Give us guns – and troops can go, says Maliki

[OregonBlue]

The Times January 18, 2007

Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader

America’s refusal to give Baghdad’s security forces sufficient guns and equipment has cost a great number of lives, the Iraqi Prime Minister said yesterday.

Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgency had been bloodier and prolonged because Washington had refused to part with equipment. If it released the necessary arms, US forces could “drastically” cut their numbers in three to six months, he told The Times.

In a sign of the tense relations with Washington, he chided the US for suggesting his Government was living on “borrowed time”. Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said, and was more a reflection of “some kind of crisis situation” in Washington after the Republicans’ midterm election losses. Mr al-Maliki conceded that his administration had made mistakes over the hanging of Saddam Hussein. But he refused to accept all criticism over the execution. When asked about the Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s attack on Iraq’s capital punishment laws, Mr al-Maliki cited the Italians’ summary killing of Benito Mussolini and his stringing-up from a lamppost

Asked how long Iraq would require US troops, Mr al-Maliki said: “If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down. That is on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping and arming them.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2553148,00.html

[jody]

1. Arm the Shiites and disarm the Sunni. they'll reconcile the problem. n/t

[OregonBlue]

2. Is that the plan? If that happens Saudi Arabia says they'll go to the

aid of the Sunnis. What a total F__k up!

[jody]

3. Perhaps but IMO that's the only thing that might work. n/t

[OregonBlue]

4. WWIII. Look what our wonderful Prez created.

[jody]

10. * created chaos and death. n/t

[hwmnbn]

6. I doubt the Saudis have a viable military......

capable of invading Iraq. Our military is having problems, how are they going to be better?

[leftchick]

11. they don't need one

all they need to do, and may already be doing, is supply needed arms, weapons, ammo and god knows what else (SAMs?) to Iraqi Sunnis.

[majorjohn]

55. Not just Sunnis

They'll be sending them people that are anti-shiites like the taliban who think by killing the shiites they'll go to heaven.

[JerseygirlCT]

48. I don't know that I'd doubt that.

They've had lots and lots of money for years to buy as many military toys as they could get their hands on. And I suspect, being our good buddies and all, they've been able to get their hands on quite a bit.

[rodeodance]

45. well, if that happens-------then Both sides will have more GUNS

[caledesi]

51. Yes, word is that when Cheney was summoned to the

Saudi Arabia by the House of Saud (a dictatorship disguised as a monarchy), they basically told him that the US better not take the Shia's side. If they do, that puts SA in great danger, the king said, because the people (Sunnis) may get pissed and challenge the monarchy. (They are poor and don't have jobs).

Anyhow, the king said if the US takes the Shia's side, the Sunnis from SA will come in droves to help their "brothers" in Iraq. What a fvcking mess!

[LynnTheDem]

13. The Shiites ARE armed. Heavily. Always have been.

The problem is the Shia militias.

And they don't need more arms.

[54anickel]

16. Sounds like surge and purge and get the hell out to me.

And no, I wouldn't consider that a viable plan. Then again it all depends on what the objective is.

[European Socialist]

5. Sounds like a good deal to me--are ya listenin Chimpy?

[madeline_con]

7. There certainly seems to be no shortage right now.

They don't need any more. Besides, they'll buy them from someone else if we say no.

[eagler]

8. If we are intent on training their military

then they deserve the weapons they need. Then we leave - case closed.

[partylessinOhio]

9. That man is speaking truth. Troops need weapons and ammo.

I have heard reports that Iraqi troops have been killed because their guns didn't work and/or they didn't have any bullets. I have also heard that American soldiers have been shot when their guns run out of ammo. They died with an empty clip...

What the hell has the Decider done to both sides of this disaster???

Hell won't be bad enough for him.

[Joe for Clark]

14. You know they may be afraid they may be turned against us

one day - right??

Then there is the possibility we could be unleashing a genocide.

Personally, if there was a generic fight - sunni on shia - I'd be betting on the sunni.

Americans don't run out rounds - its the poor bastards on their right and left that do - you know the Iraqi army people - assuming they don't run in the first place.

I agree with your comment about hell.

Joe

[Irreverend IX]

17. Betting on the Sunni?

The Shia have a big advantage in numbers. If the US doesn't supply them with weapons some nation or entity will (maybe Russia) and the US will lose control of the situation even more than it has.

[Joe for Clark]

20. Its a good bet.

The truth is, as long as our kids are out of there - I don't care who wins.

But they aren't out right now.

You know why the sunnis are going to win? The shia groups - they are just militias - they hit and run, they can't put up a sustained fight. Sunnis can and do. Clearly, those people are trained. You really believe the shites even have a chance???

The other issue - maybe 85% of the muslim world is sunni - and they won't allow any other outcome.

Like I said - I don't care who wins - I just don't want our kids in the middle - and that is exactly where they are right now. We either fight no one and get out, or we fight all sides and ----get out.

There is no other logic to this. That is why this is all so stupid to me.

Joe

[majorjohn]

56. Nonsense

Remember back in 2004. Who could have stopped the Mahdi Army from fighting the U.S. other than the Shiite leader Sistani? If it weren't for him, they probably would still be fighting US troops till this day.

[Joe for Clark]

57. I guess it is all just an opinion.

Nobody really knows who is shooting at who.

But we do know, there were sustained 10-12 hour firefights going on in the North of the city.

And whoever was engaging the kids, were no militia.

And we know, there weren't too many non-sunnis allowed in the Iraqi army under Saddam.

They know, pretty much, if the women are shia or sunni. It is the dress - white or black.

Joe

[amandabeech]

21. The Saudis have lots and lots of money.

The ruling family and the majority of the country is Sunni, and they hate Iran.

The Saudis have tons of military equipment, most of it from the U.S. If the Saudis won't use it themselves, they'll pay someone else to do it.

The Saudis also have an air force that's supposed to be the best of their services. If Iran uses its aircraft, the Saudis might lend theirs to the Iraqi Sunnis.

[Bacchus39]

59. exactly

n/t

[roamer65]

23. Delete.

[keopeli]

12. The Bush Surge is doomed. Maliki doesn't want troops, he wants guns. n/t

[Miss Chybil]

15. Let's just take our toys and go home. Humpty Dumpty is dead. nt

[bonito]

18. We have to wait till iraq can stand on it's own

Don't you know.:sarcasm:

[MichiganVote]

19. Gangster maliki

[amandabeech]

22. Don't forget the Kurds!

The Kurds were treated very roughly by Saddam and his Sunni administration. I have read that no Arab can get into Kurdistan without some sort of invitation.

The Kurds are sending two battalions of former peshmerga guerilla fighters to Baghdad as part of the clearing forces. If the Kurds are rough, both Sunnis and Shia might be looking for revenge against them when we pull out. Turkey could get involved in any Kurd turbulence.

This could turn into a complete and total disaster for the entire region.

[Joe for Clark]

24. So they are sending 2 of the 18 - wait, you said 2 batallions

there are supposed to be 18 brigades of Iraqis.

Hope that is wrong.

Batallion is just half a regiment. Three regiments to a brigade.

I guess if you are right it proves the Kurds aren't dumb and looking out for themselves.

Probably something lost in translation.

Joe

[amandabeech]

28. You're probably right about "brigade" not "battalion."

I know a Kurd from an Arab from a Turk, but the names of military groupings are beyond me.

Of course, it seems that soldiers don't always show up when expected in Iraq.

The Kurds have had good experiences with the U.S. and bad ones with the Sunni Arabs--I don't know the details of Kurd--Shia Arab relations.

Nonetheless, this puts another group into what could be an insanely hostile mix.

My Turkish roommate, who hates the Kurds, thinks that the Arabs, Sunni and Shia, will gang up on the Kurds before they go at each other. But perhaps that's just wishful thinking.

[Joe for Clark]

31. Oh, all I know is that b*sh said when he was sending 5 new

american brigades that 18 new iraqi brigades were also going into the fight in the capital.

He never said from where.

I never looked further than that - all I am saying is that there is a hell of a difference between a batallion and a brigade - you know??

Kurds are not sunni or shia - they are a mixed group - they are both.

And I am fully aware that the Turks don't like them at all.


Joe

[roamer65]

25. Wait, isn't the insurgency in its last throes?

So why would he need guns?:sarcasm:

Seriously, sounds like he needs them for the upcoming genocide. Man what a clusterfuck, thanks to that fucking piece of shit squatting in Al Gore's house.

[Straight Shooter]

26. "Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said."

(Maliki)chided the US for suggesting his Government was living on “borrowed time”. Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said ...

In other words, Maliki is accusing the bush administration of emboldening the insurgents and terrorists.

How's it feel to have your dog bite you in the ass, Little Lord Pissypants?

[struggle4progress]

27. Who thinks this will happen before the "embassy" is complete and the oil law passed?

[vickitulsa]

29. Finally ... the beans are spilled. Now for more blood....

Way back when I heard the first reports of the U.S. military starting to "train and equip" Iraqi troops and police, I wondered what might come of that and was deeply disturbed at the prospects.

It was clear to me that "equipping" really meant "arming" Iraqis, and apparently on a massive scale considering the size of the country.

Then as we learned more about the longstanding bitter enmity between factions in Iraq, I imagined a spiraling internal bloodbath, with chaos and confusion beyond control by U.S. troops. "Reconstruction" in such an environment would obviously be impossible. And then what?

At one point I read that the Iraqis being trained were angry that they were given only older weapons and vehicles -- and not enough of those, that they were shorted on ammo or in some cases had none at all.

It occurred to me then that American soldiers were afraid those guns could well be turned on them or on other Iraqis from warring factions. The whole plan seemed insane and doomed from the start.


I've mentioned my concerns about this issue of arming Iraqis here on DU several times over the last couple of years. And now Maliki comes right out and says, "Just leave us the guns and go home"?

Maybe he is just being honest about what he sees as the eventual outcome anyway? Trying to make sure HIS side gets more of the weapons we leave behind?

I've even wondered if Bu$h kept our troops there so long in part because neither he nor Rummy nor any of the generals could figure out a way the U.S. could get out of there peacefully after they'd armed the country!


And honestly, though I desperately want our troops to come home, I cannot imagine how such a withdrawal could take place, practically speaking, in any sort of safe manner. I'd sure like to hear anyone's thoughts on this, because the scenes that keep playing in my mind are from Vietnam in April 1975, the American Embassy rooftop evacuation....

[leesa]

30. Ooooh...Maliki is sprouting some. And Bush needs his signature on the oil theft

scam he and his buddies are running on the Iraqis.

[sabra]

32. Give us guns – and (US) troops can go, says Iraqi leader (al Maliki)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2553148,00.html

Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader

America’s refusal to give Baghdad’s security forces sufficient guns and equipment has cost a great number of lives, the Iraqi Prime Minister said yesterday.

Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgency had been bloodier and prolonged because Washington had refused to part with equipment. If it released the necessary arms, US forces could “drastically” cut their numbers in three to six months, he told The Times.

...

Gordon Johndroe, the White House national security spokesman, conceded that some of Mr al-Maliki’s criticism was “valid”. The training and equipping of Iraqi troops would be speeded up, he said, adding that by “self-admission we have had to redo our training and equipment programme”.

...

Challenged on the point, Mr al-Maliki remarked acidly: “Certain officials are going through a crisis. Secretary Rice is expressing her own point of view if she thinks that the Government is on borrowed time, whether it is borrowed time for the Iraqi Government or American Administration. I don’t think we are on borrowed time.”

He added: “I wish that we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don’t give some boost to the terrorists and make them feel that they might have achieved success. I believe that such statements give moral boosts to the terrorists and push them towards making an extra effort and making them believe that they have defeated the American Administration, but I can tell you that they haven’t defeated the Iraqi Government.”

[fooj]

33. "defeated the American Administration"...

Hmmmmm...

[madeline_con]

34. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2693309&mesg_id=2693309

[msongs]

35. Bush #1 gave Saddam tons of guns - did it work then? nt

[Canuckistanian]

36. ...whut?

Not enough guns in Iraq?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0512-01.htm

[MADem]

37. Well, ain't that funny. They said that a year ago, too.

How long before that comment will be retracted?

And what's this "can go" shit? He shouldn't be the one giving our forces orders. Then again, neither should the Saudis...

[Bozita]

38. How about chemical weapons instead? We can send Rumsfeld to negotiate the deal.

[Imagevision]

39. Bush soon to replace al-Maliki just like the generals on the ground

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. Problem is, at this point giving guns to Maliki is giving guns to Sadr. nt

[WritersBlock]

41. Wonder what the definition of "necessary arms" would be....

Didn't we already go down this road; or rather, didn't Rummy do the honors?

That doesn't appear to have turned out so well.

[rodeodance]

42. Iraqi forces need more guns so U.S. can exit: PM-- (Reuters)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070118/wl_nm/iraq_usa_maliki1_dc_1

Iraqi forces need more guns so U.S. can exit: PM

50 minutes ago

LONDON (Reuters) -Iraq would need far fewer U.S. troops if the United States gave Iraqi security forces sufficient weapons, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said in comments published on Thursday.

The Iraqi leader admitted mistakes had been made over the hanging of former president Saddam Hussein but denied it had been a revenge killing.

In an interview with Britain's Times newspaper, Maliki was asked how long Iraq would require U.S. forces on the ground.

"If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down," the prime minister said, speaking in Baghdad.

"That is on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping and arming them."

[NuclearShadows]

43. weapons

For years I have been asking what the logic was to collect all the Iraqi weapons and then destroy them rather than secure them and equip the new Iraqi police and army. No one has ever given me an answer. So the only conclusion I have come to is that it was just a gift to the U.S. defense contractors, knowing that we, the taxpayers, would have to foot the bill to rebuild their defense forces… But it is also evident that the mentality of our society as a whole is one of waste. We would rather buy a new one that fix or recycle the old…

[Lasher]

44. This is a mistake we've been making from day one.

US forces are impressively armed, but the Iraqi police have been walking around with little or nothing. We should have loaded them up with weapons similar to ours - and vehicles too. This would have sent a message: "Looke here, I'm on the Americans' side and I bad! Want somma this? C'mon, get some!" It would have also helped if we had employed Iraqis for reconstruction instead of hauling in people from other countries. So many stupid mistakes.

But it's too late for that now. We've been training Iraqi police and military only to see them go back to their militias and use what they learn to kill us. It would be the same thing if we give their security forces better weapons while we're still there.

[sabra]

46. k & r

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Sure! How about some poison gas?

Oh, yeah. BTDT.

This guy is an ass, and needs to go.

But we've made such a hash of the whole thing, is there ANY sane solution to the mess?

[ohio2007]

49. al Sadre said the exact same thing two weeks ago.

I can see the headline on al Jazeera, "US surrenders. They left all their weapons in a gesture of surrender. "

[oblivious]

50. Maliki just doesn't get it. America's not leaving without the oil. Period.

[The Stranger]

52. The U.S. won't take their refugees and won't arm them, only exploits the poor Iraqis.

They are poor brown people used solely for the Neocon propaganda purposes.

[Eugene]

53. AFP: Iran offers to help train, equip Iraqi forces

Iran offers to help train, equip Iraqi forces

by Ammar Karim

2 hours, 25 minutes ago

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Tehran's ambassador to Baghdad said that Iran stood ready to help
train and equip Iraqi security forces to combat what he called terrorism.

Speaking after talks with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Hassan Kazemi demanded
to be shown "any shred of evidence that Iran is working to destabilise
Iraq," as the United States alleges.

"We are working for, not against, security in Iraq, because we know that insecurity
justifies maintaining foreign troops in the country," Kazemi told reporters.

"Iran is disposed to helping to train and equip Iraqi security forces to combat terrorism."

-snip-

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070118/wl_mideast_afp/iraqiranusmilitary_070118175529

[ckramer]

54. Didn't Saddam ask the same ?

History is repeating itself.

[classysassy]

58. Give them all

plastic guns and spitballs.