| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| A Microcosm of Iraq's Security Problems |
| 2006-10-29 |
| This article illustrates a couple of things. First, re-building progressed in Iraq until ethnic identities became important. Second, preventing ethnic conflict is impossible when the polarization is near total. I wonder if the Iraq setbacks are attributable to our unwillingness to toss the Clinton sermon against "ethnic cleansing?" Maybe realpolitick dictates implementing the tri-partite divisions that have only been hinted at. One problem is: Sunnis are in position to choke off Shiite pilgrimages to Karbala. Another: revenue sharing is a problem in federal states; and most Iraq oil is in Kurd and Shiite majority areas. Another: the Saudis will never accept advancement of Shiite power, without a bloody fight through their surrogates. Still, Partition appears to be the best bet. A FEW months ago Saab al Bour was a showpiece town where Americans were building schools and fixing the water and electricity supplies. Even the Shi’ites and Sunnis rubbed along. The dusty settlement of sand-coloured brick buildings six miles northwest of Baghdad is now a ghost town, shorn of its residents by Iraq’s relentless sectarian wars. They took to the road when mortars, 15-20 a day, started crashing into the town, fired by Sunni extremists targeting the Shi’ites. Sunni neighbour turned on Shi’ite neighbour in a struggle that eventually drove out 90% of the original population of 30,000. Before I set out for Saab al Bour yesterday, I had been assured that it had been “pacified”. Our two UH-60 helicopters flew low out of Baghdad’s fortified green zone, swooping over the capital, its once-crowded arteries devoid of traffic. We banked over flat stretches of baked earth and a few patches of green and came in low to a wasteland in the middle of the town, guided by grey smoke rising from two armoured cars that had been sent ahead to secure the landing. This did not look like a pacified town. American soldiers in desert camouflage uniforms leapt out of the helicopters to set up a perimeter, 6ft apart, around us. Crouching, M16s perched on their shoulders pointing out in a circle, they eyed the mud and sand brick houses suspiciously. Only a mangy yellow dog moved. Within half an hour of my arrival Apache helicopter gunships filled the sky, firing on insurgents just the other side of a canal with loud blasts of their cannons. In the town’s police station, sandbagged and covered with camouflage netting, Lieutenant-Colonel Dave Thompson sat with two members of the local council. The police were supposed to be there to brief us, but they had been called to an “incident”. Later one policeman told me the incident was an attack on their commander’s home and they had rushed to help. This is just a microcosm of the problems besetting Iraq. The town of Saab al Bour had been quiet when the American army, backed up by Iraqi soldiers, was based there. It sits on the edge of Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold. Shortly after the soldiers handed over to the Iraqi police at the end of last month, the fighting began. |
| Posted by:Snease Shaiting3550 |
| #10 What I am saying is that this is a Times online article : there is no news that is good that cannot be spun as bad. The Iraqi Police are not available to talk to the bloody reporter since they are off FIGHTING the bad guys, not running away as before. However, since they were not there to speak to the Grand Poobah of the press, the situation in Iraq is going to hell -- at least according to the article. You see, police are there for the convenience of the reporter, not to actually do their job. And the IP are getting Apache fire support from the US, instead of being left on their own, but that is a bad thing because it is evil American weapons killing the local "resistance fighters". How many cops in the US would love to have Apache backup when they get into a gun battle with gang-bangers - but since it is in Iraq and it isn't all bumblegum and lollipops, the world is ending. Also, the Europeans were screaming back in 2003 when the US insisted on deBaathification of the police forces in Iraq : "You are getting rid of all the experienced people!!". So in sectors under European allied control, the US permitted the reconstituting of the police forces with Baathists in place. Then the ethnic militias started crying and got rolled into those police forces, as well. Now, we and the Iraqi National Goverment are having to go back in and deBaathify and purge the ethnic militias back out of the police forces, to stop the death squads and cutdown on the corruption. So listening to our European allies resulted in 1 step forward, then 2 steps backward on the police : we are now having to do the purging that they failed to do, with their "kinder, gentler" approach to counter-terror/counter-insurgency. Which has added 3 more years to the whole damned cycle. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-10-29 18:14 |
| #9 O Lost! The time of the tomato is sliced thin! Woe! The darkness of the mountain clans peels a cheap potatoe. Cheap bastard soup for all. Forget it, your all gonna die, or dance. |
| Posted by: Abu Thomas Wolfe 2006-10-29 12:23 |
| #8 It would also raise the intelligence level, Remember the old saying "Killing the weaker third is always good genetics" Substitute "Dumber and more violent" for "Weaker" and the thought is still the same. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-10-29 12:12 |
| #7 I just had an odd thought. Unload a truckload of new rifles on one side of town, unload a truckload of ammo on the other side of town to fit the rifles, leave town and set up a perimeter. Anyone fleeing town and unarmed gets put in a holding camp (Comfortable and well supplied) Anyone fleeing town armed is turned back into town, shoot if they don't go back in. Wait. When the shooting dies down, encircle the town and slowly advance, anyone with a gun is killed, anyone unarmed goes to the holding camp. When you reach the center of town, gather up all the guns, what's left of the ammo, release all in the holding camp and leave town. Problem solved, no insurgents. Repeat at the next troublesome town. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-10-29 12:07 |
| #6 Besides, I thought that the insurgents and anti-Americans all over the world were saying that as soon as we left things would calm down. That we were perpetuating the insurgency simply by being there. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-10-29 09:30 |
| #5 It seems we simply overestimated them. The retards would rather murder each other than build themselves a country and a life. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-10-29 09:28 |
| #4 Snease - I don't mean to enter this argument one way or another. But you said, "In the article, writers note that peace ended when security was handed to the police." lol! It's a timesonline article. Why should we put any stock in what their writers wrote? |
| Posted by: Clkethel OHlkdj 2006-10-29 08:16 |
| #3 Shieldwolf: So the police are enabling ethnic conflict? In the article, writers note that peace ended when security was handed to the police. Given the President's openness to new strategies, what do you think will work? |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-10-29 02:42 |
| #2 Oh yes, the great ethnic polarization issue. Fact is, we are turning over major areas in Iraq to Iraqi Army units every week now. The Iraqi National Police that have been purged by the US and retrained are not only standing and fighting, they are taking the fight to the enemy in many sectors. The major issues with ethnics seem to be the police units that everyone in Europe was screaming about integrating with Sunnis and militias : they are still operating as thugs and cowards. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-10-29 02:36 |
| #1 Partitioning of Iraq requires clearing the Sunnis out of the Sunni Triangle south of Baghdad and relocating Shiites from north of Bahdad (in order to get contiguos areas). |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-10-29 01:43 |