Election Day here which was yesterday, was not really Election Day, but election results release day. The Iraqi government released the results of the election, and of course, we were on the street to make sure that nothing violent happened. I probably should say that properly. Violent things were bound to happen; we were there to make sure it doesn’t get out of control.
So here I am, sitting behind a machine gun, manning a checkpoint with my Iraqi counterparts. The sun had just gone down, and the streets were pretty empty, except for a car or two moving through the dirty streets. The temperature dropped pretty quickly, and it didn’t help sitting in the valley of a bunch of 4 story buildings. The Iraqi soldiers were assigned to search vehicles, and we were supposed to cover them. I watched them for a long time, as they walked up to the car in the dark of night, asked the occupants to open the truck, open the doors, get out of the car while we look in the glove box. Most of the time the soldiers have their weapons on their shoulders, if they carry them at all. They seldom wear their helmets, don’t have high-tech weapons, and yet they do their job day in and day out.
I look up the street, and I watch some of my guys search cars. They approach the car with weapons pointed at the occupants. They shout at them, have them get out, search the people, then the car, all with weapons trained, ready to fire at the slightest movement. The lights sway back and forth from the high wind, flickering here and there, and I can sense that something bad is going to happen. I make my way down to my guys, and tell them to lower their weapons. They look at me like I am crazy, but its obvious that these people are not a threat. I give them a couple of quick pointers, and remind them that we are not here to look for trouble. We are here to help train the police to do a job better. They grudgingly move back and let the Iraqi’s do what they need to do.
Are we doing something wrong? Are we looking for trouble, hoping to find some excuse to open fire? Are we waiting for the opportunity to engage somebody? Are we trigger happy, hoping somebody will show a gun so we can unleash some terrible devastation on them? I don’t think so, but I can’t get the idea out of my head that we are heading down some terrible road that will end up badly. I remind my guys every day that the choice to fire or don’t fire is theirs to make, but they have to be level headed about it, because only then will you know if you did the right thing.
I walk back to my position, and I ask the Iraqi soldier why they don’t do vehicle searches like we do. He says it is in the hands of god, and that no matter what we do, if God comes to claim our souls, he will do it regardless of what we do. I tell him yes, that is true, but you don’t have to go looking for it. If you wear your gear or you are a little bit more cautious, you may avoid getting killed. He looked at me and in a serious voice and said, “Yes, that is true, but we are not looking for trouble, so we do not threaten the people like you do.” With that, he put out his cigarette pulled his knit cap on against the cold and walked back to the vehicle point as a car came up to the traffic circle.
The wind picked up a bit, and the trash was blowing across my feet, as I lowered my weapon, and walked after him to the vehicle point.
Side bar: The night ended without incident. If I learned anything, I realized I am a total moron for putting myself at risk like that. I also learned that sometimes courage is admitting that you might not always be right.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Last media ranting
I was reviewing this morning’s edition of the New York Times Online, and I noticed something that I thought was interesting. In the news there were no less than 8 stories, each different, about the Osama Bin Laden audiotapes, as well as the Al-Zawahiri tapes. Each story has links to past stories, Multimedia presentations, figure tables, and all sorts of gee-whiz cool to watch bits. SignOnSanDiego, the online provider for the San Diego Union Tribune, has 4 stories, each one similarly linked. The LA times had 6 stories. The evil Aljazeera news site had only 1. It has links, but they were to the previous day headlines.
What is it that people can’t stand about Aljazeera? They write the news, like almost any other web site. They report the news, just like FOX and any other broadcast network. They show unedited video, like Telemundo, NNN, and other foreign news agencies broadcasting in America. During the war in Afghanistan, Aljazeera was crucified for showing video of battles, beatings, and pillaging that was going on. It was a topic in every major news show. Nobody even came close to mentioning that Telemundo was showing the same video, that the video was obtained from Aljazeera, or that Telemundo is offered as basic cable to almost every person in the US, while Aljazeera is not carried by any subscription service. In Iraq, Aljazeera is the poster child for wayward journalism, supposedly unbiased but obviously working for the enemy. Yet, for all the bad press it receives, it appears rather tame when you compare it to FOX, Arab-News, or even BBC. They report the news, and that’s pretty much all they do.
Now, I think that they do take a side in the war against terrorism, when they decide to broadcast the messages of terrorists. I can’t for a moment believe that these tapes just miraculously show up on the doorstep of the Aljazeera office, with a sticky on it that say “Play Me.” I don’t for a minute believe that the terrorists happen to be attacking at the very moment that the Aljazeera camera crew was passing through. I am really sure that Aljazeera reporters were not just running around in the street and happened across Osama Bin Laden at the corner, with something to say. No, I am sure that some reporters, probably a few editors, and maybe an owner or two, are sympathizers. That is fine, because that is the way of the world over here.
No, my problem with the media is that they latch on to it, and by claiming it at Aljazeera footage, believe that eliminates them from any responsibility. I think that if you know the terrorists produce video, then you know that the video is designed to invoke a response, and you as FOX or ABC are perpetuating the problem by broadcasting the video. You increase the sense of fear and panic in this country by making people “feel” it. You blast them with 30 channels of bad news, and say later that you are just repeating footage shot by Aljazeera. What you should be doing is NOT showing the footage at all. The same is true of other types of crime. I have mentioned this before, but I was talking to family about crimes against children. I think, statistically, it is lower now than it has been. The problem is that the media hammers us with it, so it appears like it happens all the time. One story broadcast on 20 different stations, in 52 states, across hundreds of cities makes it appear like its happening all over. Remember when they used to say “By the time you finish watching this commercial, 12 women will have been killed by their husbands.” Are you kidding me?
So, what is the solution here? I say, stop broadcasting that crap. Bite the bullet and the millions of advertising dollars that gets generated, and stop showing the terrorists. Sure, you can tell us about them in the news, but don’t beat us over the head with it. That would make me feel safe, and like my fellow warriors over here say, even a false sense of security is still a sense of security.
I guess I will change the topic. Blasting the media is getting old, and there are other things to discuss.
I saw the article in the Washington Post, that the Army has awarded a contract for 70 million dollars to produce ceramic plates for the torso plates on the body armor. They only weigh 5 or 10 pounds. Gee, that’s nice, more crap I am going to have to carry.
I am going to break this post in half and write some more about Election Day in another block.
http://english.aljazeera.net/
What is it that people can’t stand about Aljazeera? They write the news, like almost any other web site. They report the news, just like FOX and any other broadcast network. They show unedited video, like Telemundo, NNN, and other foreign news agencies broadcasting in America. During the war in Afghanistan, Aljazeera was crucified for showing video of battles, beatings, and pillaging that was going on. It was a topic in every major news show. Nobody even came close to mentioning that Telemundo was showing the same video, that the video was obtained from Aljazeera, or that Telemundo is offered as basic cable to almost every person in the US, while Aljazeera is not carried by any subscription service. In Iraq, Aljazeera is the poster child for wayward journalism, supposedly unbiased but obviously working for the enemy. Yet, for all the bad press it receives, it appears rather tame when you compare it to FOX, Arab-News, or even BBC. They report the news, and that’s pretty much all they do.
Now, I think that they do take a side in the war against terrorism, when they decide to broadcast the messages of terrorists. I can’t for a moment believe that these tapes just miraculously show up on the doorstep of the Aljazeera office, with a sticky on it that say “Play Me.” I don’t for a minute believe that the terrorists happen to be attacking at the very moment that the Aljazeera camera crew was passing through. I am really sure that Aljazeera reporters were not just running around in the street and happened across Osama Bin Laden at the corner, with something to say. No, I am sure that some reporters, probably a few editors, and maybe an owner or two, are sympathizers. That is fine, because that is the way of the world over here.
No, my problem with the media is that they latch on to it, and by claiming it at Aljazeera footage, believe that eliminates them from any responsibility. I think that if you know the terrorists produce video, then you know that the video is designed to invoke a response, and you as FOX or ABC are perpetuating the problem by broadcasting the video. You increase the sense of fear and panic in this country by making people “feel” it. You blast them with 30 channels of bad news, and say later that you are just repeating footage shot by Aljazeera. What you should be doing is NOT showing the footage at all. The same is true of other types of crime. I have mentioned this before, but I was talking to family about crimes against children. I think, statistically, it is lower now than it has been. The problem is that the media hammers us with it, so it appears like it happens all the time. One story broadcast on 20 different stations, in 52 states, across hundreds of cities makes it appear like its happening all over. Remember when they used to say “By the time you finish watching this commercial, 12 women will have been killed by their husbands.” Are you kidding me?
So, what is the solution here? I say, stop broadcasting that crap. Bite the bullet and the millions of advertising dollars that gets generated, and stop showing the terrorists. Sure, you can tell us about them in the news, but don’t beat us over the head with it. That would make me feel safe, and like my fellow warriors over here say, even a false sense of security is still a sense of security.
I guess I will change the topic. Blasting the media is getting old, and there are other things to discuss.
I saw the article in the Washington Post, that the Army has awarded a contract for 70 million dollars to produce ceramic plates for the torso plates on the body armor. They only weigh 5 or 10 pounds. Gee, that’s nice, more crap I am going to have to carry.
I am going to break this post in half and write some more about Election Day in another block.
http://english.aljazeera.net/
Monday, January 16, 2006
It’s been a really good couple of days, and we have been pretty busy. I was thinking the body armor issue that has been floating around the news the past week or so, and I am a little tired of the whole thing. I listened to the politicians say that the armor is inadequate, that the military is short-changing the soldiers, putting them in unnecessary risk, and the “we owe it to them” debate. I am pretty sure a lot of this is publicity is generated by the publics concern for the safety of its men-at-arms, but I wonder if people ever think about the practical side of the debate.
I say this not because I am lacking in armor; it’s exactly the opposite. I have all the armor I am supposed to wear, and I wear it faithfully. The point I am trying to make is, this stuff weighs a lot. I recall in a book written a long time ago, called “The Soldiers Load” and in it the author discusses the weight the soldiers carries and how it affects the fighting ability. I believe the author was discussing the ability of a soldier to fight in any condition with all kinds of items in his pack, but the same holds true today. I don’t carry my pack into battle anymore, but I have almost 50 pounds of gear attached to my body armor. The armor plates, ammo, weapon, helmet, vest, and other items weighs a lot, and I am not sure how much more I can put on and be reasonably expected to hold up.
Another point that can be made is I have yet to see anybody out here without the necessary armor. I am sure that there are some, but we have to take in to account the job of the person, and if that person is even in any danger. I am talking about the amazing “fobbit” that anonymous alluded to in a previous comment. I didn’t realize what it was, but I am told it is somebody who never leaves the FOB (Forward Operating Base) Well, if that is the fobbit’s job, then so be it, I am never going to call somebody out and tell them “you don’t know what its like out there”, because they job they do is what they are told. However, if you are a fobbit, and you dwell in the center of an airfield, someplace in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, I think the need for you to have Full Body armor is alleviated by the fact that you are nowhere near the combat zone. So, when people say OMG the military is short 23,000 sets, you have to take it with a big rock of salt, because not everybody needs it. Now, that’s not to say that everybody shouldn’t have it, but let’s prioritize here.
Now, the vehicles. Let me tell you that a Hummer weights a lot, and it weighs even more with full armor. Our truck probably gets 6 miles to the gallon, and has a million dollars worth of hardware in it. That said, I don’t think anybody who hasn’t served, fully understands what a 155mm artillery shell will do to one of these trucks. A round that size has a destructive radius of, say, 400 meters, and fragments traveling at near the speed of sound may travel for as many as 1000 meters or more. At that speed, very little is going to stop it. But, I believe what we have is adequate for the job we do. But it would be impossible for the military to equip every vehicle this way. The cost would be extravagant. That’s not to say that the life of the person inside the truck has a dollar value, and I appreciate the fact that my truck is fully armored, believe me. But what is the cost of adding more armor to a tank that is already rated as the best tank on the planet? What is the cost of adding armor to a Hummer that will need to be replaced in 3 years, because the weight destroys the suspension? How do you add armor to a jeep that can’t sustain the weight?
These are terrific questions, and I wish I had the answers. I hope we find out soon. A life lost is unfortunate, but a life lost because they were not equipped is a tragedy.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Happy New Year Everybody!
A lot of people have asked me “What is the difference between working with the Iraqi Police, and working with the Iraqi Army?” I have to think a bit on that one most times. Now, normally, I would say things like, well, the army has a different job, and the training is not the same because the mission is different, blah blah blah. But what I would really like to say is this.
The difference between the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Police is the Americans trying to teach them.
Now, some of you might not quite understand, and, of course, I will elaborate. But those of you who were there will understand right off the bat, and laugh along with me.
When we built the Army, we had a focused group of individuals that carved a goal and intent, and then worked to that. Things got hectic and crazy, but we never lost sight of the goal, we always were focused. Even during those craziest of days in the sweltering summer, we worked to teach and train the Iraqi Army to do what it was supposed to do. We didn’t just live with them and teach them, we in effect controlled them. We knew what we wanted to create, and we let them solve their own problems using the training that we provided. This would give then a solution generally in line with what we wanted or expected, and everything was good. We got what we wanted, and they learned the process of war fighting and decision making. I like to think of it as the West Coast Offense. They were efficient, fast and quick, but the bulk of the work was done in the classroom. I got to visit the Marines and soldiers of 1st IIF and I have to admit they pretty good. The focus and drive that we pushed, the solutions we developed, and the systems we created are still in place. Tweaked, prodded, and re-defined, but still the same. How do I know this? Because the key system I used to track vehicles and buildings is still tacked to the wall, with all the markings and more. It was as simple as I could make it, yet, a year+ later, it was still there.
Not only was our venture supported internally, I believe our intent was felt by others outside the immediate command. At various levels, people worked to achieve the goal of getting the army up and running, make it viable, armed, and ready. Not everybody shared the same timeline or method, but in the end, the goal was the same. I look back now and I am amazed at what we accomplished up and down the line. I see the Army fighting in parts of the country and I can’t tell you how excited I am for them, because that is exactly what we wanted them to do.
The Iraqi Police, on the other hand, were nearly forgotten and pushed aside while the Army received all the goods. As a result, the people working with them were hamstrung with little gear, no facilities, and a force filled with collaborators. From the outset, they were not controlled; they were tended, like sheep. The problem now is that the Iraqi police leaders have assumed the reins and I think are running amok. The advisor teams are providing advice and some training, but the Iraqi’s can choose not to listen to it. From the first day I got here, I started asking questions about simple things that even my simple mind could understand. (How do the police get dental care? What is the rule of law that guides the police commanders? How many times can a police officer be absent before he is fired?) The bottom line is that there are no answers, because those policies don’t exist. So, my question is WHAT THE HELL HAS BEEN GOING ON HERE?
I know there is a war going on, and I know that there are only so many hours in the day, but I wasn’t asking for the solution to creating anti-matter. If we haven’t answered the simple questions, I asked, what is the guidance or intent that we are operating on? What is the goal here? What do you want us to do with these guys? Where are the beds, pillows and blankets? How come my police don’t have good boots? Why is nobody contracted to fix the plumbing on the base? Where is the maintenance contract to fix the trucks? Could somebody find out why I can’t get gasoline?
But that’s not the biggest issue. The biggest difference I think is that we have no goal. There is no intent here, no end state. Because no guidance has been issued, we are all just tending the sheep. I can’t believe that an intent or end state has never been created, because that would be completely un-military. I think the people have just forgotten, because I haven’t heard it from anybody, including the commanders.
Where is the vision? Where is the dream? What are these people supposed to do for their country?
Where is the DUC?
Until we understand what we want these police to be capable of doing, they will always be what they are right now, a temporary band-aid. And, until we pull our heads out of our asses, the biggest problem the Iraqi police have right now, is us.
The difference between the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Police is the Americans trying to teach them.
Now, some of you might not quite understand, and, of course, I will elaborate. But those of you who were there will understand right off the bat, and laugh along with me.
When we built the Army, we had a focused group of individuals that carved a goal and intent, and then worked to that. Things got hectic and crazy, but we never lost sight of the goal, we always were focused. Even during those craziest of days in the sweltering summer, we worked to teach and train the Iraqi Army to do what it was supposed to do. We didn’t just live with them and teach them, we in effect controlled them. We knew what we wanted to create, and we let them solve their own problems using the training that we provided. This would give then a solution generally in line with what we wanted or expected, and everything was good. We got what we wanted, and they learned the process of war fighting and decision making. I like to think of it as the West Coast Offense. They were efficient, fast and quick, but the bulk of the work was done in the classroom. I got to visit the Marines and soldiers of 1st IIF and I have to admit they pretty good. The focus and drive that we pushed, the solutions we developed, and the systems we created are still in place. Tweaked, prodded, and re-defined, but still the same. How do I know this? Because the key system I used to track vehicles and buildings is still tacked to the wall, with all the markings and more. It was as simple as I could make it, yet, a year+ later, it was still there.
Not only was our venture supported internally, I believe our intent was felt by others outside the immediate command. At various levels, people worked to achieve the goal of getting the army up and running, make it viable, armed, and ready. Not everybody shared the same timeline or method, but in the end, the goal was the same. I look back now and I am amazed at what we accomplished up and down the line. I see the Army fighting in parts of the country and I can’t tell you how excited I am for them, because that is exactly what we wanted them to do.
The Iraqi Police, on the other hand, were nearly forgotten and pushed aside while the Army received all the goods. As a result, the people working with them were hamstrung with little gear, no facilities, and a force filled with collaborators. From the outset, they were not controlled; they were tended, like sheep. The problem now is that the Iraqi police leaders have assumed the reins and I think are running amok. The advisor teams are providing advice and some training, but the Iraqi’s can choose not to listen to it. From the first day I got here, I started asking questions about simple things that even my simple mind could understand. (How do the police get dental care? What is the rule of law that guides the police commanders? How many times can a police officer be absent before he is fired?) The bottom line is that there are no answers, because those policies don’t exist. So, my question is WHAT THE HELL HAS BEEN GOING ON HERE?
I know there is a war going on, and I know that there are only so many hours in the day, but I wasn’t asking for the solution to creating anti-matter. If we haven’t answered the simple questions, I asked, what is the guidance or intent that we are operating on? What is the goal here? What do you want us to do with these guys? Where are the beds, pillows and blankets? How come my police don’t have good boots? Why is nobody contracted to fix the plumbing on the base? Where is the maintenance contract to fix the trucks? Could somebody find out why I can’t get gasoline?
But that’s not the biggest issue. The biggest difference I think is that we have no goal. There is no intent here, no end state. Because no guidance has been issued, we are all just tending the sheep. I can’t believe that an intent or end state has never been created, because that would be completely un-military. I think the people have just forgotten, because I haven’t heard it from anybody, including the commanders.
Where is the vision? Where is the dream? What are these people supposed to do for their country?
Where is the DUC?
Until we understand what we want these police to be capable of doing, they will always be what they are right now, a temporary band-aid. And, until we pull our heads out of our asses, the biggest problem the Iraqi police have right now, is us.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
An army within an army?
I saw this in the news a couple of days ago, and thought it was interesting. It was amazing to me since I work with these Special Units, just how much of a difference there is between what we think and what is actually going on. We would call these guys dirty cops, but this is the way things are over here. Allegiance is based on Tribal affiliation, not national unity.
Various private armies still exist, threatening Iraq's national security -
Phil Sands, Chronicle Foreign ServiceWednesday, December 21, 2005
Samarra, Iraq -- Fighters loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have set up a base in Samarra, a Sunni-dominated city 60 miles north of Baghdad and home to a powerful insurgent movement.
The troops are part of an Interior Ministry special commando unit, based in Baghdad. But while they wear the camouflage fatigues of a government security force and receive a government salary, many of the SWAT-style team members have pledged their allegiance to al-Sadr and are adamant they are part of the Mahdi Army, his private militia.
At an outpost in Samarra, dozens of officers from the 1st Brigade Special Police Commando -- the Lion Brigade -- told The Chronicle that they followed al-Sadr. One, who identified himself only as Saif, said the men answered to the cleric and would do as he ordered. Like his colleagues, he wore a badge bearing the commando motto: "Loyal to country."
"There are almost 70 commandos here, and 57 of us are Mahdi Army," he explained. "Although we are in commando uniforms, we are still Mahdi Army. We have soldiers all over Iraq now, and every place in the south has Muqtada's men. Sadr is a hero."
All militias were supposed to have been disbanded and absorbed into a combined Iraqi security apparatus, sworn to uphold state rules. The reality is that various private armies continue to exist unofficially.
Mohammad Auoba, from the Shiite district of Iraq's capital where al-Sadr has drawn support from unemployed young men, insisted the commandos had enforced order in Samarra since their arrival last month.
"I'm from Sadr City -- we are in control there and security is very good. There are no problems," he said. "Samarra is bad -- there are terrorists here. I have already been shot at. We will make things better here."
He also claimed the troops did not respect their brigade commander, Col. Bashar Hussein, an ethnic Turkoman from the northern city of Kirkuk. "He is corrupt and no good," Auoba said. Al-Sadr, he added, is a great leader.
The remarks underline the fragility of efforts to create genuine national security forces that follow the law, rather than the word of controversial religious figures. In Baghdad, the Shiite-led Interior Ministry has its own police force, which has developed a fearsome reputation -- particularly among Sunnis, who accuse it of dispatching death squads against them, either with or without the permission of senior politicians.
Bodies of both Sunnis and Shiites, often handcuffed and showing signs of ritual execution, are frequently found in Iraq. With police forces too weak to conduct murder inquiries, most such deaths go uninvestigated.
U.S. raids on Interior Ministry buildings in Baghdad uncovered secret torture chambers where prisoners had been starved and beaten. The discoveries prompted former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite and a favorite of the Bush administration, to claim human rights abuses were as prevalent now as under Saddam Hussein.
Residents of Samarra, the scene of bloody clashes between U.S. soldiers and insurgents, said they feared a Shiite militia being unleashed on the city. Interviewed in their homes this week, they said they were unaware of a Mahdi Army presence, but claimed they had already suffered when commandos affiliated with al-Sadr's militia were dispatched to the city earlier this year.
Ibrahim Farraj, who lives in the Sikek district, said, "The Interior Ministry forces are very strong. The insurgents are afraid of them, but they are corrupt and we cannot trust them. The last time the Interior Ministry was here, they were al-Sadr -- people are scared of them and the Mahdi Army."
Farraj, a taxi driver, said he and other family members had watched the growing power of religious movements in Iraq with alarm. "We don't want clerics like Sistani (Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's Shiite religious leader) or Sadr running the country as they have in Iran. We want people, Sunni and Shiite and Christian, to have freedom and not be intimidated or forced to follow what religious leaders say."
Qutaybah Ismail Abid Abu Abbas, another resident of the Sikek district, said residents would wait to see how they were treated. "I don't know if there are Mahdi Army in the commandos," he said. "If they are, it's not a problem as long as we are shown the proper respect. All of us are Iraqi people. If they come to my house in peace, we will have no problems."
Al-Sadr, once charged by the now-disbanded U.S. occupation with murder, is a member of the leading Shiite coalition that apparently came in first in last Thursday's election for a new parliament. But during 2004, his forces battled the U.S. Army in Baghdad and in the key Shiite areas Karbala and Najaf.
His followers fought the Americans to a standstill, and the murder warrant was quietly forgotten.
U.S. Army Capt. Ryan Wylie, of the 3rd Infantry Division serving in Samarra, said he had heard rumors that the Interior Ministry was conducting a private war, but had seen no evidence.
"As far as I can tell, the commandos have not been abusing their power and they are behaving professionally and capably," he said. "They seem to be popular in the city -- people generally prefer Iraqi forces to Americans."
A West Point graduate, from Lincoln, Neb., Wylie said U.S. forces involved in training the Iraqis would not permit abuses. "We have guys with them all the time, mentoring them -- they'll make sure everything is done properly."
Col. Hussein, head of 1st commando brigade, said plans were in place to withdraw all U.S. forces from Samarra by early next year. When that happens, he insisted, his men would be merciless with any terrorists but would not crack down on civilians.
"We will not have any secret jails, and I demand my men treat everyone with dignity, even when we have prisoners," he said. "There is a new law that anyone helping the terrorists should be killed. They should be executed. We will send them to a court of law, and there will be a government executioner. When we see terrorists, of course we are going to kill them right away."
Various private armies still exist, threatening Iraq's national security -
Phil Sands, Chronicle Foreign ServiceWednesday, December 21, 2005
Samarra, Iraq -- Fighters loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have set up a base in Samarra, a Sunni-dominated city 60 miles north of Baghdad and home to a powerful insurgent movement.
The troops are part of an Interior Ministry special commando unit, based in Baghdad. But while they wear the camouflage fatigues of a government security force and receive a government salary, many of the SWAT-style team members have pledged their allegiance to al-Sadr and are adamant they are part of the Mahdi Army, his private militia.
At an outpost in Samarra, dozens of officers from the 1st Brigade Special Police Commando -- the Lion Brigade -- told The Chronicle that they followed al-Sadr. One, who identified himself only as Saif, said the men answered to the cleric and would do as he ordered. Like his colleagues, he wore a badge bearing the commando motto: "Loyal to country."
"There are almost 70 commandos here, and 57 of us are Mahdi Army," he explained. "Although we are in commando uniforms, we are still Mahdi Army. We have soldiers all over Iraq now, and every place in the south has Muqtada's men. Sadr is a hero."
All militias were supposed to have been disbanded and absorbed into a combined Iraqi security apparatus, sworn to uphold state rules. The reality is that various private armies continue to exist unofficially.
Mohammad Auoba, from the Shiite district of Iraq's capital where al-Sadr has drawn support from unemployed young men, insisted the commandos had enforced order in Samarra since their arrival last month.
"I'm from Sadr City -- we are in control there and security is very good. There are no problems," he said. "Samarra is bad -- there are terrorists here. I have already been shot at. We will make things better here."
He also claimed the troops did not respect their brigade commander, Col. Bashar Hussein, an ethnic Turkoman from the northern city of Kirkuk. "He is corrupt and no good," Auoba said. Al-Sadr, he added, is a great leader.
The remarks underline the fragility of efforts to create genuine national security forces that follow the law, rather than the word of controversial religious figures. In Baghdad, the Shiite-led Interior Ministry has its own police force, which has developed a fearsome reputation -- particularly among Sunnis, who accuse it of dispatching death squads against them, either with or without the permission of senior politicians.
Bodies of both Sunnis and Shiites, often handcuffed and showing signs of ritual execution, are frequently found in Iraq. With police forces too weak to conduct murder inquiries, most such deaths go uninvestigated.
U.S. raids on Interior Ministry buildings in Baghdad uncovered secret torture chambers where prisoners had been starved and beaten. The discoveries prompted former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite and a favorite of the Bush administration, to claim human rights abuses were as prevalent now as under Saddam Hussein.
Residents of Samarra, the scene of bloody clashes between U.S. soldiers and insurgents, said they feared a Shiite militia being unleashed on the city. Interviewed in their homes this week, they said they were unaware of a Mahdi Army presence, but claimed they had already suffered when commandos affiliated with al-Sadr's militia were dispatched to the city earlier this year.
Ibrahim Farraj, who lives in the Sikek district, said, "The Interior Ministry forces are very strong. The insurgents are afraid of them, but they are corrupt and we cannot trust them. The last time the Interior Ministry was here, they were al-Sadr -- people are scared of them and the Mahdi Army."
Farraj, a taxi driver, said he and other family members had watched the growing power of religious movements in Iraq with alarm. "We don't want clerics like Sistani (Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's Shiite religious leader) or Sadr running the country as they have in Iran. We want people, Sunni and Shiite and Christian, to have freedom and not be intimidated or forced to follow what religious leaders say."
Qutaybah Ismail Abid Abu Abbas, another resident of the Sikek district, said residents would wait to see how they were treated. "I don't know if there are Mahdi Army in the commandos," he said. "If they are, it's not a problem as long as we are shown the proper respect. All of us are Iraqi people. If they come to my house in peace, we will have no problems."
Al-Sadr, once charged by the now-disbanded U.S. occupation with murder, is a member of the leading Shiite coalition that apparently came in first in last Thursday's election for a new parliament. But during 2004, his forces battled the U.S. Army in Baghdad and in the key Shiite areas Karbala and Najaf.
His followers fought the Americans to a standstill, and the murder warrant was quietly forgotten.
U.S. Army Capt. Ryan Wylie, of the 3rd Infantry Division serving in Samarra, said he had heard rumors that the Interior Ministry was conducting a private war, but had seen no evidence.
"As far as I can tell, the commandos have not been abusing their power and they are behaving professionally and capably," he said. "They seem to be popular in the city -- people generally prefer Iraqi forces to Americans."
A West Point graduate, from Lincoln, Neb., Wylie said U.S. forces involved in training the Iraqis would not permit abuses. "We have guys with them all the time, mentoring them -- they'll make sure everything is done properly."
Col. Hussein, head of 1st commando brigade, said plans were in place to withdraw all U.S. forces from Samarra by early next year. When that happens, he insisted, his men would be merciless with any terrorists but would not crack down on civilians.
"We will not have any secret jails, and I demand my men treat everyone with dignity, even when we have prisoners," he said. "There is a new law that anyone helping the terrorists should be killed. They should be executed. We will send them to a court of law, and there will be a government executioner. When we see terrorists, of course we are going to kill them right away."
Happy New Year!!
Its been a little while since I have had the opportunity to update this, mostly because the internet has been down and I have been pretty busy. I hope everybody has had a wonder New Year, and I hope 2006 brings every happiness.
I was watching our government’s propaganda tool (aka Fox news) and they were highlighting the “Pull out of Iraq” syndrome. We are going to pull out of Iraq, and reduce the troop strength from 155,000 to 135,000. I guess it sounded really good at home. I am sure that it makes the public feel like everything is successful and that an end is near. My opinion is that it’s exactly what the government wants people to believe. Everything is fine, everything is dandy, and our boys are coming home. I look at it a little differently.
I would suppose that they not going to pull 20,000 guys out of Iraq and send them home, what they are going to do is just send 20,000 less guys than they would have normally planned to do. This means that 130,000 guys are going to have to do the job that 155,000 people would normally do. So, basically, we are getting shorted, we are going to have to work harder and longer to make up the difference. Now, that might be great for the 20,000 people that don’t come out, but that doesn’t make it any easier for the rest of us.
I have a bone to pick with the idiots at MSNBC. I happened to catch the special about that Afghan terrorist Al-Qaida guy and I can’t believe they broadcast the interview. I mean, it must make people feel really good to see the guy that is planning the deaths of their sons and daughters, on national TV. I know it might be considered news by some people, but give me a break! I understand that journalists are supposed to be non-biased (except for the NYTimes and Orange County Register) but the news is also not supposed to glorify the enemy. Imagine the parents of the soldiers that this guy has allegedly killed, seeing this guy get a lengthy interview in front of a national audience, when their sons and daughters passing was nothing more than a footnote. Don’t media outlets have a sense of decency at all? But then, I guess we all know the answer to that one. The news really played it up, how the reporter got the interview, what he had to go through, how dangerous it was, and how the CIA attempted to verify the information. They did their best to make murderer seem like a victim of circumstance. Am I supposed to feel sorry for this reporter, who had to endure a 7 hour trip with blindfolds on? Should I have sympathy for the terrorist, which wears a rag over his head so he can’t be identified? Should I be ashamed that we have forced simple people to fight back any way they can, just because we attacked their country in response to their attacking ours? I might not be the most educated person in the room, but I know what insults me. I think somebody, particularly the media, needs to be held accountable. Maybe, if the government slapped them with a penalty for aiding and abetting, treason, or just simple collaborating with the enemy, maybe that would wake somebody up. I want the presidents of the major networks to be there to explain to the parents of the next group of soldiers that this guy kills, that the network was partly to blame. We could have reported these guys’ locations, but we wanted the big ad dollars. We should have fed the CIA the intelligence, but then our ratings would not have won the nightly Nielsen’s. We are so sorry for your loss, you know, we covered that terrorist in detail, so can we get a shot of you grieving over your daughters coffin, for the 6 o’clock?
Starting the New Year off with a bang!!!
I was watching our government’s propaganda tool (aka Fox news) and they were highlighting the “Pull out of Iraq” syndrome. We are going to pull out of Iraq, and reduce the troop strength from 155,000 to 135,000. I guess it sounded really good at home. I am sure that it makes the public feel like everything is successful and that an end is near. My opinion is that it’s exactly what the government wants people to believe. Everything is fine, everything is dandy, and our boys are coming home. I look at it a little differently.
I would suppose that they not going to pull 20,000 guys out of Iraq and send them home, what they are going to do is just send 20,000 less guys than they would have normally planned to do. This means that 130,000 guys are going to have to do the job that 155,000 people would normally do. So, basically, we are getting shorted, we are going to have to work harder and longer to make up the difference. Now, that might be great for the 20,000 people that don’t come out, but that doesn’t make it any easier for the rest of us.
I have a bone to pick with the idiots at MSNBC. I happened to catch the special about that Afghan terrorist Al-Qaida guy and I can’t believe they broadcast the interview. I mean, it must make people feel really good to see the guy that is planning the deaths of their sons and daughters, on national TV. I know it might be considered news by some people, but give me a break! I understand that journalists are supposed to be non-biased (except for the NYTimes and Orange County Register) but the news is also not supposed to glorify the enemy. Imagine the parents of the soldiers that this guy has allegedly killed, seeing this guy get a lengthy interview in front of a national audience, when their sons and daughters passing was nothing more than a footnote. Don’t media outlets have a sense of decency at all? But then, I guess we all know the answer to that one. The news really played it up, how the reporter got the interview, what he had to go through, how dangerous it was, and how the CIA attempted to verify the information. They did their best to make murderer seem like a victim of circumstance. Am I supposed to feel sorry for this reporter, who had to endure a 7 hour trip with blindfolds on? Should I have sympathy for the terrorist, which wears a rag over his head so he can’t be identified? Should I be ashamed that we have forced simple people to fight back any way they can, just because we attacked their country in response to their attacking ours? I might not be the most educated person in the room, but I know what insults me. I think somebody, particularly the media, needs to be held accountable. Maybe, if the government slapped them with a penalty for aiding and abetting, treason, or just simple collaborating with the enemy, maybe that would wake somebody up. I want the presidents of the major networks to be there to explain to the parents of the next group of soldiers that this guy kills, that the network was partly to blame. We could have reported these guys’ locations, but we wanted the big ad dollars. We should have fed the CIA the intelligence, but then our ratings would not have won the nightly Nielsen’s. We are so sorry for your loss, you know, we covered that terrorist in detail, so can we get a shot of you grieving over your daughters coffin, for the 6 o’clock?
Starting the New Year off with a bang!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)