What the heck is going on over there?!?

[Clashman]

Ahhh, Thomas Friedman. I was sure his name was going to crop up here before long. Paragon of objectivity, that man is. Why don't you just post quotes from Rumsfeld?

 

[pax]

The recent plan to have 200 000 formerly iraqi soldiers back on the streets by spring is good but itll still leave 100-200 000 unemployed... for sure we cant recycle many of the offciers (tho many did simply not fight when the us came in) but it seems in the past co opting previously antagonist armies was done quicker.

 

[Legion]

The recent plan to have 200 000 formerly iraqi soldiers back on the streets by spring is good but itll still leave 100-200 000 unemployed... for sure we cant recycle many of the offciers (tho many did simply not fight when the us came in) but it seems in the past co opting previously antagonist armies was done quicker.

who is to say they want to be soldiers again?

 

[Silent_One]

Ahhh, Thomas Friedman. I was sure his name was going to crop up here before long. Paragon of objectivity, that man is.

Lets see here...As reported by HANNAH ALLAM.

The two cell leaders said their fighters primarily were former Iraqi army officers and young Iraqis who had joined because they were angry over the deaths or arrests of family members during U.S. raids in the hunt for Saddam Hussein and his supporters.

The group also shelters remnants of a non-Iraqi Arab unit of Saddam's elite Fedayeen militia force as well as foreigners who slipped across the country's long and porous borders to battle American troops, they said. Abu Abdullah, who directs the camp near Baquba, said he came to Iraq shortly before the United States invaded it last spring.....<snip>....."We love Saddam Hussein for one thing - he has a big mind," Abu Mohammed said. "He knows how to think and how to plan. He made our hearts as strong as steel.".....<snip>....."Can you describe a man who defends his country as a terrorist?" asked Abu Abdullah, who said he was 31. "Iraq is the land of prophets and the birthplace of civilization. We will fight until we shed the last drop of our blood for this country.".....<snip>.....Abu Mohammed, who said he was 19, called the American victory in April a humiliating defeat for his family, which has roots in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit and includes several officers in the former army.

A friend of Abu Mohammed's said the young man had an uncle among the U.S.-led coalition's 55 most-wanted figures from the former regime, though he declined to divulge the uncle's name or whether he is still missing.

As reported by Mr. Friedman:

The people who mounted the attacks on the Red Cross are not the Iraqi Vietcong. They are the Iraqi Khmer Rouge — a murderous band of Saddam loyalists and Al Qaeda nihilists, who are not killing us so Iraqis can rule themselves. They are killing us so they can rule Iraqis......<snip>.....The U.S. invasion has overturned a whole set of vested interests, particularly those of Iraq's Sunni Baathist establishment, and begun to empower instead a whole new set of actors: Shiites, Kurds, non-Baathist Sunnis, women and locally elected officials and police. The Qaeda nihilists, the Saddamists, and all the Europeans and the Arab autocrats who had a vested interest in the old status quo are threatened by this.

Sounds like Friedman is spot on.....

 

[pax]

The recent plan to have 200 000 formerly iraqi soldiers back on the streets by spring is good but itll still leave 100-200 000 unemployed... for sure we cant recycle many of the offciers (tho many did simply not fight when the us came in) but it seems in the past co opting previously antagonist armies was done quicker.

who is to say they want to be soldiers again?

Docu on cbc interviewed many who WERE employed sweeping streets and they wanted their old jobs back. Many had 10-20 years in the military and it was all they knew. I can guess those UNemployed would certainly like their old jobs back even more. Historically co opting entire armies was a quick and easy thing to do. Often they would join the war effort against their old allies... It shouldnt take years to enlist the iraqi army on our side this time either.

 

[Legion]

Docu on cbc interviewed many who WERE employed sweeping streets and they wanted their old jobs back. Many had 10-20 years in the military and it was all they knew. I can guess those UNemployed would certainly like their old jobs back even more. Historically co opting entire armies was a quick and easy thing to do. Often they would join the war effort against their old allies... It shouldnt take years to enlist the iraqi army on our side this time either.

More of that ambiguous term "many". What does "many" constitute and how "many" of the "many" have been selected to take up service?

 

[pax]

So far 40 000 but Bush then added last week he wants 200 000 of the 300 000 back on the streest by spring 04... I think most of the 300 000 could be rehabilitated but 200 000 should be a good start.

 

[RussSchultz]

They don't need an army capable of projecting force, and 200,000 is a mighty large police force.

I hope there's some plan for what to do with them AFTER they're done winning the peace.

 

[pax]

Certainly for bringing safe streets the 200 000 are needed as the current contingent of foreign soldiers is about that size and unable so far to slow the increasing number of attacks which now stand at over 30 a day. Saddam also emptied the jails a few months before the war.

So between the common criminals and terrorist foreign fighters I think a large iraqi army will be needed for a while. Itd also reduce the role of foreign forces down to keeping an eye on the police vs being the police themselves which over time would degrade western public opinion in favor of the intervention.

There is the risk that if left with a large army Iraq again could see some new dictator could rise from its ranks... so some transition to a smaller force will be needed in a few years time. But first things first...

 

[o.d.]

EDIT:

hmmm

double post, and I can only edit the first one.... so post removed.

EDIT #2:

WHAT?!? where did my other post go now? ahhh forget it....

 

[DemoCoder]

Certainly for bringing safe streets the 200 000 are needed as the current contingent of foreign soldiers is about that size and unable so far to slow the increasing number of attacks which now stand at over 30 a day. Saddam also emptied the jails a few months before the war.

No, the current contingent is no where near that size. In the US military, there are way more support people per solider. You need to count military police and actual combat soliders, not mechanics, water truck drivers, and communications specialists. I've heard the true ratio is something like 8:1, so there are like 20k troops who actually can walk to beat and fight. I googled and found the number of US military police in Baghdad is 4,000.

 

[pax]

20 000 wow that is low. Maybe the 200 000 number is also not just soldiers on the beat but also includes the support infrastructure of the old iraqi army?

 

[Clashman]

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/6763724.htm
The two cell leaders said their fighters primarily were former Iraqi army officers and young Iraqis who had joined because they were angry over the deaths or arrests of family members during U.S. raids in the hunt for Saddam Hussein and his supporters.

The cell leaders themselves said they were guided by a blend of Islamist teachings and pan-Arab nationalism. Both spoke disdainfully of "Wahabbis," as hard-line Sunni Muslim followers are called. Abu Mohammed said there was no contact with members of al Qaida at his level; Abu Abdullah broke off the interview before the question could be asked. But he said his fighters were too valuable to participate in suicide missions, a hallmark of al Qaida, and he rejected the label of terrorist.

The men are taught to seek only military targets, and to spare civilian lives when possible. For this reason, he said, he condemns the car bombs that killed dozens of innocents recently at the Jordanian Embassy, the United Nations base in Baghdad and the Imam Ali shrine in the Shiite Muslim holy city of Najaf.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/6758873.htm
Yet many young, middle-class Iraqis ? future leaders of the country ? say they are losing admiration for the America they glimpse through action movies, raunchy music videos and the soldiers their age who patrol the streets. For many, thinking of themselves as Arab and Iraqi has taken on new importance since the American soldiers arrived.

While an objective survey of opinion in Iraq is impossible, it's clear that many students who perfected their English and dreamed of attending American universities now are joining Iraqi nationalist factions and, in some cases, resistance groups that attack U.S. soldiers. They are boning up on the pan-Arabist teachings of Egypt's socialist former president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and are spraying Baghdad walls with graffiti that reads "Go wage jihad!" and "Down with Bush!"

"Before the war, I didn't care about politics," said Monica Mohsin, 18, whose wealthy Christian family initially welcomed Saddam's ouster. "I could go to clubs and parties. Now, my life is within four walls because my parents are too scared to let me go out. I swear, I never rejected Americans until they came to Iraq and opened a wide door for thieves and terrorists."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0927-03.htm
"Iraqi Resistance to Foreign Occupation Enjoys Great Popular Support"

And once again I think there needs to be a clear distinction, which Friedman deliberatly ignores, between the suicide bombers and those attacking the Americans. I also think the main area in which people "respect" Saddam is in the fact that he is percieved as having stood up to the Americans. And there is clearly plenty of evidence that people are supportive of the guerrillas.

 

[Legion]

While an objective survey of opinion in Iraq is impossible, it's clear that many students who perfected their English and dreamed of attending American universities now are joining Iraqi nationalist factions and, in some cases, resistance groups that attack U.S. soldiers.

If such level of objectivity is impossible i would imagine it is likewise impossible for this reporter to characterize the the number of students or the support for these "guerilla" groups. Which is probably why he uses the term "many" and not real figures. It is rather difficult to sift through the author's bias on the matter.

Again this information does not substantiate the belief that these iraqi terrorist nationalists are specifically antiamerican. It would appear far more logical to believe they are "antiforeign influence" as their intent is to control Iraq.

They are boning up on the pan-Arabist teachings of Egypt's socialist former president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and are spraying Baghdad walls with graffiti that reads "Go wage jihad!" and "Down with Bush!"

Sounds to me much like the arab suicide terrorists and their rather disturbed religious views.

How does "Down with Bush" substantiate the view that their next graffiti display couldn't be "Down with the UN"? How do we know there aren't graffiti displays there saying such now and the author conveniently left this tidbit out?

And once again I think there needs to be a clear distinction, which Friedman deliberatly ignores, between the suicide bombers and those attacking the Americans.

Of course he does and with good reason as Democoder has pointed out.

I also think the main area in which people "respect" Saddam is in the fact that he is percieved as having stood up to the Americans. And there is clearly plenty of evidence that people are supportive of the guerrillas

Not the from links you have posted. They seem incapable of mentioning real figures and consistenly turn to vague terminology to quantify the claims of public support by using terms such as "many". Of course we can expect there to be radicals where ever you go. There simply isn't evidence that a large protion of the community supports such behavior. The resistance is rather small. Also, we haven't been able to identify all these people apart of said terrorist groups. Therefore we have no way of knowing if they are infact even Iraqi let alone apart of some large concern of the Iraqi people of American conquest.

 

[Clashman]

What kinds of evidence do you demand? Seriously.

If you could show me thousands of people marching in the streets to support the U.S. occupation, I might well consider backing down on my assertion that the U.S. in particular has zero popular support in Iraq. Right now, however, I've only seen evidence of the opposite.

 

[RussSchultz]

I don't see anybody marching and demanding "Bring on the UN", either.

 

[Clashman]

I don't see anybody marching and demanding "Bring on the UN", either.

No, but there is evidence that even the guerrillas denounced the UN bombing, so I would say that at least in some sense they are viewed with a less hostile eye than the U.S. at present. That could change, but I see no evidence that it would be worse than what we are already witnessing.

 

[Legion]

What kinds of evidence do you demand? Seriously.

something with subtance would be nice clash. Terms like "many", "a lot", "some" (especially in the context they were used in) do not quantify actual support. Furthermore has does the author derive that "many" students support terrorism from seeing graffiti on walls?

If you could show me thousands of people marching in the streets to support the U.S. occupation, I might well consider backing down on my assertion that the U.S. in particular has zero popular support in Iraq. Right now, however, I've only seen evidence of the opposite.

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that the US has "zero" popular support? Especially when your links alone state an objective poll can not be taken at this time? How do you go form posting links that never quantify the number of people supporting these terrorist activities (they also do not hold the idea that it could consistantly be the same people or group) to forming a conclusion that the US has no support in its actions in iraq?

 

[Legion]

I don't see anybody marching and demanding "Bring on the UN", either.

No, but there is evidence that even the guerrillas denounced the UN bombing, so I would say that at least in some sense they are viewed with a less hostile eye than the U.S. at present. That could change, but I see no evidence that it would be worse than what we are already witnessing.

I also see no evidence that bring UN troops in will change this matter. Again they are terrorist nationalists.

Have we even explored the possibility these guerriallas may be seeming partial to the UN deliberately? Perhaps they realize the UN will be lax in taking action in iraq giving them more leg room to take control. Perhaps they realize they can foster relationships with numerous corrupt leaderships amonst the UN's nations.

 

[Clashman]

Sierra Leone is the biggest UN peacekeeping operation in the world, and it only has 17,500 soldiers. You think the UN can raise 250,000 troops to maintain law and order?

Just wanted to touch on this a bit. India had been willing to committ up to 30,000 troops under a real UN mandate. I'm pretty sure even Britain would be able to commit more troops under a UN mandate. The British public would simply be more supportive of it than they are currently, and it would be politically feasible to send more. I'll agree with you that it isn't realistic to expect the US Administration to capitulate to these demands, but that wasn't the point. I don't think it's realistic to expect the U.S. to deviate at all from it's current course of action, regardless of how disasterous it is to U.S. troops or the Iraqi people, because I don't think that's the motive that's driving them.