Why does the U.S. refuse to arm Iraqi troops?
Azzaman
The visit by Iraqi officials to the White House has had one main outcome: Conditions in Baghdad are very difficult and that the U.S. will continue backing the Iraqi troops.
But there is a paradox here. Does the U.S. really need to conduct talks with Iraqi officials on supplying Iraqi troops with weapons? Is the U.S. in the dark about the needs of Iraq and its troops?
Another major paradox is the U.S. insistence on not supplying Iraqi troops with the necessary weapons to enable them spread their control over the country.
The delay to supply Iraqi troops with U.S. weapons has, in our opinion, one interpretation: Washington has no plan whatsoever to what will become of Iraq even in the near future.
Therefore, and despite Iraqi government please, the White House rejects ferrying arms to the country. The U.S. wants Iraq a weak state with a weak government unable to defend itself and spread its authority.
One can understand why the U.S. turned down Iraqi requests for arms supplies in the first or two years of the aftermath of its invasion. The country then did not have an elected government.
But now we have a government and a parliament and many Iraqis cannot see why the U.S. still insists on not arming Iraq.
There are many in Iraq who believe that the U.S. does not want to see a strong Iraqi army and therefore turns down all Iraqi requests for arms. They say the U.S. is busy building its own military bases.
Once these bases are completed, the U.S. will then say there is no need for Iraq to have a strong army to defend the country. U.S. troops will do that.
Many Iraqis cannot see why the U.S. does not let the government to sign arms deals with other states. If the U.S. is not willing to arm Iraqi troops, it should allow others to do so if it is really concerned about building a strong Iraqi army.
If the democratic experience, as the White House repeatedly says, has succeeded in Iraq, President George W. Bush should assist the army of a democratic country.
The rejection to supply our army with weapons to strengthen its fighting capability means that the U.S. itself has little confidence in the outcome of its democratic process in Iraq. Link
db: How would a strong Iraqi military fit with the New [American] Middle East? It just doesn't. Any more than a strong Lebanese military. 'Democracy' is not relevant - what matters is being a rock solid US partner prepared to wage war on your own countrymen under the banner of the 'war on terror' and support for Israel. Last weekend Iraq had the biggest demonstration supporting Hezbollah in the entire region. The only hope that this 'democratic' Iraq has for obtaining US weapons and beefing up its army is if the CIA organises a coup.
The visit by Iraqi officials to the White House has had one main outcome: Conditions in Baghdad are very difficult and that the U.S. will continue backing the Iraqi troops.
But there is a paradox here. Does the U.S. really need to conduct talks with Iraqi officials on supplying Iraqi troops with weapons? Is the U.S. in the dark about the needs of Iraq and its troops?
Another major paradox is the U.S. insistence on not supplying Iraqi troops with the necessary weapons to enable them spread their control over the country.
The delay to supply Iraqi troops with U.S. weapons has, in our opinion, one interpretation: Washington has no plan whatsoever to what will become of Iraq even in the near future.
Therefore, and despite Iraqi government please, the White House rejects ferrying arms to the country. The U.S. wants Iraq a weak state with a weak government unable to defend itself and spread its authority.
One can understand why the U.S. turned down Iraqi requests for arms supplies in the first or two years of the aftermath of its invasion. The country then did not have an elected government.
But now we have a government and a parliament and many Iraqis cannot see why the U.S. still insists on not arming Iraq.
There are many in Iraq who believe that the U.S. does not want to see a strong Iraqi army and therefore turns down all Iraqi requests for arms. They say the U.S. is busy building its own military bases.
Once these bases are completed, the U.S. will then say there is no need for Iraq to have a strong army to defend the country. U.S. troops will do that.
Many Iraqis cannot see why the U.S. does not let the government to sign arms deals with other states. If the U.S. is not willing to arm Iraqi troops, it should allow others to do so if it is really concerned about building a strong Iraqi army.
If the democratic experience, as the White House repeatedly says, has succeeded in Iraq, President George W. Bush should assist the army of a democratic country.
The rejection to supply our army with weapons to strengthen its fighting capability means that the U.S. itself has little confidence in the outcome of its democratic process in Iraq. Link
db: How would a strong Iraqi military fit with the New [American] Middle East? It just doesn't. Any more than a strong Lebanese military. 'Democracy' is not relevant - what matters is being a rock solid US partner prepared to wage war on your own countrymen under the banner of the 'war on terror' and support for Israel. Last weekend Iraq had the biggest demonstration supporting Hezbollah in the entire region. The only hope that this 'democratic' Iraq has for obtaining US weapons and beefing up its army is if the CIA organises a coup.
posted by exoplanet at 8:36 PM
<< Home