Blood on Our Hands

Newly released war documents show how the U.S. military, in cable after grim cable, painstakingly chronicled Iraq's descent into bloody Shiite-on-Sunni violence. So why did top officials deny the obvious?

BY ELLEN KNICKMEYER | OCTOBER 25, 2010

In early March 2006, Donald Rumsfeld called a Pentagon news conference to declare Iraq peaceful -- and to say that U.S. reporters in Baghdad were liars for reporting otherwise.

Contrary to the jumble of "exaggerated" reporting from Baghdad, the then-secretary of defense said at the Washington press briefing, Iraq was experiencing no such thing as the explosion of sectarian violence that myself and many of my fellow journalists in Baghdad were covering in the aftermath of a fateful February 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra.

Certainly, some Iraqis were trying to incite civil war, Rumsfeld acknowledged. But Iraq's own security forces had "taken the lead in controlling the situation," he insisted, and quick action by the Shiite-led government had "a calming effect."

Rumsfeld also made clear at the time that U.S. officials were fighting another kind of war over Iraq -- the battle for U.S. opinion. The "misreporting" on the death toll was driving down U.S. support for the war, the defense secretary complained.

Four years on, however, WikiLeaks' release of contemporary troop logs raises serious questions about who, exactly, was doing the lying.

One of the few absolute revelations from the Wikileaks documents is the extent to which Rumsfeld, then-U.S. commander Gen. George Casey, and others had access to ample information from unimpeachable sources -- their own troops on the ground in Iraq -- regarding how badly events had turned in Iraq by 2006, but nonetheless denied a surge in killing to reporters and the U.S. public.

"The country is not awash in sectarian violence,'' Casey told one U.S. television network in the wake of the Samarra bombing. And talk of Iraq sliding into civil war? "I don't see it happening, certainly anytime in the near term,'' Casey said.

But in hundreds of terse log entries from the field -- now made public by WikiLeaks -- U.S. troops documented more comprehensively than we reporters could ever have hoped the explosion of retaliatory killings, kidnappings, tortures, mosque attacks, and open street fighting. The reports streamed in the hours and days after the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra enraged Iraq's Shiite militias. What we reported then has now been confirmed: The bombing transformed Iraq's building sectarian violence into something even darker.

In one of scores of entries recording U.S. troops coming upon handcuffed, tortured bodies on Feb. 22, 2006, and in the days after, a U.S. officer recounted happening upon fighters as they threw bodies from a car. The commander was in time to note how fresh the corpses were: "BODIES WERE SHOT IN THE FACE AND BODIES WERE STILL WARM," he wrote.  

In fact, U.S. soldiers in Iraq saw and heard the eruption of civil war in Iraq from the first minutes. According to one of the tense, redacted log entries logging the moment of the mosque bombing, "AT ___ 0701C FEB ___, THERE WERE 2X AUDIBLE EXPLOSIONS THAT WERE REPORTED FROM A MOUNTED PATROL … THE ROOF OF THE GOLDEN MOSQUE HAD COLLAPSED."

Mark Wilson/GETTY IMAGES

 

Ellen Knickmeyer was Washington Post bureau chief in Baghdad.

BDL2010

8:58 AM ET

October 26, 2010

Why

Why did they deny the obvious while the troops on the ground saw it from the first shot?

Same reason those of us in the Shia south saw the Shia rebellion coming in 2004.

Because we were there, on the ground, not in the green zone or 10k away in a wood paneled office.

 

PEOTRE

10:31 AM ET

October 26, 2010

Why?

Thank you for this article. The reasons why all went wrong can be traced to the dynamics behind what allowed the intitial invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq to be carried out in spite of institutional safeguards that should have prevented it (legal, Fourth Estate, etc.). Such would constitute a worthy in-depth study. The rest is arithmetic, and harbors zero surprises.

 

ENLISTENZ

12:39 PM ET

October 26, 2010

Zero surprises

Really? It's arithmetic? Show your work.

 

PEOTRE

3:56 PM ET

October 26, 2010

Character of the military

The character of the military is easily predictable from its performance in past conflicts. Once you unleash that kind of force through a human conduit, you get very reliable results. Need more?

 

JAYDEE001

12:40 PM ET

October 26, 2010

So, Rummy lied. Casey lied.

So, Rummy lied. Casey lied. That should not surprise us. Rummy and his fellow neocons (Wolfowitz, et al) also told us the war would be short, and it would be paid for by Iraq's oil. Whatever came of that?

The irony of all this is, that for all our efforts, for all the cost to the US taxpayers and the more than 4400 deaths and 31,000 disabilities suffered by our military personnel, Shiite-dominated Iraq is almost certainly going to become closely allied to Iran, and Sadr is going to be a power broker in the resulting alliance and in the future government of Iraq.

What still needs to be acknowledged - but will probably never be - is that the whole Iraq invasion and occupation was an expensive and unsuccessful fiasco from the outset. It was carried out because of a bigger lie, and prosecuted for reasons that had little to do with US security, and much to do with hubris on our part and a desire to attone for George HW Bush's perceived mistake in not taking Saddam out in the 'first' Gulf war. We removed Saddam, but opened the way for Iraq to be a future partner of Iran.

The only lie that persists is that 50,000 US troops are still needed there and that that somehow benefits our people. Our payback? 'Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ as you leave.'

 

CEOUNICOM

7:32 PM ET

October 27, 2010

re:

""a desire to attone for George HW Bush's perceived mistake in not taking Saddam out in the 'first' Gulf war""

Maybe not exactly like that; although it probably doesn't matter. Your assessment is 100% correct leading up to (and including) "hubris". My niggling point is that the main reason for leaving Saddam in power in Gulf 1 was that was what our regional 'allies' (read: Saudi Arabia) wanted - because they feared exactly what we're seeing now in Iraq: the ascendency of a shiite regime that's going to be friendly with Iran. Also because Powell & the generals didn't want to 'occupy' a country; they wanted to smash an army, intimidate the world, but not engage in nation building or upset the balance of power in the region. I think the desire to 'take out' Saddam emerged more gradually in the late 1990s, sourced to the PNAC/neocon crew during the clinton years. I think it was less of a feeling that Gulf 1 was 'done incompletely', than it was a matter of neocons fuming over CLinton's unwillingness to use American military power to achieve decisive policy results. Instead we had Somalia, the Balkans, and a long drawn out 'Iraq disarmament' process that left them (Kristol/Kagan/Wolfowitz/Pearle et al) feeling like the rest of the world wasn't *scared* of us any more.

Again, I'm not sure I'm adding anything here other than to point out that it was a fairly small number of people who saw leaving Saddam in power as a 'mistake' at the end of Gulf 1; i think that is more a conclusion drawn in hindsight. In any case, my personal view is that there was/is only 1 'Gulf War', and that we just took a really long halftime break between 1993-2003. Viewed this way, the whole thing looks even worse in context (if possible)....where in the first iteration we used a massive force and broad coalition to achieve fairly small, narrow goals that in hindsight seemed short-sighted....and in the second iteration, we used a small force with little international support to attempt to achieve broad, long-term goals (and to occupy the country)....which in hindsight seems bloody idiotic and naive. Basically, it all adds up to some really shitty decision making by our political and military leadership.

 

KOVBASKANEWS

3:19 PM ET

October 26, 2010

Julian Paul Assange

The Ukrainian Institute of New Virology established a prize "Fighter for the Truth." The award of $3 million will be presented on November 6 at the anniversary of the establishment of the Ukrainian Institute of New Virology to Julian Paul Assange, if before he can prove he is not a Russian spy, an agent of Al Qaeda or any other special services, which is struggling with the USA. Look at the pictures to the report from the Ukrainian Institute of New Virology on http://uionv.com/.

 

JWING

5:20 PM ET

October 26, 2010

Missed Why They Lied

Nice article, but I think you missed the most important part, which was why Rumsfeld and Casey were denying a sectarian war had started at that time. The reason is because all along Rumsfeld wanted to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible. Those plans kept on being pushed back because of the rising violence. In 2005 and 2006 there were drawdown plans. The Samarra bombing came right when they were planning for the second attempt. Hence, Rumsfeld and Casey wanted to play down the rising violence so that they could try to get out. Of course, that didn't happen. Rumsfeld got fired, Casey got moved up, and Petraeus replaced him and the Surge started the next year.

 

BILL KELLER

7:25 PM ET

October 26, 2010

One might suspect that a President might ask...

....Gen Casey to resign for the good of the Army which has cradled him from birth to this pinnacle upon which he sits and for the good of the nation which has been wounded by the deceit of its military leadership.

 

MARTY MARTEL

4:48 AM ET

October 27, 2010

US in denial on Iraq and Afghanistan

US was in denial mode about bloody Sunni-versus-Shiite violence in Iraq because US did NOT want to admit the obvious - US installation of Shiite regime in Iraq will lead to coming sectarian war by proxy in Iraq between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Shiite Iran has a strong Shiite Iraq ally for the first time in history. Now Shiites of Iran will be joined by Shiites of Iraq to challenge the centuries-old Sunni domination in the middle east, thanks to US. US did not want to admit the ‘obvious’.

However US denial in South Asia is less obvious.

For the reasons still unclear, US military establishment has sought to justify Pakistan’s terrorist connections.

General McChrystal reported in his assessment of August, 2009 to the President:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.

And yet Gates, Mullen, Petraeus & Company has split the Taliban into the Afghan and Pakistani parts even though those two are two peas of the same pod. The US military is going after the Pakistani Taliban, while it encourages the Pakistani intelligence to continue to shelter the entire top Afghan Taliban leadership in Baluchistan province. Mullah Muhammad Omar and other members of the Taliban's inner shura (council) have been ensconced for years in the Quetta area.

However US drones have targeted militants in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), but not the Afghan Taliban leadership operating with impunity from Baluchistan. US ground-commando raids also have spared the Afghan Taliban's command-and-control network in Baluchistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has sought to justify Pakistan’s terrorist connections, alluding to a “deficit of trust” between Washington, DC and Islamabad. Mr Gates also said there was “some justification” for Pakistan's concerns about past American policies. Gen David Patraeus, rushed in with an apologia for his Pakistani friends, by claiming that while Faisal was inspired by militants in Pakistan, he did not necessarily have contacts with the militants. Both Adm Mike Mullen and Gen Patraeus fancy themselves to be “soldier statesmen” a la Gen Dwight Eisenhower. Adm Mullen has visited Pakistan 15 times and Gen Patraeus no less frequently. Both evidently have high opinions of their abilities to persuade Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to crack down on the Haqqani network in North Waziristan and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar-led Quetta Shura.

 

ALMANZOR

7:31 AM ET

October 27, 2010

The title of this article is a bit ridiculous

If the entire premise of this admittedly very informative and high-quality article is that Iraq had, in fact, descended into a mini civil war after the destruction of the Golden Mosque of Samarra, I think it very inappropriate that this article be title "Blood on Our Hands."

Wouldn't it be better to call it "Blood on Iraqi Hands," or if you wanted to be even more honest and less politically correct, "Blood on Shiite Death Squad's Hands," or "Blood on Iraqi Government-Backed Shiite Death Squad Hands"?

Sure, Rumsfeld lied (big shocker there) and Casey may or may not have been complicit in his lies, but I fail to comprehend how one can assign responsibility to them, or even worse, "us," for the murders Shia death squads committed against their Sunni countrymen.

Of course, the title "Blood on Our Hands" is much more attention grabbing than any other one could conceive, and it has the added bonus (sarcasm emphasized) of blaming it all on the evil United States.

Although, the picture this article paints seems to be less of a civil war and more of a kind of genocide against Iraq's Sunni population, and one in which several Iraqi gov. ministries were complicit. It's kind of a weak argument, as Sunni insurgents deliberately provoked the Shia into massacring them, and Al Qeada in Iraq stated they intended to start a civil war from the beginning. One could also make the argument that many of the Sunni men killed were terrorists, but still, if we are to believe that "mixed-sect neighborhoods were 'cleansed,'" then how else should this development be classified?

 

DR. SARDONICUS

5:09 PM ET

November 5, 2010

Lying for fun and profit

Lying appears to have become a Republican profit center, when outright ignorance is not the primary motivator. Presumably they hold license to lie, cheat and steal with impunity.

But then Republican have an almost tribal affinity for liars-in-their-cause -- sorta like the Spartans who honored uncaught thieves, thus fostering the most corrupt leadership. Plato would have been proud.

Twenty percent of the American electorate at the time declared it would have re-elected Richard Nixon after his disgrace.

Don't ask me how a small-d democracy is supposed to operate with such a mob thumbing the scales so compulsively. And don't ask me why such consistent lying is not a source of public disgrace for Republicans, denying them all political responsibility.

 

SPECIALIZEDEED

8:47 PM ET

November 19, 2010

US in denial on Iraq

Mr Gates also said there was “some justification” for Pakistan's tatil concerns about past American policies. Gen David Patraeus, rushed in with an sinema apologia for his Pakistani friends, by claiming that while tvshop Faisal was inspired by militants in Pakistan, he did not necessarily have contacts with redtube the militants.