WAR: Iraqi Head Highlights US Errors

Iraq's interim President has gone on record condemning the decision to dismantle Iraq's security infrastructure after the fall of Saddam's regime. Although many within Iraq's security services probably needed to be removed, there were many others who, according to Ghazi al-Yawar, had clean records and could have been of great value in the current struggle.



I remember wondering about the wisdom of this at the time; I imagine most dictatorships are the same: much corruption at the top, but many "normal" people at lower levels just trying to do a good job and who know how things work.

The US and UK obviously needed all the help they could get! Was it simply a "we know best" kind of thing? Plain stupidity? Or is there some deeper conspiracy (e.g., "kickbacks" from security firms)?


[edit on 13-12-2004 by Banshee]

BBC Online record the interview I heard at 7.50 am this morning on the Today programme

In an interview with the BBC's Today programme a year after the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Mr Yawar called the current security situation in Iraq terrible.
The interim president blamed some of the present difficulties on the American decision to break up Saddam Hussein's entire security apparatus as soon as they had toppled the dictator last year.
By a scratch of the pen, he said, many men with a clean record were forced out of the security forces along with the villains.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I heard him say that officers with a �clean record� were overlooked and that there were officers who the Iraqi people �could admire and respect.�

May I ask why he was not asked if the war criminal General Nizar Al- Kazraji, the ground officer responsible for the �Anfal� killings of up to 150,000 Kurds and the infamous Halabja gassings was now re-instated in the Army.

Further, why did Mr Ed Stourton failt to ask about the reinstatement of Wafiq � al � Samara�I ex head of Military Intelligence under Saddam Hussein ubtil his defection and responsible for a rule of terror in Iraq.

May I ask why the same was not asked of Brigadier-General Najib Al-Salihi who was Commander of an armoured division of Iraq's elite Republican Guard in the Gulf war, and played a major military role in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Why were the views of Mr Yawar unchallenged ?

But had they left the Baathist in controll would it have ben any better? Hindsight is always 20/20.

That being said. This may just be a a political exersize to say "look at us, we are not US puppets" to the electorate

Well, for one thing, the Today programme seems to be a shadow of it's former self...rarely, if ever, are the really tough questions asked. Still, I suppose it's about the best there is, light years ahead of any US equivalent that I've seen or heard.

I suppose the truth is that some Iraqis who should have been excluded were excluded...and some who should have been included were excluded.

Well, if it means anything, I guess all I can say is I hope they lern from there mistakes.
Just an opinion.

Originally posted by FredT
But had they left the Baathist in controll would it have ben any better? Hindsight is always 20/20.

Military leaders were telling Bush and Rumsfield, just like they told him they needed better equipment and more troops, that they need to keep the military in place. That's why no one could control the looting, that's why you have so much unemployment, that's why some of the insurgents are the ex-military! They have no jobs now. The police can't keep the peace, we needed that infrastructure. But once again Bush and his cronies failed to listen to the experts on the matter, and just went ahead with their own failed policies.

So it's not a case of 20/20. The Bush adminstration was advised; they ignored.

Originally posted by curme

Originally posted by FredT
But had they left the Baathist in controll would it have ben any better? Hindsight is always 20/20.

Military leaders were telling Bush and Rumsfield, just like they told him they needed better equipment and more troops, that they need to keep the military in place. That's why no one could control the looting, that's why you have so much unemployment, that's why some of the insurgents are the ex-military! They have no jobs now. The police can't keep the peace, we needed that infrastructure. But once again Bush and his cronies failed to listen to the experts on the matter, and just went ahead with their own failed policies.

So it's not a case of 20/20. The Bush adminstration was advised; they ignored.

Well you got one part right out of all your points. Yes they asked for additional troops it ended right there.

At the time no one asked for better equipment. Heavy armor was not needed, they had not started using car bombs at the begining of the war.

When we first went into bagdad no one knew who was friendly and who was not. They only had one choice and that was to remove what army and police there was until they could sort the good guys from the bad guys.

There are more reasons, however the ones I have given were the major reasons. Fred was correct hindsight is 20/20.

The Saviour of the free world needed to get in there and kick that useless good for nothing "evil" guy out. The only planning done was how to achieve that. Even that got screwed. That guy is still around and causing a major embarassment on taxpayers' money !

The UN criticized the decision to disband the Military but no one in the US cares what the UN has to say:

Guardian (May 27, 2003)
Ramiro Lopes da Silva said the sudden decision last week to demobilise 400,000 Iraqi soldiers without any re-employment programme could generate a "low-intensity conflict" in the countryside...

..."The way the decision was taken leaves them in a vacuum," he said. "Our concern is that if there is nothing for them out there soon this will be a potential source of additional destabilisation."

Even US generals admitted at the time they feared the decision could worsen the lawlessness and looting.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by AceOfBase]

It's incredible that we're even having this conversation. Invading a country and leaving it's security forces intact and operational would be suicide and was never an option. If it hadn't been for de-Ba'athification the security situation would probably be a whole lot worse than it is now.

Can you imagine if the allies had left the Wehrmacht intact after the fall of Berlin in 1945?

[edit on 13-12-2004 by mattpryor]