Posted on 11/05/2005 2:52:19 PM PST by ncountylee
BAGHDAD - About 100 officers from Saddam Hussein’s disbanded army on Saturday demanded proper retirement benefits or jobs in Iraq’s new military force.
The officers, of various ranks and from around the country, made their demands at a meeting with with President Jalal Talabani on the occasion of the Eid Al Fitr holiday.
Iraq’s army was dissolved in a controversial move by US overseer Paul Bremer after US-led forces invaded the country in 2003.
The cashiered officers have since received a small, symbolic payment from the government.
On Saturday the call was extended to include former non-commissioned officers and warrant officers.
“Those officers of the old army who served their country honestly and who deserve consideration and respect are unfortunately victims of the whims of the state,” Talabani, a Kurdish resistance hero, said at the end of the meeting.
“I call on the goverment to treat with respect these officers who sacrificed so much for Iraq,” he said. “It is their right to claim an adequate pension.”
In Iraq’s parliamentary system, Talabani’s office is not as powerful as that of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, a member of Iraq’s Shiite majority.
Some of the protesting officers asked for jobs in the new army.
“That will be done according to the recruitment conditions,” Talabani said. “We will be able to benefit from their experience.”
In most instances a "proper retirement" would involve a firing squad. Perhaps they should crawl back under their rock.
How about their heads in a box?
Might be a good sign, no long term prospects with the other side.
First signs of the "ENTITLEMENT CULT"!
Nip it in the bud, shoot the barstards!
Yeah, be careful what you ask for, you just might get that "proper retirement."
You mean the NYT turned them down too? LMAO
The army was dissolved because the Shiites and Kurds demanded it as a condition to participating in the new government. He really didn't have any choice.
Have the hundred form their own little unit and put them at the front of any fighting to remove terrorist.
If they are willing to fight for Iraq, fine. If they are bad, you shoot them.
I know that hindsight is 20/20, but didn't it occur to Bremer or anyone else at Defense that dissolving the entire Iraqi army and leaving everyone in the country with military training at loose ends with no income might be a bad idea?
"How about their heads in a box?"
I couldn't have said it better. Our people have died to make sure America and WE are okay.. The #$%% with these guys.
By the time that was figured out, we had the insurgency. Then Bremer was replaced. Lots of mistakes are made in war. Look at WWI, WWII and Korea.
It's aggravating because it's so bloody obvious. We contacted them before the war, bribed some of them not to fight and promised that they'd either keep their jobs and/or get a generous retirement. Then we threw them out in the street during the equally idiotic "DeBaathafication" phase of the occupation.
Given how costly the Sunni insurgency has been, in the long run it might well have been cheaper to export the officers and their families to retirement homes in the Caribbean.
What I'm wondering now is if these bozos asking for pensions now are just homebodies who aren't connected to the Sunni insurgents, or if they're a stalking horse for the officers who did join the insurgency.
The first idea that comes to mind is to give them decent-paying jobs training troops in the new Iraqi Army and see where that leads.
I think that Gen. Shinseki had an idea that things were going to be a lot rougher than the Administration thought (hoped?), but he was forced into retirement in 2003 shortly after making his views public.
While I'm not going to adopt the Democrat talking-point that the Administration had "no plan" for the occupation, I will say that the plan that they had going in was inadequate and that I don't think that they adapted to the reality of what was going on in Iraq until it was too late to stop the insurgency.
Give them a new job digging up mass graves with their bare hands.
True, but the Kurds were (still are, I think) pro-American and while the Shiites don't have much use for us, they can count. In a democracy, Shiites will make-up the majority of the electorate. The Shiite plan was to simply wait us out and take over. And if we killed a few hotheads like al Sadr while we were at it, so much the better.
Don't be fooled by the alliance with the Kurds. There are different tribes with different loyalties. But in the long run, Kurds are only loyal to Kurds.
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.