POST SCRIPTS

if he was taken hostage he did not wish the military to attempt to free him; he didn't get his wish and of course the military got no thanks, from him or his group.

When the military raided the west Baghdad house they found the hostages tied up, but no kidnappers? The Peacemaker's spokesman back in the UK, said they were happy their members were freed, but offered no thanks to the military that freed them. Instead, they blamed the military for a host of problems in Iraq.

From the beginning, there was something not quite right about this kidnapping, it was different from all the previous kidnappings. The clues before us now are... (1) A previously completely unknown group, claimed credit for taking them hostage, almost as if it had been invented to fit the hostage taking. (2) The hostages were not mistreated and were kept in western Baghdad, not the Sunni triangle where hostages are normally taken. (3) Only one hostage was killed, two weeks before they were freed. (4)The hostages were considered "useful fools" for the Sunni's; They supported terrorists via their political rants and the Sunni's are the usual hostage takers. (5) The kidnappers were not present when the house was raided, as if they had been tipped off. (6) The ransom demands were unrealistic, almost as if it was intended they never be met.

Now, lets set this kidnapping aside for a moment and take a look at what we know about the executions going on in and around Baghdad. Stay with me, this will all come together!

The victims were generally the kind of people that would have alerted any good airport security that uses terrorist profiling and to that end, the vast majority of the victims have been Sunni's. They seemed to be systematically rounded up in small groups of the size you might expect for... terrorist cells?

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out the local Shiite's knew who was doing the bombing in Baghdad; they knew where the insurgents and Saddam's Sunni loyalists were located, but most of the one's that know such things are loath to tell American's or coalition forces. They've seen too many terrorists get picked up and then released for a lack of evidence. And they were frustrated by coalition forces who did not want Iraqi's to take any direct action, because they often lacked the high standards of proof the coalition forces demanded. Further, the coalition did not approve of their methods, which usually meant the suspected terrorist never survived interrogation.

Fighting with such civilized restraint, while fighting an enemy that has no rules, is something the average Iraqi just can't understand. Yet, they were almost forced to play along, even as the violence against them mounted. However, there came a time when the Shiite forces were well organized and well trained enough to act autonomously. When the growing acts of terrorism became intolerable and pushed them too far, they reacted.

The Shia used their new resources to fight fire with fire. They began to engage in a guerilla war of their making. But, this one did not involve IED's or hit and run mortar attacks. This was on the level of counter terrorism you might expect coming from the great rule bender, Jack Bauer on TV's "24".

The covert missions began with a subtle knock on the door late at night, by Iraqi's familiar with the neighborhoods and knowing their targets very well. And one by one, the enemy was taken out. The counter terrorism units worked door to door, neighborhood by neighborhood, silently and virtually unnoticed by the coalition. Sunni's and former Fedayene members disappeared into the night only to be found the next morning bound, blindfolded and dead. As many as 20 at one time, indicating a high level of coordinated effort by a large organized unit.

Since these grisly early morning discoveries began, the suicide bombings and the car bombings have slowed...coincidence? The coalition forces believe they must be finally gaining the upper hand and they are, but helped along by an unseen force that they have tried to keep restrained.

It seems pretty clear that someone friendly with the coalition forces and "in-the-know" of high level coalition operations, tipped the kidnappers the night of the hostage raid. This ads to my theory the hostages were not taken by insurgents or Saddam's loyalists. They were more likely taken by forces trying to help us and themselves.

The Peacemakers were damaging the efforts to stop real enemy, the terrorists. They were seen as useful fools to terrorists. To the Shiite forces, they were helping the enemy kill their Shiite friends and families and they had to be stopped.

A plan was developed based on the three ingredients common in every crime, motive, ability and opportunity. And who else had these 3 elements, except for Iraqi's working with the coalition? They were right next to the Peacekeeper Leftists the whole time, they witnessed their actions and they were compelled by what they saw to stop them.

If this was a kidnapping to keep them out of the way, then they had to make unreasonable ransom demands that could not be met to buy time. And they did and the second half of the motive was to scare away other meddling groups with headlines...and they accomplished this too. But, something went wrong, something happened that risked this operation and it resulted in one of the hostages being killed. We may never know exactly what went wrong, but we know they didn't really want to kill their hostages or they would have all been found dead, not just one.

This is why I think the kidnapping of these leftists and the dead bodies that keep turning up in Baghdad's morning light, are probably connected. That's my educated guess.

We need a clear winner in Iraq to run the country and it can't be Saddam's people. We may not approve of these hit squad methods, but the best thing the coalition could do now is stay out of the way.

What do you think?