Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Malarky talks about Iraq
Herald1234    1/18/2007 8:29:33 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2553148.html Iraq The Times January 18, 2007 Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader Stephen Farrell in Baghdad • Prime Minister wants change of US policy • Mistakes over Saddam hanging, Times told 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 “dramatically” 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.” The US Government is wary of handing over large amounts of military hardware to the Iraqis because it has sometimes ended up in the hands of militias and insurgents. 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”. Although Mr al-Maliki’s tone was measured throughout, he is clearly irritated at US criticism that he has failed to curb Shia militias. Robert Gates, the new US Defence Secretary, said that Mr al-Maliki could lose his job if he failed to stop communal bloodshed and Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, gave a warning that he was living on “borrowed time” and that American patience was running out. 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.” He rejected the accusation that his Government was “lenient” with Shia militias, saying 400 al-Mahdi Army members had been arrested in recent days, in crackdowns in southern towns such as Karbala, Samawa, Diwaniya and al-Nasiriya. And he insisted that he was prepared to fulfil his promises to Washington and confront the militias of Shia parties within his coalition, including Moqtada al-Sadr’s widely feared al-Mahdi Army. He conceded that some “sectarian” acts were being perpetrated. But he said there would not be a civil war because Sunni and Shia had lived in peace for many years. ____________________________________ So Malarky continues with his lying ways. I wonder how long it will be, before it sinks in that he is an Iranian sympathizer? Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Plutarch       1/18/2007 12:20:05 PM
I wonder how long it will be, before it sinks in that he is an Iranian sympathizer?
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/18/2007 12:20:07 PM
I wonder how long it will be, before it sinks in that he is an Iranian sympathizer?
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/18/2007 12:28:04 PM
I wonder how long it will be, before it sinks in that he is an Iranian sympathizer?
 
It's known, and been known for awhile.  What excatly are we going to do about it though? Gates and Rice state that Maliki would "lose his job", but how? He's not stepping down, and he is only going to pay lip service to the notion of disarming the militias.  Would the US seriously remove him by force? Then we start all over again, only this time it's both the Sunnis and Shiites mad at us.  Three to six months is the timeline Maliki stated and seems to be sticking to.  He wants US forces out.  If we're not out by June 2007 then it amounts to a re-occupation of Iraq, as we would  have just defied their chosen leader. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    Thats all news   1/18/2007 12:41:51 PM
Frankly we had 2 choices Iranian backed Shias or Ba'ath party--we chose hmmm?? Besides Kurds we have no friends in the country points to the futility of this exercise. No win scenario.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Plutarch reply,   1/18/2007 1:49:46 PM

I wonder how long it will be, before it sinks in that he is an Iranian sympathizer?

 

It's known, and been known for awhile.  What excatly are we going to do about it though? Gates and Rice state that Maliki would "lose his job", but how? He's not stepping down, and he is only going to pay lip service to the notion of disarming the militias.  Would the US seriously remove him by force? Then we start all over again, only this time it's both the Sunnis and Shiites mad at us.  Three to six months is the timeline Maliki stated and seems to be sticking to.  He wants US forces out.  If we're not out by June 2007 then it amounts to a re-occupation of Iraq, as we would  have just defied their chosen leader. 

Herald1234    The oil spot strategy. And a crazy idea.   1/17/2007 8:55:47 PM

 
I agree with the poster above who stated that there will be a big push soon in Iraq. There is a lot of pressure on the US to force a resolution in short time, which is not a good way to carry out operations , i.e. with tight deadlines imposed by outside non-military institutions.

 

Ideally a military should have the time to develop and slowly roll out strategy.

 

Perhaps some history buffs here are familiar with the 'tache d'huile' strategy of French General Lyautey. It would be the recommended strategy for Iraq now, but unfortunately it would require a long time to see results.
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics