Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraqi Council Seeks Control Of Security [lol!]
Newsday ^ | 10/30/2003 | Mohamad Bazzi

Posted on 10/30/2003 8:15:33 AM PST by a_Turk

Baghdad, Iraq - The Iraqi Governing Council is using Monday's car bombings in Baghdad to argue that the U.S. occupation authority should turn over internal security to Iraqis, council members say.

The U.S.-appointed council has tried before to convince Washington to cede control of most security functions to an Iraqi civil defense militia that would report to the Interior Ministry. But the Bush administration has resisted the idea, arguing that Iraqis are not ready to take control of their own security.

After Monday's bombings, the council renewed its push for a civil defense force that would hunt down insurgents and help foil attacks. Council members argue that Iraqis are better suited to weeding out Saddam Hussein supporters and to identifying foreign fighters who have slipped into the country.

"There was a major security failure on Monday, and the Iraqi people blame the Americans and the council, even though we have little control over security," said a council member who asked not to be named. "We're making the argument once again that a well-trained Iraqi defense force will be more effective than what we have now."

At meetings with U.S. officials Tuesday and yesterday, council members also challenged Washington for consistently singling out Syria and Iran as the countries from which foreign fighters are infiltrating into Iraq. Several council members told U.S. officials that they have evidence many more Arab fighters have slipped in from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, according to two people at the meetings.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: iraq; puppetregime; usa
Do it! Turn over the council's own security to them!
1 posted on 10/30/2003 8:15:33 AM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Perhaps the Council could quit whining and just implement this defense force. Make it happen. I'm certain our American forces would be glad to pull back to defending key infrastructure and having rapid-response teams and let this team do routine internal defense. But it will be difficult to convince anyone until this force is in place.
2 posted on 10/30/2003 8:25:22 AM PST by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop
The council is obviously calculating that they country will fall apart and they'll each have their little monarchies to govern.

With the US political will always so fickle, Turkish troops would be the biggest most permanent obstacle to those plans.

I would not be surprised if some of the council members were involved in the attacks on coalition troops there.
3 posted on 10/30/2003 8:28:38 AM PST by a_Turk (Nothing's good that uses bad...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
>> council members also challenged Washington for consistently singling out Syria and Iran

Who wants to guess why??
4 posted on 10/30/2003 8:41:18 AM PST by a_Turk (Nothing's good that uses bad...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
After Monday's bombings, the council renewed its push for a civil defense force that would hunt down insurgents and help foil attacks.

A civil defense force is being trained up as we speak, along with the Iraqi police, facilities protection service, border service and New Iraqi Army. The issue is how fast they can be trained up and whether control of these forces should be transfered to the Governing Council at this time. Also, I believe SCIRI wants to legitimize its own Badr brigade militia as an alternative power base to the official security forces. That would be a mistake. Finally, why doesn't the Governing Council get cracking and decide on a plan for the Constitutional Convention. Will they at least have one by the Dec. 15 Security Council deadline? We can't wait forever to see progress in the setting up of a democratic constitution.

5 posted on 10/30/2003 9:04:32 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
"...why doesn't the Governing Council get cracking and decide on a plan for the Constitutional Convention."

There isn't any unifying ideological base for such a convention. It will take many, many years of education and foreign administration for one to arise. There is no sense of what being an Iraqi means.

Fear of Hussein was the only thing that kept the country together. There is no conceptual replacement for that yet.

6 posted on 10/30/2003 9:25:14 AM PST by Mortimer Snavely (Ban tag lines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mortimer Snavely
But we don't have years. Supposedly the hold up is because the Shiite members want the delegates to be elected, and Ayatollah Sistani has issued a fatwa that they must be, but others and the CPA would prefer to have a quicker way of assembling the convention than waiting for an election, since Bremer has already committed to having a referendum on the constitution as well.
7 posted on 10/30/2003 9:30:00 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
"But we don't have years."

Regardless of the foreign policy requirements of the present administration, years are required for the construction of a stable and intact New Iraq.

Any attempts to the otherwise, ignoring the reality of the situation, are doomed to failure.

Currently Iraq is a black hole which draws every jihadist in the Arab and Islamist world. They must be defeated, and that means we must take the battle to them. This means expanding military and propaganda operations.

It is necessary for this administration to clearly understand the threat that Islamists pose to civilization. It is necessary for the Peresident to educate the nation as to the exact nature of the problems that lie ahead, and to prepare us for what must necessarily be a long, drawn out global struggle.

Trying to get the country to accept spur of the moment crisis management and playing on the electorate's hopes for a quick solution is, quite frankly, a grave disservice to the nation and to civilization.

8 posted on 10/30/2003 9:53:13 AM PST by Mortimer Snavely (Ban tag lines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mortimer Snavely
I don't see why all security matters must be completely resolved before the constitutional process can commence. The process proceeds apace in Afghanistan even though the security issues are still being dealt with concurrently.
9 posted on 10/30/2003 10:09:27 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
In the Islamist mind it is probable that the jihad will succeed and US and allied forces will withdraw in disgrace. This makes them ideologically viable, and political players. They are still a viable alternative so long as they are combat effective.

In the non Western world we are not dealing with a mindset amenable to propositional logic. It is one unable to distinguish between what could possibly be true and what actually is true.

The only thing that succeeds in this intellectual universe is the fait accompli, and the only thing that persuades is brute force.

Until Islamism and its allies have been militarily castrated they will be considered potential victors in this fight. That means that everyone in Iraq will be hedging their bets, and will enthusiastically support the strongest at the moment.

Only when US and allied forces are the undisputed conquerors and have provided a long, sustained period of unambiguous public order, and Islamism is removed from public awareness, can any ideological replacement for the dread of Saddam begin to emerge. Only when that ideological replacement has taken root and flourished in peace for a long time can any constitution based on that ideological replacement be formulated, and only when that constitution has provided a long period of public order will it be accepted by the majority of Iraqis.

It is necessarily a long, drawn out process, requiring more time than the administration has allowed for.

10 posted on 10/30/2003 10:44:56 AM PST by Mortimer Snavely (Ban tag lines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RLK
ka-PING!!
11 posted on 10/30/2003 10:47:56 AM PST by Mortimer Snavely (Ban tag lines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
"I would not be surprised if some of the council members were involved in the attacks on coalition troops there."

We know they are, did you see the post yesterday about the Iraqi "policeman" who a US officer got to give information about a planned attack on US troops?
12 posted on 10/30/2003 10:51:18 AM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
Did not see it.. Got a link?
13 posted on 10/30/2003 10:55:16 AM PST by a_Turk (Nothing's good that uses bad...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mortimer Snavely
My second guess is that we did not use sufficent force when we came into the country.
14 posted on 10/30/2003 11:17:43 AM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mortimer Snavely
In the non Western world we are not dealing with a mindset amenable to propositional logic. It is one unable to distinguish between what could possibly be true and what actually is true. The Arab mind finds it hard to distinguish between whart they want to happen and what is actually happening. One reason why the "Little king" of Jordan was so successful was that he had a western mind, unless someone like Nasser or Suddam. Husseim told the story of thw 1967 war in which his ally, Nasser, failed to tell him that the Israeli's had taken out the Egyptian arir force and let Jordanian ground force advance without the sir cover they needed. Not only that. Nasser lied to the king's face time and time again. Face is everything to these people.
15 posted on 10/30/2003 11:23:01 AM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011084/posts
16 posted on 10/30/2003 4:06:08 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
Thanks!
17 posted on 10/30/2003 7:27:01 PM PST by a_Turk (Nothing's good that uses bad...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson