(no subject)
Apr. 13th, 2004 01:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrphSo, 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:
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 announcedYeah, 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-14 03:19 am (UTC)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.