Follow us on social

google cta
2005-08-03t120000z_1369083617_rp6drmwpadab_rtrmadp_3_iraq

I witnessed the fear inspired by Blackwater and the military in Iraq

Not surprisingly, Iraqis believe their lives are no longer cheap, and that the time for accountability has come.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The first time I saw Blackwater contractors in action was one morning in 2005 on al-Mansour street in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. In the middle of the bridge, heavily armed contractors emerged from a vehicle driving north, blocked the traffic by pointing their machine guns in all directions, including mine, and moved what seemed to be a VIP they were presumably protecting. 

They then jumped into another vehicle with tinted windows heading south, in the opposite direction. In the time between the contractors’ emergence from the first vehicle and their entry into the second, everybody on the street froze, anticipating that bullets could start flying at any moment given the gunmen’s aggressivity and menacing behavior — to the point where my driver ducked and forgot to push on the brakes, allowing his car to roll forward and hit the one ahead. 

At the time, the Blackwater contractors' presence was directly linked to the U.S. administration, the Coalition Provisional Authority, which had been running Mesopotamia since the 2003 invasion.

As the highways became increasingly more dangerous for coalition forces due to insurgent attacks, it was not unusual to see an American Humvee opening fire on a civilian vehicle regardless of the official U.S. rules of engagement that were, in practice, impossible to abide by. In fact, the last Humvee in any U.S. convoy would carry a sign demanding that all vehicles remain at least 100 meters further away. It was almost impossible to read the panel from the equivalent of a football field away, which of course exposed civilians to deadly fire.

Meeting a U.S. convoy on these Baghdad (north or south) highways carried numerous difficult challenges. U.S. convoys drove at a steady average speed, even on highways. Other vehicles were not permitted to pass them. The Iraqis found a risky solution by driving on the opposite side of the thoroughfare, taking an enormous risk of collision. The worst was when another convoy was coming in the opposite direction. At that moment, all drivers froze and put their arms in the air for fear of being shot at.

During the first seven years of the U.S. occupation, the risk of being mistakenly killed was extremely high for numerous reasons. In 2007, Blackwater contractors opened fire on people at Nisour Square, killing 17 civilians and wounding 24. After years of litigation, four American mercenaries were eventually convicted in 2014 and sent to prison; that is, until President Trump pardoned them last week.

But the 2007 massacre was not even the beginning of American disregard for Iraqi lives. In 1996, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright responded to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children attributed to the impact of more than five years of U.S. sanctions on the country by saying “…the price is worth it.” The 2003 invasion and the Iraq war left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead or wounded. In 2004, pictures from the U.S.-run prison Abu Ghraib Iraq confirmed “sadistic and criminal abuses” by American soldiers and contractors against Iraqi prisoners. 

In 2010, a classified U.S. video showed an Apache helicopter attack killing a dozen Iraqi civilians, including two Reuters news staff.

Moreover, in the first year of the U.S. occupation, Paul Bremer, Washington’s viceroy, disbanded the Iraqi army, leaving 400,000 men at home without financial means or rights. Many of these men eventually enlisted in Al-Qaida in Iraq (that later metamorphosed into the “Islamic State” terror group ISIS, or Daesh). In 2009, Washington closed Camp Bucca, a U.S. detention center that had become a "jihadi university." This is where terrorist leaders recruited the men to fight and terrorize Iraq, violently taking over vast swaths of the country, including six major cities, leaving at least 20,000 dead and millions displaced from 2014 to 2017. 

There was no accountability for these casualties, either directly caused by American soldiers, contractors, or coalition forces, or indirectly through the violent chain of events. One can blame in part Washington’s total lack of knowledge or respect of Iraqi culture, the lack of a viable post-occupation plan, or the weight put on domestic politics over the future of a country the United States once claimed to have “liberated.”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that Iraqis are responding to Trump’s pardons with derision and anger. They know their lives are not cheap and demand accountability. Iraqis today are much less inclined to submit to the dominant power of U.S. forces. 

In 2001, former President George W. Bush addressed the nation and asked: “Why do they hate us?” He believed it was because people in the Middle East hated “democracy and freedom.” But this is precisely what Iraqis are looking for: justice under democracy and freedom. Freedom to live and freedom to pursue criminals responsible for the human rights abuses they have committed.

After the unlawful assassination of Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani almost exactly one year ago, the Iraqi parliament enacted binding legislation ordering all U.S. forces to leave the country. After January, there will still be 2,500 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. 

Though Nisour Square was 13 years ago, the release of the Blackwater guards from prison opened up old wounds for the families of those killed and memories of all the indignities and pain suffered by innocent Iraqis at that time. I was there, and I saw it first hand. If anything, Trump’s pardons will strengthen the resolve of Iraqis to see every last one go.


An Iraqi boy cries as he is questioned by U.S. soldiers during a raid, searching for illegal weapons inside his house, in Baghdad August 3, 2005. REUTERS/Andrea Comas ACO/JJ
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.