Shakedown gone bad?

Something reeks about the Iraqi Interior Ministry's announcement that it has pulled the permit of the Blackwater security company to operate in Iraq.

The Interior Ministry never issued such a permit to begin with. Blackwater and other firms have been providing security services in Iraq under terms set by the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and grandfathered in after the new Iraqi government took power. The operational item, CPA Order No. 17, became Iraqi law. The ministry has no say in the matter.

The controversy smells like political warfare-style retaliation after a failed shakedown. The spectacularly corrupt Iraqi Interior Ministry probably tried to get the company to pay millions in fake "license fees" and found that Blackwater doesn't pay bribes. Even Al Jazeera says in its Blackwater reporting that the Americans have no confidence in the Iraqi police, who are under Interior Ministry authority.

Time will tell about the exact circumstances of the September 16 attack on the State Department convoy and the subsequent shootout. But the versions coming from the Iraqi Interior Ministry and the US side differ markedly. The Interior Ministry says that Blackwater personnel shot people without provocation. A US government report obtained by Time magazine says otherwise.

According to the US report, gunmen ambushed the State Department motorcade "from several locations." The Blackwater security team "returned fire to several identified targets" and left the area after gunmen shot into the engine of one of its vehicles. Iraqi units then tried to prevent a second convoy from coming in and helping the stricken Blackwater team: the convoy was "blocked/surrounded by several Iraqi police and Iraqi national guard vehicles and armed personnel."

Now the Iraqi government is demanding that the US fire Blackwater and hire a new company for Iraq security.

Was the Interior Ministry's quick denunciation of Blackwater and its fake announcement that it had pulled a nonexistent permit simply retaliation against a company that won't pay off crooked officials? It sure looks that way.

That question should be part of any official and unofficial investigations.