PDA

View Full Version : 50% of Iraqi security forces have quit or fought against US



Skullknight
04-21-2004, 05:09 PM
General: Much of Iraq's Forces Have Quit

WASHINGTON - About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces "actually worked against" U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation, the commander of the 1st Armored Division said Wednesday.

In an interview beamed by satellite from Baghdad to news executives attending The Associated Press annual meeting, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey said the campaign in Iraq was at a critical point.

"We have to get this latest increase in violence under control," Dempsey said. "We have to take a look at the Iraqi security forces and learn why they walked."

The militia violence aggravated underlying troubles in Iraq's new military and police forces — the unfulfilled desire for "some Iraqi hierarchy in which to place their trust and confidence" and a reluctance by Iraqis to take up arms against their countrymen, Dempsey said.

"It's very difficult at times to convince them that Iraqis are killing fellow Iraqis and fellow Muslims, because it's something they shouldn't have to accept," he said. "Over time I think they will probably have to accept it."

The failure of Iraqi security forces to perform is significant because it could hurt the United States' overall exit strategy from Iraq, which is dependent on moving U.S. troops out of the cities and handing authority to Iraqis. Officials have said the U.S. military would delay its withdrawal from parts of Iraq until Iraqi forces were ready to take control.

In one example of the problems, on April 5, a newly created Iraqi army battalion of several hundred soldiers refused to join U.S. Marines in their offensive against insurgents in the city of Fallujah.

Dempsey maintained in the interview that popular support for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is still "very solid."

But he acknowledged "a form of descending consent" for the U.S. military presence occurring among Iraqis as time passes.

"There is a point where it doesn't matter how well we're doing, it won't be accepted that we have a large military presence here," he said. "We're all working very diligently trying to figure out where that point is."

Dempsey was asked about the remarks of two other U.S. commanders who questioned the wisdom of banning former Baath Party members from government jobs when their skills are needed in the reconstruction effort.

"History is going to have to decide whether that was right or not," he said.

Dempsey recalled receiving a warning from Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah that the coalition forces would find it tough to bring order to Iraq after dissolving the country's only two powerful institutions — the army and the Baath Party.

"So part of me says our jobs may have been easier had we just found a way to keep some of the Baath Party in place," Dempsey said, echoing comments by Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste and Brig. Gen. Carter F. Ham published in The New York Times on Wednesday.

But Dempsey added: "On the other hand, the entire part of the population that was disenfranchised during these 35 years, largely the Shiite population, absolutely has no trust in any former member of the Baath Party. So we found ourselves exactly in the middle of this."

On the security forces, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said he is sending Maj. Gen. David Petraeus back to Iraq to oversee the training and equipping of all Iraqi security forces, including those who had been the responsibility of the State Department or the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Dempsey said efforts are under way to ensure Iraqi security forces that there will be Iraqi authorities in place to back them up after U.S. troops leave.

During the recent militia attacks, "about 50 percent of the security forces that we've built over the past year stood tall and stood firm," he said.

"About 40 percent walked off the job because they were intimidated. And about 10 percent actually worked against us," said Dempsey, describing that group as infiltrators.

Dempsey commands the Army division in charge of Baghdad. He has been in Iraq for more than a year, focusing on intelligence gathering and combatting terrorism as he works to help Iraqi security forces take over those tasks.

mustamato
04-21-2004, 05:15 PM
I wonder what Nelson would say about this.

http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Fox/Simpsons/Nelson_Muntz_300.gif

Skullknight
04-21-2004, 05:18 PM
Talk about a failure. I didn't realize how insane the idea of some sort of sovereignty handover was until now. Bremer must be one of the worst occupying adminstrators of all time. Firstly, he dissolved Iraq's army which many percieved at the time to be a massive mistake. It bought him a few months of "feel good" time, and now he is paying the price for that decision. The US, Europe, and the Middle East will soon see similar ripples from any rushed decision by the Coalition and their unwillingness to confront the insurgency at hand.

fdt
04-21-2004, 05:18 PM
I wonder what Nelson would say about this.

http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Fox/Simpsons/Nelson_Muntz_300.gifDon't know what would this nelson say, but THE Nelson could say: As You have one arm and one eye (in both cases it's 50%) You can still be able to win a few battles and wars.... p-)

fdt
04-21-2004, 05:23 PM
Talk about a failure. I didn't realize how insane the idea of some sort of sovereignty handover was until now. Bremer must be one of the worst occupying adminstrators of all time. Firstly, he dissolved Iraq's army which many percieved at the time to be a massive mistake. It bought him a few months of "feel good" time, and now he is paying the price for that decision. The US, Europe, and the Middle East will soon see similar ripples from any rushed decision by the Coalition and their unwillingness to confront the insurgency at hand.Agree, Bremer has failed...
About Coalition unwillingness to confront insurgency... look with what kind of equipment have they arrived to site... (except British who participated also in war)... light stuff not the combat one. Send marines with M-16 in hand on Humvee to fight in Falluja... they'll send You to hell. It's not they don't have the heavy stuff, they left this at home because the agreement with US wa sto send there lightly armed units to... stabilize.

ExtraT
04-21-2004, 06:16 PM
I think that 50% is actually pretty good. Considering that almost all of these policemen served under Saddam, it's actually VERY good - it could have been much higher.

Also, it proves that all these "popular uprising" stories are complete bull****. If 50% ex-pro-Saddam policemen support the Coalition, then more than half of general population supports it too.

ExtraT
04-21-2004, 06:18 PM
I wonder what Nelson would say about this.

http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Fox/Simpsons/Nelson_Muntz_300.gif

Tell me, Musto, what would you do if you are proven wrong? If the unsurgency is crushed and order is restored? Will you call yourself an idiot, publicly?

Or will you just highjack some new "cause"?

American Patriot
04-21-2004, 06:25 PM
Coalition is right on track.

All they have to do is kill the remaining insane anti-Iraqi Islamist terrorists and a Democratic Iraq is born.

Skullknight
04-21-2004, 06:45 PM
Is there a way for me to lock my thread? I was not aware that there were so many morons (apparently of voting age) posting here.

UkrainianAmerican
04-21-2004, 07:18 PM
I think that 50% is actually pretty good. Considering that almost all of these policemen served under Saddam, it's actually VERY good - it could have been much higher.

Also, it proves that all these "popular uprising" stories are complete bull****. If 50% ex-pro-Saddam policemen support the Coalition, then more than half of general population supports it too.
Yeah thats what I thought.
From the media reports, I assuemd 99% decided to abandon the coalition, but then watching CNN does not make one knowledgeable.

duck
04-21-2004, 07:29 PM
The problem is the same as in Colombia or Sicily. At the end of the day, an Iraqi LEO or IDFC member is vulnerable when he gets back to his family. Just like the druglords and the Mafia, the underground in Iraq targets the families and so creates an atmosphere of terror. In Sicily it took a popular uprising AGAINST the violence after Judge Falcone was murdered in his motorcade to break the back of terror. Who will be Signor Falcone of Iraq?

My bet is Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sooner or later Al-Sadr's thugs will kill him in order to grab power. First "the Jews" will be blamed but maybe people will gradually realize who their enemy actually is.

Marmot1
04-21-2004, 07:59 PM
The problem is the same as in Colombia or Sicily. At the end of the day, an Iraqi LEO or IDFC member is vulnerable when he gets back to his family. Just like the druglords and the Mafia, the underground in Iraq targets the families and so creates an atmosphere of terror. In Sicily it took a popular uprising AGAINST the violence after Judge Falcone was murdered in his motorcade to break the back of terror. Who will be Signor Falcone of Iraq?

My bet is Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sooner or later Al-Sadr's thugs will kill him in order to grab power. First "the Jews" will be blamed but maybe people will gradually realize who their enemy actually is.
So true...

mustamato
04-21-2004, 08:02 PM
I wonder what Nelson would say about this.

http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Fox/Simpsons/Nelson_Muntz_300.gif

Tell me, Musto, what would you do if you are proven wrong? If the unsurgency is crushed and order is restored? Will you call yourself an idiot, publicly?

Or will you just highjack some new "cause"?

Yes I can call myself an idiot if order is restored in Iraq. However I´m afraid
that these forums might be long gone when that happens so I can´t do it here :(
Simply, US have stirred up a hornets nest that was under control when Saddam
had the power, although with somewhat undemocratic methods, but that´s their
culture down there.

the_spec
04-21-2004, 10:05 PM
I think that 50% is actually pretty good. Considering that almost all of these policemen served under Saddam, it's actually VERY good - it could have been much higher.

Also, it proves that all these "popular uprising" stories are complete bull****. If 50% ex-pro-Saddam policemen support the Coalition, then more than half of general population supports it too.
I wonder what you need to make you worry. I mean, 50% seem to be nothing for you. When someone looses an arm and a leg, do you come and say "Hey, I thought he was badly injured, but he still got one arm and leg left."

to free the oppressed
04-21-2004, 11:04 PM
General: Much of Iraq's Forces Have Quit

WASHINGTON - About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces "actually worked against" U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation, the commander of the 1st Armored Division said Wednesday.

In an interview beamed by satellite from Baghdad to news executives attending The Associated Press annual meeting, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey said the campaign in Iraq was at a critical point.

"We have to get this latest increase in violence under control," Dempsey said. "We have to take a look at the Iraqi security forces and learn why they walked."

The militia violence aggravated underlying troubles in Iraq's new military and police forces — the unfulfilled desire for "some Iraqi hierarchy in which to place their trust and confidence" and a reluctance by Iraqis to take up arms against their countrymen, Dempsey said.

"It's very difficult at times to convince them that Iraqis are killing fellow Iraqis and fellow Muslims, because it's something they shouldn't have to accept," he said. "Over time I think they will probably have to accept it."

The failure of Iraqi security forces to perform is significant because it could hurt the United States' overall exit strategy from Iraq, which is dependent on moving U.S. troops out of the cities and handing authority to Iraqis. Officials have said the U.S. military would delay its withdrawal from parts of Iraq until Iraqi forces were ready to take control.

In one example of the problems, on April 5, a newly created Iraqi army battalion of several hundred soldiers refused to join U.S. Marines in their offensive against insurgents in the city of Fallujah.

Dempsey maintained in the interview that popular support for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is still "very solid."

But he acknowledged "a form of descending consent" for the U.S. military presence occurring among Iraqis as time passes.

"There is a point where it doesn't matter how well we're doing, it won't be accepted that we have a large military presence here," he said. "We're all working very diligently trying to figure out where that point is."

Dempsey was asked about the remarks of two other U.S. commanders who questioned the wisdom of banning former Baath Party members from government jobs when their skills are needed in the reconstruction effort.

"History is going to have to decide whether that was right or not," he said.

Dempsey recalled receiving a warning from Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah that the coalition forces would find it tough to bring order to Iraq after dissolving the country's only two powerful institutions — the army and the Baath Party.

"So part of me says our jobs may have been easier had we just found a way to keep some of the Baath Party in place," Dempsey said, echoing comments by Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste and Brig. Gen. Carter F. Ham published in The New York Times on Wednesday.

But Dempsey added: "On the other hand, the entire part of the population that was disenfranchised during these 35 years, largely the Shiite population, absolutely has no trust in any former member of the Baath Party. So we found ourselves exactly in the middle of this."

On the security forces, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said he is sending Maj. Gen. David Petraeus back to Iraq to oversee the training and equipping of all Iraqi security forces, including those who had been the responsibility of the State Department or the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Dempsey said efforts are under way to ensure Iraqi security forces that there will be Iraqi authorities in place to back them up after U.S. troops leave.

During the recent militia attacks, "about 50 percent of the security forces that we've built over the past year stood tall and stood firm," he said.

"About 40 percent walked off the job because they were intimidated. And about 10 percent actually worked against us," said Dempsey, describing that group as infiltrators.

Dempsey commands the Army division in charge of Baghdad. He has been in Iraq for more than a year, focusing on intelligence gathering and combatting terrorism as he works to help Iraqi security forces take over those tasks.
Those ****ing pussies :bash:

ExtraT
04-22-2004, 05:34 PM
I wonder what you need to make you worry. I mean, 50% seem to be nothing for you. When someone looses an arm and a leg, do you come and say "Hey, I thought he was badly injured, but he still got one arm and leg left."

Hmmm.. I think a more accurate way to look at it would be: Suppose they took separate arms, legs, head, body organs, etc.. from different people, sawn them all togeather into a man, and then 1 arm and 1 leg fell off, but the rest is still functioning. I'd say it's a pretty big accomplishment, wouldn't you? :lol:

2Sheds_Jackson
04-22-2004, 06:31 PM
Man, that's funny. The former Iraqi Army & security forces had absolutely no problems killing brother Muslims & Iraqis before.

It seems to me, that we need to be a little firmer in our persuasive tactics. I'm sure Saddam didnt' give them the option to simply fight or go home. My guess is that if they did that, they'd go home to a dead family.

I'm not suggesting we go that far, but it's clear that these people are still on the fence as to who they think will still be in charge in 2 years.

HELEX
04-22-2004, 06:43 PM
This Topic has to be closed because it is unpatriotic. :roll: