(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

[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.