| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Prime minister-designate to recall Saddam army |
| 2004-05-30 |
| BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister-designate Iyad Allawi plans to recall four divisions of Saddam Hussein’s old army — a move that would mark the most significant reversal of U.S. occupation policy to date. Mr. Allawi also said he intended to create a rapid-reaction force and anti-terrorism unit to deal with the country’s security crisis — which is widely attributed to the U.S. decision to dismiss more than 300,000 soldiers following the fall of Baghdad. "I would like to see the reconstitution of three to four divisions of the Iraqi army from midlevel officers to junior ranks," he said in an interview. "I am only talking about the regular army here, not the Republican Guard." Under Saddam, each of 23 regular Iraqi army divisions had about 10,000 men. "I also want to see the formation of a rapid-deployment force and an anti-terrorism outfit on intelligence and operational levels as well as an improved general intelligence operation," Mr. Allawi said. "Security and the economy are our biggest challenges. We have to beef up our security assets — the police, military, intelligence and army," Mr. Allawi said. He spoke in his offices in the former Ba’ath Party training college that now serves as the headquarters the Iraqi National Accord (INA), a political party he founded in exile more than a decade ago. The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council unanimously nominated Mr. Allawi to be prime minister in a new government to take power on June 30. The Bush administration, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority and U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi have publicly accepted the choice. Although the emergence of the British-trained physician as the caretaker leader for the next six months took many Iraqis by surprise, he was already preparing to take over the reins when he spoke about his plans. Mr. Allawi, 58, returned to Baghdad last year after more than 30 years in exile. When he was asked about the prospect of becoming the first head of government of a post-Saddam Iraq, a grin spread across his face. "To be frank, that would make me very proud," he said in excellent English as he sat back in a black leather armchair. His new position arguably makes him the top target for insurgents such as those who assassinated the head of the outgoing Iraqi Governing Council two weeks ago. But Mr. Allawi is used to living under threat — he survived an assassination attempt by ax-wielding Saddam henchmen in London — and aides say that he is unperturbed. As he held meetings in the heavily fortified Green Zone yesterday to help choose the rest of the new government, including a president and two deputy presidents, several mortar bombs landed in the street, a reminder that nowhere in Iraq is safe. The INA still draws heavily on former Iraqi military and intelligence officers, and Mr. Allawi believes the decisions last year to disband the old army en masse and introduce a rigid de-Ba’athification policy contributed significantly to the collapse in law and order. As the man who will run the interim government until elections in January, he wants the policy reversed. Up to half of former Iraqi army officers would be willing to return to service if asked, he said. He also would draw on former special forces troops, the tribes, the political parties and the Kurdish militia for the new forces. Mr. Allawi was diplomatic on the contentious issues of how long coalition forces should remain in Iraq and the chain of command after June 30. "Iraq has to have a presence within the command structure, but the details need to be discussed," he said. "We need a partnership with the U.S. and Europe for the sake of peace, stability and progress in the region as a whole." Another ressurection of the old order that can hardly be reassuring for the Iraqi people. Saddam’s previous troops have all the exact wrong training (i.e., graft, bribery, etc.) to be put in place once again. It would be like hiring all the old police force. |
| Posted by:Zenster |
| #15 Pay Iraqi soldiers $50 weekly and officers $70 a week and provide monthly $200 BONUSES to any soldier who captures or kills "unlawful terrorists" or who forwards valuable military intelligence to coalition troops in the area. Bribe them properly. I have absolutely no problem with this (except that a bunch of innocent kills might show up as your supposedly "unlawful terrorists") so long as harsh measures are also put in place for corruption. The soldiers and police should be paid enough to create a sense of prestige surrounding their jobs instead of empowering any ability for them to intimidate the innocent. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-30 5:35:36 PM |
| #14 Addendum to #13. Let's use the monthly $340,000 we no longer pay to Chalabi as a supplement to what's planned for salaries of the Iraqi soldiers...ie. none of this $10 a week crap or whatever mediocre sum I read that was being paid to the police officers. Pay Iraqi soldiers $50 weekly and officers $70 a week and provide monthly $200 BONUSES to any soldier who captures or kills "unlawful terrorists" or who forwards valuable military intelligence to coalition troops in the area. Bribe them properly. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-05-30 4:49:35 PM |
| #13 Hard choices and none of them are perfect. However, Allawi's plan is good, if only because I don't want to have our GI's babysitting Iraq forever and taking bullets indefinitely to preserve Iraqi peoples' freedoms. If we don't feel comfortable about Allawi's plan to re-employ Iraqi soldiers, then who do we use instead? Does re-instituting the draft so young Americans can die "winning hearts and minds" 50 years years from now sound better? I care 2 hoots whether Iraqis feel "comfortable" with former Republican Guard soldiers ensuring law and order and protecting their sovereignity. Maybe a little fear and old memories in the hearts and minds of Iraqis, who have thusfar sat on their hands when unlawful combatants live in their midst, might not be such a bad thing to motivate the silent majority to become "more forthcoming" or suffer the consequences. Does anyone here, much less Iraqis,believe former Republican Guard soldiers will abide by the Geneva Convention regarding "civilians" who provide aid and comfort to Al Fayedeen? I'd suggest that the reason Iraqi police officers deserted is because JAG and other do-gooders in the military impressed upon Iraqi police officers during their training all the Western generated useless decorum expected of police officers. Who wouldn't run when faced with the enemy with all that Western legalize in the back of your mind, knowing that if you use force, you'll be arrested and tried for behavior unbecoming to law enforcement. The sooner we hand over sovereignity to the Iraqis and let them do what they need to do, the better. Otherwise, our men will continue being used as target practice by the bad guys due to Geneva Conventions handcuffing our military who are viewed as an "occupying power"legally speaking. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-05-30 4:30:43 PM |
| #12 Zenster, you have led a sheltered life. Bribes are normal in most places and if that is the worst that happens in Iraq, then things are going very well. I am obliged to disagree with you Phil B. Lack of transparancy in government is one of the hallmarks of malfeasance. If we permit all of these same bad-old-ways to once more flourish in Iraq, we'll have done them a tremendous disservice. I am well enough aware of how embedded the notion of baksheesh is in Middle Eastern socities. I just happen to believe that if the Iraqi people as a whole witness America propping up the same sort of bloodsucking bunch of grafters masquerading as government, they'll have even fewer compunctions about voting in a bunch of rigid theocrats to restore "order." One need only examine the Taleban in Afghanistan for a solid object lesson. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-30 2:06:55 PM |
| #11 There is a subtle maneuver going on here. In Iraq, everyone is used to centralized planning, and the *expectation* is that you give loyalty to your employer, because you owe him for your job--your job was a 'payoff' to you in the first place. For this reason, the US does NOT wish to start any massive employment programs--it wants the new Iraqi government to "create the jobs", so the people will appreciate their government. In this circumstance, the US wants the Iraqis to "create" their own army, most likely followed by "creating" their own bureaucracy and "creating" lots of civilian jobs. Actually, a very good strategy for stability. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-05-30 11:55:21 AM |
| #10 You mean on BSDNC? Always the first to report bad news for America and Bush, right? OK, maybe 100 guys got cold feet, but we're talking about thousands of men here and Najaf will settle down again, just like Fallujah. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-30 9:39:38 AM |
| #9 Just heard on MSNBC,100 Iraqi Police that were supposed to go on patrol in Najaf have fled the city instead. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-05-30 9:34:16 AM |
| #8 "It is impossible to go from Islamic tyranny to democracy." Thank you so much. [insert John Cleese routine here] So many experts, so little time. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-30 7:03:47 AM |
| #7 wrong training (i.e., graft, bribery, etc.) Zenster, you have led a sheltered life. Bribes are normal in most places and if that is the worst that happens in Iraq, then things are going very well. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-05-30 6:48:28 AM |
| #6 While I shall grudgingly concur that, should America complete the hand-off in another month's time, these troops will be needed. I do not think that either of these moves are the smartest thing. Employment for the disused soldiers is good, but it might be better if they were focused on infrastructure rebuild. I've seen far too much go wrong whenever we place weapons into the hands of most post-war Iraqis. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-30 4:37:45 AM |
| #5 This is a positive move. Many of the lower ranks have been unemployed since the de-baat process began. The lower ranks that are targeted were threatened by the Saddam intelligence apparatus. They need to be kept busy and working on behalf of the new Iraq post haste. |
| Posted by: Mike Wiley 2004-05-30 4:05:29 AM |
| #4 It is impossible to go from Islamic tyranny to democracy. However, democracy usually follows dictatorship. The Wahabis and Khomenists of Iraq can go to hell, and I could care less who sends them there. |
| Posted by: Dog Bites Trolls 2004-05-30 4:04:04 AM |
| #3 I'm with Phil and Steve--this a good, smart thing to do. (Most of the members of Saddam's army swore allegiance to the Baathist Party because Saddam forced them to...or else.) In that these guys are going to be in charge of their country's internal security in a month's time, they need to have a force that's ready to uphold the rule of Law and have some idea how to do it when it becomes an Iraq for the Iraqis. If the Iraqi people have a problem with it, better to float this plan now while the US is still in complete charge, then after the handover. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-30 3:58:40 AM |
| #2 No Zen, the regular Iraqi army wasn't so bad, particularly the rankers. The officers, particularly the higher ones, were notoriously corrupt, and I'm assuming (hoping?) that Allawi would have the new force vetted pretty thoroughly. And that we/Brits/coalition allies would have some substantial role in training this new force. I agree with Phil B in that law and order is a pre-requisite. The Rumsfeld idea of building a new Iraqi army, free of all the old taints, is fine and I'd go for that in a perfect situation, but the situation isn't perfect now. If Allawi can see clear to put together a force that can work with us, the ICDC, Border Police, etc., and deal with security, good for now. They can always weed out the ones who don't belong later. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-05-30 3:33:58 AM |
| #1 I think it is the right thing to do. Law and order is a pre-requisite for a stable country. |
| Posted by: Phil_B 2004-05-30 3:18:04 AM |