Kind of the reverse of the initial war, when many soldiers dropped their guns like hot potatoes and became civilians.

It is critical to judge these stories carefully. Notice how many items in stories like this are the result of some Iraqi coming up and saying something to the news guy. Is he telling the truth? Does he know the truth? "Witnesses" say this and that. Really? Remember what the "witnesses" said about the attack on those two soldiers, describing acts of mutilation and abuse that apparently never occurred?

So because a bystander claims "civilians" were fighting, does this make it true? Or any of the other "facts" that have no other corroboration? Is it in the interest of the Baathists to tell a particular story, like claiming massive civilian support?

The media will swallow any story like a bass swallows a frog, if it makes America look bad in some way. Remember the "poison gas in Vietnam" debacle?

Just be careful, especially when a story is still fresh.

Also, it should be noted that the mission this convoy was on was delivering a huge load of cash. There may have been motives to this attack that stem from something other than Iraqi love of country and hatred of the foreigner.