(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]

"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.