Those silly Iraqi militias

OK, so we killed a bunch of their comrades. Big deal, right?

Ya gotta break a few eggs if you want to make an omelet, right?

Is that any reason for those militias that we recruited to fight al Qaeda in Iraq to now call us assassins and walk out of the Grand and Glorious Coalition to Bring Peace to Iraq?

HILLA, Iraq (AFP) — More than 100 members of an anti-Qaeda front in central Iraq on Saturday handed their resignations to their US military employers, accusing them of killing 19 of their group, their leader told AFP.

The walk-out occurred in Juruf Sakher village near the city of Hilla, 120 kilometres (75 miles) south of Baghdad, said Sabah al-Janabi, leader of the anti-Qaeda Awakening group in the area.

"The group, which comprises 110 members, resigned in protest at organised assassinations by the coalition forces," said Janabi.

Jeez, guys! It was only 19. Nothing personal. Shit happens in war, ya know.

Oh wait ... apparently it's not an isolated incident.

On Monday, about 3,500 demonstrators, mainly Awakening members, marched through the streets of Baquba north of Baghdad to demand the sacking of the police chief whom they claim was behind kidnappings in the city.

Abu Haider al-Katib, a spokesman for the 1920s Revolution Brigades, the largest of the Awakening components, told AFP that if their demands were not met, they would "take up arms" against the police "and US troops if they support the police."

Awakening -- those are the guys on our side, right?

Doesn't sound like they're on our side anymore.

Well, McCain's right about one thing -- it'll take 100 years before anyone in Iraq has anything to do with us again.

•  Tip jar

  by quaoar on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:56:06 PM PDT

•  I don't think it will be 100 years.

  After our next Democratic President withdrawls our troops from there, there will be plenty of requests for us to leave them some of our weaponry, so they can continue their civil war.  

  by Randall Sherman on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:01:18 PM PDT

  •  Would there have been a civil war

    If we had never invaded?  Sooner or later Saddam Hussein's dictatorship would have ended, and civil war may have broken out then, as it did in Yugoslavia when Tito died and the lid he and the Communist Party kept on that boiling pot was removed.  But we'll never know what would have happened had we allowed events to take their course.

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:10:40 PM PDT

    •  Sooner or later it would have come.

      Iraq is an artificial creation.  As was the case with Yugoslavia, Iraq could be united or democratic, but not both.  Once freed from Saddam (and absent as replacement tyrant), the long-standing blood feuds between the different regions and sects in that country would quickly boil over.

      It is unfortunate that the morons in the Bush Administration, from the Chump in Chief on down, either couldn't figure this out or worse, didn't care.

      by Randall Sherman on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:21:19 PM PDT

      •  The self-proclaimed genius of the neocons

        With their impressive list of doctorate degrees from the most prestigious schools, but you and I knew more about the history and the culture of the Middle East than they did, and, speaking for myself, I certainly was no expert.

        by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:32:33 PM PDT

      •  They knew exactly what would happen, and

        they WANTED it to happen. All this other talk is a dog and pony show to lie to the world.

        Continued strife justifies the placement of a substantial permanent force in the area to control the oil and gas.

        The military industrial complex in this country will whither away and die if there is peace. The people in charge of our government have pledged to support war, where ever they can make it.

        by shpilk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM PDT

•  the guys on our side

  If you train an Iraqi army, or militia, or whoever, to defend Iraq . . . you can expect that one day they will turn what they learned on the invaders.

  Oops . . .

  by Deward Hastings on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:02:05 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like that day

    Has just about arrived.

    by quaoar on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:03:27 PM PDT

    •  Our Understanding Of History

      in the US is short. Not so much in Iraq.

      by webranding on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:05:49 PM PDT

•  At some point

  At some point they are going to have to work all this out.  We can't have American soldiers over there for the next 5 yrs in this mess.  We have to let them know we have done our part, at the cost of thousands of lives, billions of American dollars.  We are outta here by the end of next year.

  by Denpat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:11:04 PM PDT

  •  Five Years, Five Years We Are Talking

    hundreds of years. On 2/19 I'll head over for my grandfathers 92nd birthday. People in Iraq are that old. They can recall and have been taught of the British slicing up their nation and installing their "government."

    And before that issues, huge issues, have never been addressed. Hundreds of years. Either you have Saddam and his tactics, you have us, or you let them figure it out.

    This sounds heartless, and I am anything but, however it is just the facts as I see them.

    by webranding on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:17:19 PM PDT

    •  no, it's quite true

      These are tribal people, who pledge allegiance and honor upon things we cannot understand. Trying to enforce some voluntary system of democracy rarely works.

      One exception: Japan. But that society was highly uniform and regimented. Once the decision was made from the top, the people followed.

      Very few countries live in such uniformity or regimentation.

      Look at Kenya, for example. Here's another example of a society that has strong roots to tribalism and group identity. It takes a little push to bring out these battles.

      Lest anyone think I'm bigoted in black or brown people having these types of problems, let me remind all of you of "the troubles" in Northern Ireland, within an existing democracy.

      Democracy simply cannot be forced upon people.

      Iranians are much better suited to democracy than Iraqis; if I were to choose [not to make war, but to offer up democracy as a societal plan] between countries, I'd bet on Iran adopting democracy long before Iraq.

      We are fooling ourselves thinking Iraq will ever have a successful State not based upon a dictatorship: it's the only thing that held it together. The stooges that play pretend democracy are just legalized dictators, in a non-State entity.

      by shpilk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:30:22 PM PDT

      •  We nuked Jupan...

        in two major cities.  They capitulated, said they would never have a military that did anything in the world, except protect its own shores.  Shorn of its worldy obligations, Japan focused on its economy, and with our taxdollar help, wow, their economy prospered, even while we were envying them.  

        Now, Bush since 9/11 calls upon Japan to take a stance in the world again, and use their money to militarize...

        What the hell are we doing, and what the hell are we supporting...

        by LtdEdishn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:50:36 PM PDT

        •  As awful as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, the

          fire bombing of Tokyo was much more destructive and killed more people. So were the combined firebombings of Dresden, Munich and Berlin.

          Both countries had populations that were for the most part uniform and followed authority. Iraq is not anything like this - this is my point, that the Iraqi people are not ready for democracy, by a long shot.

          by shpilk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:23:11 PM PDT

•  As they stand up [to us], we'll stand still (n/t)

  by Trix on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:19:16 PM PDT

•  This has something to do with a hole, a shovel

  and a lot of digging. Trouble is, few in Washington has figured out that the shovel is magical, it replicates itself, and digs holes that can't even been seen.

  We have taken potentially neutral elements who would have left well enough alone, and have enraged them.

  Great work, General Petraeus.

  Surge, baby .. surge.

  by shpilk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:20:54 PM PDT

•  One thing is certain...

  when the USA invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, we removed the "power".  We bombed, we invaded, we entered homes, we made sure people voted (with purple fingers upheld) for an Iraqi legislature that was totally ineffective.    An Iraqi legislature that somehow came to power with Bush persuasion, but was so f*ucked up they couldn't do anything.

  We didn't do anything to protect even the limited infrastructure that we had been ensuring wouldn't be protected even since the time of the first Gulf War during Bush 41.  The Clinton administration ensured that Iraq would be weak.

  The Bush #41 administration took the first step; Clinton took the second, and Bush #43 took the third, and each step essentially said fy to Iraq, and fy to foreign policy, and fy to the American public, and to Iraq entirely.

  The quagmire began long ago, and with each step became deeper.  For most Americans, we don't even know most of our oil does not come from Kuwait or Iraq; yet we willing send our patriots there to die, and we spend our treasury into debt fighting for oil we don't really use.  Way to fluck up hey...

  by LtdEdishn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:23:35 PM PDT

  •  Violation of the Geneva Conventions

    Clear and outstanding violation of the GC which requires the 'occupying force' to provide for the welfare of the citizenry under subjugation.

    Bush and Cheney knew this would happen, and they have counted upon it happening. A strong Iraqi central government would kick our ass to the curb and tell us go screw ourselves as fas as getting oil and gas assets go.

    That's not part of the Cheney Energy Task Force Plan.

    by shpilk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:36:02 PM PDT

    •  Which totally ignores...

      my point...this began with Bush #41, was strung along by Clinton, and then Bush #43.  Hillary Clinton, the "Senator" supported this "war".  How does that play into the Cheney Energy Task Force that was "secret", unless you play into the Hillary Clinton health care task force that was "secret".  

      Bush #41, Clinton #42, Bush #43, and Hillary all knew and played upon us.  We invaded Iraq, and it was the plan all along.  Who cared about the Geneva Conventions?  

      by LtdEdishn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:41:44 PM PDT

      •  No, not quite

        Clinton voted for the authorization to use military force. It was not a declaration of war.

        The Executive is totally responsible for failing to use that authorization as a wedge to find a peaceful outcome.

        'This began' is your particular interpretation, which I do not agree with 100%, sorry.  

        And the violations of the GC stand quite well on their own, this was the aftermath. The failure of our government to provide civil administration in the subjugated lands is a failure to uphold the GC. It's wholly upon the current administration's Executive Branch.

        by shpilk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:15:44 PM PDT

•  There it is...

  it'll take 100 years before anyone in Iraq has anything to do with us again.

  And who can blame them?

  Iraq Moratorium

  by One Pissed Off Liberal on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:24:27 PM PDT

  •  No one

    by quaoar on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:29:31 PM PDT

•  "organised assassinations" by coalition forces?

  I just read the article.  This quote catches my attention as much as the part about them quitting.  What's this all about?

  Did I miss a story about this?  This seems like a big deal to me.

  by shock on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:32:24 PM PDT

•  The Tar Baby

  has come to own us.

  by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:36:14 PM PDT

•  The Surge is Working

  The Surge is working The Surge is working The Surge is working The Surge is working The Surge is working The Surge is working  The Surge is working  The Surge is working   The Surge is working   The Surge is working  The Surge is working   The Surge is working   The Surge is working   The Surge is working

  Anybuddy who says it ain't is a Amerika Hater!!!

  by Tony McArthur on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:16:26 PM PDT

•  $100 barrel oil IS mission accomplished

  The whole idea behind creating chaos was an excuse for increased oil prices. "See we aren't gouging and raping the economy there is unrest in the region". Americans are just so dumb they think we went there to steal the oil and lower the prices. Oh and our friends are robbing the treasury too!

  by barbybuddy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:01:01 PM PDT

•  oh those fickle fickle iraqis...

  how do they expect to get a wal-mart?

  by rasbobbo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:13:21 PM PDT

•  Not surprised...

  ...but you have one thing quite wrong:  These guys aren't on "our" side.

  ...at least, judging by the people "we" seem to want to ally with.

  We ally with a monarchial dictator who fomented most of the hijackers who killed 3,000 of his people six and a half years ago; and then we ally with a aux-democratic dictator who allowed terrorists to assassinate his chief political rival just a few weeks before election day.  And Osama bin Laden, the guy who was the mastermind behind the attacks involving citizens of the first leader's country, now hangs out with near impunity in the second leader's country.  Thanks to "our" actions and alliances, he will never be caught, and never be brought before a court of law for his actions and alliances.

  And I'm sure that was deliberate on the part of the party that represents "us".

  by IlGreven on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:38:26 PM PDT