(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

[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.