New book revisits 2007 Nisour Square shooting, challenges official account of Blackwater convoy
Gina Keating’s 'Raven 23' contends that key elements of the government’s narrative about the Blackwater incident were false, reviving debate over the conduct and prosecution of U.S. contractors in Iraq
A new book by Gina Keating challenges the accepted account of a September 2007 Baghdad shooting by contractors employed by Blackwater, arguing that many elements of the official narrative were false and that the Department of Justice mishandled the case.
On a hot afternoon in September 2007, a 19-man convoy of four armored Blackwater vehicles entered Nisour Square, one of Baghdad’s busiest and most volatile intersections. What followed — a deadly exchange of gunfire that drew international attention — has since become a defining episode in debates over the role and accountability of private security contractors in Iraq.
Keating, in Raven 23: How the Department of Justice Betrayed American Heroes (Broadside Books), focuses on the team known by the call sign Raven 23 and zeroes in on a white Kia that Iraqi police said refused to stop as the convoy attempted to secure the intersection. According to the book as summarized in recent reporting, the contractors maintained the Kia’s driver ignored repeated warnings and accelerated toward them in a manner they interpreted as consistent with a vehicle-borne suicide bomber. Several team members told investigators they believed they were under imminent threat and opened fire.
The shooting set off an international firestorm and a yearslong legal battle that cast a long shadow over Blackwater, the private security firm later renamed and restructured. Keating’s book asserts that "nearly every 'fact' in the official story was a lie," and its subtitle accuses the Department of Justice of betraying the men of Raven 23. The account renews scrutiny of the evidence, witness statements and prosecutorial decisions that followed the incident.
The Nisour Square episode prompted U.S. investigations and prosecutions, produced diplomatic tension with Iraqi authorities and intensified public debate in the United States over the oversight of armed contractors hired to protect diplomatic and civilian convoys in conflict zones. Over the years that followed the shooting, some contractors were indicted and prosecuted in U.S. courts, and the incident has been cited by critics calling for clearer rules of engagement and stronger accountability mechanisms for private security personnel.
Government and legal records, media accounts and witness testimony have not always aligned, and Keating’s book enters a contested field of differing recollections and interpretations. Supporters of the contractors have argued that the men were operating under a reasonable perception of imminent danger in a chaotic environment, while critics have pointed to the civilian casualties and questioned whether the use of deadly force was justified.
The Nisour Square shooting remains a flashpoint in assessments of the Iraq War’s security environment and of the legal and moral responsibilities that accompany the privatization of armed services. Keating’s book has brought renewed attention to the episode and to the broader implications of how such incidents are investigated and prosecuted. Readers and analysts observing the renewed debate say the episode highlights persistent tensions between battlefield realities, legal standards and public accountability.
Keating’s narrative adds to a body of reporting and scholarship that examines the intersection of private security operations and U.S. policy in Iraq. The questions it raises about evidence, witness credibility and prosecutorial judgment are likely to reverberate among policymakers, legal experts and veterans’ advocates as the historical record of the Iraq conflict continues to be reexamined.