| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Rumsfeld: Iraqis Must Take Over Security |
| 2003-09-05 |
| EFL BAGHDAD (AP) - American officials want to speed up training for Iraqi security forces, including former members of Saddam Hussein’s military and intelligence services, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday. Making Iraq safe is a job for Iraqis, and no more U.S. troops are needed in the country, Rumsfeld said after meeting in the capital with top military and civilian officials of the American-led occupation. "Security is a problem, but it’s a problem that, ultimately, the Iraqi people will deal with, with the help of coalition forces," Rumsfeld said at an impromptu news conference. Thus laying the groundwork for what we do after Jacques votes ’non’. Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad on Thursday afternoon for his second visit to Iraq in four months. He said coalition forces had completed more than 6,000 humanitarian projects since then. "It is getting better every day. I can see a change since I was here," Rumsfeld said. "That is not to say it is not dangerous. It is. But it seems to me that the trajectory we’re on is a good one." Despite problems in restoring and repairing Iraq’s electrical system, Baghdad at night glows with light, Rumsfeld said after returning on a Black Hawk helicopter from one downtown compound to an American base near the city’s airport. "For a city that’s not supposed to have power, there’s lights all over the place. It’s like Chicago," Rumsfeld said. And parts of Baghdad are safer than the Woodlawn and West Austin neighborhoods in Chicago. Moments after he arrived in searing desert heat on a C-17 transport plane, Rumsfeld shook hands and posed for pictures with grinning Air Force service members on the tarmac. He then stepped over a traffic barrier and visited wounded soldiers in an air-conditioned hospital tent nearby. The daily attacks on U.S. soldiers as well as a series of car bombings that has killed more than 100 have prompted some in Congress to call for more American troops to be sent to Iraq. Rumsfeld said the top generals in Iraq do not want more than the 140,000 U.S. troops now in the country. "Mostly what we want is more Iraqi forces," Rumsfeld said. "We want more force protection, more infrastructure protection, more police, more border guards, and that should be done by Iraqis." The defense secretary said the U.S. military is "looking at ways of accelerating" the process of bringing former members of Saddam’s military - and possibly his security services - into the Iraqi security forces. Iraqi enlisted soldiers and junior officers from lieutenant colonel on down could be eligible to join the new Iraqi army, Rumsfeld said. All will be carefully screened to weed out those with anti-American leanings, he said. Between 50,000 and 60,000 Iraqis are doing security work now, more than half of them working as police officers, Rumsfeld said. Hadn’t seen those numbers before. U.S. officials still do not have a good idea whether Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters or other forces are behind the bombings, defense officials said Thursday. The military is unsatisfied with the amount and quality of information they have about anti-American forces in Iraq, particularly about foreign fighters, Rumsfeld said. "They’re not comfortable at the moment with what they don’t know," Rumsfeld said. "Oh well, we’ll just have to kill them when we find them." |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 I know quite a few NY Wall St Republicans who are coughing mad about that shit I work in the area and I've noticed none of what NMM is talking about. But then again, NMM has always seemed to be allergic to the truth. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-9-5 2:07:18 PM |
| #13 actually new yorkers have historically been okay with moderate to liberal Republicans. Note Fiorello LaGuardia, perhaps NYCs greatest Mayor, John Lindsay, perhaps its most liberal, Rudy Giulianni, certainly its most popular recent mayor, and even Michael Bloomberg who was elected as a Republican, though essentially as a party label of convenience. Also strong support in the past for Jacob Javits and others statewide. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-9-5 2:02:58 PM |
| #12 I'm having trouble buying the "Turkish Betrayal" scenario that folks keep trying to float. I don't have a problem with a soveriegn nation refusing to engage in an action that is against their self-interest. I would hope that our government looked carefully at why the turkih governemtn didn't want to railroad our troops through their country and factored Turkish concerns into what has been a sucessful campaign in Northern Iraq. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-5 12:26:06 PM |
| #11 Steve White: Don't forget Pilsen and Englewood. |
| Posted by: michael 2003-9-5 12:10:59 PM |
| #10 NMM - "I'm non-violent type and DOUBT that" Okay, my memory tells me you did an 'LOL' over a banner pic shown on LGF (discussed here) which said that the soldiers should shoot their officers - but I've been wrong before, so the benefit of the doubt is yours. "we actually agree on things" Well some things - I don't think you'll start blinking and be called to renewal ala Logan's Run over it! "does this make me your bitch like Murat?" Nope. I'm a one-bitch Sandman and, besides, he's almost behaving himself today - arguing coherently and contributing. It's a marvel - and welcome. It may disappoint you to hear it, but you could be valuable in Rantburg - if you would lay off the IndyMedia gag-lines and contribute your intellect. It doesn't hurt us at all to hear bona-fide liberal arguments. Now if you just love to get dirty and this is where you choose to do it, then you've devalued yourself - trolls are a dime a dozen. BUT, no sweat, some of us love to get dirty once in awhile, too. You'll be fully employed, either way, but only be appreciated for contributing. Ahhhhh, free speech, doncha love it? |
| Posted by: .com 2003-9-5 5:21:55 AM |
| #9 LOL. Classic Rantburg, now I know why I love this place so much. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-9-5 5:01:12 AM |
| #8 .com--don't remember the reference to shooting officers in SF--but I'm non-violent type and DOUBT that! I agree Turkey stabbed us in the back but I don't blame the French for that! As for PR-you're forgetting all the tax breaks for American corps doing biz there -- now ya got me scared--we actually agree on things--does this make me your bitch like Murat? |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 4:54:35 AM |
| #7 NMM - I'll assume, though it's probably stupid of me, you actually now care about "our boys" and believe your point addresses it. You're not consistent, therefore not automatically believable, since you thought the SF demonstration signs about shooting officers was pretty funny. I thought then that you deserved to be shot in response. Not a question of your free speech rights, but of whether or not you were a human or a blinded rabid dog asshat. In this response I offer you the benefit of the doubt - until / unless you waste it. It's not that simple, of course, but you're partially right - credit where due - but read on. Rumsfeld is concerned about troop levels - all over the world - it's his job. As SecDef, he was handed a task and he's doing what he thinks is best - blame Dubya if you don't like what he's done, he could've been overruled at any point. The main reason I haven't made the same point you did is that there are several reasons, not the least of which is that the security situation which requires so many troops was drastically made worse when we did not get to implement a Northern front due to Turkey's duplicity and betrayal. Not only did we lose more people in the one-front push, but it has exacerbated everything since and, thus, cost us some of "our boys" afterwards, too. Think it through and ask yourself where much of the early trouble and where much of the ongoing active sabotage comes from and the answer will be the Sunni Triangle. Recall the story last week of the Sheikh who made it clear he expected to be bribed to keep "his section" of the pipleine free from sabotage? Classic Sunni protection racket - straight from the Triangle. That area got a pass, relatively speaking, because of the one-front situation. It SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEVELED, Sheikh and all. Sorry, but it's a very sore point for several reasons I've written about before - but it's definitely part of what is seen to be a shortage of boots on the ground. During active operations, while 4ID was still transiting all the way back around to Kuwait to enter the theater of ops, it should've been wiping Tikrit and similar off the face of the Earth. As for NYC going Donk, those Puerto Ricans you hold in disfavor are your biggest dole-loving allies, or hadn't you thought about that? They're your Donk cannon fodder, pal. As for Christine Todd and the twiddle-twaddle regards air quality - sheesh, c'mon man - is that really grounds for some liberal jihadi BS against the Pubs? Get real. There are better reasons, you just need to go back to IndyMedia and rearm. Go ahead. We'll call a hudna til you return. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-9-5 4:43:50 AM |
| #6 ps .com I'm over 40 so longer twink material for you pedophiles |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 4:29:56 AM |
| #5 .com Rumsfeld is the McLeod--everytime you conservatives invoke 9/11 I have to shudder knowing exactly how much contempt and irrational hatred you have for New York City--the most liberal city in the US and its 80% voting record for Gore. Don't even get me started about the cynical selection of NYC for the Repooplican convention to coincide with 9/11--New Yorkers hate the GOP and for good reason--seen the lies Christine Todd Liar told about the air quality at Ground Zero? I know quite a few NY Wall St Republicans who are coughing mad about that shit |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 4:01:18 AM |
| #4 NMM - LOL! Rumsfeld sure gets you (and your ilk) in a tizzy! Panties bunched up everywhere you twinks congregate. Waay cool! I find that so sweet and endearing that I won't even spank you! You're on a par with the Phrench, now. Your wild-eyed comical spittle about Rummy is tantamount to a ringing endorsement! Anyone who makes you lose your little marbles is definitely doing something vewy vewy wight! Thanx - tool phools like you have made him my favorite Bushie! |
| Posted by: .com 2003-9-5 3:45:41 AM |
| #3 Hey Mike, how about defining quagmire for us? What actually defines it for you? Five months? A few bombings? A couple of hundred KIAs? There are tons of reports, many of them right here, that show clearly that most of Iraq is peaceful and that conditions are improving. So things aren't perfect everywhere, so we're changing our tactics to suit the situation. That's classic American behavior. We try something, and if it doesn't work, we try something else. But the real issue is that those who share your short-sighted views, simply do not understand what Iraq is about. You don't see the strategic view. This war was never, ever just about Iraq. It's about the fact that on Sept. 11, and many other times before, we were attacked by the MIDDLE EAST. It's about trying to change the dynamics of a region that is about as backward as can be by moving Iraq towards democratic principles and economic advancement. It's about creating an example that peace, prosperity, and freedom are a better way to live that authorian kleptocracies and fascist-rascist mullahs. It's about trying to give people a better life and therefore reduce the reasons people turn to terrorism in the first place. Weren't leftists yelling about "root causes" not so long ago? Iraq is all about root causes, my friend. Yeah, it's going to cost a lot of money and it's going to take a long time. So what? It's worth every penny and every day that it takes to at least try. Because if we don't try, or worse, if we run away like the leftists want, the situation in that part of the world will ONLY get worse until the inevitable happens: we get nuked by some terrorist group. If that happened, what do you think our response would be? I think we all know: we'd vaporize the whole region. See, you leftists just don't get it at all: the war and reconstruction in Iraq are the MOST humanitarian thing we can do. It is the most bloodless option. Look at the whole picture for a change. Look deep down inside yourself. Do you actually believe that if we did nothing that the Middle East would be LESS dangerous? |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-9-5 3:39:50 AM |
| #2 Donald |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 3:01:20 AM |
| #1 Have to kill them? No, it's more like this. " Oh well, we're just going to end up mutilating them with machine-gun fire anyway. It's not like we're trying to take them alive. " |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-9-5 2:30:09 AM |