Iraqi Police Ill-Equipped to Prevent Civil War
Iraqi Police Ill-Equipped to Prevent Civil War
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today that Iraqis forces would “deal with” an all-out civil war in their country:
The plan is to prevent a civil war and to the extent one were to occur, to have the – from a security standpoint – have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to.
Rumsfeld ignores the fact that sectarian, rights-abusing Iraqi security forces are also part of the problem, and that the Bush administration bears some responsibility:
– As of March 2005 — two years into the war — the Pentagon had still not developed a “system to assess the readiness of Iraqi military and police forces so they [could] identify weaknesses and provide them with effective support.”
– U.S. advisors to Iraqi police unit “have been stretched thin” for “much of the last three years.” The L.A. Times reported today, “By the end of 2005 there were only 700 U.S. police trainers for an Iraqi police force of more than 100,000.”
– As a result, U.S. advisors believe that the training of Iraqi forces “have skewed toward weapons handling and battlefield tactics and not dealt enough with human rights, investigations and administration.”
Iraqi forces should be taking the lead in restoring order, but as Rumsfeld knows, you put down civil wars with the security forces you have, not the ones you want.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
But Rummy the Dummy and Condosleaza keep claiming there is no civil war in Iraq?
March 9th, 2006 at 5:22 pmWelcome to the DCCC’s online conversation with Executive Director John Lapp
The blog chat with DCCC Executive Director John Lapp will begin at 10:00 AM EST on Friday, March 9th. During the chat John Lapp will be discussing the upcoming primary season. You may submit any questions you may have prior to and during the chat.
To submit a question click here.
http://www.dccc.org/r/3928/1136491
***
Goper’s Lament
March 9th, 2006 at 5:24 pmWhat do you want from a person who sent an ill-equiped army to enact an ill-planed war?
March 9th, 2006 at 5:28 pm#3 – Resignation, if it’s not too much to ask. :)
March 9th, 2006 at 5:30 pmWell, sometimes you have to fight a civil war with the security forces you have and not the security forces you need.
March 9th, 2006 at 5:42 pmUNLIKE SOME WHO VIEW THE CONTINUED USE OF THE TERM ‘Civil War’ to describe the situation in Iraq, as though that term were an accusation of incompetence against the Administration, I know the term to have a far more sinister application.
From the same New York Times article from which the above quotes are taken:
Titled Iraqi Forces to Lead Fight in Case of Civil War, Rumsfeld Says, we have also…
WASHINGTON (AP) — Dealing with a civil war in Iraq would fall to Iraq’s own security forces, not U.S. troops, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress on Thursday.
Rumsfeld previously had been reluctant to say what role U.S. troops would play in the event of civil war, but in testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee he was pressed on the matter by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
”The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the — from a security standpoint — have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to,” Rumsfeld told the committee.
More than half of Americans continue to disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq.
Abizaid, who frequently visits Iraq and has overall responsibility for U.S. military operations there, suggested that Iraq is moving in the direction of civil war.
Rumsfeld said that to avoid civil war in Iraq, it is essential that the country’s political leaders form a government of national unity. He also said it would be counterproductive to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, stressing that he’s confident the Iraqis realize the enormity of the stakes at this stage of the process.
There are now about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The U.S. death toll since the start of the war in March 2003 exceeds 2,300, in addition to more than 17,000 wounded.
…and so I know better: The ‘Civil War’ talking point is no point of shame to this Administration; it is in fact the excuse they need to keep U.S. Troops in Iraq, through the summer and on into 2007, despite the lies you just read in the above; lies which this Administration is becoming ever more comfortable with, telling our Congress.
And if you did not read the New York Times article yourself, then consider this final (and hilarious) excerpt:
Both Abizaid and Rumsfeld cited progress in the training of Iraqi security forces. Abizaid said more than 100 Iraqi battalions are now conducting counterinsurgency operations, compared with only five in 2004. He did not mention that the number of Iraqi battalions rated as capable of operating without U.S. military assistance had recently dropped from one to zero.
March 9th, 2006 at 5:58 pmSay, In Iraq who’s watching the meters on all those oil wells? Or do those shrink wrapped bundles of $100 bills buy silence and eyes cast as not to see…
Goper’s Lament
March 9th, 2006 at 5:58 pmPayson notes, “Rumsfeld ignores the fact that sectarian, rights-abusing Iraqi security forces are also part of the problem, and that the Bush administration bears some responsibility…” ONLY SOME!!!????? Payson, TP is very disturbed that you have NOT followed the “progressive” dictates of TP – Remember, it’s ALL BUSH’s fault – everything, everywhere – shame on you (!) for straying from the plantation.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:00 pmI just got off the phone with Condi and she explained that it is not a civil war in Iraq. Rather, it is just the political/religious factions settling their differences through violent diplomatic means. She also was suprised at the lack of support and/or recognition of this obvious sign of “democracy in action”.
Beings that Condi sees this little “spat” amongst the Iraqi people as similar to the running feud between the Bloods and the Crips, I suggested that we employ the same tactics that we use here in the grand ole USA in that we should introduce crack cocaine into the mix so that they can destroy their communities and kill each other off, thereby solving the “problem”. She thought that was a wonderful idea and that perhaps it should be an opiate product that we introduce so that it would simultaneously bolster Afghanistan’s economy, basically killing two birds with one stone. I think that she was going to bounce it off of Rummy.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:00 pmI dont think Iraq is civil war , I think the Iranians (sorry Iraqi Goverment)control a few deadly scuffles a day just enough to keep the Americans as hostage in case of an Iran war. So Iran can hunt them down, A civil War is much more violence than at the moment ..Its more civil unrest than civil war,
I dont see why the americans dont just leave they havent stole the oil contracts yet and look like they never will, its a lose lose situation
March 9th, 2006 at 6:04 pm7# Im not sure but i think the oil is being controled by the UN at the moment…would be good to Know if anybody knows
March 9th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#8-Mighty Hermaphrodite,
What a fascinating theory that you introduce. So, bush and his administration are not at “fault” for the pre-emptive war that they waged upon an innocent people based upon lies and “un-truths” and forced down the throats of the american people with alarms about mushroom clouds and patently false ties to terrorism.
No, according to MH, the people at fault are the ones who are against the invasion. Yes, by opposing bush all that the anti-war people did was embolden him in his resolve. Yes, I see it clearly that all the blame lay at the feet of those who have opposed this attrocity all along.
MH, you have reached a depth of stupidity that until this day had not been achieved. Congratulations.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:11 pmThis is all nonsense.
In a “civil war” there are two different flags and two colors of uniforms.
That’s not what’s happening in Iraq. Really. I mean, has anyone here seen the two flags?
I thought not. What’s happening in Iraq is just bunches of different people blowing each other up, every day, mostly along ethnic lines.
NOT “civil war.” So let’s call it what it really is: “ethnic freshening.”
March 9th, 2006 at 6:12 pmThe Iraqi police/army are just puppet troops of the USA, as much the ARVN was for South Vietnam. Like the ARVN, they will be ineffective at best, and at worst these puppet troops wil prey upon the people they’re supposed to protect(like ARVN).
March 9th, 2006 at 6:15 pmto MA; you’d be a real hit at Abu Gharib. Yup, you’d be right happy using Gestapo “confession” techniques on the POWs.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pm#15
“Abu Ghraib is closing down,
Closing down, Closing down.
Abu Ghraib is closing down.
Torture elsewhere.”
US moves torture operations to unnamed “new facility” where digital cameras will be strictly verboten!
March 9th, 2006 at 6:29 pm#16 – My dear Pessimist – I know “facts” get in the way of your “reasoning”. Are those “untruths” declared by everyone from Bill, the Big Dog and his Mrs. (along with his Veep and Kerry) included in your blame game?? Please explain (with your BRILLIANT ananysis) the term “cease-fire”. You might understand the resumption of warfare if you have the intellectual fortitude to define “cease-fire”.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:40 pm(**Hint: “pre-emptive war” is not the correct answer….)
Subway Serenade & Smedley,
Kellog, Brown & Root hold the no bid contract for the Iraqi oil rigs.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:45 pm#16, Abu Ghraib is being turned over to the puppet troops of Iraq. I heard it on NPR driving home from work today.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:49 pmWhile I don’t want to defend the Chimp, I’d like to point out that NO “police force” in the world is well equipped to prevent a civil war.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:50 pm#17-Mighty Hermaphrodite,
If you would like some more of my “brilliant” analysis, I can re-post what I said at the beginning of this evil fiasco in regards to the monumental flaw in logic that pre-emptive actions exhibit. Oh, and you are flattering me with the “brilliant” label, most intelligent people were saying the same thing, so its not so much brilliance as it is common sense (unfortunately not so “common” amongst neo-cons and their minions).
And if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the current conflict is not a “new” one but merely a restart of the gulf war because the Iraqi’s were thought to have violated the terms of the “cease fire” that ended the gulf war? That’s very interesting and I would be interested in learning more about that angle if you are able to produce any information.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:56 pm“Remember, it’s ALL BUSH’s fault – everything, everywhere – shame on you (!) for straying from the plantation.”
Thank God, Might Aphrodite finally gets on board and realizes that Bush IS the problem.
Halle-fallujah!-GSD
March 9th, 2006 at 7:07 pmWhy is it called common sense, when it isn’t all that common?
March 9th, 2006 at 7:08 pmDear Pessimeister – I’m sure you are sooooo bright that Google doesn’t pose much of a challenge. Links to help you: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1992 , http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0211/iraq (the paranoids at Third World Traveller didn’t rate with me – but I think you’d love their take on “conservative conspiracy”! You’re welcome!!!
March 9th, 2006 at 7:20 pm“I firmly believe that America is in its last throes. What’s left is a ragtag group of Jeffersonian ‘dead-enders’ and ‘huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’
“There’s no doubt at all that Americans will greet their occupation by an unelected administration with flowers. As you know, many slaves were devoted to their masters, just as hostages often willingly embrace their captors.
“It goes without saying that my administration will stand up as Americans lie down.”
– Dick Cheney
March 9th, 2006 at 7:22 pmmighty aphrodite,
Why are you bringing up the WMDs we sold Iraq again? Why do you hate America?
March 9th, 2006 at 7:23 pm#26 Damn you, Spudge.
We HAD to sell them WMDs, to offset the missiles we were selling to Iran!
March 9th, 2006 at 7:30 pmMighty Aphro are those the weapons that the United Nations inspectors found and destroyed in the mid 90’s with Scott Ritter helping.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1992
The same ones that the Reagan administration was helping Saddam aquire during their war with Iran(who Reagan sold weapons too), the ones that Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq and shook saddams hand to seal the deal, might those be the ones you speak of given the link is fron 1992, when George Bush 41 was president.
March 9th, 2006 at 7:30 pm#22 – GSD – To show you how FAR left I’ve REALLY come, I admit that the government knows what EVERYONE needs, EVERYWHERE at ALL times. Please tax everyone, everywhere, at the highest rates possible – preferably 90% so we don’t have to think about anything important. (We can all be equally miserable together!!) Life on the DemDole can be so….blissfully ignorant. WOW!!
March 9th, 2006 at 7:31 pm#24-Mighty Hermaphrodite,
I am disappointed in that I thought that you had some new information to produce but instead you are going to revisit the argument that has already been totally discredited. Let me save you some time:
- Saddam bad guy? Yes.
- Saddam buy weapons from US? Yes.
- Saddam get weapons taken away. Yes.
- Iraqi’s get killed for no reason. Yes.
- Bush, Cheney, Condi, Powell, Rumsfeld all lie? Yes.
- Why Mighty Hermaphrodite support criminals? Unknown.
And thank you again for the compliment, but now I think you are just flirting with me. Although I am flattered, I have to decline because I do not associate myself with folks who surrender their morals, ethics, and rights just so they can get a pat on their head from unca george. Sorry, but my soul is not for sale. But I will help you buy yours back if you are truly interested. It’s not too late, yet.
March 9th, 2006 at 7:42 pm#26 – SpongeMAN – You mean the weapons we sold to help Iraq battle Iran?? The country holding 52 hostages?? For 444 days?? Those weapons???? The US that I hate??? Put your crack pipe down and analyze yourself ad nauseum – “YOU” are favourite topic of yours I’m sure.
March 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pm#31 THANK YOU!
Iraq wouldn’t have needed WMDs if we hadn’t been arming their enemy at the same time!
Ipso facto, QED. IRAQ WAS EVIL.
Plus, REAGAN FREED THE HOSTAGES!!!!! (Although he had to ask the Iranians to delay the release somewhat, until his inauguration.)
To recap: IRAQ ONLY HAD OUR WMDs BECAUSE IRAQ WAS MARGINALLY LESS EVIL THAN THE COUNTRY WE WERE USING TO ILLEGALLY FUND OUR DEATH SQUADS IN SOUTH AMERICA.
Christ, ANY patriot can see that we were right to invade Iraq a second time, even though we let Saddam slaughter his enemies after the first war. Oh, and Allende had it coming.
So there.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pm“America’s Foreign Policy. Making It Up As We Go Along for More Than a CenturyTM”
March 9th, 2006 at 8:07 pmPlease tax everyone, everywhere, at the highest rates possible – preferably 90%
Irrationalism at its finest.
Why not have NO taxes and let the American people defend themselves, build their own roads and throw garbage into the gutters, and let the poor, infirm and elderly freeze or be eaten by jackals?
Same logic pumpkin.
-GSD
March 9th, 2006 at 8:13 pmLife on the DemDole can be so….blissfully ignorant. WOW!!
As opposed to the NO-bid Republican contract dole. How about the federal DOLE that Bush is giving to churches with his faith based initiative? Sure, let’s give MY money to churches..Catholic churches can use it ply altar boys for diddling. Muslim mosques can use the money to fund Al-Qaeda and perhaps we can get some money donated to the church of Satan and the Moony Church so that they can use the money to prop-up the Washington Times?
It is one big giveaway to the churches with Bushco…Let’s also sell of federal land to corporations for pennies on the dollar….and give tax incentives and federal moeny to Exxon/Mobil, Shell and Texaco too.
-GSD
While you are at it, let the government spy on the citizens too.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:18 pm“You mean the weapons we sold to help Iraq battle Iran?? The country holding 52 hostages?? For 444 days?? Those weapons???? The US that I hate??? Put your crack pipe down and analyze yourself ad nauseum – “YOU†are favourite topic of yours I’m sure. Comment by Mighty Hermaphrodite”
That argument is retarded even by your standards. And here I thought you were as dumb as a bag of hammers, looks like we’ll have to find something closer to your skills. How about as dumb as a bag of rocks? That one works better.
So using your brilliant logic, may we assume that you would also hire a mafia leg breaker to watch your children – simply because he’s ‘tough’?
And I hate to correct you – it seems like the only thing possible around your copious explusion of lies and crap, but when we sold weapons to Iraq, Iran wasn’t holding any hostages. But ironically Iran was holding a whole bunch of weapons and parts that Reagan gave them in exchange for those hostages. So much for the Reichwing lies about not negotiating with hostage takers.
Republicans are such fools. They give weapons to terrorists, dictators and fools and then are surprised when all hell breaks loose. You guys aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer, but you prove that you’re definitely all ‘tools’.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:23 pm“Please tax everyone, everywhere, at the highest rates possible – preferably 90% so we don’t have to think about anything important. (We can all be equally miserable together!!) Life on the DemDole can be so….blissfully ignorant. WOW!! Comment by MightyHermaphrodite”
How about we just shift the tax burden back to corporations say to 1950s levels? That would work for most americans, and it would do wonders for the economy.
But I’m sure you prefer to demonize taxes, while benefiting from them.
Besides, Corporations are much bigger recipients of the ‘dole’ than any americans are. Halliburton proves that daily. But keep dreaming the dream – moron. Do it long enough, and you can die as ignorantly as you’ve lived.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:26 pmYes the Iraqis are ill equiped, but Rumsfeld could care less since our own troops do NOT even have reliable body armour! Withen a couple of years probably half the population of Iraq will either have been killed by violence, or starved to death, so thanks to Bush ass!
March 10th, 2006 at 4:01 amSo, all the batalions of Iraqi “ready to fight” only have wooden rifles, the same ones with they were trained shouting “bang, you’re dead” to fellow trainees all these 3 years from the total occupation of Iraq?
March 10th, 2006 at 5:52 amBush uses the fear of the US citizen and is still using that fear to manipulate our country. We did not have UN backing to enter Iraq. We did not find the so called weapons of mass destruction. Oh! I forget it was humanitarian aid that Iraq asked for. Oh! I’m wrong again Democracy that what Iraq are asking for. civil war what’s new, Oh! invade Iran.
I remember reading some where in American history about the British occupation of what is now the USA. How men opposed to this occupation “our founding fathers†fought in small groups called militia. Today we call them insurgents. We are forcing a government system on people that do not understand it. Did they want it in they first place?
March 10th, 2006 at 6:40 am40# if i remember rightly when America fought the british your small groups called militia – were actually classified as terrorists – and even more so was the first case of terrorism ever .watch the mel gibson film -PATRIOT
and just to add insult to injury , we should have never let you win , we should have rounded you up and put you in prisons and tortured you , started a civil war so you could have killed each other , stolen all your mineral resources and finaly, then finaly did what you did to the Indians and wiped you out all together….Just joking
March 10th, 2006 at 8:31 amThe Republicans would certainly be foolish to climb on to what is left of Bush’s foreign policy. Nearly all its premises are crumbling before our eyes. The theory of a democratic peace is a chimera; give Muslims the vote and they vote for militants. Regime change in Iraq has not enhanced American security; its principal beneficiary has been Iran. As for the unipolar world, the reality is that the occupation of Iraq and its ramifications in the Greater Middle East now so dominate this administration’s agenda that the truly world-shaking event of our times has all but vanished from view. The administration is in at least two minds about the resurgence of China, and the result is a dangerous diplomatic schizophrenia, with half the signals indicating a new Cold War strategy of “containment” (why else help the Indians with their nukes?), and the other half continuing the older policy of conciliation.
LINK
March 10th, 2006 at 9:08 ami was an 18 yr. old off the streets and in 6weeks battle ready? what seems to be the problem? i’ll tell ya, they don’t want the iraqs to be trained. then that means our soldiers come home and that means the oil we will leave. 200,0000+ to our 130,000 on the ground. come on folks, this is not calculus. my 9 yr old understands this. like they said we will be there for another 5-10 yrs. and maybe never coming back, just post up and call it ours. i hope our americans are ready for civil service this spring and summer to clean up any distasters coming our way.
March 10th, 2006 at 10:46 am#8 You just sound stupid, plain and simple. You should do as the other trolls when they are exposed as hateful idiots and change your post name. Really, aren’t you embarrassed?
March 10th, 2006 at 11:41 amA question for Progs: Do you think your local police force would be equipped to handle a Civil War???
“Rumsfeld ignores the fact that sectarian, rights-abusing Iraqi security forces are also part of the problem,…”
March 10th, 2006 at 3:20 pm– text by Payson –
******Don’t you just love sweeping generalizations?????
I geddit Donnie, it’s a “known known” that this is the civil war you get when you’re not actually having a civil war. Meanwhile,Praise the Spigot and pass the ammunition to the Iraqis, for only thus can god’s gift of democracy be bestowed upon this nation of ingrates.
How can the world ever thank you enough Secretary Rumsfeld? And can you please splatter us up a fresh mess of “collateral damage” in Iran. One hundred thousand dead and maimed innocent civilians in Iraq can have been nowhere near enough meat grindin’ to slate Neoconservative bloodlust and keep Halliburton profits at record highs. Please make us proud, Mr. Secretary,as you prepare to slaughter untold more human beings in America’s name. Wounded Knee,Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai, Fallujah; clearly death needs time for what it kills to grow in and mean folk are beginnin’ to call you names like “Pentagon Pops”. C’mon, big guy, one final orgy of napalm in the morning before you mosey on down retirement’s happy trail. Besides, Karl,the GOP, and the dodgies at Diebold need all the distraction help they can get come the mid term elections.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:31 pm“******Don’t you just love sweeping generalizations?????
Comment by mighty Hypocrite”
Ironic coming from you – the QUEEN of sleeping generalization and BORING Zzzzz republican talking points. Aren’t you don’t ranting today? Don’t you have a prisoner to torture, or a baby to starve?
March 10th, 2006 at 8:42 pm