BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis

Subject: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:06 PM

This looks like some seriously major bad news for the Anglo American coalition forces. Talk about needing to watch your back.

Here is an excerpt from today's Washington Post article:

Iraqi Battalion Refuses to 'Fight Iraqis'

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 11, 2004; Page A01


BAGHDAD, April 10 -- A battalion of the new Iraqi army refused to go to Fallujah earlier this week to support U.S. Marines battling for control of the city, senior U.S. Army officers here said, disclosing an incident that is casting new doubt on U.S. plans to transfer security matters to Iraqi forces.

It was the first time U.S. commanders had sought to involve the postwar Iraqi army in major combat operations, and the battalion's refusal came as large parts of Iraqi security forces have stopped carrying out their duties.

The 620-man 2nd Battalion of the Iraqi Armed Forces refused to fight Monday after members of the unit were shot at in a Shiite Muslim neighborhood in Baghdad while en route to Fallujah, a Sunni Muslim stronghold, said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who is overseeing the development of Iraqi security forces. The convoy then turned around and returned to the battalion's post on a former Republican Guard base in Taji, a town north of the capital.

Eaton said members of the battalion insisted during the ensuing discussions: "We did not sign up to fight Iraqis."

He declined to characterize the incident as a mutiny, but rather called it "a command failure."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:11 PM

To quote the intrepid sage Homer, "Doh".

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:18 PM

Well, sure -- every mutiny is a command failure, isn't it? This would be the equivalent of the British occupiers of Boston demanding that local colonials fire on their fellow colonials. They wouldn't do it. Not at the orders of outsiders.

When they have their civil war, they can shoot each other to pieces. But not at the behest of an outside power.

Makes a crazy sense.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:42 PM

Well, I for one don't see this news as something to be so glibly dismissed.

Not only does this put our troops in even more danger than we thought they were in, but the result of this will be that no meaningful transfer of power will take place, or even a symbolic one, any time soon.

We simply must get an international presence with Arab forces in there immediately, or the whole country is going to blow.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:43 PM

Step back a pace, and that's actually good news.

The bottom line is to be in a situation where pulling out the ocuupation forces from Iraq does not lead to a bloody civil war, and this kind of incident is actually helpful in getting there.

The essential thing is to avoid thinking in terms of military victory and so forth. That just lead to a continuing and escalating war going on for years, which will end badly. Unfortunately those are the terms, pretty clearly, in which the people in charge do think.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:52 PM

I respect your interpretation McGrath, but I just don't agree with it. I see no evidence of the Bush administration preparing us for them to bring in international partners, be it the UN, Turkey, or anyone else. I do hope I'm dead wrong about that though, and that you are right.

This news certainly explains why the US commanders in Iraq requested reinforcements this week. In the meantime, it does put our forces at much greater risk.

It appears this past week's US fuck up in Fallujah was a result of new US commanders of the Iraqi battalion being newbies, and just rotated in on 1 April. But you'd think more seasoned higher ups would have stopped them from going into Fallujah under these circumstances. I mean, the murder of the 4 American mercenaries was retaliation for American troops having killed 15 Iraqis the week before. I remember thinking when I saw news reports that the US would "go in at a time and place of their choosing" to avenge the 4 mercenaries, I thought to myself "oh shit".

If the American commanders are so embittered against the Iraqis that they themselves are going in for vengeful, retaliatory, tit for tat attacks (as is the case with the Israelis) we have already lost this one, and the Iraqis are truly fucking screwed.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 02:40 PM

What did I say thatbindicated I was envisaging Bush planning to bring in "international partners" or do anything remotely sensible?

What I envisage - whoever is in charge of the USA - is that there's going to be a stage during which the USA persists in trying to construct a regime that will act as its agent and which will do what it is told, and yet somehow be acceptable to the various elements within Iraqi society. And that is going to be accompanied by efforts to keep down the opposition - and that is probabaly going to mean continuing and escalating bloodshed on the streets.

I doubt very much if that effort can be successful - and at some stage domestic political considerations are going to mean that the USA will pull the rug from under it, and pull out its forces, probably in a hurry.

And my hope is that the signs of rapproachment between different strands within Iraq might mean that a viable united oppositioin might be able to take over at that time, rather than there being a collapse into civil war. Looking towards that, Iraqis refusing to fight other Iraqis on behalf of the occupation is a good sign.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 06:50 PM

McGrath, the last line of my post just prior to yours was what I was referring back to in terms of getting an international force that includes Arabs into Iraq. As to the scenario you are presenting, I just don't see that as likely.

The US won't be able to continue going it alone in Iraq, and I'm convinced they won't. They've pretty much cut Blair out of the decision making altogether, which is also working against Bush. But the pressure to bring in an international presence to support the transition to Iraqi self-rule is becoming louder by the day. Bush isn't going to be able to wait it out until after the election. He is going to be forced to go back to the UN, and make concessions to them, in order to transfer power. If he attempts to transfer power on June 30 and it goes badly, the outcry in the US will become deafening.

Politically it would be much more advantageous for him to get the UN involved sooner rather than later, because it leaves more time and breathing room to turn things around in Iraq before the fall US election season gets going. He just can't afford to have a long, hot, violent and volative summer go down in Iraq, with a Democratic national convention in Kerry's hometown in the middle of it. That just won't happen. The Bush administration is either going to send in many, many more American troops and get Britain to do the same, or it will bring in the UN or NATO t quell the uprisings.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:04 PM

And the fighting will continue. Every firefight will alienate more Iraquis and serve to inspire further attacks on foreign forces. If the Americans bring in overwhelming firepower (which they can) the Iraqui fighters will disperse, then attack in some other place where they can find a more vulnerable target. The Americans will then go and beat up on that other location, and the whole process will repeat itself again and again. Eventually the Americans will leave, as the British did once when they failed to occupy and hold Iraq.

This is what happens when you occupy a country against the will of its people, and you don't have enough troops and immigrants to totally outnumber and displace the indigenous population. It happened to the British and the Russians in Afghanistan too...at different times in history.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Deckman
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:12 PM

A hundred years ago I attended a one day workshop in Carmel put on by Ira Sandpearl and Joan Baez. This was actually mid sixties, I think. It was at the time of the flower children and everyone was looking for alternitives to violence, as in Ghandi and M.L. King. When I view today's world wide crisis's, I wish we'd paid more attention to what they were saying back then. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: flattop
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:40 PM

Bush seem to be pressing for a multilateral force from many counrties (30?) to take over the impossible situation that they've created, Kevin. He would, of course, rather have people from other countries dying until he wins the election, wouldn't you if you were in his underwear? But what leader wants to send troops to die in such a ridiculous situation, if they don't have to?

Constructing a regime will be an intesting challenge. How would you go about doing that? When people compare the Iraq situation with Vietnam, I wonder, isn't it worst than Vietnam. In Vietnam the Americans were supporting a government that was fighting for survival. They had places to hide and rest between gun battles. They don't even have that in Iraq. They may not even have anyone as civilized as Ho Chi Minh to negotiate with and take over when they are ready to surrender. After all, Ho Chi Minh had worked as a busboy at the Paris Hilton in the 1920s. He understood western values. Will the Americans find anyone as good as him to stabalize Iraq when they leave?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: harvey andrews
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:42 PM

"And where did the beautiful people
Put all their beautiful things
The love that we carried on banners of smiles
And the songs that we all used to sing?"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 08:07 PM

"Constructing a regime will be an interesting challenge."   Interesting? Insuperable, I'd say.

But if Iraqis can start refusing to fight other Iraqis, on the orders of foreigners, that could be a good start to their building something to enable them to live together when the foreigners have pulled out.

What's that a quote from, harvey?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: harvey andrews
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 08:11 PM

One of my songs, just taking Deckman's point.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 08:35 PM

I paid a great deal of attention to what Joan Baez and Ira Sandperl had to say back in the 60's and 70's, and have followed it since by personally doing violence to no one, and speaking out against wars of aggression. Many other people paid attention too.

The trouble is that the people who get elected to high office, and those who back them have a different view of things. Coporations don't care who dies, as long as the profits roll in and the public support of their political stooges (the ReDemocrapublicants) does not collapse entirely.

I still sing many of the peace songs from that time. I also vote for people I truly believe in...when I can find anyone like that to vote for on the ballot.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:56 PM

"Step back a pace, and that's actually good news."

I'd agree. The better news was a report I heard on NPR saying that Iraqi's didn't trust or support this Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. They thought he was trying to set himself up as a Muslim Saddam. Good sense in both issues.

flattop, you've described the Catch-22 in this for Bush. If the US continues alone (ignore the 30 or so other countries already there or repeated attempts to get the UN or NATO involved, if very late in the game), he's refusing to cooperate with the international community. When he asks the international community for help, he's trying to get soldiers from other countries so US soldiers don't have to. No way to win between those extremes, is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:23 AM

Knowing Bush, he will attempt to "draft" all of those unemployed, young men and women. Can't have them hanging about the streets protesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 03:06 AM

I think it is just another case, of either myopic strategies of how this war was to be handled, or just plain old bad management from the outset, Strick; the Catch 22 that Bush finds himself in.

There was never a question of not being up for the job, outside of the usual vaguaries being propounded in the lead-up, of "... it's not going to be easy...", and the like... rather akin to getting a little bit of pre-emptive damage limitation in, in the event that all hell might eventually break loose.
With all the military expertise at its' disposal, not to mention its' hard and software, where was the miscalculation made for this one? And just as I suspect that our own troops were sent into Iraq too hastily (in that, for one, they were grossly ill-equipped), I also am open to the idea that there was a certain 'let it happen first, we'll deal with the flak when and if it happens' mindset involved by the time we launched 'Shock and Awe'.
Bush even said that he would go it alone, if necessary! What flawed information could he blame for making that statement? Did his generals tell him this was logistically feasible?
The focus of the 'Occupation', as I now hear the Coalition presence there referred to by an increasing number of journalists in their reportage, is on how to contain the present situation. Not a sausage about the ongoing(?) search for those WMDs, that everybody is convinced are there. It's all about hostages, popular uprisings, and civil war.
We have been listening to the line that 'no one said it was going to be easy', and the continual optimistic take everybody (who is anybody) has on it. How more often can the 'insurgents' repeat the TV pictures we saw of the bombings and subsequent mutilation of the 'civilian contractors' that gave rise to this recent turn of events, though? Ad nauseum, as far as I'm concerned (and it takes a lot to make me sick!). One thing that myopic strategies do have a lot in common with each other, is the unwillingness of the policy maker to fully appreciate the capacity of the 'terrorist'; who they are, what they do, and what drives them.

There is no 20/20 hindsight needed when it comes to the management of the Iraq war. Well, there shouldn't need to be, in any case. There is no excuse for the shoddy manner in which this exploit into the unknown was executed. If we've conveniently shelved the WMD issue, lets look a bit more closely at the actual job itself. I would like to know what the Bobby Fischers of the military command figured as they studied the board. And if they were 'in the loop', or not.

There are a few countries that are about to withdraw their troops; Kazakstan, for one, and I think the Ukraine and Bulgaria are set to follow suit. Whether those countries would have been part of the Coalition, given a different American Predident, or not, will be a question best left to the ever growing amount of memoir writers.
But as the American election approaches, and as the Coalition members sniff the wind to see which way it is blowing, are we likely to see a shift away from this united Alliance, with 'smaller' countries breaking away more and more from it, if the Bush Administration continues to lose that credibility it will certainly need to get re-elected?

There have been quite a few times during 'The War Against Terror' where our support system haven't got it right, but the buck should always stop at the one place. To claim 'systematic problems' is to evade the issue; the Predident is there to open those channels of communication. If he takes his job seriously, that is.

The decision by that Iraqi battalion is symptomatic of a sense of common bonding setting in, and that never bodes well. It means that the military option has already run its' course. Although the British army are suffering casualties as well, our bedside manner, being cultivated in Northern Ireland for one, seems to work much better with a population that we, relatively speaking, have no real bias towards. The American army combatants, on the other hand are on a sort of a jihad themselves, by the looks of it; fuelled perhaps by some perception that if you're killed, you must be guilty..., and there are widely reported instances of 'overkill' in many areas of their procedure. It dosen't make one popular among the natives.

It also seems that we have to accept the present 'American way' of doing things...., as if it were some tried and trusted method.
Fact is, is that the Bush Administration is dragging everybody deeper into the quicksand with their ill-planned, and mis-managed action. If that Coalition, for instance, was in Afghanistan at the minute instead, then they could have perhaps have kept an even closer eye on Saddam. and decided 'at a time and place of our choosing' whether to give a damn or not, if he gassed his own people.
Who knows....


Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:13 AM

Good summation, Jim.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:22 AM

This commander in chief only commands his senior staff, corporate style-top down. He is totally hands off if all the books and articles written about this president have even a grain of truth to them. He is, apparently, no military tactician, nor even inquisitive about much of anything beyond his Mayberry Machiavelli games.

Put our troops in harms way, and abandoned them there is what it appears to me. We have a close family friend who just deployed to Kosovo, but says that if it gets any worse in Iraq, they may be redeployed to Iraq. Apparently, there is some concern right now in the rank and file military that Iraq could blow sky high by summer, and all the resources of the US military would need to be redeployed to Iraq just to get the troops and personnel we have there now, out.

Not a very cheery thought, that.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 09:16 AM

Thanks Amos. No, it is not a very cheery thought, GUEST. If we have to pull out without there being anything concrete in place, we face a worse humiliation than that of Clinton's when he fired those famous Cruise missiles, at the very least.
In a lot of ways, this was our only shot at gaining a foothold in the Middle East. If we fail in Iraq, it will make the Afghan mission almost irrelevant, and will signal the end of any more excursions into that region for the forseeable future..., and America (and the Coalition) will be weakened as a result.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:31 AM

Interesting, Jim. So Ireland is a good example of how to do things?

The actual combat in Iraq was well planned and executed if a bit aggressive. US planning for after the war was flawed because we're more used to fighting wars of attrition where our enemy's spirit and will to fight have been gradually crushed along with their armies. By the critiera I read in a book on wargaming just the other day, the US already has more troops in Iraq than was traditionally thought necessary to control a population their size even under the worst assumptions. Like a lot of things that happen as military matters evolve, our planning for after the war didn't take into account the full impact of shift to maneuver war where the population is not cowed and there are plenty of weapons lying around. The US military was designed to win wars, not police countries after they're defeated. Don't be surprised if you hear about us creating speical "peacekeeping" forces in the future.

"If we fail in Iraq, it will make the Afghan mission almost irrelevant, and will signal the end of any more excursions into that region for the forseeable future..."

I thought the later point was already clear. The US will not be going back to the Middle East militarily anytime soon, no matter what happens from here. We're going to have to find another way.

Interesting report this weekend that France would be willing to come into Iraq if they are given equal say in how the country is managed. Whatever you want to say about the US's desire to maintain control, a great deal France's motivation is outrage over not having as much say in what's going on in the world as they think they deserve. During the build up to the war, Chirac made that clear in the public threats he made to countries like Poland that were trying to get into the EU AND supported the US over Iraq. France cooperated in Haiti because the US accepted their plan for Aristide and putting peacekeepers in the country. They're still stinging because the world soundly ignored their plan for peace in Israel and Palestine.

I don't mean to single out France, but think about it. Germany, like Japan, is always reluctant to participate meaningfully in any foreign adventure. Naturally. China will never support anything they consider interfering in another country's internal affairs because they don't want to set a precident given how complicated it is to keep their empire together. France is really the sticking in both the UN and NATO. If they get what they want (notice they didn't say UN management of Iraq, it was French say in managing it), "international cooperation" will follow as soon as the current conflict settles down. Which it will shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:47 AM

Actually, I'm quite relieved that France, Germany, and Japan aren't engaging in foreign military "adventures" (as you call them). You do know there are very good historic reasons for that, right?

There is also way too much military adventurism coming from other colonial powers like the US and Britain around the world.

What the world needs is much less military interventions by the European and American colonial powers, not more. That's how we've got the mess on our hands we've got in the Middle East to begin with--Britain and the US jockeying for position in the oil regions of the world is resulting in tremendous global destabilization. To say this mess in the Middle East is all the terrorists fault would be ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:25 AM

The US military was designed to win wars, not police countries after they're defeated. That's another way of saying that the soldiers sent into this war by the USA had not been properly trained for the situation that they were being put in.

Combat is only a part of what soldiers are involved in, and soldiers whose training stops at that are just not properly equipped.

To use the example that's come up recently in another context, it's a bit like teaching a pilot how to take off, but not giving the necessary training to allow him or her to land the plane. There is something seriously wrong with that kind of training.

I don't know how it is in the USA, but in our papers here we've had account after account of how Iraqis who rejoiced at the fall of Saddam, and were happy to see the Americans come in as liberators, have been turned around completely by the way they have behaved.

That's not to blame the ordinary soldiers - but it is to blame the people in command and the people who were responsible for organising training. But its the ordinary soldiers who get killed because of this.And then its the Iraqis who originally welcomed them who get killed in the reprisals.

Here's a quote from one piece about this from today's paper: An Iraqi intifada
: The worst damage, however, was done by hand. The clerics at the Sadr office say that US soldiers entered the building and crudely shredded photographs of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shia cleric in Iraq. When I arrived at the destroyed centre, the floor was covered in torn religious texts, including several copies of the Koran that been ripped and shot through with bullets.

And here is a quote from another piece, which makes some sensible suggestions:

The key task is to make the occupation invisible. The transfer of sovereignty on June 30 will mean nothing if coalition troops remain on city streets. "They behave as though it is their country and we are all terrorists," said one Falluja resident, angry that US troops almost invariably point their guns at people.

Put foreign forces under an unambiguous UN mandate, name an early date for their full withdrawal that Iraqis can believe, and immediately reduce the US contingent, which has shown it lacks the training and enough commanders who are able to conduct intelligent peace-keeping. If Falluja has not made that obvious, nothing will.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:12 PM

MCGrath:

The military are trained by task, including civilian police type tasks.

The reason the soldiers in Iraq behave badly is that their lives are constantly being threatened by people who should be under civilian control, who delight in sowing chaos and destruction in the name of whatever god or banner they can find that will let them get their adrenalin rush through destruction. Most of these soldiers would rather switch than fight, given a choice, and will go home and raise families at the first opportunity to do so. But under the threat of bombs and hidden weapons, people get nervous and tetchy. On both sides.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: HuwG
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:13 PM

I would have been scarcely surprised to find Iraqis willing to fire on fellow Iraqis at the Americans' behest. After all, their targets today could well be their rulers tomorrow, even if there is no brotherly feeling.

A recent historical parallel may be the last years of the British Aden Protectorate. Before leaving, the British tried to create a Federation of Sheikhdoms, with its own defence force, the Federal Regular Army (or FRA). When radical independence movements developed, it was instantly clear that the FRA could not be used offensively against them. It did not actively mutiny (although a Police unit in Crater did), but that is as far as its loyalty to the nominal Federation went.

After the British left in 1968, the FRA proved to have been extensively penetrated and influenced by one of the independence movements, the NLF; and it had absolutely no qualms about firing on other independence factions in the brief scuffle for power which followed.

Working from this, I don't think any military unit or political body established by the US in Iraq (not counting Kurdistan) can be relied upon in the long run. Knowing that they will have to live with those Iraqis who have resisted the US and can therefore claim nationalist legitimacy, they can be expected to be laying off their bets from the moment they are established.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:35 PM

Of course they'd sooner go home. Any soldier who wouldn't sooner go home shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the army, because nuts like can get everyone killed.

Of course it's hard being in a foreign country knowing that there are people out there who would like to kill you, and not knowing which they are. It's very natural if soldiers instinctively react in ways that make things worse, and turns potential sympathisers into enemies.

But training is about teaching people to overcome natural instincts when these get in the way of doing the job properly. It appears pretty clear that this type of training has been lacking in the US forces involved in this war.

When you don't train people in the right way to deal with difficult situations, you don't just leave them under-equipped, you ensure that they will rapidly be trained, through action, in the wrong way to deal with these situations. And that goes both for ordinary soldiers and for their commanding officers. If there is one lesson the USA should have learnt in Vietnam, that was it.

That mention, in that report I quoted, of desecrated holy books - it's absolute insanity to have that kind of thing happen. It appears to indicate a life-threatening slapdash attitude towards military discipline. Things like that matter, they aren't just peripheral stuff to be shrugged off or regretted as inevitable. They cost lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 03:50 PM

Strick - Hasn't that what France and other countries have been saying all along? We will help to restore peace and re-build but not under U.S. command.

Do you blame them?

The U.S. is not equipped to "go it alone". It doesn't have the intelligence and the military isn't trained to handle it. As I said to my neighbor when this whole thing started, "Just watch! The U.S. will go in and make bloody war and Canada will come along to clean up the mess." I know this is a very general statement but it certainly follows a pattern.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:37 PM

It's the old adage: Use the right tool for the job.

Soldiers make war; at least, that is their training. Cops keep the peace and enforce law.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:48 PM

"Just watch! The U.S. will go in and make bloody war and Canada will come along to clean up the mess."

Thanks dianavan, best laugh I've had for ages. How are they going to get there Ryanair.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 06:00 PM

Probably with the U.N. If not, I'm sure the U.S. will gladly help them out if they restore peace and re-build. Something the U.S. has never been very good at.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: flattop
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 06:09 PM

Canadian troops may be tied up in Haiti for a long time - especially if we get a minority government in the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 06:16 PM

If I may speak for Canada...sorry, guys! You made this mess. You clean it up...or get out of there. I'd frankly advise the latter at this point. Either way, the Iraquis are going to have a very miserable time of it, all because the poor saps happen to live on top of a whole lot of oil.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 06:22 PM

Teribus - How do you think these guys got to Afghanistan? ...and this after "friendly fire" from the U.S. killed four Canadian soldiers.

The Canadian contribution to the NATO-led International Security Assistance
                   Force (ISAF) is known as Operation ATHENA . With about 1,900 personnel
                   deploying in each rotation, the Canadian contingent is the largest in ISAF.
                   Canadian soldiers conduct regular patrol missions in the Canadian area of
                   responsibility. In addition, they are involved in a number of projects, such as
                   digging wells and repairing buildings, to help improve the quality of life of the
                   people in their area.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 06:29 PM

Soldiers make war; at least, that is their training.

That's what some soldiers do some of the time. But it's by no means the only thing they need to be trained to do. There are all kinds of situations where soldiers get used for very different purposes, including quasi-police roles.

And even when it comes to "making war", that isn't just a question of going in guns blazing and taking care of business in pitched battles. If that is all that soldiers are trained to do, they are not being adequately or suitably trained.

A properly trained soldier will not behave in a way that gratuitously increases the likelihood that the soldiers in the unit that takes over from them is going to be killed. Properly trained soldiers will never, for example, desecrate holy places and holy things - smash altars in churches, burn scrolls in synagogues, rip up and shoot copies of the Koran in mosques.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 07:12 PM

Exactly why Bush should step down! Faulty intelligence and improperly trained soldiers. Isn't he supposed to be the Commander in Chief?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:07 PM

dianavan - do come along lass - at least be consistant - you on another thread:

"There was no faulty intelligence, it was faulty administration."

MGOH,

I think we established sometime in the past the extent of your knowledge of military training particularly with regard to UK forces. It is woefully off the mark, as was brucie's over-simplified contention that you addressed, "Soldiers make war; at least, that is their training."

Interesting to note some similar circumstances in different areas of Iraq.

Down south quite recently some followers of the current mad mullah stormed the local Iraqi governors offices. UK forces surrounded the place, negotiations started with Brit, IGC and Mehdi involvement. Result Mehdi guys left - nobody killed, nobody wounded, order restored. The vast majority of Shia do not support, or trust Muqtada al-Sadr. Who now appears to realise that calling out his militia to "vanquish the infidel", is only going to result in one hell of a lot of them getting killed, himself included, which was never his plan, not by a long shot - Saddam was good at talking that talk too, as was our old Palestinian "robber-in-charge", Yasser Arafat. But like I said that is not in their plan, Sadr, saw the strength of support for him, or lack of it, so now he is calling his boys off, and forming a properly constituted political party to fight in the forthcoming elections - at least according to the BBC - the above having been negotiated between Sadr and representatives from the IGC. Shiite insurrection, popular uprising, like hell - opportunistic grab for power more like.

The other one was the taking of Basra right at the start. Compare the different approach, between that and what is currently going on in Fallujah. Hell all they had to do was cut the place off from the outside world then just sit back and wait.

Deployment of Iraqi, or as Little Hawk insists - Iraqui, Defense Forces should be restricted to border patrols and training, until after the interim ruling council take over and sovereignty is returned to the Iraqi Authorities. I would imagine the bulk of them as Shia's so deploy them in the South in Shia areas, that in turn releases coalition troops to take on the harder areas in greater numbers.

As for the, "Quagmire", "Bush's Vietnam", "impossible to win" - don't you believe it - it's just going to take a bit of time - that was not only plainly obvious to a casual observer - it was what was stated right from the start. The example I have given in the past was Germany five years, Malaya seventeen years. The interim Iraqi civil administration that will be created come June 30th is important, you can't provide aid to civil power, without some form of civil power being in place - the CPA doesn't count.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:49 PM

Terribus - Let me make myself clear.

The intelligence was not faulty.

Bush and Condi think that the intelligence was faulty. At least thats their excuse. Pointing fingers is no way for a responsible commander in chief to react.

It is also irresponsible to send troops to Iraq who do not know better than to rip up pictures of religious leaders and shoot the koran full of holes.

He should have a little more control of his intelligence and his troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 09:18 PM

dianavan,

I'll let you into a little secret - intelligence is, in real life, nearly always faulty, it is nearly always incomplete, and if it is multi-sourced it is often contradictory. The greatest art is in the assessment and evaluation of that intelligence.

The gathering of intelligence is done by professionals, the assessment of that intelligence is done by professionals and the evaluation of that intelligence deemed to be trustworthy and "actionable" is also the work of professionals. If you believe for one milli-second that it should be done by a career politician then you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

The training of members of the armed forces is done by professionals, the conduct of soldiers in general, but particularly in the "field", is the immediate and personal responsibility of the platoon and company officers and non-commissioned officers. In no way is it the responsibility of a career politician sitting at a desk some 8,000 miles away, purely and simply because he is not in immediate touch with what every single member of his armed forces is doing at any particular moment of time.

But please, if you chose to believe differently, carry-on as I find your take on these things extremely entertaining - absolutely ridiculous, but definitely entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 09:42 PM

So who is responsible for evaluating that intelligence?

Who is responsible for the command of the armed forces in general?

No, I don't blame an individual for any of this. I do, however, blame Bush for being 1st in command. By your reasoning, Saddam is probably innocent, too. Hitler too.

If a teacher has a class of youngsters who are behaving badly, the teacher is blamed for poor classroom management. Isn't he supposed to be the top dog? ...the one in charge?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:20 PM

dianavan - You are priceless!!

But to answer your questions:

"who is responsible for evaluating that intelligence?"

Probably some under-paid, overworked civil servant(UK)/government worker (USA)

"Who is responsible for the command of the armed forces in general?"

The titular head of the armed forces in the UK is HM Queen Elizabeth/ in the USA the titular head of the armed forces is the President. Neither is responsible for actual command of the armed forces, or for conduct of operations.

Historical note for you lass, in the US the armed forces swear allegiance to the flag and to defend the Constitution - they do not swear an oath of allegiance to the President of the United States. Now far from being titular heads of their armed forces, both Hitler and Saddam were very much hands-on boys - they insisted, by the way, that their troops swore an oath of allegiance to them personally, not the country, not the flag - but to them personally.

"If a teacher has a class of youngsters who are behaving badly, the teacher is blamed for poor classroom management. Isn't he supposed to be the top dog? ...the one in charge?" - Very poor example, of course the teacher is the one in charge - he is the equivalent to the platoon or company officer - you wouldn't, however, blame the President, isn't his administration supposed to be in charge of education?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:35 PM

Teribus - You're good! I cannot argue with your logic on this.

I will say, however, that an elected official should have his finger on the pulse. If he doesn't know what's going on and accepts no responsibility, I certainly wouldn't vote for him and his administration.   

I think most Americans would agree with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 12:37 AM

Okay, fine then, teribus. Iraqi. Iraqi, Iraqi, Iraqi. Iraqi.

Sigh. It looks so thin and underfed without the "u"... :-)

I wonder how it is spelled in Arabic?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 12:53 AM

"The greatest art is in the assessment and evaluation of that intelligence."

exactly. and in this, the bush admin. have failed mightily no matter how you try to spin it. they started their own office under rumsfeld to process the intelligence to make sure it went with their pre-determined iraq agenda. they used their slanted assessments and evaluations to mislead the public and congress to get their war started. now that sh*t is hitting the fan thay want to blame the producers of the intelligence. i can see why the guys at the CIA and FBI are a bit miffed at the bushits now.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:56 AM

By an odd coincidence I'm reading a book called "How To Make War" and got to the chapter on intelligence this evening. This is the fourth edition of a book on war gaming and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the militaries of the world. I'm not normally that interested in military normally but the first edition was so facintation 20 years ago when I was devouring all the history I could, I picked it up for old times sake.

Before going into the current state of intelligence, the book describes all the problems that beset the area. It describes the inevitable conflicts and silos of information between competing intelligence agencies (something I've seen noted in materials that go back to the Civil War and beyond). It describes how often intelligence people are wrong, how much people over the years and years have complained that what they provide is vague and impossible to act on. It describes how relatively easy it is for an enemy to completely mislead our intelligence.

BTW, the book agrees analysis is the crucial element in intelligence, but it's staggeringly difficult to do. It also describes how it is the intelligence community's duty to summarize the billions of bits of information we receive each week and present it in a useful way to decision makers. If they put the wrong information before the decision makers, you get bad decisions.

Amazing.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 02:05 AM

"Interesting, Jim. So Ireland is a good example of how to do things?"
Without trying to be too obvious, Strick, You will notice that I never said that...., and to be honest, I don't know where you got that impression from.
What I said was that the training works better in situations where we have relatively little bias towards the people that we are supposed to be policing.

One has seen the capture of Iraqi suspects by American troops, and have heard the "You'll get my American boot on your Iraqi head (up your Iraqi ass)" epithets, gloatingly spoke alà Bruce Willis.
That's not even attempting to capure hearts and minds, Strick. It's not giving a damn, that's what it is.
My point being, of course, that we (and the rest of the Coalition 'partners') have to live under a situation that this kind of mindset made no small contribution towards.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 02:08 AM

"If they put the wrong information before the decision makers, you get bad decisions."

Are you saying, therefore, Strick, that the US led war was a bad decision?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 02:22 AM

"Are you saying, therefore, Strick, that the US led war was a bad decision?"

Foremost in my mind was another fairly long thread about the Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing that's been in the news lately. I don't consider it actionable nor does it give any legitimate warning of what was to come on 9/11 (unlike what's been represented in the media). In my mind it repeats some fairly obvious things: it says Ben Laden wants to attack the US - which after two attacks on the US have already taken place shouldn't have been news and it warns terrorists would like to hijack planes which hasn't been news since the 70s. The "warning" on the hijacking even couches it in the form of taking hostages to free imprisoned terrorists, no mention of using them as missles. Then it manages to give the impression that the FBI, with 70 ongoing investigations, where on top of things.

Seems like a good, or rather, bad example.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 02:28 AM

Well, foremost in my mind, Strick, was the invasion of Iraq (remember... the faulty intelligence leading to bad decisions... bit?)

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 02:58 AM

Strick - What if you put the right information in front of the decision makers and they fail to act on it. Doesn't that make them wrong, decision makers?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:07 AM

I am fully in agreement with Teribus that brucie's assertion "Soldiers make war; at least, that is their training" is over-simplified. If he rules that I am way off the mark in doing so, hard cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST,Oil be seeing you.
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:22 AM

After reading through this thread it is without any argument that the US is in deep shit and no amount of talk will change that.
While the US remains in Iraq there will always be unrest, so for the good of Iraq and the rest of the world, let Bush`s advisors tell the fool that we have to get out, and soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST,Major Major
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:28 AM

Ok chaps!
About Face!
Quick March!
come on, come on, you 'orrible little germs... Get a move on!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 11:11 AM

From the BBC news site today Iraqi officers 'refused to fight': Many newly-trained Iraqi police and army personnel refused to fight Shia and Sunni rebels in the recent unrest, the head of US Central Command says.

Gen John Abizaid said this was a "great disappointment" - and announced the coalition would draw top officers from the disbanded army of Saddam Hussein.

The creation of a new Iraqi army that can follow orders is seen as key to America's withdrawal plans from Iraq.

Which presumably means, following orders from Americans rather than from any Iraqi government that didn't. "..top officers from the disbanded army of Saddam Hussein" - how long before they go the whole hog and appoint the top officer of all once again, Saddam himself?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 12:54 PM

dianavan 13 Apr 04 - 02:58 AM

"What if you put the right information in front of the decision makers and they fail to act on it."

dianavan,
If you would like a perfect example of the above, read up about the German invasion of Crete during the Second World War. The island was defended by General Freyberg's NewZealand Corps. The attack was to be led by an airbourne assault, with the objective of capturing an airfield and holding it while additional aircraft flew in to reinforce and establish air superiority.

In terms of intelligence Freyberg had everything, date, time, objective, enemy strength, means and method of deployment. Freyberg's men outnumbered the attacking forces, normally in making any form of assault on a defended position you want to out-number the defenders by at least three-to-one, albeit only locally, for your assault to have any chance of suceeding. There have been exceptions, like the German airbourne troops in this case.

Dispositions made Freyberg was extremely confident that Crete would hold, unfortunately he interpreted the content of a signal, that could only have been described as vital, as meaning that the main enemy attack would come from a seabourne invasion. When the German paratroopers landed he just could not react in time.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:09 PM

"Strick - What if you put the right information in front of the decision makers and they fail to act on it. Doesn't that make them wrong, decision makers?"

I'm convused by your punctuation, if you're saying that failing to act means they were wrong, fine. Well maybe. It depends how the information is put in front of them and whether it was reasonable to recognize the significance of the information given all of the existing cirucmstances.

Happens all the time with the people working for me. Very talented people make mistakes. When they result from some significantly new circumstance, what they did was still wrong, but we try not to penalize them, even if all the information the needed to avoid the error was available provided that's only clear in retrospect. Anything else is simple pointing fingers.