1,300 Iraqi troops, police dismissed (and will be tried by military court)

Yahoo ^ | 4/13/2008 | BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer

[tobyhill]

BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government has dismissed about 1,300 soldiers and policemen who deserted or refused to fight during last month's offensive against Shiite militias and criminal gangs in Basra, officials said Sunday.

Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said 921 police and soldiers were fired in Basra. They included 37 senior police officers ranging in rank from lieutenant colonel to brigadier general.

The others were dismissed in Kut, one of the Shiite cities where the fight had spread.

Last month, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered the security forces to confront armed groups in Basra, Iraq's second largest city.

But they met fierce resistance and the attack quickly ground to a halt as fighting flared across the Shiite south and Baghdad.

Since then, government officials have revealed that about 1,000 members of the security forces — including an entire infantry battalion — had mutinied, on some cases handing over vehicles and weapons to the militias.

The majority of Iraqi soldiers and police are Shiites.

Speaking in Basra, Khalaf said those dismissed included 421 police officers and 500 soldiers who had not returned to duty in the southern port city and would be tried by military courts.

"Some of them were sympathetic with these lawbreakers, some refused to (go into) battle for

[Rebelbase]

The Iraqi army still isn’t a prime time player.

[PGalt]

Good news! Weed them out!

[tobyhill]

Before they would have had 40-50% desertion but now they're down to about 3%.

[onguard]

“Since then, government officials have revealed that about 1,000 members of the security forces — including an entire infantry battalion — had mutinied, on some cases handing over vehicles and weapons to the militias.”

This is pathetic. It looks like the only people who are reliably willing to fight for freedom in Iraq are American soldiers.

What’s the old saying:”You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” What we’ve got in Iraq are a bunch of crazy Muslims. How long are we going to have brave Americans die in hopes they transform themselves into civilized people who can build a real democracy? And what would that democracy look like anyway? Think about who the Muslims elected in Palestine and Iran....

[Polybius]

This is pathetic. It looks like the only people who are reliably willing to fight for freedom in Iraq are American soldiers.

The "only" people?

So that means that NO Iraqis were involved in the fighting?

Sure, the Iraqi Army had a Benedict Arnold problem. So, it seems, did George Wasginhton with, well, Benedict Arnold.

The points to consider, however, is that most Iraqis in the operation DID fight, the traitors ARE being identified and punished and the Iraqi Army, on a percentage basis, has less Benedict Arnolds trying to lose the war than the United States Congress does.

[PapaBear3625]

There’s a long process of weeding out the scum. By making them fight, and getting rid of the ones who won’t fight, and promoting the ones who DO fight, eventually they will get an adequate fighting force

[onguard]

“The points to consider, however, is that most Iraqis in the operation DID fight, the traitors ARE being identified and punished and the Iraqi Army, on a percentage basis, has less Benedict Arnolds trying to lose the war than the United States Congress does”

It’s ridiculous to say that the US can lose this war. We went to war to defeat Saddam Hussein. That war was won long ago. What we are doing now is nation-building, a chancy business at best. It is unfair to suggest to our brave soldiers that if they cannot convince a bunch of crazed Muslims not to kill each other that somehow they “lost” the war.

[Bringbackthedraft]

Maybe we should turn the security over to the Baathists again?

[tobyhill]

The MSM would love that and they could use it for their “proof” that “Bush lost”.

[Polybius]

“The points to consider, however, is that most Iraqis in the operation DID fight, the traitors ARE being identified and punished and the Iraqi Army, on a percentage basis, has less Benedict Arnolds trying to lose the war than the United States Congress does” .... Polybius

It’s ridiculous to say that the US can lose this war. We went to war to defeat Saddam Hussein. That war was won long ago. What we are doing now is nation-building, a chancy business at best. It is unfair to suggest to our brave soldiers that if they cannot convince a bunch of crazed Muslims not to kill each other that somehow they “lost” the war. ..... onguard

As my namesake observed over 2,200 years ago, every war has a cause and a pretext.

The cause is the real reason you are fighting.

The pretext is the excuse that you give to those who are too naive to understand the Realpolitiks of the World.

We did not fight either the Gulf War or the Iraq War to protect Kuwait's sovereignty or to bring "Democracy" or to save Kuwaiti babies in incubators or to kill Saddam Hussein. Those are merely the pretexts.

We fought the Gulf War and the Iraq War because, whether we like it or not, the geographic region of the Persian Gulf contains 70% of the World's known oil reserves and allowing a hostile power to gain military hegemony over the region, especially one that has acquired nuclear weapons, would have devastating strategic consequences to the U.S.

Even if the Persian Gulf geographic region were populated by nothing but sand fleas, the U.S. would have a vital strategic interest in keeping the Persian Gulf region out of the control of a hostile power.

Even if after Saddam is dead, the U.S. STILL has a vital strategic interest in keeping the Persian Gulf region out of the control of a hostile power.

Twenty years from now, whether the Sunnis and the Shiites are still killing each other or not and whether the U.S. decides to try to stop the killing or actually encourage it to cull the population of the religious fanatics, the U.S. will STILL has a vital strategic interest in keeping the Persian Gulf region out of the control of a hostile power.

The naivete of your position is the same as somebody in 1945 saying that we fought World War II merely "to defeat Hitler" and, now that that particular man was dead, the U.S. should then bug out of Europe and allow the Soviet Union establish military hegemony over all of Western Europe.

War are not fought merely to be able to declare "We won! Hurray for our side!!" That goal only applies to childhood games of "Capture the Flag". Wars are not fought merely to be able to kill one man such as Saddam or Hitler or Tojo.

Wars are fought to achieve strategic objective and you seem to be totally clueless in regards to the strategic stakes involved in this particular war.

Let's consider the consequences of bugging out of Iraq:

1.) The fanatical Islamist mullahs of Iran will move into the power vacuum in Iraq leaving them with military hegemony of the Persian Gulf and 70% of the World's known oil reserves.

2.) With control of 70% of the World's known oil reserves, a fanatical Islamist Iran will have control of the carotid arteries of the economies of the Western World.

3.) Islamist Iran, like North Korea and Pakistan before it, is aggressively seeking nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. With control of 70% of the World's known oil reserves, Iran will most surely achieve its nuclear goals in short order by bribery or economic blackmail of the European nations and/or the Japanese and/or the Russians.

4.) At that point, in ten years, those of you who live in or near major cities of the East Coast could be obliterated in an Iranian nuclear strike if the Mullahs in Iran decide that the day for achieving Eternity in Paradise by striking at the Great Satan has finally come.

6.) The deterrence doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction worked fine with the pragmatic Soviets and the ChiComs, it will probably even work with the nutty North Koreans but "Mutually Assured Destruction" means "Winning an Eternity in Paradise" to the fanatical Islamist Mullahs of Iran.

It is certainly true that our brave soldiers will not lose this war. However, in a democracy, wars can be lost and have been lost because the soldiers were stabbed in the back by people at the Home Front.

That includes politicians that are willing to surrender Victory.

Published Jan. 30, 2007 ...... Obama wants troops home by spring ’08 ……. Illinois senator, presidential candidate introduces bill to force redeployment

That includes people like you that act like a Fifth Column by trying to convince others in the American Home Front that the vital strategic interests those brave soldiers are defending do not even exist and that those brave soldiers are fighting for a worthless cause.

[LS]

Sounds to me like they are doing a good job of winnowing out the losers.

Course, I guess they could be like the French in WW I and simply pick one out of 100 and shoot them for cowardice. We saw how well that worked :)

[STARWISE]

Just rewards for treachery. Looks like Maliki’s finally becoming a realist and a politician .. he faces elections in the fall.

~~~~~

http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Stephanie%20Condon/blog/&blogId=1681

“Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute, hypothesizes that Dick Cheney probably influenced Maliki to make the move.

Here is an excerpt from his site:

My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain.

So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists coming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists’ paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking.”

~~~~

http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=news/news_show.php&id=18386

Sunni and Shia Sheiks Unite in Balad

Posted on 04.12.2008 at 08:07PM
By Spc. Rick Rzepka
1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division

BALAD, Iraq – For the first time since sectarian tension embroiled the Balad area, Sunni and Shia sheiks and local community leaders gathered in the same place to promote unity amongst the myriad of tribes.

More than one hundred sheiks and tribal elders from the communities of Duluiyah, Ishaki and the surrounding area gathered in a town-hall style meeting on April 3 to discuss repairing fractious differences in an attempt to bring peace and prosperity to the citizens of the region, which is comprised of about 40 percent Shia and 60 percent Sunni.

While tensions mount in the southern province of Basra, Shia and Sunni leaders have pledged cooperation and unity in the Balad area in an effort to stimulate the local economy through recent security gains.

Among the Shieks and elders, the governor of the Salah ad Din province, Hamad Hamood Shekti, was all smiles as he spoke enthusiastically about the way forward for the Iraqi people.

“There is hope here today,” said Shekti who praised the sheiks for setting aside their differences to build on common ground.

“Today we are not Shi’a or Sunni, we are Iraqis,” he said.

Employment and security were on the minds of most of the Iraqi influencers as they clamored over which comes first, jobs or guns. For many here, the answer is jobs.

“We must be able to support our families,” said a Sunni sheik.

“We must be able to work together,” he said.

In 2006 the flow of commerce and transportation were severed along sectarian fault lines causing small businesses and the local economy to suffer, but as the security situation continues to improve here, many Iraqis are heading back to work and are beginning to recognize the need to travel freely.

The sheiks also discussed bolstering the Iraqi security forces in the area to ease travel restrictions.

To facilitate the people’s trust and a more prosperous marketplace, Iraqi leaders are pushing for a more diversified security force that reflects the face of the people.

“I would like to see more people volunteer for the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police,” said Balad Mayor Amar Hali Mirhon.

“More participation from other tribes encourages the population to trust the army and police,” he said.

As the people of the Balad area continue to see an improved security situation, they are gaining confidence in the cooperation between local leaders.

“We understand that a lot of people lost their jobs because of past events, but we have settled our differences, and we welcome you all,” said Balad City Council Vice President Malik Lafta Ahmad.

~~~~~

http://www.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/img/0804/84051.jpg

http://www.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/img/0804/84050.jpg

[onguard]

“The cause is the real reason you are fighting.

The pretext is the excuse that you give to those who are too naive to understand the Realpolitiks of the World.”

I take it the “naive” ones you refer to are the American people, who were never told the “real reason” we are fighting in Iraq. Funny, I thought that in a democracy you told the people the truth, and let them make a judgment with their votes.

And yet, according to you, those who lie to the American people and the brave soldiers who are doing the fighting are not the betrayers of our democracy. Rather it is who do not support the secret reasons for the war that have never been mentioned (because, after all, we couldn’t handle it.) Wow, that’s deep.

But okay, hey, we have to control Iraq because of the oil. Is having a “democracy” in Iraq the best way to do that? Look what a “democracy” in Iran or Palestine got them? I mean, I hate to rain on your parade, but these are not Midwestern Rotarians living over there—they are a bunch of maniacal Muslims. If you let them vote for a leader, don’t be surprised if they elect someone that hates America.

[DGHoodini]

Firing squads for all of them!

[DGHoodini]

I wouldn’t say *that*... Th desertion/disaffection was only about 3%..as someone else pointed out, this was better than
what allied forces dealt with in WW(II?)

[Polybius]

“The cause is the real reason you are fighting. The pretext is the excuse that you give to those who are too naive to understand the Realpolitiks of the World.”

I take it the “naive” ones you refer to are the American people, who were never told the “real reason” we are fighting in Iraq.

Oh, they have been told in the past alright.

Approximately 50% of them can't seem to grasp the concept that they couldn't drive to the protest rally in their SUV's without oil. You seem to have a problem with that concept too.

Funny, I thought that in a democracy you told the people the truth, and let them make a judgment with their votes.

Funny, I thought you lived on the Planet Earth where politicians in Democracies have been lying to voters since Pericles ruled Athens.

Especially in wartime:

"The truth is so precious that it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies." ...... Winston Churchill

You seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between children's Fairy Tales and the Real World.

There is no Santa Claus, there is no Easter Bunny and politicians lie through their teeth.

That's the Real World. Sorry if nobody ever told you that before I did.

And yet, according to you, those who lie to the American people and the brave soldiers who are doing the fighting are not the betrayers of our democracy. Rather it is who do not support the secret reasons for the war that have never been mentioned (because, after all, we couldn’t handle it.) Wow, that’s deep.

"Wow, politicians lie. That's deep."

How old are you? 13?

And, in case you failed to notice, George Bush the Elder DID mention the protection of oil supplies as a vital strategic interest when Saddam invade Kuwait but that was then used against him by the "No Blood for Oil" crowd.

President George Bush confronted little difficulty in winning Americans’ support for the potential war against Iraq. However, the government found it difficult to decide upon and state one overriding reason for going to war. Was it to oppose aggression or was it just to protect global oil supplies? Other powers were more directly concerned as consumers of Persian Gulf oil, but they were not as eager to commit military force, to risk their youth in battle and to pay for the costs of the war. Critics of President Bush continued to maintain that he was taking advantage of the issue of energy supplies in order to manipulate the U. S. public opinion in favor of war.

When the Realpoliks of protecting global oil supplies was found to be unpalatable to those who believe that protecting U.S. vital interest is immoral, the spin became that the Gulf War was being fought to save Kuwaiti babies in incubators.

The Commander-in-Chief's primary responsibility is to protect America.

If America is threatened by Iranian suicide-martyrs religious nutjobs developing nuclear warheads and ICBM's capable of dropping them on Midtown Manhattan and 55% of the American voters at a particular time feel it is only right to allow Iranian nutjobs to have nukes because the U.S. has nukes but 55% of the same voters feel it is right to go to war with Iran to save the gay whales in the Persian Gulf, that Commander-in-Chief, if he has an ounce of common sense, will solemnly announced that the U.S. is fighting to save the gay whales.

Politicians, "READ MY LIPS", will lie to you, your childish fantasies not withstanding.

George W. Bush will go down in History as a failed war leader because he has utterly failed to show leadership by explaining to the American people why the Persian Gulf region is a vital strategic interest in regards to oil. Unlike his father, he did not even try.

In regards to the second issue that you have completely ignored, Iran's nuclear threat, he has been articulated that threat but you and the moonbats in the "No Blood for Oil" crowd can't seem to understand that Iran's future nuclear weapons potential and the abandonment of the Persian Gulf's vast oil reserves to them are not separate and unrelated issues.

But okay, hey, we have to control Iraq because of the oil. Is having a “democracy” in Iraq the best way to do that?

In my opinion, "No".

In Germany, in Japan and even in the South after the U.S. Civil War, the jump was not made directly to democracy. In Germany, the country underwent "De-Nazification". In the South, almost the entire Southern white population was disenfranchised. In Japan, the Consitution was written for them by Douglas MacArthur's staff and it was imposed on them whether they liked it or not.

In Iraq, the Baathists were purged but al Sadrs thugs were given a free pass.

Now, that is changing and the U.S. is forcing Iraq to clean up the Shiite militias.

That is not "democracy" in Iraq. That is imposing U.S. will down Malaki's throat.

Look what a “democracy” in Iran or Palestine got them? I mean, I hate to rain on your parade, but these are not Midwestern Rotarians living over there—they are a bunch of maniacal Muslims. If you let them vote for a leader, don’t be surprised if they elect someone that hates America.

Don't tell that to me. Tell that to George W. Bush.

I have made it clear that, when U.S. vital interests are involved, I will choose Realpolitiks over political Pablum.

Be that as it may, in order to protect U.S. vital interests, regardless of whether the "Democracy Route" or the "Enlightened Despotism Route" is chosen as the appropraite course of action in Iraq, al Sadr's Shiite militias must be destroyed and that is what is taking place now.

[onguard]

I get what you are saying. You may be right. But you can’t talk about winning and losing wars unless you define what winning and losing mean, which in our democracy means going into the war with a defined objective that you can sell to the American people. Otherwise, you may and probably will lose popular support before accomplishing the “real reasons” for the war, which is what happened in Iraq, if your “real reasons” are correct.

[Polybius]

I get what you are saying. You may be right. But you can’t talk about winning and losing wars unless you define what winning and losing mean, which in our democracy means going into the war with a defined objective that you can sell to the American people.

Winning Defined:

1.) Preventing a power hostile to the U.S. from gaining military hegemony over the Persian Gulf and 70% of the World's known oil reserves.
.......... A) Selling Point: Returning America to 1800's might seem romantic but, after a week, it will be a real pain in the butt.

2.) Preventing Iranian religious fanatics who believe that suicide-martyrdom killing of Americans brings them Eternity in Paradise from acquiring nuclear weapons and the ICBM's to deliver them.
.......... A) Selling Point: Even though we love to hate New York City, we really will miss it after a while.

3.) Everything else is strictly optional.

********

1) and 2) might require generations of U.S. presence just like Korea. However, while the fall of Korea would have little strategic consequences for the U.S., failure to accomplish 1) or 2) would have devastating strategic consequences for the U.S.

[Stonewall Jackson]

Look up the Yosu-Sunchon Revolt some time.

In October 1948, the 14th Infantry Regiment of the newly formed South Korean Army staged a revolt in the Sunchon Province, centered primarily around the ancient city of Yosu. My grandfather was one of the US military advisers in this province and he ended up fighting alongside the other two regiments who'd remained loyal to the government. By the time the fighting was over, Yosu was almost completely destroyed, and thousands of its inhabitants were dead (many of them executed by the rebels). The Army paid a heavy price for the suppression, but they were ultimately successful.

As a result of the unit's disgraceful actions, the South Korean government burned the flag of the 14th Infantry Regiment and the South Korean Army, to this day, does not have a unit with the number 4 in its designation.