Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 1,300 Iraqi troops, police dismissed

  1. #1

    1,300 Iraqi troops, police dismissed

    This would be acceptable if the year was 2005, but how can we make a difference if we care more than the citizens of Iraq?

    It would seem we have to talk to Iran because instablility is not something they want either.

    [QUOTE]1,300 Iraqi troops, police dismissed

    By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer

    The Iraqi government has dismissed about 1,300 soldiers and policemen who deserted or refused to fight during last month's offensive against Shiite militias and criminal gangs in Basra, officials said Sunday.

    Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said 921 police and soldiers were fired in Basra. They included 37 senior police officers ranging in rank from lieutenant colonel to brigadier general.


    The others were dismissed in Kut, one of the Shiite cities where the fight had spread.

    Last month, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered the security forces to confront armed groups in Basra, Iraq's second largest city.

    But they met fierce resistance and the attack quickly ground to a halt as fighting flared across the Shiite south and Baghdad.

    Since then, government officials have revealed that about 1,000 members of the security forces — including an entire infantry battalion — had mutinied, on some cases handing over vehicles and weapons to the militias.

    The majority of Iraqi soldiers and police are Shiites.

    Speaking in Basra, Khalaf said those dismissed included 421 police officers and 500 soldiers who had not returned to duty in the southern port city and would be tried by military courts.

    "Some of them were sympathetic with these lawbreakers, some refused to (go into) battle for political or national or sectarian or religious reasons," Khalaf said.

    But he said that those who returned in coming days and could prove they had been prevented from doing so by the militias would be reinstated.

    In Kut, a senior police officer said 400 local policemen have been sacked for refusing orders to combat the militias, including the Mahdi Army of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

    The officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the Interior Ministry in Baghdad had ordered the policemen removed from duty on Saturday.

    Although fighting in Basra eased in late March, security operations are continuing.

    Fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City, a stronghold of al-Sadr's militia, has been ongoing for the past two weeks. Fresh clashes were reported Sunday and at least two rockets or mortar rounds were fired at the capital's Green Zone, which houses diplomatic missions and much of Iraq's government.

    A senior military commander said Sunday that Iraqi forces in Basra were expanding their sweep of six neighborhoods, with army and police cordoning off the areas while searching for illegal weapons, ammunition and criminal elements.

    Lt. Gen. Mohan al-Fireji said the operation, which started on Saturday, had netted significant amounts of weapons, roadside bombs and drugs. He said a large number of suspects had been detained, but he provided no figures.

    Al-Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran, repeated on Saturday his demand for American soldiers to leave the country and urged his fighters not to target fellow Iraqis "unless they are helping the (U.S.) occupation."

    Despite the strident rhetoric, however, there were signs that al-Sadr was trying to calm his militia to avoid all-out war with the Americans. Al-Sadr is also under pressure from al-Maliki, also a Shiite, to disband the Mahdi Army or face a ban from politics.

    Meanwhile, an Apache helicopter accidentally destroyed a U.S. Humvee in eastern Baghdad when a Hellfire missile missed its target and struck the armored vehicle instead, the military said Sunday.

    Two U.S. soldiers and three Iraqi civilians were injured in the incident on Saturday, the statement said.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080413/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq[/url]
    Last edited by cr726; 04-13-2008 at 09:13 AM. Reason: link added

  2. #2
    The problem is that the Iraqi Army is made up of guys whose loyalties lie elsewhere. These 1300 were loyal to the Madhi Army. I guarantee you they will now take what they learned and join Sadr. There are other groups the Iraqi soldiers are loyal to. They dont believe in Maliki's government and will not give their lives for it. Thats why no matter how much we train them, these guys will never be ready. They simply lack the loyalty and that can not be taught.

  3. #3
    High ranking officers to foot soldiers deserting is not a good sign at all. What do you do? It is very frustrating and I sympathize with our soldiers who are stuck in the middle of this BS.

  4. #4
    [url]http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/04102008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/irans_busted_iraq_bid_105852.htm[/url]

    [QUOTE]IRAN'S BUSTED IRAQ BID

    By AMIR TAHERI


    April 10, 2008 -- A GAMBLE that proved too costly.

    That's how analysts in Tehran describe events last month in Basra. Iran's state-run media have de facto confirmed that this was no spontaneous "uprising." Rather, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tried to seize control of Iraq's second-largest city using local Shiite militias as a Trojan horse.

    Tehran's decision to make the gamble was based on three assumptions:

    * Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wouldn't have the courage to defend Basra at the risk of burning his bridges with the Islamic Republic in Iran.

    * The international force would be in no position to intervene in the Basra battle. The British, who controlled Basra until last December, had no desire to return, especially if this meant getting involved in fighting. The Americans, meanwhile, never had enough troops to finish off al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, let alone fight Iran and its local militias on a new front.

    * The Shiite clerical leadership in Najaf would oppose intervention by the new Iraqi security forces in a battle that could lead to heavy Shiite casualties.

    The Iranian plan - developed by Revolutionary Guard's Quds (Jerusalem) unit, which is in charge of "exporting the Islamic Revolution" - aimed at a quick victory. To achieve that, Tehran spent vast sums persuading local Iraqi security personnel to switch sides or to remain neutral.

    The hoped-for victory was to be achieved as part of a massive Shiite uprising spreading from Baghdad to the south via heartland cities such as Karbala, Kut and al-Amarah. A barrage of rockets and missiles against the "Green Zone" in Baghdad and armed attacks on a dozen police stations and Iraqi army barracks in the Shiite heartland were designed to keep the Maliki government under pressure.

    To seize control of Basra, Quds commanders used units known as Special Groups. These consist of individuals recruited from among the estimated 1.8 million Iraqi refugees who spent more than two decades in Iran during Saddam Hussein's reign. They returned to Iraq shortly after Saddam's fall and started to act as liaisons between Quds and local Shiite militias.

    In last month's operation, Quds commanders used the name and insignia of the Mahdi Army, a militia originally created by the maverick cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, as a cover for the Special Groups.

    [B][I]Initially, Quds commanders appeared to have won their bet. Their Special Groups and Mahdi Army allies easily seized control of key areas of Basra when more than 500 Iraqi security personnel abandoned their positions and disappeared into the woodwork.[/I]

    [SIZE="5"]Soon, however, the tide turned. Maliki proved that he had the courage to lead the new Iraqi Security Force (ISF) into battle, even if that meant confronting Iran. The ISF showed that it had the capacity and the will to fight.

    Only a year ago, the ISF had been unable to provide three brigades (some 9,000 men) to help the US-led "surge" restore security in Baghdad. This time, the ISF had no difficulty deploying 15 brigades (30,000 men) for the battle of Basra.

    Led by Gen. Mohan al-Freiji, the Iraqi force sent to Basra was the largest that the ISF had put together since its creation five years ago. This was the first time that the ISF was in charge of a major operation from start to finish and was fighting a large, well-armed adversary without US advisers.

    During the Basra battles, the ISF did call on British and US forces to provide some firepower, especially via air strikes against enemy positions. But, in another first, the ISF used its own aircraft to transport troops and materiel and relied on its own communication system.[/SIZE][/B]

    The expected call from the Najaf ayatollahs to stop "Shiite fratricide" failed to materialize. Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the top cleric in Iraq, gave his blessings to the Maliki-launched operation. More broadly, the Shiite uprisings in Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf and other cities that Quds commanders had counted upon didn't happen. The "Green Zone" wasn't evacuated in panic under a barrage of rockets and missiles.

    After more than a week of fighting, the Iraqis forced the Quds commanders to call for a cease-fire through Sadr. The Iraqi commander agreed - provided that the Quds force directly guaranteed it. To highlight Iran's role in the episode, he insisted that the Quds force dispatch a senior commander to finalize the accord.

    The Iran-backed side lost more than 600 men, with more than 1,000 injured. The ISF lost 88 dead and 122 wounded.

    Some analysts suggest this was the first war between new Iraq and the Islamic Republic. If so, the Iraqis won.

    To be sure, the Iranian-backed side lost partly because Iran couldn't use its full might, especially its air force. (That almost certainly would've led to war between Iran and the US-led coalition in Iraq.)

    The battle for Basra showed that Iraq has a new army that's willing and able to fight. If the 15 brigades that fought are a sample, the new Iraq may have an effective army of more than 300,000 before year's end.

    But the battle also showed that the ISF still lacks the weapons systems, including attack aircraft and longer-range missiles, needed to transform tactical victories into strategic ones. The Iranian-sponsored Special Groups and their Mahdi Army allies simply disappeared from the scene, taking their weapons with them, waiting for another fight.

    Tehran tried to test the waters in Basra and, as an opportunist power, would've annexed southern Iraq under a quisling administration had that been attainable at a low cost. Once it became clear that the cost might be higher than the Quds force expected, Tehran opted to back down.

    Yet this was just the first round. The struggle for Iraq isn't ove[/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    I am glad they are getting more men to fight, but who are we more worried about? AQ or Iran? Did we invade because of Iran or AQ?
    I don't think we invaded for either reason, WMD's maybe, but we all know how that worked out.
    Nation building one day and one dollar at a time.

    Your article doesn't dispute the soldiers who deserted.

    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2478673][url]http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/04102008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/irans_busted_iraq_bid_105852.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
    Last edited by cr726; 04-13-2008 at 08:44 PM.

  6. #6
    Lets face it if we cut and run we are screwed, if we stay it going a long rough road. I frankly thing the only way to end this is putting pressure on Al Sadr. He is creating this mess and nobody else lets stomp on this rat now!

  7. #7
    Do we ignore Iran? They do not want the instability either.

    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2478987]Lets face it if we cut and run we are screwed, if we stay it going a long rough road. I frankly thing the only way to end this is putting pressure on Al Sadr. He is creating this mess and nobody else lets stomp on this rat now![/QUOTE]

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=cr726;2478717]I am glad they are getting more men to fight, but who are we more worried about? AQ or Iran? Did we invade because of Iran or AQ?
    I don't think we invaded for either reason, WMD's maybe, but we all know how that worked out.
    Nation building one day and one dollar at a time.

    Your article doesn't dispute the soldiers who deserted.[/QUOTE]

    What the article shows is there is some progress being made but clearly not enough for us to just leave. the fact that they used their own command and control system is a very big step.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,071
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2478673]Soon, however, the tide turned. Maliki proved that he had the courage to lead the new Iraqi Security Force (ISF) into battle, even if that meant confronting Iran. The ISF showed that it had the capacity and the will to fight.
    [/QUOTE]

    Ooooooo...wow.

    Only five freaking years and they finally have the "courage":rolleyes: to fight for their own country. What? Do they want a medal or something? Or how about a billion dollars of US taxpayer money instead?

    The "will" to fight. You mean the same "will" that our soldiers have had for their sh*thole country for the past half decade?

    [IMG]http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070809/070809_al-Maliki_vmed_1p.widec.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.needlenose.com/i/swopa/MalikiAhmedinejad.jpg[/IMG]
    [B]Here is a couple of pictures showing Nouri al-Maliki "bravely" and "courageously" shaking and holding hands with Mr. Achmedinejad.[/B]


    Such courage...such bravery.

    Go Iraq!

    [IMG]http://www.frightcatalog.com/i/250/1105001.jpg[/IMG]
    Last edited by PlumberKhan; 04-14-2008 at 11:06 AM.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2478673][url]http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/04102008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/irans_busted_iraq_bid_105852.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

    This article is simply too damn funny. Full of innacuracies and falsehoods. The biggest being that Iran was supporting Sadr over Maliki. This is laughably wrong as evidence continues to pour in that Tehran was annoyed by Sadr and were telling him to cut the $hit. They have been backing the Maliki govt all along. The next BS in this article is portraying the ISF as somehow being successful. They were not. They got their A$$ handed to them and had to call in the USA to bail them out. Petreus himself called them disorganised and their plan poorly constructed.

    Finally, i hate to attack the source, but in this case i have to. Amir Taheri?? Are you kidding me . Taheri is f'n liar. He totally made up a story about Iran forcing non-muslims to wear clothing identifying them as such. When this was shown to be BS, newspapers in the USA and Canada were forced to retract the story and issued an apology for printing these lies. Not only that but Taheri is a known neo-con working for the Bandori Associates. Taheri's opinios on Iran/Iraq are as honest as Bush or Cheneys. It would be like someone using a Dan Rather story on George W Bush, imagine CBNY's outrage if someone posted that on this site

  11. #11
    Who are they fighting? When will they stop fighting each other and then be able to protect themselves from outside countries? After all the money we have been DUMPING over there, they should have their own missle defense.

    [QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2479218]What the article shows is there is some progress being made but clearly not enough for us to just leave. the fact that they used their own command and control system is a very big step.[/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    this isn't a surprise

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us