Skip to comments.
In an Iraq Without an Army, Perils Abound
Los Angeles Times ^
| Augsut 24, 2003
Posted on 08/24/2003 11:59:54 AM PDT by Milanese
Edited on 08/24/2003 12:05:10 PM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
WASHINGTON -- U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer III had been on the job in Baghdad less than two weeks when he announced a decision that sent shockwaves through Iraqi society.
With a stroke of the pen, Bremer dissolved Iraq's vast armed services, sending pink slips to more than 400,000 armed officers and enlisted men whose light resistance had helped secure the U.S.-led military victory against their government.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; iraqiarmy; iraqimilitia; iraqipolice; order; rebuildingiraq
1
posted on
08/24/2003 11:59:55 AM PDT
by
Milanese
To: Milanese
In an Iraq Without an Army, Perils Abound Yeah...I can see where not having the threat of death or dismemberment as punishment would have its effect on crime.
2
posted on
08/24/2003 12:03:30 PM PDT
by
South40
(Get Right Or Get Left)
To: marron
Good article for you here.
3
posted on
08/27/2003 8:18:11 PM PDT
by
Shermy
To: Milanese
Iraq's armed force and police force are being established as we speak. Many are already in place and others are being trained in Hungary, for example.
4
posted on
08/27/2003 8:24:59 PM PDT
by
Consort
To: Milanese; Shermy
My impression is that it was a deadly mistake to disband the army. They, for the most part, remained in their barracks during the war. They continued to stay in the barracks, and continued to be paid, until Bremer arrived.
His decision to send them home put 400,000 armed young men on Iraq's street corners. Do the math. We have something over a hundred thousand soldiers there, and they are outnumbered by a factor of 4 by Iraqi soldiers who are armed and unemployed and broke.
It would have been simple enough to take away their heavy weapons, leave them their personal weapons (which they have anyway) and assign them to infrastructure defense under US command. Or we could have disarmed them entirely and assigned them to roadbuilding and infrastructure repair. We captured almost a billion dollars in cash, so there was no shortage of cash to continue paying them.
We could still have recruited for a new army, we could still have retired the senior officers to clear out the Baathists.
But just think. We faced fairly heavy resistance on our way in from primarily Fedayeen, foreign volunteers, and Baathist loyalists. The fact that these troops did not join the fight tells you right away that they are not Baathist loyalists, or at least not very loyal Baathist loyalists.
But if even a small percentage of the 400,000 join the opposition our lives are going to be made unnecessarily difficult. And short.
Note to Bremer: when marron calls, pick up.
5
posted on
08/27/2003 9:21:29 PM PDT
by
marron
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson