News Embedded Journalists - AP Reporter Shooting Rehash

[russ_watters]

Interestingly, there was an effective solution to this in the dim prehistory of mankind: pre cell-phone. The idea was that each group of combatants would wear uniform attire - we could even call it a "uniform", so that the other side would be able to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.

Hard to imagine, I know.

I get all of the dripping sarcasm at the obviousness of this, but it still boggles my mind that many people don't get it. Let's make it clearer, though:

The Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949, laid out the rules for protection of civilians. Going in the order I'm finding them, first is the issue of attacking civilian hospitals - but they really have to be civilian hospitals, not fronts for military compounds:

Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.

The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.

In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.

Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Here's where it says that the side holding or operating among civilians is responsible for their safety and that they may not be used as human shields:

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.

Those are the most relevant to this situation. Journalists are civilians and they are afforded protection when not intermixed with combatants. Legally, their presence does not alter the equation: It does not force an attacker to avoid shooting at a group of soldiers with civilians among them.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/380?opendocument

The important thing about uniforms, ID and hiding amongst civilians is that it is that soldiers are required to wear uniforms and carry ID or they lose their rights as POWs: hence the "unlawful combatants" at Gitmo:

But State practice95 and jurisprudence96 indicate clearly that combatants
who do not distinguish themselves from the civilian population while
engaged in an attack or in a military operation prior to an attack shall forfeit
their rights as prisoners of war. During the First and Second World Wars,
armed persons who were captured not wearing uniforms, were often executed
on the spot as they were not considered to be combatants, but outlaws.97...

The failure of a combatant to distinguish himself from the civilian population
is certainly a breach of the law of war, but may even constitute perfidy.
99 In particular, the wearing of civilian clothes as a disguise to kill, wound
or capture the enemy is considered perfidious.100 Acts of perfidy may moreover
be punished as war crimes.101

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5ZBE5X/$File/IRRC_853_Pfanner.pdf

At some point, people decided it wasn't fair to treat different captured combatants differently and so removed this incentive.

Note, while people today seem to have forgotten what wars are like, that incentive has not actually been removed from the law, it has only been adjusted in public opinion, for modern sensibilities.

 

[russ_watters]

What's your point here? Are you criticizing America because its enemies don't wear uniforms?...

Sarcasm - You missed it.

 

[russ_watters]

Many of these people ARE civilians defending their home country against a foreign invading force.

That's a contradiction in terms and a big part of the point of this thread is informing people that that double-edged sword is theirs to carry, not the US's.

 

[Evo]

This is a military operation. Sometimes, you have to make a decision (determined by operational intel and the RoE) to not shoot everything in sight with the knowledge that such inaction may mean that all your friends will be dead. Tough, but that's war - it cuts both ways.

That goes with my next sentence.

The men in the helicopter were in contact with the base, waited for orders, and acted appropriately.

 

[russ_watters]

My point is - did the journalists decide to join the insurgents, or were the journalists simply there independantly?

How are "join the insurgents" and "there independently" different from each other? It isn't like the journalists happened to be walking past the insurgents when they got shot. They were walking together.

To take a less contentious example. At a protest rally in the US/Eu - some photographers will be from the BBC/CNN/Fox etc, they will know the police and have a relationship with them (especially Fox) and be able to pass through the police lines.

There will also be independent or unaccredited journalists photographing both the demonstrators and the police, these are regarded by the police as on the protester's side and are targeted for arrests and confiscations.

If reporters are wearing ID, I don't see how it could be legal to arrest them. Regardless, this has nothing to do with how reporters are dealt with in a war. You're drawing false comparisons.

Would democracy be improved if only government approved journalists were allowed to report on domestic demonstrations?

No, as long as journalists are identifiable, they should be protected. But again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Accredatation doesn't have any bearing on their status in war whatsoever. They are civilians either way and if they are in a battle, they can get themselves shot.

My point is that the US military are attempting to paint any journalists that aren't under their control as effectively enemy agents.

No, they are not!

 

[mgb_phys]

Could you explain what relevance in improper shooting in essentially a police situation has to a battle in a war?

Legally they are exactly the same.
The US is NOT at war with Iraq, in June 2004 control of the country was handed over to an interim government. The US and coalition troops are helping with security in a country where there are a number of terrorist attacks by people who do not like that government or the US presence.

This is exactly the same position as British troops in Northern Ireland - presumably if the Brits were to solve the problem by calling in air strikes on the Falls Road there would be similar international objections, quite a lot of it from parts of the USA.

 

[Gokul43201]

That goes with my next sentence.

It does. Since I am not familiar with the details of the helicopter situation I have no opinion on that matter. I was just making what was perhaps an obvious point about sometimes having to make the choice that means all your friends are dead.

 

[russ_watters]

Legally they are exactly the same.

I don't see how they are anywhere close to the same, so you're really going to have to explain it clearly.

The US is NOT at war with Iraq, in June 2004 control of the country was handed over to an interim government.

Well except insofar as Iraq is embroiled in a civil war!

The US and coalition troops are helping with security in a country where there are a number of terrorist attacks by people who do not like that government or the US presence.

That's a mischaracterization of the reality that this is active combat, not just random terrorist attacks.

This is exactly the same position as British troops in Northern Ireland...

No, it really isn't. Your characterization applies to the situation in Ireland where the soldiers are effectively acting as police. It does not apply to an active war zone.

...presumably if the Brits were to solve the problem by calling in air strikes on the Falls Road there would be similar international objections, quite a lot of it from parts of the USA.

Certainly, there would. When the incident you are talking about happened, Ireland was not an active war zone and treating it as an active war zone would be inappropriate!

 

[Evo]

It does. Since I am not familiar with the details of the helicopter situation I have no opinion on that matter. I was just making what was perhaps an obvious point about sometimes having to make the choice that means all your friends are dead.

Agreed. I abhor war, I don't like what happens, I hate that we are in this position, both in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and that's a whole other can of worms. I spoke with someone Sunday that actually didn't know that the CIA trained and armed the Taliban to fight the Russians. Like I said to them, your enemies enemies are not your friends.

 

[russ_watters]

I looked into this matter. I do not believe that the US presented evidence that the group with the AP reporters were insurgents.

You're going to have to explain that a little more how far you looked, Astronuc, because unless you choose to believe the government is just plain lying about it (in which case there really isn't anything to discuss and you can believe literally anything you want), the video itself shows insurgents openly carrying weapons and weapons were found at the scene afterwards. The military reports are completely unambiguous and contain pictures!
First report:

Having positively identified personnel with weapons, AWT maneuvered to engage...

Only after an extensive review of the AWT's gun-camera video and with knowledge of the two missing media personnel, is it reasonable to deduce that two of the individuals intermixed among the insurgents located in the engagement area may have been reporters. There was neither reason nor probability to assume that neutral media personnel were embedded with enemy forces.

Second report:

The first elements of Bravo Company, 2-16 Infantry arrive on scene and begin to secure the area. They discover two RPGs and an AK-47 or AKM among the group of insurgents clustered near the wall. They also discovered two Canon EOS digital cameras with large telephoto lenses attached in the immediate vicinity of the bodies...

The photos of the insurgent weapons lying as found are shown on page 38 of the second report.

Both reports are linked here:
http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View=%7B41BA1AAF-785A-481A-A630-12470AFCD6FD%7D

This is all covered in the very first post in the previous thread. So please be clear, Astronuc: are you claiming the military report is a lie/fabrication? Based on what evidence?

This seems to imply that you do:

Is it conceivable that the investigation of the incident by the US is flawed. Certainly. It is the same organization that covered up the killing of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, as well as some recent deaths.

Well if you want to generate your own conspiracy theory, Astronuc, that's up to you, but you know full well that our guidelines do not permit that here.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What's your point here?

Let me try and be clearer.

It's to the advantage of a combatant to be able to blend in among civilians. It's to the disadvantage of civilians to permit this.

The solution brought forth for this in the Geneva Conventions is to provide an incentive for combatants to be easily distinguishable from civilians and thereby protect civilians. In recent years, there has been a movement to provide these same incentives to all combatants, irrespective of the combatant's behavior. A predictable outcome of this is increased civilian casualties.

 

[Jack21222]

That's a contradiction in terms and a big part of the point of this thread is informing people that that double-edged sword is theirs to carry, not the US's.

Do you mean to tell me that if a foreign power invaded your country, you'd go out to a military surplus store and buy a uniform when you decide to resist? The expectation that the Iraqis need to do so seems a bit far-fetched.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you mean to tell me that if a foreign power invaded your country, you'd go out to a military surplus store and buy a uniform when you decide to resist? The expectation that the Iraqis need to do so seems a bit far-fetched.

I'm not really sure what I'd do but I would at least recognize that the consequences of my decisions are mine to bear.

 

[Bystander]

(snip: reporters pick up Darwin Awards more often than they do Pulitzers in combat zones)

An extension of this issue is the general double-standard that follows the US around. The US is held to an extrordinary high standard, and reasonably so. When people perceive it falling short, it gets hit hard in world public opinion. That's improper, imo, because it ignores the enormous disparity between how we operate vs how our enemies operate. If people recognized just how wide the gap was and recognized that we put serious effort into being "good", then occasional shortfalls wouldn't be met with such vitrol from the international community as we saw in the last few years. (snip: jus gentium, jus ad bellum, jus in bellum, Geneva, Hague, "do unto others ...," are seldom applied with any more finesse than that seen in kindergartens (He hit me back first!))

"Reasonably?" No, we are not "chosen," we are not "The Justice League," we are not "Peter Parker."

"Shortfalls?" "Have-nots" resent "Haves" regardless of the grace, equanimity, philanthropy, blah-blah-blah exhibited by the "Haves" toward the "Have-nots." Fear is not respect, but it is a point from which social interactions can proceed; contempt for reluctance to exercise strength, when perceived by the "Have-nots" as a weakness, or lack of resolution, is not. The obsession with "hearts and minds" as a more easily achieved strategic goal than overwhelming an indigenous population with material superiority and depending on Stockholm syndrome, envy of possessions and options, and just plain greed to force assimilation of more modern views of the world didn't work in SE Asia. (Paraphrase: forced assimilation beats "hearts and minds" every time.)

International law, Hague and Geneva conventions bind all belligerents ONLY so long as they consider themselves bound. The conflicts in SW Asia are particularly ugly in this respect --- there is no European/Western cultural tradition regarding warfare --- therefore, no international law.

"Double standard?" You betcha. Are the domestic advocates of blind adherence to "rules" the opposition holds in contempt seditionists? Probably just brainwashed by Hollywood.

You might want to dig up A Study of War, Quincy Wright, http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=toc&isbn=9780226910017 is a quick table of contents, for an outline of the international law and politics, and a 70-80 old liberal/anti-war perspective on the future of war, international law governing war, and other pipe dreams.

 

[talk2glenn]

Agreed. I abhor war, I don't like what happens, I hate that we are in this position, both in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and that's a whole other can of worms. I spoke with someone Sunday that actually didn't know that the CIA trained and armed the Taliban to fight the Russians. Like I said to them, your enemies enemies are not your friends.

This is urban legend. There is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and the official position of the government is that it did not. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

The Afghani militia groups financed and armed by the Agency in the early 80's pre-date the emergence of the Taliban by roughly a decade, and they would have been much more closely associated with the tribal groups and local warlords which the Taliban ultimately overthrew.

 

[ThomasT]

I'd like to do a quick rehash of the AP reporter shooting incident, pointing out an issue I don't think was adequately covered in previous discussions: the double-standard of responsibility that always hits the US hard.

Previous thread here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2658357
Note: the first thread on the subject quickly spiraled out of control due to counterfactual characterization of the events and was locked. The above linked thread was the second thread on the subject.

The relevant facts of the incident are:
1. Two Iraqi national, AP acredited reporters were killed by a US helicopter gunship.
2. These reporters had embedded themselves with insurgents.
3. The helicopter pilots/gunners correctly identified insurgent weapons (which were later recovered at the site) and incorrectly identified the AP reporters' cameras as weapons.
4. After the initial shooting, a van carrying children drove up to assist the injured and was fired upon, injuring several children.

From the standpoint of a gunner in a helicpoter, the situation that presented itself was crystal clear: armed insurgents = legitimate targets. The mistaken ID element muddies the water for some, but it does not change the tactical equation. What it does is add the element of propaganda, which is how this incident has been used. So if the AP reporters had been properly ID'd, it may have been prudent to disregard their mandate as soldiers and allow these insurgents to go unattacked. However, these insurgents were apparently trying to position themselves to attack a group of infantry nearby, so even if the AP reporters had been properly identified, there is a good chance the group still would have been fired upon.

The AP reporters were embedded journalists. Embedded journalists sometimes die - that's an occupational hazard that they choose to accept. In this case, the reporters imprudently chose to embed themselves with the side of the conflict with the most risk. That was their choice and their deaths are therefore their own fault.

I don't know the details of this situation. But, I don't think they should matter that much. It sounds like an honest accident to me. So, what's the big deal? If you're a reporter and you choose to go into an active war zone, then there's a very good chance that you'll die. Period. We send very young men into combat, tell them to kill people, and then nitpick about where and when they shoot the weapons we give them. Am I missing something here?

 

[lisab]

I don't know the details of this situation. But, I don't think they should matter that much. It sounds like an honest accident to me. So, what's the big deal? If you're a reporter and you choose to go into an active war zone, then there's a very good chance that you'll die. Period. We send very young men into combat, tell them to kill people, and then nitpick about where and when they shoot the weapons we give them. Am I missing something here?

No, I don't think you're missing a thing. I think the reaction some people have to the video is perhaps due to them not really getting what war is all about.

But this video does give an excellent reason why citizens must be so, so careful before they decide for their country to go to war: innocents* will die. The cause for war had dang well better be worth it.

* Refers to people who live in the war zone, not necessarily to reporters who make a choice to go into harm's way.

 

[Gokul43201]

We send very young men into combat, tell them to kill people, and then nitpick about where and when they shoot the weapons we give them. Am I missing something here?

Yes, you're missing the simple fact that virtually everything depends on this "where and when they shoot the weapons that we give them". Sending someone to a war zone does not give them the license to go about shooting off their weapons wherever and whenever they want! Establishing and following rules of engagement, and using human and other intelligence to verify the nature of your targets is not nitpicking.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)... , and using human and other intelligence to verify the nature of your targets is not nitpicking.

Troops in contact do not have the time to dial up Kenny Kingston or Madame Cleo; hot contact, movement in "that" direction, fire from "that" direction, no known friendlies in "that" direction? Shoot!

 

[Office_Shredder]

Troops in contact do not have the time to dial up Kenny Kingston or Madame Cleo; hot contact, movement in "that" direction, fire from "that" direction, no known friendlies in "that" direction? Shoot!

That's not what he's talking about. If a soldier just kicked down a door of a house and killed everyone inside because he thought maybe there was a terrorist hiding there, will you accept the excuse

We send very young men into combat, tell them to kill people, and then nitpick about where and when they shoot the weapons we give them

It's just nitpicking who he's killing!

Obviously that's an extreme, but you chose the other extreme, so it's fair play

 

[Bystander]

That's not what he's talking about. If a soldier just kicked down a door of a house and killed everyone inside because he thought maybe there was a terrorist hiding there, will you accept the excuse



It's just nitpicking who he's killing!

Obviously that's an extreme, but you chose the other extreme, so it's fair play

The thread is about two journalists picking up Darwin Awards, not Vietnam era liberal draftees turned Manson family members --- it's exactly what he's talking about.

 

[Gokul43201]

The thread is about two journalists picking up Darwin Awards, not Vietnam era liberal draftees turned Manson family members --- it's exactly what he's talking about.

The thread may be about a specific situation ... and it's a situation I'm not sufficiently familiar with, therefore choose not to comment on anything related to those specifics.

But the poster I responded to made a much more general statement: "We send very young men into combat, tell them to kill people, and then nitpick about where and when they shoot the weapons we give them."

It was this statement that my response was directed at, not any specific situation.

 

[ThomasT]

But this video does give an excellent reason why citizens must be so, so careful before they decide for their country to go to war: innocents* will die. The cause for war had dang well better be worth it.

Since when is it the citizens of a country who decide for their country to go to war? I simultaneously envy and abhor your apparent naiveness. If it was up to us, the people, would we have invaded Vietnam? Would we have invaded Iraq? I don't know. I'm just asking. All I know is that nobody asked me -- and I thought that both of those actions were based on bad ideas/decisions.

 

[Cyrus]

Since when is it the citizens of a country who decide for their country to go to war? I simultaneously envy and abhor your apparent naiveness. If it was up to us, the people, would we have invaded Vietnam? Would we have invaded Iraq? I don't know. I'm just asking. All I know is that nobody asked me -- and I thought that both of those actions were based on bad ideas/decisions.

Your say in the war comes through your vote of your senator in the house and senate.

 

[ThomasT]

Yes, you're missing the simple fact that virtually everything depends on this "where and when they shoot the weapons that we give them". Sending someone to a war zone does not give them the license to go about shooting off their weapons wherever and whenever they want!

I agree. And my previous post was not sufficiently qualified.

Establishing and following rules of engagement, and using human and other intelligence to verify the nature of your targets is not nitpicking.

And, of course, I can't really disagree with this either. But here's the thing. We place young people, very young people, into situations where they have to make split-second decisions regarding whether to shoot or not to shoot -- at other people. I don't know your personal history, but unless you've been in a situation like that I think that it's very very difficult to even imagine what it's like. I'm assuming of course that you, and the people who currently populate our armed forces, are generally the sorts of people that most of us would consider to be conscientious and caring people.

I'm just making two points:
(1) Journalists who choose (in fact anybody who chooses) to go into combat should expect to be injured or killed.
(2) If a kid makes a mistake or a wrong decision in an unimaginably (to most people) difficult momentary situation (a subset of an encompassing decision, by him, which might eventually put his life on the line for what he, at the time he made the encompassing decision, thought to be a greater good), then do we nail him to the wall for it? Do we ruin his life as well? Ok, it depends on the circumstances. But in this particular case, from what I've read so far, it was an honest mistake.

If you want to hold somebody accountable, then look to, and at, the very few people who are actually responsible for these 'wars' in the first place -- and that's where I'm going to leave this discussion.

 

[ThomasT]

Your say in the war comes through your vote of your senator in the house and senate.

Right. So I have no say in the war. The people do not make the decision. The house and senate are populated by politicians -- a notoriously, and necessarily, corrupt group of individuals. This is a country of more than 300 million (that's million) individuals -- most of whom didn't vote for either the members of the house or the senate, or for the president. We're taken to war by a handful of individuals. A very few people in the house, senate, cabinet, and adminstration actually decide and determine the courses of action that the US will take. These are not necessarily the most honorable people among us (or the best courses of action for the country, or the world). In fact, most probably not. But they are the ones making the decisions that will affect the lives of not just US citizens, but millions of people throughout the world.

So, what can we do about it. Well, to start with, stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. And, if that's all that's on the ballot, then write someone in.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can't speak for the specific situation here, but regarding this statement (emphasis mine):

I'm assuming of course that you, and the people who currently populate our armed forces, are generally the sorts of people that most of us would consider to be conscientious and caring people.

All it takes is a small minority of bad apples[1] to create the situations that do require investigation and prosecution. Odds are the people you pass everyday on the streets are also generally the kind that most would consider conscientious and caring. But crimes still happen. And when they do, it is in our interest to investigate and prosecute them. An assumption of carte blanche innocence is not helpful. If an investigation shows that the act was a result of an honest mistake that most anyone else in the situation would have made, then so be it, but if it reveals more than that, then the necessary punishment is in order. The important thing though is that you do investigate and prosecute actions that are potentially damaging. "You're just a young kid that we give guns to and send you out to kill people" ought not to be any part of the argument in determining whether an event in the field requires investigation and/or trial.

1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89702118

 

[Cyrus]

Right. So I have no say in the war. The people do not make the decision. The house and senate are populated by politicians -- a notoriously, and necessarily, corrupt group of individuals. This is a country of more than 300 million (that's million) individuals -- most of whom didn't vote for either the members of the house or the senate, or for the president. We're taken to war by a handful of individuals. A very few people in the house, senate, cabinet, and adminstration actually decide and determine the courses of action that the US will take. These are not necessarily the most honorable people among us (or the best courses of action for the country, or the world). In fact, most probably not. But they are the ones making the decisions that will affect the lives of not just US citizens, but millions of people throughout the world.

So, what can we do about it. Well, to start with, stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. And, if that's all that's on the ballot, then write someone in.

How you can you sit there and complain about 'not having any say' in the war, when you can directly vote these people out of office - gimme a break. If the majority of people don't vote but only complain, they really ought to just keep their opinions to themselves... The US is not a direct democracy.

 

[ThomasT]

I can't speak for the specific situation here, but regarding this statement (emphasis mine):All it takes is a small minority of bad apples[1] to create the situations that do require investigation and prosecution. Odds are the people you pass everyday on the streets are also generally the kind that most would consider conscientious and caring. But crimes still happen. And when they do, it is in our interest to investigate and prosecute them. An assumption of carte blanche innocence is not helpful. If an investigation shows that the act was a result of an honest mistake that most anyone else in the situation would have made, then so be it, but if it reveals more than that, then the necessary punishment is in order. The important thing though is that you do investigate and prosecute actions that are potentially damaging. "You're just a young kid that we give guns to and send you out to kill people" ought not to be any part of the argument in determining whether an event in the field requires investigation and/or trial.

I can't disagree with anything you've said here. I was one of those 'bad apples'.

What I wanted to emphasize was the fact that we never hold the people who make the decisions that result in the unnecessary ruination of millions of lives accountable. And, I sincerely think that we should, as a people, collectively, at least think seriously about how we might do that.

Anyway, I'll repeat my mantra. Stop voting for Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Gokul43201]

Right. So I have no say in the war.

I wouldn't go so far.

It was the huge support among the electorate[1] for a war in Iraq that, IMO, made it all possible. I don't think, for instance, that the Dems would have caved and signed on to the Iraq War Resolution bill if they hadn't calculated that objecting would make them look wimpy to a constituency that was still demanding revenge[2] for 9/11. If there had not been a 9/11, it would have been a whole lot harder for the Bush admin to sell the idea of the necessity of war in Iraq to the people, and hence to Congress. It would also have been much harder to enlist recruits[3].

1. 72% of public support war in Iraq (March 2003) - Pew Research
2. Poll shows 69% of public believe Saddam personally involved in 9/11 attack - Washington Post
3. 90% or troops serving in Iraq think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11 - Zogby