Skip to comments.Iraqi Police Fired For Failing To Fight
Posted on 03/31/2008 2:15:02 PM PDT by blam
Iraqi Police Fired for Failing to Fight
Posted on: Monday, 31 March 2008, 12:00 CDT
The apparent thousands of Iraqi policemen who refused to fight against Shiite militias have been relieved of duty, the Iraqi interior minister said Monday.
The decision by Jawad al-Boulani covers units operating in Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad and the predominately Shiite areas in southern Iraq, including Basra.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered Iraqi forces to crack down on militias affiliated with cleric Moqtada Sadr and other influential Shiite leaders, sparking widespread violence that rippled throughout the country last week.
Thousands of Iraqi police officers refused to fight the militias and several Iraqi army units joined their forces in Baghdad, the Iraqi daily, Azzaman said.
The move, the newspaper said, may boost the ranks of the Shiite militias as those relieved of duty may join their forces instead.
Source: United Press International
You go boy.
The eternal mess of the mideast continues. It will always be about clans, tribes, sects and corruption, and it ain’t going to end.
Slowly but surly they will fix themselves.
Who cares if they are surly.
I do agree that the new forces should have suspended them for 90 days or such, now you might have to expend resources policing the police.
Islam, for all it's claims of being many things honorable, usually seems to either turn tail and run, lie, cheat, steal, and bribe.
“The apparent thousands of Iraqi policemen...”
Another factless reference.
The Sadrist infiltrators just showed their colors. Good that they get rid of ‘em.
It's al-Bolani and there are thousands more who are willing and ready to attend the Police College and fight for Iraq. No shortage of sherta recruits.
Iraq is standing strong on this and if they stick to their guns (bad pun unintended), they will turn a major corner on the path to peace and stability here.
“Slowly but surly they will fix themselves.”
Uh huh, sure they will. I’m estimating 1500 years but I’m a bit of a pessimist when it comes to the ME. On the good side, maybe 150. So how much more blood and treasure can we waste? What’s a few more trillion in debt for my kids to pay off?
Nutjob must have sent Mookie a ton of money to meet this new payroll.
True. At the Ministry of Interior, they're saying about 400. Total.
I should know. I was over there this morning. :)
I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. I know there are many many Iraqis that want peace but my professional assessment is that when we pull out - even if it is 10 years from now - it is going to be nothing but a bloodbath. This time I suspect the shia will win out. The Kurds, as usual, will get screwed.
In the meantime we are wasting huge sums of money and too much blood. We are just putting off the inevitable.
And all along, I have seen progress. I have seen a majority of people who want peace, freedom and prosperity. I have gotten to know these people, both good and bad.
I have seen how the media twists, distorts and outright lies about anything that comes out of Iraq. And I have seen, sadly, how many people just take their word as gospel.
I will return to Iraq as a tourist within ten years and I will visit museums, shops and restaurants without wearing body armor or a weapon. Of this, I have full confidence.
I have made predictions on here before that have been flamed, but I have been right.
As always, I stand by my observations, regardless of what the naysayers have to say.
The US handed over control, i.e. the Constabulary ended in 1952, seven years of Allied military direct control. For more information see links provided: http://www.history.army.mil/lineage/Constab-IP.htm
The Bundeswehr came along in 1955.
The German Mark came in 1948.
The German Constitution came in 1948.
The first German Chancellor came in 1949.
The first German post war courts, first elections, opening of airports, etc., all came LATER than in Iraq.
Things are going in all reality quite fast, you simply don't have a historical benchmark nor a concept of what right and wrong looks like. If someone tells you XYZ and it sounds good, youll go with that idea. Whatever the mood or feeling of the time is, thats the opinion many share. From the Balkans to Korea, these sort of things do not go quickly and the S. Korean economy didn't really take off until 25 years after the war ended. Hell, they werent even really a democracy for many years after the war. Few would claim Germany to be a failure today, and that's a nation that does as little as possible around the world when it comes to securing our collective interests, a nation that more or less mooches.
How do you know if it's factless? Given the large # of bathists who were spared and allowed to become cops, what's so hard to believe about thousands of them not doing anything to help or even switching sides?
They should have been executed then and they should be executed now. Maliki will see them again when they think he's weak.
Sometimes I think the Iraqi’s actually WANT to FAIL.
What about the Bushee DEMOCRACY agenda? A benevolent dictator will bring peace and stability. Come to think of it, that's what Iraq needs right now.
Read Post #13.
Given the large # of bathists who were spared and allowed to become cops, what's so hard to believe about thousands of them not doing anything to help or even switching sides?
The defectors were not Ba'athists. They were Mehdi Army. Entirely, utterly and completely a different thing.
De-Ba'athification was only passed recently and only partially. There would not have been enough time to get that many former Ba'athists recruited and trained into the Iraq Police.
There are thousands of us here....oh, wait...millions...who are mighty glad you are not calling the shots.
As for democracy...yes, that's the type of government they have here. And it's working. Any more questions?
Good for them. Now the appropriate targes can be affixed to their chests. They are no longer hiding in the Police and Army.
We are back to the fixed fortification concept. I'm not going to bother explaining the military or historical concept. Bottom line, IF we are successful in stabilizing Iraq we have only built in fixed fortification in a sea of islamic chaos. It isn't going to win this war which is everyone against worldwide islam. We are not fighting terrorists and we are not even in most cases fighting ‘bad’ people. We are fighting a powerful religion. Until the west can face that everything they do will have little practical effect.
Weren't the Baathists mostly Sunni? Wasn't Mookie’s cannon fodder mostly Shia? Doesn't the MSM tell us that the two sects hate each other and that this is largely a sectarian war?
Can you supply their names? I just love to gratify my ego!
As for democracy...yes, that's the type of government they have here. And it's working.
If what is going on in Iraq constitutes a democracy...
The Russians had 10 years of mob rule democracy. Now they have a benevolent dictator and they love him (80% approval).
Iraq is not Russia. Read Red6's post #16. Read early American history.
Socialism is bad for you, by the way.
I love FR!
“What about the Bushee DEMOCRACY agenda?”
Democracy for Iraq has been U.S. national policy since ‘98.
“A benevolent dictator will bring peace and stability. Come to think of it, that’s what Iraq needs right now.”
It’s too late for your wishes. Iraq is already a internationaly recognized democracy.
Always nice to hear intelligent, first-hand analysis. Thanks!
You’re right! Iraq is not Russia. It is a barbaric sh*thole compared to Russia.
What Iraq needs is a benevolent dictator - and frankly one that isn’t so benevolent. The Kurds should be made independent and we should set up a large and permanent base in “Kurdistan” up north. Screw the Turks - with the cold war over we don’t need them. We could protect the Kurds, the Kurds could protect us and we could project power into the region at a moments notice.
MUCH cheaper than compassionate nation building. MUCH more effective. Unfortunately President Bush was too nice to make the correct choice. 1 trillion in debt, too much sacrifice by our Finest, AND NO REAL RESULTS. That’s what compassion has gotten us.
My money’s on you, Allegra. Keep up the great work.
Are there any Arab nations that have established a formal embassy in Baghdad.
“AND NO REAL RESULTS”
How’s Al Qaeda in Iraq been doing lately?
That’s not required for democracy. Besides, the embassies are in the works.
The IP’s needed a housecleaning in some areas for a while.
From what I’ve seen of the Iraqi Army, they’re doing a professional job. Success here will only increase their commitment to stabilize their society.
Mookie's surrender caught them with their pants down.
“Hows Al Qaeda in Iraq been doing lately?”
Like all of the insurgents tied by the same ideology, a whole lot better than if their strongholds had been bombed into rubble. It would have taken two, maybe three times of doing this, and this would be over by now I would bet.
What are we going to do about Al Qaeda in Iran and everywhere else? Another ground war? How about Syria? A ground war? How about Saudi......a ground war?
Hey, I have an idea. lets use some of those highly trained pilots in those multi-million dollar fighters and bombers, that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars of training on, to bomb the hell out of the military assets and defense systems of a few key Islamic nations (including Tehran), and threaten to come back next time with nukes instead of conventional bombs if they don’t clean up the terrorists networks in their own countries. With Iran, if they don’t stop harboring Al Sadr and other terrorists and stop working on a nuclear weapons program. Would that work better?
Oh yea, we are in a world popularity contest and would rather keep losing our own lives and burying our future generations in debt.
It's an 'honor' killing only if you can't fight back.
I’m going to continue to put more weight in the intelligent, first hand analysis of those actually fighting in combat or who have. Sorry, I just trust their experiences and perspectives a bit more. The ones that have been ambushed because the Iraqi people helped the bad guys, not our guys. That carries a lot more weight with me than what the politicians, war strategists, diplomats and humanitarians have to say.
“What Iraq needs is a benevolent dictator”
That is what the creator of Iraq, Englishwoman Gertrude Bell, said approx. 80 years ago.
Jeepers. I thought that dear old Gertie just sharpened Winnies pencil- you know, the one he used to carve up the Ottoman Empire.
First of all, we aren't fighting Al Qaeda - we are at war with islam. Second: How's Al Qaeda doing around the world lately? They have taken some hits but they are still growing in numbers. What government is in power in Iraq simply isn't germane. You have to look at the bigger picture. Do you understand what I'm talking about when I suggest Iraq is, on a strategic scale, only a fortification? And a bloody expensive one.
“First of all, we aren’t fighting Al Qaeda - we are at war with islam. “
No, we are at war with al Qaeda and we’re not at war with Islam. As much as al Qaeda and the left attempt to propagate this lie, that America is waging war on Islam, this lie is undermined by the fact that we are allied with other Muslims against al Qaeda.
“They have taken some hits but they are still growing in numbers. “
Last I heard, 3/4ths of their leadership was either dead or captured.
“Do you understand what I’m talking about when I suggest Iraq is, on a strategic scale, only a fortification? “
A democratic Iraq undermines the recruitment propaganda that America is waging war on Islam.
You need to read the koran. You need to understand what is happening around the world. This is so much bigger than Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is nothing. Start googling on Africa and islam or Asia and islam.
Recruitment propaganda is not needed. That is a specious concern.
This is so not about one group within islam.
Seriously, you need to read the koran.
Rule one when fighting insurgents - he who controls the hearts and minds of the population wins. Strong points surrounded by a hostile population base are not effective. They are doomed to failure.
Study Malay (the British campaign), Vietnam, and the Soviet/ Afghan war.
I haven't seen an affordable or realistic proposal yet to turn the hearts and minds of what is now a large percentage of the world's population.
The only solution I see was posted earlier by someone else. Bomb their military to dust. If needed, bomb their infrastructure to dust. Again, if needed vaporize their population centers.
I don't see islam backing off this time unless we kill 100 million muslims.
I don't see the west doing any of this. It seems rather inconceivable but I see us headed into a second dark age.
It's a lovely world.
So we stabilize Iraq. Please tell me how that is going to make the slightest bit of difference in what is a global problem?
They have won already, but are more magnanimous than you give them credit for.
The Kurds, as usual, will get screwed.
The Kurds are doing pretty well for themselves, and have demonstrated they can take care of themselves.
The losers are the Sunnis. They were a minority before siding with the terrorists and starting the insurgency. After all their fighting they are about half the population they were, and those who are left are ready to strike a political deal for whatever they can manage - which won't be much but will be more than their population percentage will warrant.
You have an entire population of Sunni muslims, at the heart of the Middle East, who will for generations proclaim their utter hatred for terrorism and the US as an honest broker. You have millions of Shia and Kurds who will testify to the US as a liberator. The way we have defeated al Qaeda and the JAM in Iraq is precisely by winning the hearts and minds of the populace. You will have a functioning democracy right in the middle of Arab central that will put the political heat on the dictators and kings of the region. OBL recognized that the fight for Iraq was existential. He has virtually admitted defeat. You, however, seem not to be able to take "yes" for an answer :^)
Actually you’re right in that these sorts of problems are issues that span decades, if not generations. You’re also right that as in the Cold War you have a domino effect as well as key nations or fortifications as you called them (i.e. Germany, Thailand...etc). However, where you’re wrong is in the assumption that we or the entire West has an option, we don’t. You’re also incorrect in assuming Iraq is the entire focus of our attention or that this war is purely being fought with the war fighter, it isn’t. This will go on for many years, it’s transnational but there are key nations involved, and it will be fought on many planes not considered battle-space by the layperson (i.e. IO/Media, economic, etc).
It is the belief that these events in time and space can be separated and like Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam, Thailand, Angola, Afghanistan, Korea, the Berlin Airlift, our spy wars in Germany or even the Greek civil war are all separate, theyre not. There was a common thread that ran through all these events, you had the Soviets and the US/West battle it out in some fashion in what is mistakenly called the Cold War (an oxymoron). These were proxy wars.
Like the anti-war protesters in the late 60s and 70s, people dont ask themselves where those MIG21s, SA2 and 3, RPG7s, radars etc come from. They dont think about what happened in Laos or Cambodia when we left, or even who it was that tried to pour into Thailand, which thank God held up, or the entire region would have collapsed. The average American does not even take note of Soviet bases popping up in Vietnam nearly months after we left, with their largest Naval base outside the Soviet Union being in Cam Ranh ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1964253.stm ). To the American anti-war protester, there were no connections, and many of those even after the fact dont see it. Ironically, the anti-war pundit today attempts to champion Vietnam as his battle cry, and the only similarities between Iraq and Vietnam are those fools in the media, our politicians that pander, and the self proclaimed intellectuals who think they are profound by being against the war and separating out Iraq or Vietnam from the larger picture.
We have limited resources. We can only do so much at once and it’s not us that the finger should be pointed at. We have post WWII always carried a disproportionate weight compared to nearly all other allied nations. There are many today in the West who essentially are “hiding out,” trying to do as little as possible, avoiding the price economic, political, and in security/blood by taking no action. It is those who suck on the teat of modern Western society and globalization but do nothing for it that should be ridiculed (i.e. Hungary, Germany, Norway ..). From free open water ways they do nothing for and those ships carrying BMWs travel on, to secure open air ways, access to strategic resources needed for a technology and industry based society (Cesium, Uranium, Gold, Platinum, oil ..), regional stability, safeguarding of intellectual property . some in the West simply want to take advantage of it all but do nothing for it! We are once again in a leading role in the West; paying more, bleeding more, and of course being called names by the open minded who take their freedom and way of life as a simple birth right. We as a nation are doing our part, we always have.
I don’t care. I don’t want to spend the money or blood.
What is the alternative?
There were those years past who said, Id rather be red than dead. Heres a good quote for you, rather live on your knees than die on your feet.” Those were people in the 60s making such statements in face of another threat.
It has given me a nice morning chuckle.
Ummm your grasp of history is flawed. The only thing keeping the bottle on the toothpaste tube are coalition forces.
“The Kurds are doing pretty well for themselves, and have demonstrated they can take care of themselves.”
The Kurds are completely surrounded by highly hostile forces. Without our direct supprot the Kurds will be put on their knees. Again. They don't have the resources to do much other than die well.
Your grasp of history is flawed.
“They were a minority before siding with the terrorists and starting the insurgency. ”
This hasn't got an effing thing to do with “starting the insurgency”. This isn't conventional war and isn't even conventional unconventional war. It is a religious war - islam against infidel and islamic sects against each other.
It is tribal, it is regionally political and it is geopolitical. Where do you get this stuff - from the Bush Whitehouse? The fighting will never stop there if we leave, unless one side absolutely brutalizes the other, and will only (mostly) shift to another theater if we do not.
It is NEVER going to be a nice place. It is NEVER going to be civilized. You are pissing in the wind - while wasting someone else's blood and all of our treasure. Even if we are successful in making them nice and democratic it will have NO effect on jihad worldwide. Feel good liberalism at its finest.
The Soviets were nothing as a threat compared to islam.
Second, just because I don't want to waste resources in Iraq doesn't mean, at all, that I'm suggesting we give up. Read my other posts.
Wars are won by will and money. Both are finite resources. We are stuck in Iraq - we cannot pull out now. But it is a total waste of treasure.
The West isn't going to start killing millions of muslims so that is out as a realistic option. The only way out of this that I can see, and I may be biased because of my background, is to:
1. Covertly attack the religion itself. Reagen was superb at this. Get them to fight each other and drain their resources. Discredit the religion, especially in the 3rd world.
2. Get away from oil dependency. The accumulated treasure of the West is flowing into the ME. We are funding our own destruction.
3. When it can be “publicly” justified, blow the hell out of an islamic nation every once in a while. Just don't hang around with the naive idea that you are going to engage in nation building.