Abizaid disappointed Iraqi troops won't attack Iraqis

I was mightily angered today by an article in the Oregonian decrying Options limited, but more soldiers needed (4/13/04, Hendren). General Abizaid, the Commander of U.S. troops in Iraq said that more U.S. troops would be needed because the Iraqi security forces were a "great disappointment.

U.S. military strategists had planned to replace forces gradually -- and replace them with Iraqis. But during the attacks by Shiite militia members in the central Iraqi cities of Najaf and Nasiriyah and Baghdad and attacks by Sunni guerrillas in Fallujah and Ramadi to the west, Iraqi forces often failed, and in some cases defected, Abizaid told reporters at the Pentagon via teleconference.

So the Iraqi forces, who largely joined up because there was no other employment opportunities in Iraq, would not fire on Iraqi cities and civilians. Apparently, it was expected that they would fire on friends, families, and other Muslims simply because they were ordered to do so.

That expectation makes my blood run cold. It means that if U.S. forces were deployed in the U.S. (a possibility less remote than we might think) that there is a belief that those forces would fire without qualm on citizens of their own nation, and perhaps their own town.

Regardless of who is right ot wrong in Iraq, the expectation that troops would fire on their own countrypeople is insane. The training to be a "soldier" is one of depersonalization and objectification of an "enemy." What would be reaped by the ability to do that to your own? What would be your place in your society after such activities?

To my understanding, three types of forces have been recruited and trained in Iraq - police forces, an army for national protection, and an elite secret attack unit of former Republican Guards and their commanders. All of these might be labled "security forces," but their jobs and focus are very different which may be why the US is having difficulty in Iraq.

Police forces ensure local stability and control. The aim is not to attack and kill, but to come to bloodless resolutions under the rule of law (if at all possible). Police are to "serve and protect" as the old saying goes. Of course there is some question about US police forces with the militarization of police through "special forces" teams such as SWAT teams.

Military forces are geared to fight external "enemies," repel invaders, etc. a very different focus than police. The rule is combat with the attempt to kill the enemy. The focus is the deadly use of force.

The Republican Guard special forces in use in Iraq, are in place purportedly to seek out terrorists and terrorist groups. The former Guard is being used in this case because of their familiarity with Iraq, their information networks, and their ability to blend with the local populations. Those in these special units are drawn from the elite portions of Hussein's former forces - not the average soldier.

To expect any of these groups to openly fire on their own citizens without compunction is beyond inappropriate. It sets a frightening precedent. Actually, it reinforces the rules under which Saddam Hussein maintained an iron grip of control for so many years. The fact that the US would willing use the same tactics does not speak well of the positive influence supposedly being injected into Iraq. It does reinforce the perception of a conquering and occupying force that has replaced one dictator with another.

Exactly what message is the US trying to send in Iraq? Freedom? Speech is curtailed. Those media not putting out a positive US message are shut down, harassed, or killed. Those who protest are met with guns and deadly fire. Rights under law? Over 10,000 Iraqis are being held under indefinite detention without access to legal advice, or contact with their families. Bremmer is referred to as "Ambassador," but his actual title is "Viceroy." (See How Far will They Dare?, Uncommon Thought Journal 4/13/2003).

Certainly this "great disappointment" speaks volumes about US intent in Iraq, but also about a basic philosophy that is beyond troubling. It is even beyond the idea of empire in the traditional sense. The mirror of US domestic policy is displayed in Iraq. The erosion of the line between military and police; the implementation of practices that erode personal privacy; the removal of constitutional protections to due process and freedom of speech; all happening in the United States, all being carried out within Iraq. One has to wonder how the Bush administration defines "freedom" and "democracy."

Posted by rowan at April 13, 2004 9:17 PM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |