AP Shocker: Iraq VP Disputes Bush on Training of Forces By Sally Buzbee, The Associated Press Published: December 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET DUBAI The training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in the last six months, with the army and other forces being increasingly used to settle scores and make other political gains, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer said Monday. Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops. Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country. Al-Yawer, a Sunni moderate, said he agreed the United States cannot pull out now because "there will be a huge vacuum," leaving Iraq in danger of falling into civil war. In particular, armed Shiite militias in the south might try to incite war if U.S.-led coalition forces leave, he said in an interview with The Associated Press and a U.S. newspaper at a conference here. "I wish it were that simple," he said of calls to set a timetable for withdrawal or a drawdown. But al-Yawer said recent allegations that Interior Ministry security forces — dominated by Shiites — have tortured Sunni detainees were evidence that many forces are increasingly politicized and sectarian. Some of the recently trained Iraqi forces focus on settling scores and other political goals rather than maintaining security, he said. In addition, some Iraqi military commanders have been dismissed for political reasons, rather than judged on merit, he said. He said the army — also dominated by Shiites — is conducting raids against villages and towns in Sunni and mixed areas of Iraq, rather than targeting specific insurgents — a tactic he said reminded many Sunnis of Saddam Hussein-era raids. "Saddam used to raid villages," using security forces, he said. "This is not the way to do it." Al-Yawer also expressed grave concern that Iraqi army units might use intimidation to try to keep Sunni voters from the polls during the country's crucial Dec. 15 general election. American officials — and Sunni moderates like al-Yawer — are trying to persuade Sunnis to go to the polls, hoping that if they gain a sizable chunk of parliament, Sunnis will abandon support for the insurgency. Al-Yawer said many Sunnis want to vote. But he noted that both intimidation and voter fraud occurred during the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum, and complaints to the Iraqi Electoral Commission and U.N. voting advisers went nowhere, he said. His supporters have made a series of requests to ensure a fair vote this time, including changes to the electoral commission and adequate numbers of polling stations and ballots in Sunni areas, he said. Most importantly, they have asked that U.S.-led coalition forces, and not Iraqi army troops, guard polling stations, he said. Many outside experts have expressed concern that Iraqi security forces will actually increase tensions if they guard Sunni areas, rather than keep order. Al-Yawer did not specifically say that Shiites make up too much of the army, but said he would like to see more political and sectarian balance — especially among the officer corps. Al-Yawer, running on a slate of secular candidates along with former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, also said he believes the Saddam trial also should be postponed until after the Dec. 15 election so Iraqis can focus on the election. He expressed frustration with the trial so far, saying it is giving Saddam an opportunity to grandstand and appear sympathetic. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001614034
Two people with conflicting agendas: - Bush wants to convince America that troops will be pulled out soon for his own popularity. - Iraq VP doesn't want the insurgents to think the troops are leaving and want the populace to feel secure. I seriously hope that Sunni's will get some representation at the election. If the government can show itself to work with the minority, it could be the first step to quelling some of these insurgents. I personally would go as far as having the CIA (or somebody else) to fix the election to let a few Sunni's win.
Aren't you glad I'm not president? The region needs stability before the issue is resolved. I'd be willing to do whatever it takes if we can get the troops home.
So is establishing a functioning democracy no longer a primary goal? Fraudulent elections, when they are inevitably discovered, will lead to complete chaos and the end of any chance to avoid civil war in Iraq. Better yet, it ends any credibility we might have when it comes to support of democracy around the globe.
Can you honestly call it a functioning democracy at this point? If doing so saves lives, then I am all for it. Call me underhanded, call me a cheat, but I just the best.
Absolutely not - it's nowhere near close to a functioning democracy. But you can't establish one based on fraud. It just won't work in the long-run. It would get the troops home quicker though, so I guess it primarily depends on your priorities, and whether you think its possible to still build a functional democracy there.
The American democracy has been scarred by scandals in the past as well, yet it is still standing. If the fraud is discovered, there'll be a fall guy and someone will be blamed, but then the ordeal is over. People will still reap the benefits of the fraud (if it is beneficial. I really wasn't advocating the fixing of the election. I said so in jest).
But the American people believed in this government - we established it ourselves with our own hard work. In Iraq, someone else is imposing it. If that someone else then puts in the leaders of their choice, how do you convince them that Democracy really is a good thing? But if you're not talking about fixing the election, then none of this is relevent.
According to some reports, the last (first) election was filled with ballot stuffing and voter intimidation. I agree that a large block of Sunni seats in Parliament, combined with the Kurdish block, would be a real boost towards undercutting the insurgency, as well as the rise of fundamentalist Shia militia. Sort of a win-win, if you will. I don't think "fixing" the election is needed... just a fair election, with widespread participation. That's still something Iraq has yet to achieve. Keep D&D Civil.
does anyone else see the irony. the region was stable. taking the troops there and illegally invading iraq is what caused the instability.
If stability was the only goal, we could have left Saddam in charge. Brutal dictators tend to reduce instability by killing the people that cause it. An even more permanent solution would be to kill everyone in the region. No people means no instability. In a moral world things get a bit more complicated by that. While stability is a nice goal, it cannot be the be all and end all.
Man, it's ok to not like Bush. It's a completely different thing if you are going to flame on a guy that voted for Bush.
I could not in good concience vote for someone who had a pro-choice agenda. More people are killed every year by abortion than by 10 Gulf War 2s. On the bright side for you liberals, my vote doesn't really count because I live in California. Then again, most of you live in Texas so you are in the same situation.
