posted on April 7, 2004 09:58:05 AM new
FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. Marines in the third day of a battle to pacify this Sunni Muslim city fired rockets that hit a mosque compound filled with worshippers Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed. Shiite-inspired violence spread to key cities in Iraq
The fighting in Fallujah and neighboring Ramadi, where commanders confirmed 12 Marines were killed late Tuesday, was part of an intensified uprising involving both Sunni and Shiites that now stretched from Kirkuk in the north to the far south.
An Associated Press reporter in Fallujah saw cars ferrying the dead and wounded from the Abdul-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque. Witnesses said a helicopter fired three missiles into the compound, destroying part of a wall surrounding the mosque but not damaging the main building.
The strike came as worshippers had gathered for afternoon prayers, witnesses said. Temporary hospitals were set up in private homes to treat the wounded and prepare the dead for burial. There was no immediate confirmation of the number of dead.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that U.S. forces launched the operation in Fallujah to capture insurgents involved in attacks on Americans, including the ones who mutilated and burned the bodies of four U.S. civilians ambushed last week. He said the troops had pictures and names of those involved and were not attacking the town as a whole.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 7, 2004 10:39:30 AM new
According to Reuters ...
The United States is looking into a report that U.S. missiles hit a mosque in the restive Iraqi city of Falluja, killing about 40 people, U.S. officials said on Wednesday. "We've seen those reports and are looking into it," a senior Bush administration official said of The Associated Press report, which quoted witnesses in the city.
At the Pentagon, defense officials said they had received no report on such an attack...
Now a second mosque has been destroyed according to CNN.
posted on April 7, 2004 10:45:11 AM new
Of course, Helen left out the quote from the Marine officer who said that his troops received fire from the mosque.
posted on April 7, 2004 10:46:32 AM new
Source: Fox News
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com
Published: Apr 7, 2004
Author: me
Post Date: 2004-04-07 13:18:53 by Mark_Felton
I am reporting comments I just heard live.
Brig. Gen. Kimmitt just stated on Fox News, Dayside program, that when mosques are used to organize, incite or execute violence those mosques "lose their protected status".
They prefer to use Iraqi forces when possible to attack the terrorists but they will otherwise use force against the mosques themselves.
If the Mosques are not used for violent purposes they will be treated as protected sites and all efforts will be used to save them from damage.
the live audience applauded Kimmit's statement.
-----
And I agree. There should be no place where these *cleric* leaders who are calling for the death of the coaliation forces should be allowed to set up and have a 'free zone'.
posted on April 7, 2004 11:20:15 AM new
This should all be very simple. They've dropped leaflets about curfews etc.. They should inform everyone of a set of rules. If trouble starts, be elsewhere. Stay in your houses. This way, if an "incident" happens, say like a couple of SUVs being attacked, if helicopter gunships show up, no "innocent" Iraqis will be killed.
Imagine just hanging out poking a charred body with a stick and wind up getting killed by "accident". It's so easy to prevent.
They gloves should come off. Criminals don't respect you for being nice.
posted on April 9, 2004 07:05:28 PM new
Reamond, the same thing could be said about JFK: wasn't it him who said it was imperitive to protect a little country in SE Asia called Vietnam?
President Bush is trying to do all he can. This isn't a cold war, this is an armed conflict with the defence of US the most important thing. These people have been told from birth that we are infidels, and all infidels need to be exterminated. We, the US, has finally been awakened again. The sleeping giant is finally putting actions together where words have done no good. It is about time we take the battle to the enemy, instead of allowing them to attack us at will.
posted on April 9, 2004 08:34:23 PM new
We lost in Vietnam! And not just battles. Many of our American finest. I fear this will be another Vietnam. Imagine--we've actually managed to unite the two opposing religious parties--but in opposition to us. Our goal was to unite them in peace so they could run the country democratically. Like that's going to happen in a theocratically minded civilization. Someone on TV said today that as soon as we leave Iraq, whether in 2 months or ten years, it'll be a theocracy again.
posted on April 9, 2004 09:53:15 PM newSomeone on TV said today that as soon as we leave Iraq, whether in 2 months or ten years, it'll be a theocracy again.
Do you think they may have been reading Reamond's posts here on the RT ? Dick Morris said last night on Fox what I said here on another post a few days ago.
by Reamond -posted on April 7, 2004 01:22:00 PM
We're going to have to make some sort of withdraw sooner or later. But I don't think the outcome will be much different if we stay until 6-30 or stay 5 years.
Iraq will become an Islamic Republic. The question is how many soldiers need to die and how much money we must spend before it happens
posted on April 9, 2004 10:08:06 PM newIt is about time we take the battle to the enemy, instead of allowing them to attack us at will.
Yes we should take the battle to the enemy. But Iraq wasn't the enemy. The ONLY reason we should have invaded Iraq were for WMDs or terrorist activities. Iraq did neither.
But there is yet another comparision with Vietnam. The military in the Vietnam era complained bitterly about continuously shifting the operational goal in Vietnam.
Well... that is exactly what we're doing in Iraq. First it was to destroy WMDs. Then is was to knock off Hussein and build a democracy.
Next it will be to turn the mess over to the Iraqis as "orderly" as possible.
Bush lied about the pretexts to invade Iraq.
There was a tyrant ruler in Iraq for 30 years. But he kept a lid on the radical muslims in the country.
Now he is gone, we have 600 KIA'd, and the radical muslims will now conmtrol Iraq.
As Hans Blix has concluded, the world was better off with Saddam Hussein in control.
Our only hope now is to allow the Islamic radicals to take control of Iraq and then try to pit the Iraqi Shiites against the Iranian Shiites, and prod the Sunnis and Kurds to play their support off against both sides.
posted on April 10, 2004 12:21:43 AM new
To me reamond, the argument about how saddam and AQ wouldn't have EVER has worked together because of their religious differences, can be disputed by exactly what's happening in Iraq now. [with opposing religions coming together against the US - just like saddam and binladen's followers could have.
----------------
Here's an article like many I've read...and I'm not vouching for the validity of the site nor the author....but this isn't the first time this has been in print.
The dems seemed so SURE of themselves....they've been LIED to. What if you're wrong??
2-17-2004
Dr. Kay Had Maps with Coordinates of WMD Hiding Places in Syria
Setting up an inquiry commission is the political leader's favorite dodge for burying an embarrassing problem until the pursuit dies down. President George W. Bush will this week bow to election-year pressures from Democrats and his own Republicans alike and sign an executive order to investigate US intelligence failings regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction on the eve of war. Both his senior war partners, the Australian and British prime ministers, face the same public clamor ever since WMD hunter Dr. David Kay resigned, declaring there were probably no stockpiles in Iraq and "we were all wrong."
At the same time, the CIA and other intelligence bodies accused of flawed performance do not look particularly dismayed by the prospect of facing these probes. They point to the cause of the political flap, Dr Kay, as contradicting himself more than once in the numerous interviews he has given since he quit as head of the Iraq Survey Group.
We revisted its most reliable intelligence sources in the US and the Middle East, some of whom were actively involved in the subject before and during the Iraq war. They all stuck to their guns. Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons programs were present on the eve of the American-led invasion and quantities of forbidden materials were spirited out to Syria. Whatever Dr. Kay may choose to say now, at least one of these sources knows at first hand that the former ISG director received dates, types of vehicles and destinations covering the transfers of Iraqi WMD to Syria.
Indeed the US administration and its intelligence agencies, as well as Dr Kay, were all provided with Syrian maps marked with the coordinates of the secret weapons storage sites. The largest one is located at Qaratshuk at the heart of a desolate and unfrequented region edged with marshes, south of the Syrian town of Al Qamishli near the place where the Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish frontiers converge; smaller quantities are hidden in the vast plain between Al Qamishli and Az Zawr, and a third is under the ground of the Lebanese Beqaa Valley on the Syrian border.
These transfers were first revealed a month before the war. It was also discovered that a Syrian engineering corps unit was detailed to dig their hiding places in northern Syria and the Lebanese Beqaa.
A senior intelligence source confirmed this again, stressing: "Dr. Kay knows exactly what was contained in the tanker trucks crossing from Iraq into Syria in January 2003. His job gave him access to satellite photos of the convoys; the instruments used by spy planes would have identified dangerous substances and tracked them to their underground nests. There exists a precise record of the movement of chemical and biological substances from Iraq to Syria."
Armed with this knowledge, Kay was able to say firmly to The Telegraph's Con Coughlin on January 25: "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons. But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.
Yet in later interviews, the last being on February 1 with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition - and for reasons known only to himself - Kay turned vague, claiming there was no way of knowing what those convoys contained because of the lack of Syrian cooperation.
What caused his change of tune?
Since he began talking to the media, interested politicians have been rephrasing his assertions on the probable absence of stockpiles, by dropping the "probable" and transmuting "no stockpiles", to "no WMD." These adjustments have produced a telling argument against Bush's justification for war and a slogan that has deeply eroded public confidence in US credibility in America and other countries. Tony Blair and John Howard will no doubt set up outside inquiry commissions like Bush. In Israel too, opposition factions have seized the opportunity of arguing that if Israel's pre-war intelligence on Iraq's arsenal was flawed, so too was its evaluation of Yasser Arafat's role as the engine of Palestinian suicidal terror. The fact that intelligence was not flawed - UN inspectors dismantled missiles and Iraq fired missiles at Kuwait - is easily shouted down in the current climate.
By the same token, no connection is drawn between the Iraqi WMD issue and the grounding this week of transatlantic flights from Europe to America by credible intelligence of an al Qaeda plot. The Washington Post spelled the threat out as entailing the possible spread of anthrax or smallpox germs in the cabin or planting of poison chemicals in the cargo.
It was also suggested that suicidal pilots might crash an airliner on an American city and drop payloads of toxic chemicals and bacteria.
Two questions present themselves here. One: if minute quantities of weaponized biological and chemical substances dropped by Osama bin Laden's killers from the air are menacing enough to trigger a major alert, why would Saddam need stockpiles to pose an imminent threat to world security and his immediate neighbors? Would not a couple of test tubes serve his purpose? Two: Where did al Qaeda get hold of the WMD presumed to be in its possession and who trained its operatives in their use?
Once again, senior intelligence sources recall earlier revelations. The ex-Jordanian terror master Mussab al Zarqawi is key director of al Qaeda's chemical, biological and radioactive warfare program. In late 2000, we reported him operating WMD laboratories under the supervision of Iraqi intelligence in the northern Iraqi town of Bayara. Since then, the same Zarqawi has masterminded some of the deadliest terrorist attacks in Iraq, such as the blasts at the Jordanian embassy and the murder of Italian troops in Nassariya.
Zarqawi is and was the embodiment of the link between Saddam and al Qaeda going back four years, long before the American invasion of Iraq - which indicatges the source of Osama bin Laden's unconventional weapons purchases.
In another interview, the former ISG director expanded on his statement that Iraq was falling apart "from depravity and corruption." The Saddam regime, he said, had lost control. Saddam ran projects privately and unsupervised, while his scientists were free to fake programs.
A senior source commented on this assertion:
"That's one way of describing the situation – and not only on war's eve but during all of Saddam Hussein's years of ruling Iraq. We are looking at institutionalized corruption of a type unfamiliar in the West; it was built up in a very special way in Iraq." The country was not falling apart, but it was being looted systematically. Just imagine, he said, Saddam and the two sons the Americans killed in July 2003 had their own secret printing press for running off Iraqi dinars and other currencies including dollars for their own personal use. The central bank went on issuing currency in the normal way, unaware that it was being undermined from within by the ruler's private press. "Saddam's corruption was structured, a hierarchical pyramid with the ruler, his sons and inner circle at the top and the petty thieves at the bottom making off with worthless paper."
Some of our sources challenged two more of Dr. Kay's assertions to Wolf Blitzer: a) After 1998 when the UN left, there was no human intelligence on the ground, and b) "There were no regular sources of information, not enough dots to connect." If this is true, how does he explain another statement in the same interview that the US entered the war on the basis of "a broad consensus among intelligence services – not just the CIA, but also Britain, France and Russia?"
On what did this consensus rest if there were no informants on the ground?
And furthermore, how were the American and British invading armies able to advance at such speed from Kuwait to Baghdad with no obstructions and without blowing up a single bridge, road or other utility, including oil fields, ports and military air fields? Every obstruction had clearly been removed from their path by intelligence agents on the ground , who reached understandings with local Iraqi commanders before the war began.
In the face of this evidence, the question must be asked: Why does Bush take David Kay's assaults and demands with such stoicism instead of going after Damascus - as defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has proposed from time to time?
One theory is that he does not trust any of the evidence. Saddam was famous among UN inspectors for his deception techniques; he may have practiced a double deception. Hard and fast facts are likewise hard to come by in Damascus. Above all, Bush may simply be determined to adhere to his plan of action come what may, whatever crises happen to cross his path, in the confidence that his path will lead to a November victory at the polls.
Three inquiry commissions will most likely be set up to examine the American, British and Australian intelligence assessments of Saddam's weapons of destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war. In the meantime, the actual weapons will continue to molder undisturbed in the ground of Syria and Lebanon.
posted on April 10, 2004 11:42:45 AM newTo me reamond, the argument about how saddam and AQ wouldn't have EVER has worked together because of their religious differences, can be disputed by exactly what's happening in Iraq now. [with opposing religions coming together against the US - just like saddam and binladen's followers could have.
No one said that they perhaps could "EVER" work together. H3ll, we could not say that AQ and Mexico could not "EVER" work together.
Are you now a proponent of invading countries that might someday in the future aid AQ ? That's an awful big list.
And the "key" to your "evidence" about different religions coming together, does not in any way support the proposition that Saddam Hussein was aiding AQ.
The Sunnis and the Shiites are both muslim, and both want a muslim government. The Kurds are also muslim, but they haven't joined the Sunnis and Shiites. So according to your theory, the Kurd should be attacking us too.
Hussein ran a secular government, the only muslim secular government in the region.
It was a huge mistake to invade Iraq, and it was a mistake premised on lies.
Bush now scrambles every day to try to justify the invaision by changing the reason for why we are there, and our goals.
We would in all likilihood have captured OBL and much of AQ had we used the troops we have in Iraq in Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein would be holding the lid on the radical muslims in Iraq right now instead of us.
posted on April 10, 2004 12:09:26 PM newBut Iraq wasn't the enemy. The ONLY reason we should have invaded Iraq were for WMDs or terrorist activities. Iraq did neither.
Saddam Hussien had WOMD's. Saddam Hussien used WOMD's. Saddam Hussien defied UN orders to allow inspections. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for 5 days trying to make Saddam Hussien give up his WOMD's.
Saddam Hussein paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000. If that isn't supporting terrorism, I don't know what is.
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Apr 10, 2004 12:11 PM ]
posted on April 10, 2004 12:20:58 PM newNo one said that they perhaps could "EVER" work together.
Many here have argued that saddam and binladen/AQ WOULD NEVER HAVE been cooperating with one another because of their differences in religion...and used that arguement as to why there was no connection between the two.
I said then and I'm still saying their religious differences wouldn't have held them back from working together in their mutual hatred of the US. Just as the different groups that are working together now against the soldiers.
Are you now a proponent of invading countries that might someday in the future aid AQ ?
This question coming from a man who advocated blowing the whole region up not that long ago? LOL
I very much support and admire the leadership qualities that this President has shown he has by the way he has initiated the War on Terror. Because of his leadership other countries around our globe are now taking the terrorist threats seriously and are acting to work together against them. Sharing information.
The Sunnis and the Shiites are both muslim, and both want a muslim government. The Kurds are also muslim, but they haven't joined the Sunnis and Shiites.
I believe one day the people of Iraq can all live together, no matter their religious differences....just as we do here in America.
It was a huge mistake to invade Iraq, and it was a mistake premised on lies. Many believe like I do that we weren't lied to but rather that the democrats have put their winning the WH above our mutual national security issues. I just watched a short interview Sen. Kerrey gave....he and many democrat leaders believe we were right to remove saddam.
Bush now ...[/i]justify the invaision by changing the reason for why we are there, and our goals[/i].
Nope....again you are wrong. There were many reasons given for our invasion before the war started and can be found by doing a google search. And in 1996 under the clinton administration it became public policy [law] to remove him. Not only for the crimes he committed against his own people, but for the threat he posted to that part of the world. He financially supported Hamas terrorists too. $25,000 checks to the suicide families of the murders.
We would in all likilihood have captured OBL and much of AQ had we used the troops we have in Iraq in Afghanistan. No way of knowing that.....heck the world doesn't know where he currently is located. LOL
Saddam Hussein would be holding the lid on the radical muslims in Iraq right now instead of us. By murdering anyone he wishes....you like that kind of a system better than freedom huh? You'd like to see him back in power????? Or are you one that just likes to keep dwelling on the past...what might have been...what might have happened IF only....
FACT is....we're there....saddam isn't....and we're working towards peace and giving this country a chance to experience freedom, voting, etc. after 30 -35 of living under saddam.
posted on April 10, 2004 12:38:33 PM newSaddam Hussien had WOMD's.
The operative word here is "had". In fact Hussein destroyed all the weapons as directed by the US and UN.
Saddam Hussien used WOMD's.
Yes and he used them with our blessing under Reagan and Bush 1. Especially when he used them on the Iranians.
Saddam Hussien defied UN orders to allow inspections. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for 5 days trying to make Saddam Hussien give up his WOMD's.
No.Iraq was bombed for not giving the inspectors the access they wanted. And apparently for good reason, seeing as how Hussein had destroyed all the weapons as directed.
Saddam Hussein paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000. If that isn't supporting terrorism, I don't know what is.
And so did the Saudis, the Syrians, and the Libyans, and Jordanians, and Iranians, and Afghans, and Pakis.
But our premise for invading Iraq had nothing to do with supporting the Palestinians. It was WOMDs and support of AQ. Both of which were untrue.
Bush's arguments to Congress for war on and invaision of Iraq had nothing to do with the Plaestinian conflict.
Bush lied to get Congress and the American public to support the invaision of Iraq. He should be impeached.
Many here have argued that saddam and binladen/AQ WOULD NEVER HAVE been cooperating with one another because of their differences in religion...and used that arguement as to why there was no connection between the two.
That is a Red Herring. We did not invade Iraq or get a declaration of war from Congress on the premise that Hussein may some day align himself with OBN. We could justify invading any country based on the possibility that someday they may align themselves with OBN.
The only sound reason for invading Iraq was WOMDs - it was a lie.
posted on April 10, 2004 01:22:33 PM newBy murdering anyone he wishes....you like that kind of a system better than freedom huh? You'd like to see him back in power????? Or are you one that just likes to keep dwelling on the past...what might have been...what might have happened IF only....
What I "like" is not at issue. What is at issue is the lies that Bush used to get a declaration of war against Iraq. Had we left well enough alone in Iraq, things would be much better right now. I can find any number of countries where I don't "like" what's going on, but we don't declare war on them.
FACT is....we're there....saddam isn't....and we're working towards peace and giving this country a chance to experience freedom, voting, etc. after 30 -35 of living under saddam.
The facts you refuse to face are the ones that matter. Bush lied to start a war, and now we change weekly on why we are in Iraq and what our goals there are.
Where Bush doesn't lie about Iraq he flip flops on Iraq.
By the way, we aren't working towards peace and voting. Bush and crew are working on a way to get out of Iraq as soon as possible before the election.
posted on April 10, 2004 01:55:32 PM new In fact Hussein destroyed all the weapons as directed by the US and UN.
LOL that is no fact Reamond...
Fact is there is a way to stop this fighting, but you and the rest of the bleeders would have a heart attack... keep up th good work supporting our enemies... I am sure they enjoy reading your sentiments daily...
Here is a Fact... Saddam is now in US hands...
Another fact... UN did not do what was required under their own resolution... we did.
Oops lets not forget the fact that now countries around the world now know we will do what we say and back UN resolutions...
Your very words speak of how much of a failure the UN is.
In the year since Saddam Hussein was deposed, insurgents have killed nine former Iraqi weapons officials. All had been questioned by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG); at least two had been cooperating with it. Last October, ISG head David Kay said that one scientist was killed because "he was engaged in discussions with us." The most recent victim was Majid Hussein Ali, a well-known nuclear scientist. He took two bullets to the back in February.
Charles Deulfer, the CIA representative to the ISG, did not directly address the apparent assassinations in his declassified testimony to the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees last week, but he did say that many scientists "perceive a great risk in speaking with us . . . . A fear that former regime supporters will extract retribution." As Rep. Steve Buyer, chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, argued, "Pure logic leads you to conclude that those leading scientists who spoke to David Kay were not mugged and are being selectively assassinated."
Mr. Buyer, who learned about the issue during classified briefings with Mr. Kay, recently raised the issue. He wondered why such scientists would be eliminated if they had no knowledge of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and why public officials seem to be taking so little note of the directed killings.
The bloodshed has had a chilling effect on Iraqi scientists. Fearing they might be targeted, at least 50 have fled the country. Many others have refused to cooperate with coalition authorities. Mr. Deulfer said he was struck by the "extreme reluctance of Iraqi managers, scientists and engineers to speak freely."
A way must be found to protect these Iraqi scientists. They are a critical source of information about the development and production of Iraqi WMD. That data is desperately needed to determine what Iraq's capabilities and intentions actually were before the war, and why U.N. and U.S. intelligence assessments missed so badly. Those scientists might also hold clues to what happened to the WMD stocks that did exist — whether they were destroyed, hidden or sent across Iraqi borders.
Regardless of the means, coalition authorities must end the silencing of Iraqi scientists.
I suspect we will have a cool down period in
the next few days or within a week but it
will be simply to "re-arm and re-fuel for re-
strike and re-venge." A true sustained
explosion of violence has yet to be
coordinated by the myriad of resistance
teams but as the independent or semi-
centralized resistance groups form, choose
leadership and communicate at the internet
cafes, you can be pretty sure the second
wave of violence is going to come and it will
be equally, if not more, dramatic. This time
it won't be men in black uniforms, they have
learned that lesson in Najaf ... They will
shift to urban terrorism and un-uniformed
attacks. God forbid if Sadr is killed or
captured ... then we have an entire second
front that won't give up until we leave.
~
The correct answer is to back off, leave
Sadr alone and start to throw lots of money
into jobs projects and utilities for the south
before this summer's electricity and gas
shortages ... will that work? Probably not.
But we have just antagonized the core of
the Shiite resistance and putting them to
work is better than letting them fight us
24/7. General Sanchez is right about one
thing ... this is not Vietnam ... Oh no, its not
that easy. I refer you to Israel humiliating
defeat in Southern Lebanon by Hezbollah's
armed resistance for a reference to our
potential future.
posted on April 10, 2004 08:05:57 PM new
So Bush "Lied" about WOMD Iraq. The other leaders of the free world and their countless intelligence agencies were merely "incorrect", and all of the documented shipments of contraband materials shipped through various drop shipments all wound up in Iraq high schools. The UN printed all those injunctions to keep the staff busy.
It's too bad that crafty dictator didn't pull the rug out from that dumb Bush and let the UN inspectors into the palaces and other places they wanted to go. After all, he had "sovreignty rights" .... or needed the time.
So, since the truth can't be known, let's call it even and say the invasion was for the gall of attempting the assasination of a US President.
posted on April 10, 2004 10:04:40 PM new
Yeah- it isn't anything like Vietnam in Iraq. Yeah right. Bush is a dumba$$ and a liar with the blood of every soldier killed in Iraq on his hands.
Iraqi Battalion Refuses to 'Fight Iraqis'
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 11, 2004; Page A01
BAGHDAD, April 10 -- A battalion of the new Iraqi army refused to go to Fallujah earlier this week to support U.S. Marines battling for control of the city, senior U.S. Army officers here said, disclosing an incident that is casting new doubt on U.S. plans to transfer security matters to Iraqi forces.
It was the first time U.S. commanders had sought to involve the postwar Iraqi army in major combat operations, and the battalion's refusal came as large parts of Iraqi security forces have stopped carrying out their duties.
The 620-man 2nd Battalion of the Iraqi Armed Forces refused to fight Monday after members of the unit were shot at in a Shiite Muslim neighborhood in Baghdad while en route to Fallujah, a Sunni Muslim stronghold, said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, the official overseeing the development of Iraqi security forces. The convoy then turned around and returned to the battalion's home on a former Republican Guard base in Taji, a town north of the capital.
Eaton said members of the battalion insisted during the ensuing discussions: "We did not sign up to fight Iraqis."
He declined to characterize the incident as a mutiny, but rather called it "a command failure."
The refusal of the battalion to perform as U.S. officials had hoped poses a significant problem. The cornerstone of the United States' strategy in Iraq is to draw down its military presence and turn over security functions to Iraqis.
Over the past two weeks, that approach has suffered a severe setback as Iraqi security forces have crumbled in some parts of the country. In recent days perhaps 20 percent to 25 percent of the Iraqi army, civil defense, police and other security forces have quit, changed sides, or otherwise failed to perform their duties, a senior Army officer said Saturday.
"I wouldn't say it is so widespread that it's the majority," the senior officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But it concerns us."
Eaton added: "The lines are blurring for a lot of Iraqis right now, and we're having problems with a lot of security functions right now."
A soldier with the 1st Armored Division, who has recently been engaged in combat in Baghdad, said many of the Iraqi security troops with whom he has worked are no longer reporting for duty. "I think what we are seeing is not some mass quitting and mutiny by ICDC [Iraqi Civil Defense Corps], but rather just plain fear," the soldier said. "And all it takes is one Iraqi to take the lead in leaving, and they all do out of fear."
When the 2nd Battalion graduated from training camp on Jan. 6, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hailed it as a major part of the future of Iraq. Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the U.S. commander on the ground in Iraq, attended the ceremony and said: "We are now into the accelerated period of providing Iraqi security forces, and these soldiers look very proud, very dedicated. I have high expectations that in fact they would help us bring security and stability back to the country."
The battlefield refusal of the battalion -- one of just four that exist in the Iraqi army -- began Monday when it was ordered to travel about 60 miles to support the Marines, then locked in battle with fighters in Fallujah. The mission of the Iraqi troops was to help with secondary military tasks such as manning road checkpoints and securing the perimeter, Eaton said.
One of the problems, Eaton said, was that the Iraqi troops were not told they would be given a relatively benign role, and assumed they were being hurled into the middle of a bloody fight, battling on the side of the Americans against Arabs. "The battalion thought it was going to be thrown into a firestorm in Fallujah," he said.
Complicating communications, he said, was that the battalion had 10 new U.S. advisers who rotated into their jobs April 1, just four days before the incident, replacing the advisers who had trained the unit for months.
The battalion, traveling by truck and escorted by troops from the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division, passed through a Shiite area in northwest Baghdad. They were fired on, and six members of the unit were wounded, one seriously, Eaton said. A crowd of Shiites gathered and "surged" at the convoy, he said. "They were stunned that they were taken under fire by their fellow population," he said.
The battalion was then sent back to Taji, where preparations were made to fly it to the Fallujah area. But opposition to the mission stiffened, Eaton said, "so we decided not to involve them in the Fallujah operation."
Accounts differ on whether the other Iraqi battalion based at Taji also indicated that it would decline to go to Fallujah. Eaton said it was not involved, because it was not yet deemed ready to fight.
But the other Army official said that a decision was made not to force the issue with that unit's commanders. "I don't think they pushed them to the brink where they said, 'Hell, no, we won't go,' " the official said.
The two senior officers also differed on what motivated the refusal.
The Iraqi rebuff was based on "pure fear," said the Army official. "They just got cold feet."
But Eaton, who visited the unit the day after the incident, disagreed. He noted that Iraqi troops have "fought very, very bravely" against Iran. He said that, in his view, the problem was caused by poor leadership and complicated by the fact that the unit was trained by U.S. advisers who emphasized that their job would be to defend Iraq against outside forces.
Eaton, who oversees the organization, training and equipping of the Iraqi army, the civil defense force, the police, security guards and border patrol, said the recalcitrant battalion's Iraqi leadership would be "reorganized."
He also said that training would be different for future battalions, and handled almost exclusively by Iraqi officers, a group of which recently finished re-training in Jordan. "They will train their own men," he said.
Eaton, who previously was chief of infantry training for the U.S. Army, said that solutions would be found to the setback.
"Is it disappointing? Obviously," he said. "We're just going to work our way through it."
