Reuters TV Reporter Killed By US Fire During Live Baghdad Broadcast

i'm in despair, because it seems that if abu ghraib didn't make a significant dent in the minds of most americans--those majority or near-majority of americans who are convinced that 9/11 and iraq are intimately connected and thus this is a front on the "war on terror" of which bush seems so evidently in charge--i don't know what will. my best guess is that many people choose to believe the narrative that best allows them to filter out "bad news."

To scream "I'm dying!" on-mic after being hit by what was probably 50-cal gunfire is horrifically poignant.

Conway arrived in Iraq in March pledging to accelerate reconstruction projects as a way to subdue Anbar province, dominated by Sunni Muslims. But on March 31 he was confronted in Fallujah with the killing of four U.S. security contractors, whose bodies were mutilated or burned by a celebrating mob. Conway said he resisted calls for revenge, and instead advocated targeted operations and continued engagement with municipal leaders.

"We felt like we had a method that we wanted to apply to Fallujah: that we ought to probably let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking out of revenge," he said in an interview with four journalists after the change-of-command ceremony. "Would our system have been better? Would we have been able to bring over the people of Fallujah with our methods? You'll never know that for sure, but at the time we certainly thought so."

He echoed an argument made by many Iraqi politicians and American analysts -- that the U.S. attack further radicalized a restive city, leading many residents to support the insurgents. "When we were told to attack Fallujah, I think we certainly increased the level of animosity that existed," Conway said.

He would not say where the order to attack originated, only that he received an order from his superior at the time, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the overall commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Some senior U.S. officials in Iraq have said the command originated in the White House.

"We follow our orders," Conway said. "We had our say, and we understood the rationale, and we saluted smartly, and we went about the attack."

The Marine assault on Fallujah in April ended abruptly after three days. Conway expressed displeasure at the order he received from Sanchez to cease offensive operations, a decision that culminated in the formation of the Fallujah Brigade.

"When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that," he said. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed."

Oh joy.

No, it's true. If you want honesty and transparency from your military, that man is to be admired. There are a large number of Americans who believe or delude themselves with the idea that the military is not a blunt instrument. They believe nonsense about precision bombing and technology and measured response.

Everyone should grasp that when a heavy division moves into a city to engage in combat, whether it's the gyrenes or the regular army, the process will be ugly and violent. Buildings will be smashed, the infrastructure will be reduced to ruin, civilians are going to die and there will be a lot of spinning, hot whirling metal going generally in the direction of any suspected enemy.

So the man's being honest. The marines should not be asked to put down an insurrection in a city if the desire -is not- to turn the city into rubble and kill a lot of people. And if the desire is to put down an insurgency, then the cosequences of unleashing the full weight of a unit should be expected.

In terms of journalists dieing on camera, there's also a segment in "Control Room" which shows an air force jet methodically coming for an al Jazeera cameraman on top of a building used by journalists in Baghdad. And I also recall a western journalist -- don't recall if it was an American -- being machine-gunned by an M1 Abrams, catching his own demise camera.

It's truly sickening.

Something's changed. September 11 provided a pretext, but there's something more basic going on. I don't know exactly what it is, what primal breakdown is happening, but everybody on all sides seems increasingly willing -- or determined, even -- to inflict maximum carnage and shrug off the consequences. People are beheaded in downloadable videos. Children are massacred. Because we feel threatened, or angry, or something, Americans are willing to shrug off however many hundreds or thousands of children we've used our tax dollars to "accidentally" execute over the past few years by using our "precision" bombs in densely populated areas. Israelis are willing to do the same to Palestinians. God knows what the Russians will be willing to inflict (if there's anything left that they haven't inflicted) on the Chechens. And on the other side of all those equations, more beheadings, more bombs on buses and in schools and cafes and shopping malls, more planes blown up, because that becomes the only dialogue, the call and response of blood for blood for blood.

And the thing is that John Kerry should be the right guy at the right time to present the counterargument, because he's seen it and he's made the argument before. Except that what we really need is the John Kerry of 1971, and the John Kerry of 2004 is himself far enough removed that he's not even sure anymore. And even if uncertainty is a reasonable response to the current situation, and vastly preferable to the black gory certainty of the current ruling clique, it's a hard sell.

And I dont know what to think.

Has anyone here linked to Chris Allbritton's blog? A freelancer working out of Baghdad:

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/

Ammo.

what primal breakdown is happening

Nuclear go boom. (A relative suggested that we turn Iraq into glass if "they won't behave." How fucked is that?)

Except that what we really need is the John Kerry of 1971, and the John Kerry of 2004 is himself far enough removed that he's not even sure anymore.

A commentatator on the radio the other day made the point that the '71 Kerry was necessary because none of the "responsible adults" who made Vietnam happen would step up and admit that grave errors had been and continued to be made at the time. That Kerry was either conscientious or opportunistic enough to give voice to what those in the Administration and in Congress knew well enough. Those parties had too much at stake to bear witness, as Kerry probably does now. I don't expect him to "that guy" again.