blackfox
Oct 24, 2004, 09:40 PM
from NYT
Rebels Mount Grisly Ambush, Executing 49 Iraqi Soldiers
By EDWARD WONG
Published: October 24, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - In the single deadliest ambush of the insurgency, guerrillas dressed as police officers executed 46 freshly trained Iraqi soldiers and three civilian drivers in remote eastern Iraq as the unarmed men were going home on leave Saturday evening, Iraqi officials said today.
The men were taken from three minibuses at a fake checkpoint about 95 miles northeast of Baghdad, near the Iranian border in restive Diyala Province, police officials said. The men were told or forced to lie down on the ground in rows, then killed mostly with bullets to their heads. The ambush, extraordinarily ambitious in scope and violence, showed a high level of organization, and the insurgents likely had inside information on the travel plans of the soldiers, who were members of the nascent Iraqi National Guard, officials said.
The mass murder deals a humiliating blow to the American military and the interim Iraqi government at a time when top officials say Iraqi forces are being quickly trained to take over policing duties from the 138,000 American troops, and to help maintain security for general elections scheduled in January. Tonight, a group called Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the new name of the militant band led by the Jordanian fighter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility in an Internet posting.
In the capital, a State Department security officer, Edward J. Seitz, was killed by a mortar or rocket attack early this morning at Camp Victory, the American base next to Baghdad International Airport that serves as the military's operations center, said Bob Callahan, a spokesman for the American embassy. Mr. Seitz is the first American diplomatic employee known to be killed in the war. A 16-year veteran of the State Department, he was posted at the base and was struck by chance.
Moktada al-Sadr, the firebrand Shiite cleric who has led two uprisings against the occupation, issued a statement late Saturday night saying he fully supported the leaders of the insurgent stronghold of Falluja, which could face invasion within weeks by the Marines. Mr. Sadr said he was ready to intervene in the standoff, and that he backed the leaders whether they decided to reach a peace agreement with the Americans and the Iraqi government or take up arms. "No mercy to the occupiers, and the resistance will continue, God willing," Mr. Sadr said.
Mr. Sadr's incendiary words come as his aides say he has been trying to disarm his thousands-strong militia, the Mahdi Army, and enter legitimate politics in advance of the elections scheduled for January. Last April, Mr. Sadr told his militia to wage war on the Americans at the same time that the Marines staged an ill-fated assault on Falluja, creating a two-front revolt that led to one of the biggest crises of the occupation.
Mr. Sadr's statement raises the possibility that a similar eruption could take place if the Marines invade again, though a Sadr aide, Hashim Abu Rejaf, said in an interview that Mr. Sadr was just lending "moral support" for now. Mr. Sadr favors a peaceful solution, he said, especially as elections approach. Still, Mr. Sadr's message could be interpreted as a call to arms by some members of the Mahdi Army, which is loosely organized and made up mostly of poor, undisciplined young men.
This morning, a delegation of leaders from Falluja drove to Baghdad to meet with Defense Ministry officials to resume negotiations. An American fighter jet later attacked a suspected insurgent post in northern Falluja, the latest in a series of almost daily airstrikes by the Marines. Witnesses said six people had been killed, The Associated Press reported.
The executions of the 49 Iraqi men raised disturbing questions about the training process and the recruits: Why were the guardsmen allowed to travel unarmed and without protection, given the frequent attacks on the Iraqi security forces? Why did men trained to be soldiers not put up a fight, especially when there were so many of them? How did the insurgents get police uniforms and information on the travel plans of the soldiers?
Iraqi and American officials said they had no immediate answers.
Another positive development...
Reading this alongside much of the recent news coming out of Iraq, I contrast it with the developments in Afghanistan.
While Afghanistan is hardly the success the US was publicly hoping for, I feel comparatively, the US pursued a much more pragmatic course, either by design or necessity.
Although the "democracy" in Afghanistan is hardly so, it does seem to reflect the nature of the country and as so seems quite a success. There is considerable complaints about the results of the Elections, with Karzai winning by a considerable margin, but those complaints by and large follow ethnic lines. The vast majority of Pashtuns voted for Karzai, a descendent of Pashtun Royalty, while the Northern part of the country, populated by Tajiks voted towards opposition candidates. Karzai included on his VP ticket the brother of the famous Tajik mujahadin commander Massoud, although it was not as successful an appeal to voters as hoped.
The point is, although there is considerable wrangling and complaining, very little seems focused on the US. It seems merely an internal affair, with the populace divided by ethnicity, which is how it has always been. The fact that the central government is weak, seems more a reflection of the preferences of the Afghan people than any inherent flaw in the Central government itself.
From the US standpoint, it got much of what it wanted, from securing a pipeline, to a US friendly central government, however inneffectual. I believe the US has been doing what it does best, influencing politics and power by appealing or promoting various individuals prone to power by an influx of cash or weapons. If we are talking about US interests here, divorced from moral platitudes, this is a good strategy. It reflects the position of trying to effect the systems already in place to maximum personal benefit, which seems a lot more practical than the imposition of a foreign system by force.
So with regards to Iraq. It should seem obvious that the insurgency is gaining in strength both numerically and logistically, and much of that is focused on anti-occupation sentiments. Although some advocate keeping the faith and resolve and "outlasting" the insurgents will to fight, that is impossible, as they are the "home team" and will fight indefinitely.
As morally reprehensible as it might seem, at this point, both for US and Iraqis, would it not be preferable to just leave? Of course, Iraq would be chaotic, but it is now. There are no shortage of self-styled leaders to fill the power vaccuum and the US could, as in Afghanistan, financially or logistically support those it preferred.
Once the focus of Iraqis was off repelling the US occupation, and focused on the rebuilding of their country, it would seem that those competent to gain power would, without the distortion of merely appealing to anti-americanism. The US and other countries could then inject aid and perhaps Peacekeeping forces would be allowed in, if it was the Iraqis asking, and not the US telling.
I am kinda rambling, but I just see our stubborn policy in Iraq as helping no-one, except perhaps Islamic fundamentalists.
FWIW
Rebels Mount Grisly Ambush, Executing 49 Iraqi Soldiers
By EDWARD WONG
Published: October 24, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - In the single deadliest ambush of the insurgency, guerrillas dressed as police officers executed 46 freshly trained Iraqi soldiers and three civilian drivers in remote eastern Iraq as the unarmed men were going home on leave Saturday evening, Iraqi officials said today.
The men were taken from three minibuses at a fake checkpoint about 95 miles northeast of Baghdad, near the Iranian border in restive Diyala Province, police officials said. The men were told or forced to lie down on the ground in rows, then killed mostly with bullets to their heads. The ambush, extraordinarily ambitious in scope and violence, showed a high level of organization, and the insurgents likely had inside information on the travel plans of the soldiers, who were members of the nascent Iraqi National Guard, officials said.
The mass murder deals a humiliating blow to the American military and the interim Iraqi government at a time when top officials say Iraqi forces are being quickly trained to take over policing duties from the 138,000 American troops, and to help maintain security for general elections scheduled in January. Tonight, a group called Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the new name of the militant band led by the Jordanian fighter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility in an Internet posting.
In the capital, a State Department security officer, Edward J. Seitz, was killed by a mortar or rocket attack early this morning at Camp Victory, the American base next to Baghdad International Airport that serves as the military's operations center, said Bob Callahan, a spokesman for the American embassy. Mr. Seitz is the first American diplomatic employee known to be killed in the war. A 16-year veteran of the State Department, he was posted at the base and was struck by chance.
Moktada al-Sadr, the firebrand Shiite cleric who has led two uprisings against the occupation, issued a statement late Saturday night saying he fully supported the leaders of the insurgent stronghold of Falluja, which could face invasion within weeks by the Marines. Mr. Sadr said he was ready to intervene in the standoff, and that he backed the leaders whether they decided to reach a peace agreement with the Americans and the Iraqi government or take up arms. "No mercy to the occupiers, and the resistance will continue, God willing," Mr. Sadr said.
Mr. Sadr's incendiary words come as his aides say he has been trying to disarm his thousands-strong militia, the Mahdi Army, and enter legitimate politics in advance of the elections scheduled for January. Last April, Mr. Sadr told his militia to wage war on the Americans at the same time that the Marines staged an ill-fated assault on Falluja, creating a two-front revolt that led to one of the biggest crises of the occupation.
Mr. Sadr's statement raises the possibility that a similar eruption could take place if the Marines invade again, though a Sadr aide, Hashim Abu Rejaf, said in an interview that Mr. Sadr was just lending "moral support" for now. Mr. Sadr favors a peaceful solution, he said, especially as elections approach. Still, Mr. Sadr's message could be interpreted as a call to arms by some members of the Mahdi Army, which is loosely organized and made up mostly of poor, undisciplined young men.
This morning, a delegation of leaders from Falluja drove to Baghdad to meet with Defense Ministry officials to resume negotiations. An American fighter jet later attacked a suspected insurgent post in northern Falluja, the latest in a series of almost daily airstrikes by the Marines. Witnesses said six people had been killed, The Associated Press reported.
The executions of the 49 Iraqi men raised disturbing questions about the training process and the recruits: Why were the guardsmen allowed to travel unarmed and without protection, given the frequent attacks on the Iraqi security forces? Why did men trained to be soldiers not put up a fight, especially when there were so many of them? How did the insurgents get police uniforms and information on the travel plans of the soldiers?
Iraqi and American officials said they had no immediate answers.
Another positive development...
Reading this alongside much of the recent news coming out of Iraq, I contrast it with the developments in Afghanistan.
While Afghanistan is hardly the success the US was publicly hoping for, I feel comparatively, the US pursued a much more pragmatic course, either by design or necessity.
Although the "democracy" in Afghanistan is hardly so, it does seem to reflect the nature of the country and as so seems quite a success. There is considerable complaints about the results of the Elections, with Karzai winning by a considerable margin, but those complaints by and large follow ethnic lines. The vast majority of Pashtuns voted for Karzai, a descendent of Pashtun Royalty, while the Northern part of the country, populated by Tajiks voted towards opposition candidates. Karzai included on his VP ticket the brother of the famous Tajik mujahadin commander Massoud, although it was not as successful an appeal to voters as hoped.
The point is, although there is considerable wrangling and complaining, very little seems focused on the US. It seems merely an internal affair, with the populace divided by ethnicity, which is how it has always been. The fact that the central government is weak, seems more a reflection of the preferences of the Afghan people than any inherent flaw in the Central government itself.
From the US standpoint, it got much of what it wanted, from securing a pipeline, to a US friendly central government, however inneffectual. I believe the US has been doing what it does best, influencing politics and power by appealing or promoting various individuals prone to power by an influx of cash or weapons. If we are talking about US interests here, divorced from moral platitudes, this is a good strategy. It reflects the position of trying to effect the systems already in place to maximum personal benefit, which seems a lot more practical than the imposition of a foreign system by force.
So with regards to Iraq. It should seem obvious that the insurgency is gaining in strength both numerically and logistically, and much of that is focused on anti-occupation sentiments. Although some advocate keeping the faith and resolve and "outlasting" the insurgents will to fight, that is impossible, as they are the "home team" and will fight indefinitely.
As morally reprehensible as it might seem, at this point, both for US and Iraqis, would it not be preferable to just leave? Of course, Iraq would be chaotic, but it is now. There are no shortage of self-styled leaders to fill the power vaccuum and the US could, as in Afghanistan, financially or logistically support those it preferred.
Once the focus of Iraqis was off repelling the US occupation, and focused on the rebuilding of their country, it would seem that those competent to gain power would, without the distortion of merely appealing to anti-americanism. The US and other countries could then inject aid and perhaps Peacekeeping forces would be allowed in, if it was the Iraqis asking, and not the US telling.
I am kinda rambling, but I just see our stubborn policy in Iraq as helping no-one, except perhaps Islamic fundamentalists.
FWIW
