over again. The Dems are stuck with people like you and Hillary, who openly loathe the military. By the way, Harry...the surge is working. The Dems know it. They're trying to figure out their next move. You are wrong, Harry. All the Iraqis do not hate our military. My son did three infantry deployments to Iraq. Many of us do know more than you about what's going on over there. Your 2 advanced degrees from fine universities (or so you say) have not given you much knowledge. God bless our brave military, their families and loved ones.

Harry to "To Harry" wrote on Oct 11, 2007 9:51 PM:You may have whelped a member or our troops, but that doesn't make you an expert on the surge or anything else; even the Marines want out! Go ahead and feel righteous--it is false glory. I hope your son is well--I don't wish him or others anything but a safe return. I clearly don't respect the effort of which he is a part--but I bear him no ill will, and wish all our troops a safe return from the unnecesary danger in which they were placed. I devoutly wish that he and the others had parents who would demand their safe return. As a parent I wish you weren't so quick to surrender his life to a meaningless endeavor!

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos