Nisour Square and the Raven 23 Incident
In September 2007, a convoy of 19 people, comprised of four armored Blackwater trucks, found itself in Nisour Square, one of Baghdad’s most chaotic intersections. What transpired there would ignite an international outcry and years of legal battles, branding four American contractors with the call sign Raven 23 as war criminals.
According to Gina Keating in her book, “Raven 23: How the Department of Justice Betrayed American Heroes,” this incident has become one of the most notorious events of the Iraq War. However, she claims that nearly every detail in the official narrative is false.
The focus of much of the controversy? A white Kia.
An Iraqi police officer at the scene reported that the Raven 23 team, hired by Blackwater USA, refused to halt despite warnings, as they were trying to secure the intersection. The Kia driver ignored several alerts and drove toward them in a manner similar to suicide bombers heading toward potential targets.
This led some team members to feel they were under immediate threat, prompting them to fire their weapons. The ensuing chaos resulted in the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians, including two children, and severely strained U.S.-Iraqi diplomatic relations.
Initially, the U.S. government labeled the event an unprovoked massacre, portraying Raven 23 as reckless mercenaries firing indiscriminately. Yet, Keating contends that the reality was quite different.
She asserts that the government concocted a false narrative of bloodthirsty mercenaries running rampant in Baghdad, one that lacked a factual basis. In an exclusive interview, Keating described the lengths to which the authorities went, from hiding evidence to pressuring witnesses.
The four main individuals involved—Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Paul Slough, and Nick Slatten—had military backgrounds before joining Blackwater. Slough had multiple combat tours, while Liberty, a former Marine security guard, upheld discipline amidst the chaos of Baghdad. Heard was known for maintaining composure under stress, and the youngest, Slatten, had a background with the 82nd Airborne.
Contrary to the perception that they were mercenaries operating without oversight, Keating indicates they were tasked with ensuring the safety of State Department officials. Their job involved managing security protocols and reacting swiftly to threats in an environment rife with danger.
Reflecting on the incident, Slough stated, “I don’t know anything different that day I could have done.” He maintained that they acted according to their training. What started as a security measure spiraled into a political scandal, as the men were recast as rogue gunmen to appease the furious Iraqi government and the U.S. State Department.
Keating pointed out that the timing was particularly unfortunate; the U.S. was grappling with disillusionment over the Iraq War, and lawmakers sought explanations for why the situation remained dire.
The initial sign of misconduct occurred when a source leaked a protected statement to the media weeks after the incident. This breach began a sustained campaign of blame from both major political parties.
With mid-term elections on the horizon and public support for the war waning, the Raven 23 incident became a convenient scapegoat—a distraction from the harsh realities facing Iraq.
During congressional hearings, rather than questioning the decision-making of the contractors in a war zone, some lawmakers focused on corporate profits, framing the issue as a matter of taxpayer concern.
The media coverage often overlooked the complexities of the contractors’ actions or the chaotic realities of Baghdad, instead boiling the situation down to easily digestible headlines. As a result, the contractors were transformed from veterans into symbols that evoked little sympathy.
Keating highlighted the challenges in reporting the story, which included abnormal technical issues such as phone disruptions and pushback for her moral stance. Eventually, all four men were convicted in 2014, with Slatten receiving a charge of first-degree murder, while others were found guilty of manslaughter and firearm offenses.
Though President Trump pardoned them in December 2020, their years of lost freedom and the damage done could not be restored.
“This trial was a facade, serving multiple agendas,” Slough reflected. He shared his disillusionment, feeling that the government not only lied to the public but had a long history of doing so.
