Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An Iraqi Army unit ready to control its turf

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 10:04 AM
Original message
An Iraqi Army unit ready to control its turf
An Iraqi Army unit ready to control its turf
By Neil MacDonald, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Tue Aug 30, 4:00 AM ET

MUQDADIYAH, IRAQ - In the fertile "bread basket" of central Iraq's Diyala valley, roadside-bomb attacks have nearly stopped.

This ethnically complex patchwork of towns, villages, fields, and orchards, which US commanders call a "little Iraq," has seen its share of insurgent activity since 2003. But nowadays, the local Sunni Arabs appear inclined to climb aboard the US-backed political process, rather than trying to derail it through violence.

The relative peace in the breadbasket is the result of a carefully managed transition from US to Iraqi security responsibility, US and Iraqi commanders say.

While roadside-bomb attacks in July were down more than 30 percent compared to the same month last year, the drop has been especially drastic in August. The local Iraqi Army unit, the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Brigade, officially took the lead in a roughly 1,158 square-mile battle space, containing nearly 300,000 residents, on July 31.

"We're responsible for actual security, and it is going well," says the unit's commander, Col. Theya Ismail al-Tamimi, a former intelligence officer under

Saddam Hussein who has gained the Americans' respect by keeping constant pressure on the insurgents. "Attacks are a fraction of what they were," says Colonel Theya, as he is known to both his own troops and the Americans.

US troops recently closed down one of their forward operating bases near here, "since the area was so calm," Lt. Col. Roger Cloutier, a US battalion commander, says.

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/csm/20050830/wl_csm/oready


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. Timely Propaganda
Whenever things start to go to shit, these stories pop up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bob3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. I have read this story before and many more like them...
It could have been written 30 years ago just substitute ARVN for Iraqi Army.

I suspect that we are not being given the whole story. In fact I'm sure of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. So, things calm down when control goes back to Saddam's people.
And this war is about...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. One has to wonder if it's quiet because of the insurgency's infiltration
Maybe this is actually an insurgency-controlled unit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well, that town is well north of Baghdad
There are fewer problems up that way (relatively speaking, mind you). Anbar Province is where the bulk of the action seems to be happening of late.

Of course, if they keep closing the FOBs, they should not be surprised if the area flares back up again. Without presence, they are giving the insurgents a place to hunker down.

It is a complete and total mess, I just wish we would ask the UN to assist with transitional security, and get the hell out of there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ugarte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. Meaningless. They don't "control" anything
The South Vietnamese forces nominally "controlled" lots of territory, too, but in a guerilla war, guerillas pick when and where to fight. On any given day a place may be calm, then blow up the next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hadrons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. maybe the fool who wrote this should have read this ....
Big Guns For Iraq? Not So Fast

And that presents a conundrum for American military planners. With those questions up in the air, they have to fear that any heavy arms distributed now could end up aimed at American forces or feeding a growing civil conflict. And the longer Iraq's army has to wait for sophisticated weapons, the longer American forces are likely to be needed in Iraq as a bulwark against chaos.

In public, the commanders cite many reasons for the slow pace of equipping the Iraqis: the supply chain is long, Iraq's soldiers are barely trained and largely untested, and the rebels they face are better fought with rifles than tanks.

In private, some officers acknowledge other concerns, too. "We're worried about civil war or a coup," said a senior American officer in Baghdad charged with outfitting Iraq's new army. He would not agree to be identified because the concerns he was discussing are so sensitive.

....

At the same time, the Americans are building at least four semi-permanent military bases that could hold 18,000 troops each. These are usually described as way stations on the eventual route home for the Americans, places where they will stay while ever-more-capable Iraqi troops engage the insurgents on their own. But that will clearly take time. Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top military commander in Iraq, when asked this month about how the bases would be used, dismissed the question: "You're talking years away." And if Iraq's politics remain unstable, the bases could offer a continuing rationale for not providing heavier weaponry, since the Americans would still be close by for the Iraqis to rely on.

....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/weekinreview/28smith.html

The U.S. Army is too scared to give the Iraqi Army its training updated guns because they fear they'll used them on U.S. troops instead of "insurgents"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC