Iraqi troops reject Falluja duty
A senior US military officer in Iraq has said that a battalion of the new Iraqi army refused to support US forces in the town of Falluja.
A report in the Washington Post newspaper said the 620-man battalion refused to go to Falluja after being shot at in a Shia area of Baghdad.

It was the first time US commanders had sought to involve post-war Iraqi forces in major combat operations.

The troops were quoted as saying they had not signed up to fight Iraqis.

Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who heads the US-led ground forces, said the incident had uncovered significant challenges within the new force, being trained ahead of the June handover of sovereignty.

Analysts say the incident has exposed serious weaknesses, casting further doubt on US plans to transfer security matters to Iraqis.
more...
<font color="#C4C1CA">
I think that the final critiscims is unfair and the US commanders screening and training the new Iraqi army ought to be given credit for their work.

For the first time in Iraq's modern history, it has an army that is unwilling to turn its guns on the general populace - and people are calling that a serious weakness? If the Iraqi army had behaved like this in 1993, a hundred thousand people would still be alive today...

For once, there is *clear* evidence of some positive gains in ideology that the US has implemented, and it gets derided :rolleyes:
</font>

They refuse to take up arms against people who constantly sabotage peace, shoot at virtually anything that moves, and kidnap innocent people, like humanitarian workers and journalists. I'd say that whole battalion isn't worth crap, not only did they refuse an order, they let down allied troops who might have been in need of their assistance. It's a cowardly act, if they're not up for such tasks, then why did they chose to join the new Iraqi army in the first place ?

Well this is the thanks that the coalition get from Iraqi's for "freeing" their country. The coalition may as well not have bothered.

I think both of you make equally valid points regarding the new Iraqi forces, but I have to say that fighting Iraqi's that kill innocents would not be the same as the wholesale slaughter visited on the innocent in the 90's.

It's great that they've learned a lesson, but now they've gone from one ridiculous extreme to the other. They've gone from killing any and everyone they are told and dumping their bodies in mass graves, to refusing to fight those who do those things.

They say they won't fight fellow Iraqis, but I wonder if they would fight anyone from the Middle East. The Iraqis have to stand up to the challenge, even when it isn't pleasant.

Well said!

They joined up to defend their country against FOREIGN aggression. If they had wanted to be policemen and go chase criminals, they would have joined the POLICE FORCE.

BTW. The kidnappings have not occured in the area around Falluja. The only foreigners held by Falluja are one US citizen who was GUARDING a US military supply convoy - and was therefore taking part in the action (making him a POW now), and a couple of truck drivers in the military supply convoy who were later released.

Falluja is a popular uprising Ronn - not simply the work of a few murderers. They're unhappy about a number of things, from loss of work to iregular food, water, electricity to 'heavy handed' security arrangments.

A small band of dedicated 'murderers' would not be able to hold off the US military for an hour, never mind days. There are a lot of ordinary townspeople fighting against what they believe to be injustices as a result of foreign rule and from what I've seen, the majority of the city is backing them.

And that's what the moral dillema is for the Iraqi Brigade. Going after murderers is one thing - fighting against your fellow countrymen is another.

I believe any decent military defends its nation against threats both foreign and domestic. A threat is a threat, and I'll have to disagree if you think the level of threat posed by the Fallujah insurgents and jihadists is a local police matter.

[ 04-12-2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

I agree that it is a dilema, but as I said sometimes you have to make the tough choices.

Isn't the swing in attitude so radical that it makes them worthless? They would kill Iraqis by the thousands at the order of Sadam, but now they won't fight to restore order?

They joined up to defend their country against FOREIGN aggression. If they had wanted to be policemen and go chase criminals, they would have joined the POLICE FORCE.

BTW. The kidnappings have not occured in the area around Falluja. The only foreigners held by Falluja are one US citizen who was GUARDING a US military supply convoy - and was therefore taking part in the action (making him a POW now), and a couple of truck drivers in the military supply convoy who were later released. </font>[/QUOTE]When a policeforce isn't fit for the job, the army takes over. You can't expect a few cops to enter a warzone, do you ? Do the Brits sent policeofficers to Belfast when there's trouble with the IRA ? No, they sent the army. These are army matters, it's not just a bunch of criminals they're dealing with here, it's a heavily armed mob. There's a slight difference you know.

I can't really make the point because I can't show you the footage of the scenes from the 'active combat' stage of the siege. The footage was *gruesome* to the extreme - if you had seen it, it would have affected you no less than those mutilation scenes in the same town. The same knot in the stomach, the same shock and horror. And those soldiers will almost certainly have seen that footage, broadcast live from 3 different arab news channels in Falluja.

And johnny, I was in the British army in Northern Ireland, and I assure you that we NEVER used airstrikes and artillery against rioters. And we would NEVER use rockets or any heavy munitions in a built up area even if we were under mortar attack and heavy machine gun fire. There *IS* a difference.
There are rules of engagement - and they're even more strict when dealing with your OWN populace.

I don't think that many soldiers in the British army would obey an order to use such force on their own countrymen either.

I guess that I'm just going to have remain in disagreement with you guys over this. I think that the new Iraq army is a success and that the US army has done a good job vetting and training them. Short of the insurgents turning their guns on the citizens of Falluja and the Iraqi army still refusing to engage, not much is going to change my mind.

Anyways, it's NICE to praise the US for a success in Iraq for a change [img]smile.gif[/img] - you're not going to spoil it for me.

They don't ? Remember this ?

Hey, at least it's their choice. Unlike before. ;) Freedom's a beautiful thing.

Glad you brought that up. The city was under siege and a MASSIVE 13 people were killed, leading to 30 years of public inquiries into why SO MANY people were killed and what went WRONG to cause such a HEAVY loss of life. And the siege of 'Free Derry' was to last another 6 months without *any* further loss of life until the army ended the siege - and even then only 2 more people were killed on the day.

In Falluja the numbers are *considerably* higher.
Now, if we term Falluja a <u>warzone</u>, the civilian toll is within 'acceptable' bounds. Those kinds of numbers are relatively small for a siege of this size and the methodology (the usage of heavy ordinance and aerial bombardment) is within the normal bounds of war. However, if it is a war-zone, then you can't ask the Iraqi troops to fight their own people.

If, on the other hand, it is a simple security operation to round up a few murderers, then the death toll shows a criminal disregard for life - and again, the troops should refuse to participate on those grounds.

Personally, I consider it a warzone and that the resultant loss of life is a regrettable but normal part of such an operation of that scale. Either way though, Iraqi troops no business participating.

[ 04-13-2004, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

I GIVE UP!!!

Now they have announced that they are going to re-hire Saddam Hussein's officers to run the army! Why is the current administration hell-bent on killing any positive outcomes of the occupation???

What next, will they say that the IGC is too weak to run the country, that it needs a strong leader and that reappointing Saddam Hussein is a great idea?

How do they think the populace will react to the re-appointment of the hero's of 1993?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3621369.stm

I'd burst out laughing, if only I didn't burst into tears first... [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]

Ain't war and politics fun!