Posted on 05/20/2003 9:28:44 PM PDT by Jack Black
Allies to Begin Seizing Weapons From Most Iraqis By MICHAEL R. GORDON
AGHDAD, May 20 — Iraqi citizens will be required to turn over automatic weapons and heavy weapons under a proclamation that allied authorities plan to issue this week, allied officials said today.
The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47's, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that are used by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government.
Iraqis who refuse to comply with the edict will be subject to arrest. Only Iraqis authorized to use military-type weapons because of their police or military duties will be exempt.
"We are in the final stages of formulating a weapons policy to put rules on who can and cannot possess a weapon," Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied land commander said in an interview. "We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."
The weapons proclamation, which is to be issued by L. Paul Bremer III, the chief allied administrator for Iraq, and General McKiernan, is part of a broader effort to improve security in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities.
The need to secure Baghdad and provide security elsewhere in the country is expected to slow the pace of American troop withdrawals from Iraq, allied officials said. The United States has about 165,000 troops in Iraq. It is likely to have 100,000 in the fall, more than American planners had projected just three weeks ago.
Among other steps to strengthen security in Iraq, American forces are deploying a 4,000 strong military police brigade and more Humvees to improve the ability to conduct patrols. They are also repositioning American forces in the capital.
Allied officials are also considering a plan to bring Britain's 16th Air Assault Brigade to Baghdad. If approved by the British government, the British forces would be charged with training the Iraqi police and helping to safeguard the Iraqi capital, allied officials said.
Allied forces, however, do not plan to change the rules of engagement to encourage the shooting of looters, officials said. Allied commanders are eager to avoid an armed confrontation with Iraqi civilians.
There are some circumstances in which looters can be shot under the existing rules, but the main emphasis is to enable American forces to protect themselves against attacks.
Since allied forces toppled Mr. Hussein's government last month, they have struggled to fill the power vacuum in Baghdad and provide security in this capital of 4.5 million people. American military officials insist that the capital is safer than it was a month ago and that progress has been made in restoring essential utilities like electricity and water.
"Looting has gone down and violent crime has gone down," General McKiernan said. "The trend is down."
But robberies, looting, kidnappings and attacks by paramilitary forces are still frequent, prompting allied forces to step up their efforts to secure the country.
The weapons proclamation is an important part of that endeavor. The intention is to reduce attacks against allied forces, reduce crime and stop violent fights among rival Iraqi groups, allied commanders believe.
While General McKiernan talked about the ban in broad terms, other officials provided details.
Iraqis who are in the military, the police or an authorized security organization supervised by the allies will be authorized to carry automatic or heavy weapons. But other Iraqis will not be allowed to possess weapons, and open-air arms markets, common in Baghdad, will be banned.
Iraqis will be allowed to keep small arms at home for protection.
For a nation as dangerous as Iraq and as rife with weapons, total disarmament is impractical, allied officials say. But Iraqis will not be allowed to take their weapons outside their home without a special license.
Those who do obtain such licenses — security guards, for example — will not be allowed to carry concealed weapons.
To ensure that Iraqis are aware of the new policy the allies will saturate Iraqis with leaflets, use loudspeaker announcements and radio and television broadcasts. The edict will establish an amnesty period during which weapons can be turned in without fear of arrest.
The proclamation will also prohibit celebratory and other weapons firing within city limits, a measure that is likely to prove hard to enforce given the shooting that is often heard at night.
The weapons policy is just one element of the security plan. Allied officials are also trying to rebuild the Iraqi police forces. Some 7,000 police officials have indicated that they want to come back to work in Baghdad. But allied officials say they need to be retrained.
In the past, they say, the Iraqi police showed little interest in patrolling. Last night, there were just four police patrols conducted jointly by Iraqis and Americans, the first such patrols in the capital.
If the British forces are deployed in Baghdad, as expected, they will play an important role in the training. To avoid any association with the security forces of the former government, the police will wear blue uniforms instead of olive green. The original plan called for them to wear white shirts, but the Iraqis complained that that was unmanly and made them look like nurses.
Beyond that, allied planners are trying to reconfigure and reposition the allied force in Baghdad to improve security in the coming months. The main elements of that force include the First Armored Division, which is starting to arrive in the capital. The division has left artillery and air defense units behind and is being equipped with additional Humvees so that it can patrol the capital.
The Second Armored Cavalry Regiment is also being deployed. All told, it will have more than 300 Humvees, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the V Corps commander, said.
The Third Infantry Division withdrawal was halted for security reasons, but some units are expected to begin withdrawing as they are relieved by the First Armored Division.
I think this raises a lot of interesting RKBA questions. Is the US Constitution not a good model for Iraq? Why not? What about the famous bromide (Heilein?) that "an armed society is a polite society". The people on the ground in Iraq don't seem to think so.
What do you think?
All that is going to be accomplished is to cut down on the open carry and flaunting of weapons, not a bad end. But if US Army soldiers begin to shoot shop owners standing guard outside their stores with an AK, we are going to lose the hearts and minds real fast.
It is true... if there are still bands of roving rogues with such guns, a measly pistol will not suffice to defend against them.
*****************************************************************************
To: KDD
There is no rule of law in Iraq except military rule of law. Iraq has no Constitution or Bill of Rights and to try and extrapolate the freedoms of a functioning democracy to a country gripped in anarchy is foolish. Put yourself in the role of the grunt who has to patrol Baghdad. As long as all the citizens around him are armed he has to wait to be fired upon before he can determine who is the enemy. We'll lose a lot of young men that way. We must have a clear deliniation of of who is friendly and who is not. The enemy will not be wearing uniforms. There is only one sure way to protect our own.
There are several logical fallacies in your argument. First, If we were going to lose a lot of men this way, we would of done so already. We haven't.
Second, it totally discounts the psychology of the people of Iraq. Allowing them to keep arms says a great deal about how we view them. Saddam did not allow the great majority to have arms.
Third, arms in the hands of the Iraqi people have already started to develop secure situations in several areas. Many enemy, mostly foreign fanatics, have already been captured by armed Iraqis and turned over to U.S. troops. What we need to push is for the average Iraqi to see us as helpful liberators, as *allies* rather than as occupiers. The British in Iraq, in the 20s and 30s made the same mistake, it seems. They tried to operate by governing from the top down.
The strongest societies develop from the bottom up, as the U.S. and Switzerland did. Those are the models we should be pointing out to the Iraqis.
Don't forget, the fanatics who wish to kill us will have no trouble getting an AK47, no matter how many we pick up. Those who wish to be helpful to us will be the ones mostly disarmed.
72 posted on 05/20/2003 8:33 PM PDT by marktwain
Therefore the comparison to the AWB will not work for the demo's. I do not like the idea that they have to have some kind of special license just to carry them outside their home.
In Iraq, there are NO semi auto AK-47s. They are ALL full auto. So what?
To ban all full autos means taking the most effective self defense weapon away from neighborhood self defense committees and store owners.
It's not like they can go out and buy a semi-auto Mini 14. Full auto AKs are what they've got. Banning them would be as radical as banning our semi autos would be, leaving the average man at the mercy of gangsters.
A million armed semi-secular Iraqis (remember, booze and movies are legal in Iraq) can say "we don't think so!
If you ask me, this whole endevor seems like a waste of valuable military resources. They won't confiscate much and will expend a lot of time and energy in the process.
What part of Automatic and Heavy Weapons doesn't the NY Times understand?
Stay Safe !
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.