Mysterious well armed, well trained force emerge in Iraq

      Home » Middle East conflict » Mysterious well armed, well trained force emerge in Iraq

Mysterious well armed, well trained force emerge in Iraq

Is Iraq so dysfunctional that a small army of well trained and well armed people can suddenly emerge without anyone noticing them before? Who must have been backing, arming and training these fighters? Iran?

I hope we get to hear more on this topic.....

A mysterious group of religious zealots who fought a fierce battle with American and Iraqi troops on Sunday were armed with AK-47 assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and five anti-aircraft machine guns rigged on tractors - raising questions about how a group with no known ties to Iraq's current cast of political organizations came to be so well equipped and trained.

"They fought according to a military arrangement, and they moved as platoons and companies," Abdul Hussein Abtan, the deputy governor of Najaf, said Monday.

Ali Nomas, a spokesman for the security forces in Najaf, said the militants, who numbered from 1,000 to 1,500, had purchased farms and surrounded them with a dirt barricade and a bulldozed trench.

More than 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 700 rocket-propelled grenades were recovered after the battle, Nomas said.

Among the 300 or so militants killed in Sunday's fighting was the group's leader, Iraqi authorities said. As many as 400 others were arrested, including some dressed as Afghan fighters, Iraqi spokesmen said. U.S. officials put the number of arrests at more than 100.

"We have information that a large number of fighters have escaped through the palm groves. Some were wearing the uniforms of the security forces and others were wearing black," Muhammed said.

More on the topic at the site below
 http://www.mercurynews.com/...
By netchicken: posted on 30-1-2007

Bush is gonna be sorry if he sends new troops in.
By YCON: posted on 30-1-2007

I tend to agree.

The fact that they easily managed to kill some of them (200 of an estimated 1500) doesn't mean that there are not more nests of groups hiding around. Also some were reported to be wearing Iraqi uniforms.

I think there will be more of these nasties popping out from under rocks long before things get any better, if they ever do...

More troops does not mean more peace or more of the enemy killed. I read reports of many militia taking off from Bagdad to outlying cities to hide out while the reinforcements are there. Once the reinforcements are gone (with claims of "peace restored"), and the photo parade for the journalists is over, they will return and resume their warfare.
By netchicken: posted on 30-1-2007

Bush is going to be sorry if he sends more troops in? Why is that?

Why do you agree, Netty?

Here's the deal; if we just pull away aas many people want, guess what happens. Iran moves in, Iran dictates what is going on in Iraq, Iran makes Iraq a puppet regime and WE (yes, Netty, you, too, in New Zealand) are all closer to being given the choice of conversion, dhimmi status or death.

Do you think I am overjoyed about waiting everyday to hear that one of my friends has been blown to bits, shot to death or made a cripple over there? My son is 16; do you think I am looking forward to when he comes and tells me he is joining the Army to serve his country and go to war so that his friends, family and countrymen don't have to choose between the above-stated options? No, I am not.

This fight in Iraq is not just about the country of Iraq; it is about the greater fight against this Great Jihad and Iran is a major player in this struggle. Either we win or Iran wins. If Iran wins in Iraq we lose more than just that piece of crap chunk of land.

You are correct in that more troops on the ground will make a difference; it must be more troops on the ground coupled with a more aggressive stance. A defensive police action stance just ain't cuttin' it. It will also be necessary to send Iran a very clear, harsh message, one way or the other.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 30-1-2007

I agree because it will result in more casualties and more problems, and will not solve the problems.

Sure its something that looked at from the dogged "we started this way we are going to finish this way" thinking is needed. But it hasn't worked in the past, and won't work now. Just look at what crawled out of the woodwork that no one knew about.

I agree that Iran is the danger in the region, but thowing more troops into the mess will not solve it, it may repress it for a while, but if you think like an insurgent, then you will just melt away until the troops go home.

Leaving Iraq is not an answer, and adding more troops is not an answer. Unfortunatly the people are too divided and incompetent to be an answer either.

What is the answer?
If what youa re doing doesn't work try something new.

Chop the country up into 3, do an Indian partitian, (India and Pakistan division) divide up the populations, support each one.
By netchicken: posted on 30-1-2007

It sounds like a good idea, Netty, but this illustrates the problems involved:

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/05/dont_purposefully_partition_ir.html

Another thing that would help solve this problem would be for the Western World, whatever's left of it, anyway, to see the dangers we face and stop trying to make a Euro off the enemy. I swear, the Germans and the French would sell the enemy the nooses with which they will be hanged! While it is perfectly ok for the Islamic Insanos to declare that Downing Street will one day de under Islamic rule, to say anything bad about Islam can get you in the slammer for bigotry! The world has truly gone bananas.

If you are correct, if the insurgents will simply melt away and go back to their home countries until the troops go, then you have made an argument for the surge. This will take the heat off the Iraqis for a bit and give them a chance to fortify their police and military. That will help them defend against new "cults" (That has the odor of Iran and Hezbollah, don't you think?).
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 31-1-2007

... Quote:
Originally posted by netchicken
I agree because it will result in more casualties and more problems, and will not solve the problems.

Sure its something that looked at from the dogged "we started this way we are going to finish this way" thinking is needed. But it hasn't worked in the past, and won't work now. Just look at what crawled out of the woodwork that no one knew about.

I agree that Iran is the danger in the region, but thowing more troops into the mess will not solve it, it may repress it for a while, but if you think like an insurgent, then you will just melt away until the troops go home.

Leaving Iraq is not an answer, and adding more troops is not an answer. Unfortunatly the people are too divided and incompetent to be an answer either.

What is the answer?
If what youa re doing doesn't work try something new.

Chop the country up into 3, do an Indian partitian, (India and Pakistan division) divide up the populations, support each one.



Totally agree. Iraq is gonna split up no matter what.

And Thomas, honestly. Do you seriously think the Iraqi military can be trusted, let alone WANT to, restore order?

You cannot teach a dog quantum physics. You cannot teach Muslims stable, peaceful government or even believe that they want to live in a society that no longer poses a threat to the world.
By Twilight_Rogue: posted on 9-2-2007

sigh ....
keep on doing what doesn't work...

The profoundly pessimistic thinking that permeates the senior military and the intelligence community, however, is forbidden in the sanitized atmosphere of mind-cure boosterism that surrounds Bush.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Jan. 24 about the "surge" tactic....
... Quote:
He's tried this two times -- it's failed twice. I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to. I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is.


On Feb. 2, the National Intelligence Council, representing all intelligence agencies, issued a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, as harsh an antidote to wishful thinking as could be imagined.

... Quote:
The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qaida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.

Nonetheless, the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.


The report described an Iraqi government, army and police force that cannot meet these challenges in any foreseeable time frame and a reversal of "the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory" occurring only through a dream sequence in which all the warring sects and factions, in some unexplained way, suddenly make peace with one another.

Nor does the NIE suggest that this imaginary scenario might ever come to pass. Instead, it proceeds to describe the potential for "an abrupt increase in communal and insurgent violence and a shift in Iraq's trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences."

 http://www.salon.com/opinio...
By netchicken: posted on 9-2-2007








Mysterious well armed, well trained force emerge in Iraq | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy