| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq-Jordan | ||
| Bremer: Iraqis Not Ready to Run Security | ||
| 2004-04-19 | ||
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi security forces will not be ready to protect the country against insurgents by the June 30 handover of power, the top U.S. administrator said Sunday - an assessment aimed at defending the continued heavy presence of U.S. troops here even after an Iraqi government takes over.
The military had always planned to remain after June 30, when the U.S. is to handover sovereignty to Iraq. In recent months coalition officials acknowledged the transfer of security will be significantly slower than hoped because Iraqi forces were not prepared. But Bremer said the fighting across the country this month exposed the depth of the problems inside the security forces. "Events of the past two weeks show that Iraq still faces security threats and needs outside help to deal with them. Early this month, the foes of democracy overran Iraqi police stations and seized public buildings in several parts of the country," he said. "Iraqi forces were unable to stop them."
U.S. officials have been rebuilding the military from scratch, arranging the training of recruits and naming Allawi as its civilian head. But the recent violence has shown the weaknesses and conflicted feelings of the armed forces. An army battalion refused to join the Marines in the siege of Fallujah, saying they did not intend to fight fellow Iraqis. During the Shiite militia uprising in the south, many police abandoned their stations, realizing they were badly outgunned or sympathizing with the militia's cause. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #6 What failures there have been in security were either due to a) the police being asked to face much better arms militia fighters, or b) failures of leadership. We've run some NCO courses, and a few company level courses, but that's it. Americans ran as Kasserine Pass and in Korea; it happens. We should be able to find more than enough upper ranks that are fairly "pure" to provide some trained and experienced leadership to the existing troops. We didn't dump every postmaster in post-war Germany; some of the same logic should apply here. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-04-19 1:46:56 PM |
| #5 Iraqis are also worried about American betrayal. Prominent ex-Baathists are being appointed to senior security positions, some with the active intervention of American generals. Note that some of the Coalition-employed Iraqi units that went to pieces during the recent troubles were headed up by these very same generals. Michael Rubin at the National Review Online comments: Glossed over by Foggy Bottom, but seized upon by many Iraqis was Brahimi's statement, "The issue of former military personnel also needs attention." Alarm bells in Iraq are also ringing over the redeployment of Major-General David Petraeus, a critic of de-Baathification, to train and screen the new Iraqi military and security forces. Speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on April 7, 2004, Petraeus argued that the Coalition should encourage reconciliation and reintegrate former Baathist officials into leadership positions. While Petraeus, who seldom misses an opportunity for a media interview, says that his reconciliation policy in Mosul proved successful, facts on the ground fail to support his assertion. Mosul today contains the most organized anti-democratic resistance. Petraeus's empowerment of radical Islamists may very well have cost American lives. On several occasions, Iraqis handed me lists of dozens of top-tier Baathists protected by Petraeus. "How can I go to the police, when the police chief tortured my brother in [Saddam's] prison," one Kurd asked me. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-04-19 10:30:10 AM |
| #4 Jen: After living under Saddam's quirks for 30 years, they probably don't find it pays to back the "loser," so they take a wait and see position to make sure who that will be before they commit themselves. I think it's more complicated than that - Arabs and Muslims are used to a winner-take-all world where the sect, tribe or family on top gets the lion's share of the spoils and dictates to everyone else how they will live their lives. I don't think they see any value in fighting for ideals - fighting for personal gain is fine, but fighting for democratic ideals is a leap of faith they haven't yet come to terms with. The enemies of democracy in Iraq are fighting for either Shiite or Baathist supremacy - in either case, the winners would get the lion's share of the loot. Interposed against them, we have the US encouraging Iraqis to fight their enemy in the name of ... freedom. If the other side wins, the terrorists get to monopolize the resources of the state, whereas if our guys win, they get ... freedom. It's not difficult to see why our Iraqis are less motivated than their Iraqis. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-04-19 9:51:30 AM |
| #3 someone, I think you've nailed it--that's probably it. After living under Saddam's quirks for 30 years, they probably don't find it pays to back the "loser," so they take a wait and see position to make sure who that will be before they commit themselves. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-19 6:34:56 AM |
| #2 They still haven't figured out who the strong horse is going to be. Having the June 30 figureheads will help. |
| Posted by: someone 2004-04-19 6:07:34 AM |
| #1 You know, I'm not buying some of this "We're not going to fire on our own people." stuff: they were able to fire on them just fine when Saddam was in power. He didn't kill most of those 800,000-2 million folks in the mass graves personally, now, did he? Something else is the problem. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-19 5:58:05 AM |