So what?

Over at editoriale, no one in particular posts the "revelation" that heightened security surrounding the presence of US ambassador John Negroponte contributed to the circumstances around the shooting of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and intelligence agent Nicola Calipari. To which I can only say, "So what?!"

He blogs from the left, and I know for a fact that he was one of the many who felt no compuction in pointing out all the ways the Bush Administration screwed the pooch in Iraq. The left yelled, screamed, groused and griped every time a US soldier was killed in some new, unexpected form; like running through a check-point and detonating a car-bomb for instance.

Enhanced security--for John Negroponte, Bozo the clown or as part of a new SOP--isn't the salient point here. The AP reported that US forces were not fully informed as to the "mission" surrounding the release of "a hostage" that led to the shooting death of Calipari. Less than informed seems also an apt description of Italian General Mario Marioli, second in command of Italian forces in Iraq.

But I guess it's easier to scream about policies designed to keep American's alive.

UPDATE: Yesterday's Washington Post includes this piece on checkpoints by free-lance journalist Bartle Breese Bull. Written, surprisingly enough, from a free-lance journalists point of view.

Long before the Italian incident, orders had come down that deadly force was to be used only as a last resort -- after the failure of obstacles, then flares or smoke bombs or "star clusters," then warning shots, and finally efforts to take out the oncoming vehicle's engine block. These procedures are real. I have seen our soldiers' reluctance to use force and felt the fear it brings. Car bombs cause 30 percent of military casualties.

But please, let's focus on the non-story part of the story about Negroponte's increased security...