(no subject)

[mrph]

So, the 2nd Battalion of the Iraqi Armed Forces refused to fight in Fallujah.

At the time, the Washington Post quoted Major General Paul Eaton (who is "overseeing the development of Iraqi security forces") as saying members of the battalion insisted that they "did not sign up to fight Iraqis."

General John Abizaid, much more widely quoted in the press, has a different view on things. He says the battalion "did not stand up to the intimidators", and he has a solution in mind: "In the next couple of days you'll see a large number of senior officers being appointed to key positions in the ministry of defence and the Iraqi joint staff and in Iraqi field commands.".

A lot of onlne news sources don't really elaborate on that statement, but the BBC site spells it out very clearly:

A number of top brass from Iraq's Baathist former regime would shortly be appointed to "key positions in the ministry of defence and the Iraqi joint staff and in Iraqi field commands", the top officer announced

Yeah, I can see why that makes sense to Abizaid. I mean, if they were "top brass" under Saddam, they're unlikely to have any real problems with shooting troublesome Iraqis, are they? Or anyone else they're told to shoot, for that matter.

Another great day for freedom and democracy, then.

Comments

[taoist-goth.livejournal.com]

Just what I was thinking.

1) Invade country
2) Depose army
3) Re-appoint army
4) Leave country
5) Go "Hang on a minute..."

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Yup.

Thing is, if they were re-appointing the rank and file army, I wouldn't be so worried. I still think one of their biggest mistakes was sending the conscripted soldiers home with their weapons - and without their wages...

[taoist-goth.livejournal.com]

I just get the feeling that all these opposing factions - Sunni, Shia and what have you - actually *need* a forceful hand to keep them from slapping each other. I'm certainly not suggesting Saddam should return but I really think this new democratic thingy is just too fragile and namby pamby to survive while all these tribes are vying for power with each other. I'm not sure democracy can ever actually work in arab states - their whole ethos just doesn't sit well with a voting system. None of the other Arab states are democracies, are they? I think we'll find that as soon as the yanks hand Iraq over to this new government and withdraw, the whole thing'll erupt into civil war until the most powerful tribe kills everyone else. I hope not, but I can just see it happening. And the yanks'll get the blame and probably rightly so.

[second attempt]

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Not so sure about that. After all, they were putting up portraits of Al-Sadr in the Sunni areas last week... nothing like a common cause to help build bridges.

As for democracy... well, the best (only?) local example would be Arafat, who was voted into office. That seemed to work until the last intifada took hold.

I think the main problem is actually showing the people that their vote will matter - if politicians are all the same, or if they're going to obey the US instead of the electorate, then why vote? If there's no chance achieving your aims through the ballot box, might as well try bullets and bombs instead...

[Which is why I'd much rather see Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland Assembly, incidentally - once you've got ministers and MPs, you've taken root and there's suddenly much more to lose by abandoning the democratic process...]


Note to self: always check who's logged in on the PC before browsing LJ and posting comments. :)

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

The problem, I think, is not that democracy can't work in Arab states - it is that democracy seems to take a huge amount of time to establish itself culturally - and also that it has far more chance of success when it is created from within than when it is imposed from without... In Iraq, for example, the democracy will always be vulnerable to attack by nationalists who will be able to present it as an alien phenomenon imposed from without...

Having said that, even the beginnings of democracies in the West were not exactly without chaos, bloodshed or elements of authoritarianism.

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

I think the penny is just starting to drop... they are slowly starting to remember why invading countries is not generally a very good idea...

One can only hope that if one good thing comes out of this mess, it is that idiots like Bush will think twice before adopting such reckless policies again...

(I daren't even hope that the US people will vote him out because of it... but if only they would...)

[taoist-goth.livejournal.com]

"One can only hope that if one good thing comes out of this mess, it is that idiots like Bush will think twice before adopting such reckless policies again..."

*coughcoughVietnamcoughcough*

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

Vietnaam is a good example - the fallout from that disaster had the effect of keeping them out of major conflicts for a considerable period of time... (they just armed Islamic fundamentalists instead)

[mrph.livejournal.com]

We shouldn't need a Vietnam (or Suez) every generation just to prove that it's a bad idea. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we don't...

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

you are right of course - in both respects.

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Was democracy ever really an issue here. I mean, it's not like anything has happened in over a year of occupation, hospitals still lack supplies, electricity and water suppkies aren't good, and there are no jobs going.
The UN should have dealt with the humanitarian issues from day one, I am sure that we wouldn't have half the trouble we are having now if that had been the case.
The american military/government solution to the 'uprising' is to go in guns blazing and with a heavy hand - which is only inflaming the situation.
Shooting up civilians and buiildings is not a good way to make friends.
As for the army/police...their job is already a difficult one, they are getting blown up when they try to sign up to get some work, they have a large disaffected portion of the population to deal with and I am sure they feel pretty much the same way as the rest of the countrymen and women.
The heavyhandedness of the US military is only serving to push the disaffected people further into the clutches of the extremists.
They dont seem to like to compromise - it's either their way or the highway - this will cause bigger problems for us all.
It wont matter if army is willing to wipe out all the Iraqis in Falluja, because it will just add fuel to the fire and we'll end up in a situation not unlike the present Israeli/Palastinian problem.
Perhaps the British should move in and try to sort things out - we dont seem to have problems in any of the cities/towns where our boys and girls are stationed.

[giolla.livejournal.com]

The UN should have dealt with the humanitarian issues from day one

I could well be remembering things wrong, but I don't recall the UN being given a chance to do anything from day one, what with not being invited to the war and all.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

...mostly due to that "They dont seem to like to compromise - it's either their way or the highway" attitude that lougarry mentions, yup.

I suspect a fair chunk of the international apathy is because the alternative is only seen (rightly or wrongly) as a chance to send in cannon fodder but get no say in policy...

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

I know and realise that, but they should have been involved regardless - we dont expect civilians to fight battles, and we shouldn't expect fighting men and women to govern.
The UN had all the proper channels and organisations to help rebuild Iraq. That way the soldiers could concentrate on cracking down on insurgents.

I fear that this is going to escalate into somethign much, much bigger which is going to be bad for everyone.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

At the time, the Washington Post quoted Major General Paul Eaton (who is "overseeing the development of Iraqi security forces") as saying members of the battalion insisted that they "did not sign up to fight Iraqis."

Well, that does leave one wondering who they thought they might be fighting...

I have always been very much in favour of deposing tyrants - anything to stop the screams from the torture pits. The trouble is the USA seems so hopelessly and frighteningly naive. I heard a recent interview with Paddy Ashdown regarding Bosnia. The message was that democracy can be brought to a country, and it can work, but it takes an enormous amount of time and investment. The timescale is decades, not months as Bush seems to think.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone signs up for the British army expecting to fight rioters in Liverpool. The IRA in Belfast, maybe... but that brings us back to just what was going on in Falluja, as I think the recruits and the USA saw different things when they looked at the unrest there.

As you say, hopelessly naive. Ashdown has consistently been talking sense on the subject - all the way back to the very start of the "War on Terror", when I remember seeing him on TV explaining, carefully and slowly, why this sort of thing turns into a quagmire so easily.

Deposing tyrants is a good thing, yes. Deposing tyrants and then reappointing their generals to help keep the population under control? Not so sure about that bit.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

...I really hate to say it, but on reflection I'd also have to disagree with the "anything" bit of that statement. Dictators, however vile, aren't automatically the worst option.

If all you have to offer the newly liberated is violence, anarchy and gang rule, maybe they really are better under a tyrant until someone can come up with a better option. Look at how many are dying now in Iraq, and how it seems to be spiralling out of control. Look at Afghanistan - where the population preferred the Taliban to the warlords they replaced, because at least under the Taliban you had some semblance of order, some kind of safety if you lived by their rules.

I think any outside view is likely to be biased, if only because people like Saddam make the news whereas the faceless "local violence" that follows the breakdown of law and order doesn't, even if it kills just as many people in equally unpleasant ways.

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Look at something on a more peaceful scale.
The first democratic elections in South Africa were ten years ago. SA passed from apartheid to intergration relatively peacefully[1].
But even now, despite relative peace[2] there is heavy unemployment, a massive increase in Aids and crime.
And this is 10 years later. New governments, or any government for that fact, can promise housing, jobs and a better life...but that doesn't mean they can neccessarily make it happen...SA is a prime example of this - life is not much better for some people, and in some cases it is much, much worse.
I imagine it would be 100x harder to do that in a country that is on the brink...like Iraq

[1] in comparison to the recent events in Iraq. They weren't that peaceful because I remember the shit that was happening at the the time that _didn't_ get reported - however that is not the point
[2] ie: there is not rioting in the streets and bombs going off etc

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

My feeling is that we a have the moral duty not to stand to one side and leave a population under a tyrant. To me, human rights are everything and should if necessary be fought for, that's why I am a member of Amnesty. Sure, we can't do everything (The example of Tibet and China is often mentioned, but its not wise to try and fight a country with nukes), but when we can.

As for the Taliban - no way dude! I see no evidence that the population want back the stoning of women in the streets and other such wonders of religious dictatorship.

Tis ok, I'll shut up now. :)

[mrph.livejournal.com]

My feeling is that we a have the moral duty not to stand to one side and leave a population under a tyrant.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean we should fall into the "We must do something. This is something. So we must do this!" trap so beloved of our leaders. We need to do something about it... but that doesn't mean whatever we do, however poorly thought out, is better than doing nothing. It means that we have an obligation to think before we act.

As for the Taliban... they initially had popular support because they were less violent, more orderly and more predictable than the warlords that preceded them. Really. They were a bunch of utter bastards, no argument. But they were less likely to shoot people just because they felt like it, or to rob, rape and murder anyone they didn't know who crossed their path. If you were one of the majority who wasn't victimised, they actually made Afghanistan safer if you followed their rules - think of that old "at least they made the trains run on time" mindset. As I say, gang rule and anarchy can be at least as destructive.