Re-Baathification? Maliki invites Saddam-era officers to rejoin the army
posted at 5:11 pm on December 16, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Saturday Iraqi army officers of all ranks sacked after the U.S. invasion in 2003 would be allowed to reapply for their posts in the new army…
Shortly after the U.S. invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, U.S. administrator Paul Bremer quickly dissolved the Iraqi army, a decision experts consider a miscalculation. Many of its members then joined the ranks of the Sunni insurgency.
They’ll be vetted for their links to the Baath Party and the ones who don’t rejoin will be given pensions. I doubt they expect anyone to take them up on the offer. The Shiites aren’t going to hand high-ranking military authority to Sunnis responsible, however tangentially, for having persecuted them. It’s a symbolic gesture to the other side, possibly initiated by Maliki to show the new coalition that he’s not al-Sadr’s boy and doesn’t need to be replaced as PM.
ABC News has a banner up as I write this stating that they’ve learned Bush is likely to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq. That’s super, but the Beeb broke the story hours ago. Nutshell:
The US administration source said the mission of the additional troops would be threefold, the BBC’s Adam Brookes reports from Washington:
* To help secure Baghdad amid daily car bombings and kidnappings
* To make a renewed push to quell the insurgency in the Western province of Anbar
* To tackle the militias behind much of the sectarian violence in the country, but especially the capital.
That’s an awfully full plate for only 30,000 more troops. What’s al-Sadr’s move now?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
the beeb broke it first. Now that’s interesting.
One Angry Christian on December 16, 2006 at 5:16 PM
Mookie’s next move? If there really is a God, Mookie will challenge the U.S. to a final show down in a pitched battle somewhere out in the open desert and while waiting for the U.S. Army to engage muzzle to muzzle, the Air Force comes in and finishes the battle before it begins.
Then my alarm clock goes off and wakes me up. What a wonderful dream I just had!
Tony737 on December 16, 2006 at 5:36 PM
If the troops were given more control of who and where they could kill people; I’m sure this would have been in hand long ago. Playing a PC war isn’t going well (again).
lorien1973 on December 16, 2006 at 5:40 PM
Lorien1973, everyone I know who is over there (hubby) or just got back say the same thing. I wish they’d let them win the war themselves. The military knows how they just aren’t allowed to.
Catie96706 on December 16, 2006 at 5:53 PM
That’s being kind. I could think of something else to call that decision, namely an amateurish cluster(word that rhymes with truck).
THeDRiFTeR on December 16, 2006 at 6:24 PM
I still think it was a mistake to disband all of the military after the invasion. Rather, they should have been required loyalty oaths required that the US be in charge. I think that would have solved a good portion of the chaos (save the Iranian and Syria Chaos/Al Qaeda Chaos.
Tim Burton on December 16, 2006 at 6:38 PM
One of the reasons there is so much sectarian strife within the governing factions in Iraq is that most people who favored secular government were in the Ba’ath party. If you want secularists in government, you are going to have to allow people who were members of the Ba’ath party to return to public life. This should be easier once Saddam is executed. Once he is gone, there are no more “Saddamists” because Saddam is gone.
Had Saddam been killed in the battle for Iraq, all this would have been much easier. The occupation would have probably run much smoother and many of the Ba’athists would have been allowed to remain in government much as we allowed rank and file nazis to remain in Germany after WWII. The situation would have been much different there if Hitler remained at large and we probably would have been forced to purge Nazis until he was found, tried, and executed lest they attempt to somehow return him to power.
crosspatch on December 16, 2006 at 7:54 PM
Maliki is a scum bag who will never reign in the terrorists, he loves them! and again, both sides need to be handed hand-held-nukes’ and let them run at each other..
retired on December 17, 2006 at 2:42 AM
lorien1973 and my friend Catie,
I’m with you both. Do we want to be politically correct or do we want the victory we are capable of achieving?
The politically correct approach is a path taken to appease the MSM and the international community so everyone in the world will LIKE US. They don’t. They hate us, PC or not. That makes it a simple decision.
Unleash the warriors!
fogw on December 17, 2006 at 9:13 AM
What happened to that arrest warrant issued against al Sadr a couple of years back? Oh, I forgot, some genius thought that lunatic could be neutralized by bringing him into the political process. It’s almost like electing Charles Manson to the school board to mellow him out.
There’s a lot that could be solved by a few Marine sniper teams with free-fire orders. Nothing says simmer down quite like a 50 cal. through the noggin.
SailorDave on December 17, 2006 at 11:06 AM
People who are more inclined to want a secular government would have joined the Ba’athists. If you want a secular government in Iraq, you are going to have to include people who were rank and file members of that party. Otherwise you are stuck with those that are left … the religious factions.
Once Saddam has been executed, there is no such thing as a “Saddamist” anymore. He will be dead and there is no chance he could be brought to power again. I say great, let the Ba’athists back in if they were not in a position to have engaged in any major crimes.
crosspatch on December 17, 2006 at 4:01 PM
Comment pages: