Marines' pull-out of Fallujah
Pulling out and setting up new forces
As you probably know, the Marines are pulling back and we are setting up a new 'security force' made up of, probably, Sunni Muslims that were in the Elite Brigades (whatever they were called)
Seems to bring up some questions:
1. -Does this imply that the US sees that they need a 'Strong arm' in Iraq on their side? . . .meaning tht re-instating the forces that are hardened to 'keeping order' in Iraq during Saddams 'Reign or Terror' is seen as the best way to stop chaos?
2. -Does this mean that the Sunni's bombed their way into our hearts, and that now we see it thier way?
Meaning that if they are going to continue killing our trained troops then we might as well hire them?
3. -How is this going to sit with the Shia? Are they seeing that we would rather install a Saddam style security force, secular and brutal, rather than keep letting their religion in the picture?
4. -Does this have anything to do with Bremmer saying that we will allow Sunis into the Government?
Hm/ some questions . . . maybe many of which are unfounded . . . but what does this mean to you? Does it raise any eyebrows amoung you?
As you probably know, the Marines are pulling back and we are setting up a new 'security force' made up of, probably, Sunni Muslims that were in the Elite Brigades (whatever they were called)
Seems to bring up some questions:
1. -Does this imply that the US sees that they need a 'Strong arm' in Iraq on their side? . . .meaning tht re-instating the forces that are hardened to 'keeping order' in Iraq during Saddams 'Reign or Terror' is seen as the best way to stop chaos?
2. -Does this mean that the Sunni's bombed their way into our hearts, and that now we see it thier way?
Meaning that if they are going to continue killing our trained troops then we might as well hire them?
3. -How is this going to sit with the Shia? Are they seeing that we would rather install a Saddam style security force, secular and brutal, rather than keep letting their religion in the picture?
4. -Does this have anything to do with Bremmer saying that we will allow Sunis into the Government?
Hm/ some questions . . . maybe many of which are unfounded . . . but what does this mean to you? Does it raise any eyebrows amoung you?
Comments
Seems like it would be pretty easy to reach the conclusion that the US values "security" over "liberation", and if that requires letting the hated Sunni minority put it's foot back on the neck of the country then so be it.
A larger question, perhaps, is just how effective this force will prove to be. If they go nuts and start slaughtering everything in sight, everybody head for your foxholes.
If they do a repeat of the previous US trained security forces, then we're just sending in armed reinforcements for the insurgent ranks.
I'm not very clear on the loyalties within the Fallujah/Sunni/Shia/insurgent tangle these days. Anybody have some insight?
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
I just checked CNN.com and they had no mention of the Marines pulling out of Fallujah.
On Dutch television it was shown onthe 8 o'clock news. It also said that 900 Iraqi troops under command of an ex army general will take control of the city
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
I just checked CNN.com and they had no mention of the Marines pulling out of Fallujah.
AP story, just hitting the wires.
The commander of the new force is Maj. Gen. Jassim Mohammed Saleh, a veteran of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.
Bear the name in mind. Could be the next Saddam. God, everything goes in one stupid circle. Bad guys do bad. Bad guys get rewarded cos its the easiest way out. Bad guys get their own ideas. Bad guys do bad...
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
Bear the name in mind. Could be the next Saddam. God, everything goes in one stupid circle. Bad guys do bad. Bad guys get rewarded cos its the easiest way out. Bad guys get their own ideas. Bad guys do bad...
And such is the usual case with US Foreign Polity (little Kissinger there)
We decide weekly who the current "good guys" and "bad guys" are. Often in situations like these, they become interchangeable. (Your typical "School of the Americas" situation)
Good guys can go bad. Bad guys can become less so. And then there's the real kicker- how well they are working with OUR interests.
Originally posted by Jubelum
And such is the usual case with US Foreign Polity (little Kissinger there)
We decide weekly who the current "good guys" and "bad guys" are. Often in situations like these, they become interchangeable. (Your typical "School of the Americas" situation)
Good guys can go bad. Bad guys can become less so. And then there's the real kicker- how well they are working with OUR interests.
True. There was a time when the US was funding a resistance led by a guy named Osama Bin Laden and now he's enemy number one.
The US is like the big dumb rich bully who pays the little smart kid for the answers for the test. Then he turns around and beats him up for his lunch money the next day. All the while not being able to tell what is right and what is wrong.
You would think, with the long sorry history of arming allies du jour who ended up biting the hand that fed them, we would wise up and be very cautious in picking our friends (it appears to be happening in Afghanistan too).
But I guess the pols figure that short term wins are all that matter, since they'll be out of office by the time the bill comes due.
Originally posted by addabox
You would think, with the long sorry history of arming allies du jour who ended up biting the hand that fed them, we would wise up and be very cautious in picking our friends (it appears to be happening in Afghanistan
too).
Oh, but let's not forget that everyone that pointed out how the warlords were no good and the problems with Rumsfeld's reliance on air-power was "anti-american" and "pro-terrorist."
Originally posted by giant
Oh, but let's not forget that everyone that pointed out how the warlords were no good and Rumsfeld's reliance on air-power was "anti-american" and "pro-terrorist."
Right.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a rational discussion about America's foreign/military policy without the right trying to shut it down with name calling? I honestly think that is the most destructive aspect of contemporary conservatism, this rhetorical "third rail" that has been constructed around any critique of America's use of power.
We end up repeating the scenario that no matter how loopy, ill advised, or straight up unworkable a Republican military adventure may be, saying so immediately gets you labeled as "defeatist" or "anti-American" or "pro-enemy". Then the conversation is about defending your patriotism, instead of debating the merits of the policy.
"Saleh served in Iraq's elite Republican Guards in the 1980s and later commanded the 38th Infantry Division of the Iraqi army.
He was then promoted to head all of the Iraqi army's infantry forces, al-Askari said. His last posting was as a division commander in the al-Quds (Jerusalem) army, which was initially founded to liberate Jerusalem but grew into a vast paramilitary force."
From an immediate, humanitarian point of view, it is good news if it leads to an end to the bombing and sniper fire and the introduction of much needed food and medicine into the city.
From an intermediate point of view, it is good news if it signals the ?beginning of the end? of the American occupation and the ?beginning of the beginning? of a renewal of Iraqi authority. I do have vast doubts, however, that the U.S. administration actually is yet prepared to see this, either in Fallujah or elsewhere in Iraq. We?ll just see. It may take several more months, or years, of death and destruction before a return to Iraqi authority occurs.
From a long-term point of view, if a return to Iraqi authority is in the cards, then this first step could be either good news or very bad news, depending on what it signals - if anything - about the likely nature of the final power structure. I think that an immediate modern democracy is too much to ask for in Iraq. And a democracy on strict Western models may never be realistic, or even preferable ? this is up to the Iraqis. But we at least have to hope for something better than Saddam, who was pretty close to rock-bottom even among dictators.
Finally, from a U.S./world political and strategic point of view, this is very good news if it signals the beginning of a defeat for the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz approach to international affairs and war and makes it less likely that this approach will be ascendant in the future. Immoral, ignorant, assholes.
HERE I guess he is going to be replaced by another General:
But concerns about Saleh's past led to his removal as commander. He will likely be replaced by Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdul-Latif, a former military intelligence officer who was imprisoned by Saddam.
I tink the people's 'vetting' helped remake that decision . . . whcih is a good sign, however, I wonder if the troops will like the idea?
A local source is claiming that 90 percent of the 750 iraqies killed were non-combatants, And the UN are discussing an investigation.
Originally posted by New
And now we're gonna have to have the debate on what the US actually did to Falluja in the days of the siege.
A local source is claiming that 90 percent of the 750 iraqies killed were non-combatants, And the UN are discussing an investigation.
What a sad state . . . that article makes me sad