For those still wondering when Iraqi forces will “stand up” so U.S. forces can “stand down,” an answer came Wednesday: Don’t hold your breath.
With U.S. help, Iraqi forces raided the stronghold of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose ragtag Mahdi Army is thought to be running death squads in Baghdad. Before the smoke had cleared, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki disavowed the operation, saying he had not been consulted and insisting “it will not be repeated.”
Since he already had the microphone, Maliki also condemned talk of a timetable for when Iraqi forces might take a lead security role: “This government represents the will of the people, and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it.”
Given Maliki’s tenuous rule in the Green Zone, both points are debatable. But it’s hard to see how Iraqi forces will ever stand up if their commander in chief keeps telling them to sit down.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
26 Comments
One thing to remember: al-Maliki will still be in Baghdad, as the last U.S. Marine is on the helicopter leaving the roof of the embassy. He is obviously interested in personal, as well as political, survival.
Why shouldn’t he protest? After all, the intent is for Iraq to be a “democratic, self-governing state” or something like that; it seems to me that if that is true, then he, on behalf of the Iraqi people, ought to have some say in the matter, notwithstanding how it conflicts with the U.S. and its wishes.
More deja vu. I remember verious times the regimes in Saigon would make a show of trying to be independent of the US.
I’m hungry.
Oh wow! hfkhrfkrhrhkjhrew noticed that I don’t type too well. I’m impressed!
/sarcasm off
“This government represents the will of the people, and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it.”
We haven’t taken into account the will of the people of Iraq up to this point. Why start now?
If he wants to rule Iraq with no timetable, timeline, or anything else, let him. Pull out all troops–U.S. and all others–and let him have it. How long does he think he’ll last? They’ll kill him, which is what they should’ve done when Saddam was in power. Looks like the new guy is getting as lippy as the old one was.
al-Maliki has spoken.
This does not make me trust the Iraqi govdernment that we sent in our soldiers to fight and die for. Sounds like this man is playing both sides of the fence?
What ever happened to Ahmed Chalabi?
Nevermind Iraq-New Jersey Supreme Court ruled gay marriage is okay.This sucks. why? Because the GOP will use this to fire up the haters and they’ll be another heated election in 08.Personaly, I am all for gay marriage.
Ben, last I heard was the Kingdom of Jordan wanted to speak with him about bank fraud, IIRC.
Its simply time to leave. Ret.MSgt USAF Gulf War Vet and a Republican
It is time…
I think the French are in on trying to draw attention away from the evil Bushco too. The French should start drawing media attention away soon – as they have just secretly alerted 50,000 police to be ready for Jihadis…but not in Iraq – In Paris.http://politicscentral.com/2006/10/25/france_prepares_50000_riot_pol.php
The wonders of multiculturalism has hit them big time with over 2500 officers injured so far. They are getting geared up for the annual car-b-que in Paris from their wonderful Muslim neighbors. Although you wont hear that word on tv. They will be called “youths” since calling them what they are will hurt their feelings.
Nothing like a dictator Saddam Hussein to keep Middle East Muslims in line.
I know that sounds harsh, but it’s true.
Casey is saying more US troops might be needed to attempt to subdue Baghdad. Progress?
In guerilla type warfare and especially in urban warfare, numbers don’t gain a particular advantage.
I suppose if they want to do a very restrictive lockdown on Baghdad, then numbers might help.
If they do that though, then the people will turn against them for restricting their freedom/movement.
Yep. Damned either way. The only way to police a City is with their own troops. You know, some of those 300,000 ARI we have trained and armed.
We should secure the borders and perhaps some of the countryside where our technical advantages are useful.
Border security in the Middle East is quite difficult. They have developed through the passed thousand years developed routes, camel trails, mountaineous pathways and generally hidden trails that are impossible to cover all at once.
The thing about an insurgency, is it doesn’t need a huge convoy of supplies to cause trouble. There are so many old weapons in Iraq, I would imagine the only thing they need are compact explosive devices and some rifle ammo.
Pack about 200-300 pounds of goodies on a camel or in a false bottom of a water tank truck andthey have all the supplies they need.
That particular route gets stopped? They will just pick another of the several hundred that exist.
Very true JM. My point would be to interdict anything large. I would think that 300,000 ARI could handle the small stuff – in theory they should have access to human intel since it IS their country.
That is assuming, of course, that the ARI have the support of their citizens.
Time to restart the draft. If we are going to continue to fight for oil all of us should be sacrificing in some way — first to go: anyone who owns a vehicle that gets less than 25 MPG — line up the escalades, Hummers, put some extra armor on em and gun turrets then let the owners drive point on street patrol — those shiny things will add some class to the streets of Baghdad.
Oh I read some where that Iraq has already sold some of the oil rights to France –
My apologies — Iraq oil sales have not been bid yet. The prewar acclimations about the oil paying for the war are a long way from being met — government sources say it will take another 22 billion of our money to bring the fields back into needed production and there is no guarantee the US will get any of it. Well, that’s not true KBR (Haliburton) received a $2 billion dollar no bid contract to restore the oil fields, and has secured less than 25% of the available fields … and the Army found 250 million in billing fraud and irregularities, and the Army forgave them. The woman in the department that pointed it out was demoted and given a job with nothing to do …. This administration’s finest hour is yet to come I guess.
Posted by: Ken | October 25, 2006 at 05:40 PM”Oh I read some where that Iraq has already sold some of the oil rights to France –”
Do tell Ken…
Is that a recent event or are you referring to the Oil for Tech when Saddam Hussein was in power?
“Iraqi leader” hehehe good one.
How can a guy be a “leader” of anything when his country has an occupying army rolling up and down the streets in tanks and armored vehicles.
It’s like blaming the Hungarians for how Russia acted in 1956.
Personally, I don’t like walking around waiting to get shot or exploded. I would move all troops out of the cities/towns to defensible positions in the country. Train the military/police from there. We can stand back and see if Maliki can handle the heat. If not, then we need to find someone else that can.
Kale, if by “we” you mean the U.S., that’s a big part of the problem; if you mean the Iraqi people, then I agree.
More from Rumsfeld:
Associated PressRumsfeld Pledges Help for Iraq SecurityBy PAULINE JELINEK 10.26.06, 1:53 PM ET
The United States will increase its support for the Iraqi security forces, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday, saying it continues to be “enormously challenging” to quell the violence there.
Rumsfeld said he has done a new assessment of the progress of the Iraqi forces, and he was not satisfied.
“We intend to increase their budgets,” he said, as well as their capabilities, and officials will work to help make the improvements more quickly. He did not cite any figures, however.
Rumsfeld also said people ought to “just back off” and stop demanding specific benchmarks or timelines for progress in Iraq, saying it is just too difficult to predict when the Iraqis can take control of their country.
Rumsfeld is coming under increasing fire for his stewardship of the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, which has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops and has become the top election issue – one that could wrest control of Congress from the Republicans.
Several Republican candidates, facing tough election races against Democrats who oppose the war, have joined in criticism of the war policy.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/26/rumsfeld-pledges-help-for-iraq-security/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fbusinesstech%2Ffeeds%2Fap%2F2006%2F10%2F26%2Fap3123323.html
meanwhile, cut-and-run conservatives
War on Terror
Cut-and-Run Conservativesby Jeffrey T. KuhnerPosted Oct 24, 2006
The Iraq war threatens to split the conservative movement. Isolationist conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak, have opposed the war from the beginning. This is not surprising since they have fiercely objected to almost every American military intervention since the end of the Cold War. It is more troubling, however, that conservatives such as William F. Buckley and George Will are now turning against our continued presence in Iraq.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/26/op-ed-cut-and-run-conservatives/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.humanevents.com%2Farticle.php%3Fid%3D17676&frame=true