35 dead in Iraq and the biggest US mistake

Almighty Colin · 06-17-2004

35 killed at a recruiting station for the new Iraqi military.

Now this brings up something interesting. The Iraqi army was disbanded in May, 2003 and former Ba'ath party members were banned from security forces. I think these, especially the first and less certain on the second have been the biggest errors in Iraq. I know these same questions came up during World War II. Would former Nazi party members be able to contribute to government and security? The trouble then, as now, is that the only people in the German government with any experience were Nazi party members.

Now one could make an argument that disbanding the Iraqi military eliminated the greatest danger to security and we'll really never know. What it did do is unemploy hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Iraqi men.

It will be interesting to see how well the newly forming Iraqi military will be able to maintain internal security.

Winetalk.com · 06-17-2004

well, let's look at it this way:
NOW Iraqi military have VESTED INTEREST in providing security to the country...and themselves.

Almighty Colin · 06-17-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin@Jun 17 2004, 07:36 AM
The Iraqi army was disbanded in May, 2003.

Now that I think about it, I wonder what "disbanded" means. Seems that most of them went home by themselves at the start of hostilities.

RawAlex · 06-17-2004

Colin, when the US ran the government out of the capital, at the same time, they disbanded the military - mostly, from what I read at the time, becuase they feared military people having weapons and a means to organize people who might be in opposition to the US. They did the same with the police forces, for the most part.

That is one of the contributing factors to the unstoppable looting and distruction that went on shortly after. No police, no military, and not enough US troops to replace them and keep order - and nobody had the desire to even try. Heck, the US troops were helping to pull down Saddam statues.

What is that phrase about "sow and reap"?

Alex

Almighty Colin · 06-17-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 17 2004, 09:50 AM
Colin, when the US ran the government out of the capital, at the same time, they disbanded the military - mostly, from what I read at the time, becuase they feared military people having weapons and a means to organize people who might be in opposition to the US. They did the same with the police forces, for the most part.

That is one of the contributing factors to the unstoppable looting and distruction that went on shortly after. No police, no military, and not enough US troops to replace them and keep order - and nobody had the desire to even try. Heck, the US troops were helping to pull down Saddam statues.

Right, so which was the better choice and why? Also, what did it mean to disband the Iraqi military when in effect they seem to have went home by themselves en masse even before hostilities reached them?

chodadog · 06-17-2004

Disbanding was a good idea in my mind. Because now a pro-US government can rebuild the military and put people in the chain of command to reflect the view of the new government.

Although, i do think it's entirely possible that the existing army would have cooperated with the new government, but all it takes is a few high ranking persuasive officers and you've got a few renegade platoons running around shootin' shit up.

Disbanding was the better choice, i think. Safer.

Buff · 06-17-2004

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by Colin+Jun 17 2004, 08:55 AM-->
QUOTE (Colin @ Jun 17 2004, 08:55 AM)

__________________

Buff

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Buff

06-17-2004 #8

Almighty Colin

Members

Want to see your own Advertising Here!

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 8,059

Quote:

Originally posted by Buff@Jun 17 2004, 10:05 AM
A better solution is to change the constitution such that once war is declared with clearly defined objectives required for victory, politicians have no say whatsoever in the prosecution of the war. Their next input could only be to pass a resolution claiming that objectives have all been met and peace is to be negotiated and surrender accepted.

Now, in light of that, just ask yourself what a non-political supreme commander of US Forces would do (and would have done) to meet the objectives in Iraq.

Here were the 8 objectives given by the Dept of Defense at the onset.

1. End the regime of Saddam Hussein.
2. Eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
3. Capture or drive out terrorists.
4. Collect intelligence on terrorist networks.
5. Collect intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction activity.
6. Secure Iraq’s oil fields.
7. Deliver humanitarian relief and end sanctions.
8. Help Iraq achieve representative self-government and insure its territorial integrity.

__________________
Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.

Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

Almighty Colin

View Public Profile

Visit Almighty Colin's homepage!

Find More Posts by Almighty Colin

06-17-2004 #9

Mike AI

Administrator

Want to see your own Advertising Here!

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 11,618

Patton hired many former Nazi officials to run things in occupied Germany. It was probably a mistake to go to the extreme with the ba'athist.

Another issue is it seems the people in Iraq and middle east in general seem to only respond to fear. We do not have the stomach - or at least the press and some american people to brutaly supress our enemies, so maybe some of the former regime people could have helped us with this.

It is ironic that the iraqi military did not want to fight their own people, yet the terrorists will slaughter "their own people" with a 2nd thought.

Seems to me like a cop out, that the soldiers we hired were pussys.

__________________

Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!

Mike AI

View Public Profile

Find More Posts by Mike AI

06-17-2004 #10

Rolo

Members

Join Date: Dec 2002

Location: Six Feet Under

Posts: 2,150

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jun 17 2004, 07:26 AM
Patton hired many former Nazi officials to run things in occupied Germany.

Many germany commanders and officers knew that Germany could not win the war and were seeking a way out - I´m sure that many people in the Iraqi military had the same thoughts, why else was the US able to conquer the country on the battlefield so easy?

I think the US got "scammed" by exile Iraqis (who might have been supported by other middle east countries like Iran) to belive that it was possible to run the country without the former police, military etc.. with the object to throw the country into chaos, and prehaps break it up

__________________
"Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man."
~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918

Rolo

View Public Profile

Send a private message to Rolo

Find More Posts by Rolo

06-17-2004 #11

Almighty Colin

Members

Want to see your own Advertising Here!

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 8,059

Quote:

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 17 2004, 11:41 AM
why else was the US able to conquer the country on the battlefield so easy?

Rumsfeld was telling the truth. A lot of guys got paid off. A lot of other guys just went home. According to Keegan's new book on Iraq, there were no real major battles in the march to Baghdad.

__________________
Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.

Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

Almighty Colin

View Public Profile

Visit Almighty Colin's homepage!

Find More Posts by Almighty Colin

06-17-2004 #12

Rolo

Members

Join Date: Dec 2002

Location: Six Feet Under

Posts: 2,150

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin@Jun 17 2004, 01:47 PM
Rumsfeld was telling the truth. A lot of guys got paid off. A lot of other guys just went home. According to Keegan's new book on Iraq, there were no real major battles in the march to Baghdad.

Then the question must be, why did the goverment see them as enemies? I mean if they went home with no fighting, then logic would be that they would not attack the US trops once the war was over?

Ofcourse the goverment could be affraid of the message send to the iraqi people, if US trops started to patrol with former iraqi army/police, however didn´t they end up getting former army and police back in service anyway... why the delay? I`m sure that military leaders on the ground in Iraq were quick to see that Iraq needed the old army/police back, so it must be something political which caused the delay?

__________________
"Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man."
~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918

Rolo

View Public Profile

Send a private message to Rolo

Find More Posts by Rolo

Bookmarks

Google

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:09 PM..

06-17-2004	#2
Winetalk.com Prostate Examiner I quoff fine wine at corkd.com Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: good 'ole USA Posts: 21,018	well, let's look at it this way: NOW Iraqi military have VESTED INTEREST in providing security to the country...and themselves. __________________ why dogs sniff each other butts?

06-17-2004	#4
RawAlex Members $100 for every ImLive sign-up Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,036	Colin, when the US ran the government out of the capital, at the same time, they disbanded the military - mostly, from what I read at the time, becuase they feared military people having weapons and a means to organize people who might be in opposition to the US. They did the same with the police forces, for the most part. That is one of the contributing factors to the unstoppable looting and distruction that went on shortly after. No police, no military, and not enough US troops to replace them and keep order - and nobody had the desire to even try. Heck, the US troops were helping to pull down Saddam statues. What is that phrase about "sow and reap"? Alex __________________ Let's go to the edge of disaster Push the pedal and go a little faster Let's slam into a wall at ramming speed Let's go to the edge of a mountain Jump off and lets start countin' Hit the ground and tell me if it bleeds

06-17-2004	#1
Almighty Colin Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,059	35 killed at a recruiting station for the new Iraqi military. Now this brings up something interesting. The Iraqi army was disbanded in May, 2003 and former Ba'ath party members were banned from security forces. I think these, especially the first and less certain on the second have been the biggest errors in Iraq. I know these same questions came up during World War II. Would former Nazi party members be able to contribute to government and security? The trouble then, as now, is that the only people in the German government with any experience were Nazi party members. Now one could make an argument that disbanding the Iraqi military eliminated the greatest danger to security and we'll really never know. What it did do is unemploy hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Iraqi men. It will be interesting to see how well the newly forming Iraqi military will be able to maintain internal security. __________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content. Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

06-17-2004	#6
chodadog Members Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 372	Disbanding was a good idea in my mind. Because now a pro-US government can rebuild the military and put people in the chain of command to reflect the view of the new government. Although, i do think it's entirely possible that the existing army would have cooperated with the new government, but all it takes is a few high ranking persuasive officers and you've got a few renegade platoons running around shootin' shit up. Disbanding was the better choice, i think. Safer.