Documents Show US Army Seized Wives As Tactic
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8652
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 21:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Documents Show US Army Seized Wives As Tactic
Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Subject: Documents Show US Army Seized Wives As Tactic
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 17:24
|
The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.
In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife." The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed. The U.S. military on Thursday freed five of what it said were 11 women among the 14,000 detainees currently held in the 2 1/2-year-old insurgency. All were accused of "aiding terrorists or planting explosives," but an Iraqi government commission found that evidence was lacking. Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects' houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in. Iraq's deputy justice minister, Busho Ibrahim Ali, dismissed such claims, saying hostage-holding was a tactic used under the ousted Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and "we are not Saddam." A U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said only Iraqis who pose an "imperative threat" are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities. But documents describing two 2004 episodes tell a different story as far as short-term detentions by local U.S. units. The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices. In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect's house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets. "During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer. He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway. "The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said. Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint. Of this case, command spokesman Johnson said he could not judge, months later, the factors that led to the woman's detention. The second episode, in June 2004, is found in sketchy detail in e-mail exchanges among six U.S. Army colonels, discussing an undisclosed number of female detainees held in northern Iraq by the Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division. The first message, from a military police colonel, advised staff officers of the U.S. northern command that the Iraqi police would not take control of the jailed women without charges being brought against them. In a second e-mail, a command staff officer asked an officer of the unit holding the women, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband — have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?" Two days later, the brigade's deputy commander advised the higher command, "As each day goes by, I get more input that these gals have some info and/or will result in getting the husband." He went on, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation." The command staff colonel wrote in reply, referring to a commanding general, "CG wants the husband." The released e-mails stop there, and the women's eventual status could not be immediately determined. Of this episode, Johnson said, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held." source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leveraging_wives_2;_ylt=Akd1ktcPpTjY0SL80wZ_0QFX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leve raging_wives_2;_ylt=Akd1ktcPpTjY0SL80wZ_0QFX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMT BiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl |
Replies:
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 18:34
|
EUFOR does the same thing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They've been
torturing the wives and children of war criminal fugitives since the
war ended - constantly raiding their homes, following them everywhere,
interrupting family gatherings, taking them in for the same interview
once or twice a month. They even shot and killed one wife a few weeks
ago.
------------- |
Posted By: Loknar
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 18:39
|
I dont understand...whats the problem?
The KGB once kid-naped the family members of terrorists, killed them, and sent the terrorists the body parts. As a result, kidnaped Soviet citizens were released (this happened in lebanon). I'm not saying thats right (in fact I"ll say itm it's pretty sick) but its a proven method to go after their familys. If we dont harm them I dont see the problem. In their minds we would harm their family and thats what counts. |
Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 19:45
|
If the wives have information about the insurgency, and it sounds like tehy do, then detaining them to get information is perfectly legit. However, if they are being tortured or anything of that nature, then it's completely unacceptable ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 20:35
|
It's obviously ilegitimate: they are being kidnapped for ransom - the
ransom being the surrender of their husbands. This would not happen (at
least so widely) would the occupation forces been subject to a legal
corps.
------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Loknar
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 20:41
|
Funny, the insurgency does the same thing.
You cant show weakness to the enemy. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 20:51
|
it is illegimite, holding peiople indirectly related as some kind of
ransom is not right and shows the USA is desperate. The war on 'terror'
is goin to be remembered as the time the USA ignored morality. No you shouldnt show weakness, but you can show the moral high ground. With the logic of fighting fire with fire, should the US also copy the tactic of using suicide bombers or beheading its captors on TV 
|
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 23:33
But aren't they supposed to be the bad guys? -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 05:41
WHAT?!?! What do you mean whats the problem? Seizing and interrogation the wives of the resitance fighters is so enormously wrong it makes my blood boil. How would you feel if someone invaded america and seized your wife? And America wonders why it can't secure the country! How can you be so removed from the world not to understand the enormity of that crime!
The sight of 10000 american marines running from 100 Iraqi's in Nasseriyah is weakness. Showing honour and mercy to your enemies is Strength! "A military operation involves deception. Even thought you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective." - Sun Tzu Showing weakness is advantageous, but it appears the US army does have to pretend to be incompetent and ineffective at all. |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 06:13
|
I consider that if the ones who claim they want to bring democracy to the oppresed, use the same methods like the terrorists, then they're no different than the terrorists themselves. The rest is just talk and poor excuses.... what makes democracy superior to totalitarian regimes is its moral superiority and guarantee of civil liberties, without it it's potentially more dangerous than it's enemies.
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 06:36
That's the most lame defense ever. ------------- |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 11:57
|
I think that's a simple and effective solution that should be used whenever possible. I'm kind of disappointed I didn't think of it. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 12:33
| Isn't it strange that only forumers with the American flag showing on their profiles are the ones who find this to be OK? Or maybe it's not really that strange.. |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 12:44
|
Oh yeah, I knew this topic would be a liberal love-fest as soon as I saw it! Everyone line up and take your pot-shot at America and don't forget to say that the American military is worse than the "resistance fighters" (terrorists)! /sarcasm Holding wives for ransom and not torturing them is a good deal more civilized than sawing innocents' heads off on TV in the name of Allah and blowing women and children up in cafes. And no, Leonidas, it won't lead to America adopting the terrorists' tactics, sorry to ruin your hopes! ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 13:21
| Well then I guess you shouldn't be surprised when you hear that anti-Americanism is on the rise everywhere. You harvest what you plant. |
Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 14:59
|
I cannot believe in "the solutions" of American army to cope with Iraqi guerilla forces. Kidnapping wives of suspected persons.
"its a proven method to go after their familys." No!!! How can you say something like this? This is disgusting. Where do you put these women and children? Under which conditions are they living? It is like a nightmare..... Are you comparing USA with Soviets and KGB? But you were representing the "free world". What happened? Iraqi war was a very big mistake for USA. You are not the judge of the world that will decide to "bringing democracy" to other countries. You destabilised the country by giving fake reports of weapons of mass distructions. Now the stiuation is out of control and you have started to defend Soviets-KGB tactics. I am really sad for Iraqi people who are deriving towards a bloody internal war which may kill millions during long long years. I am also sad for the American soldiers and their loved ones who are the victims of poor leadership and distorted facts to launch this unfair war. The only "winner" of this war will be arms and war industry. They made a lot of money. |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 15:44
|
I honestly can't figure out what Bush thinks when signing his cabinent. It seems everyone he has put in a office is going under investigation. Bill Clinton had one member under a serious investigation and that was the guy incharge of the Department of Agriculture. Here we have Rumsfeld, who has to sign off on this kind of stuff. And he is giving the ok for some war crimes. I don't agree with it, but I think the military is expiermenting and taking any new idea to use against an insurgency that has new leader and is splintered. Psychology is another option to use, and is the only one I can see that works with such a enemy. I don't agree with it, and I believe other options should be used, but I don't know how many they have tried, and it's usually the bad ones that are told. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 18:18
|
You created the bloody "terrorist freedom fighters" and wine how you
have to use dirty tactics towards them or they won't go away, boohoo.
If you can't fight fair as the leading democracy on the Globe, then
stay home the next time you plan attacking random countries. Leave the
blooy women alone atleast. ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 19:36
|
Don't tell us that, you have to tell Bush. But I doubt he'd listen, he could care less about how half of Americans feel. I found this site, http://www.sorryeverybody.com/ - http://www.sorryeverybody.com/ it's shows pictures of Americans who voted for Bush apologizing, and others just apologizing for our mess of a government. But you said Terrorist Freedom Fighter, I think they are two seperate groups, the Freedom Fighters who actually didn't want America there, and the terrorist who came into the country to fight for totally different reasons. So if we are taking wives of fighters, we may be just stealing wives of men who are fighting because they worry about their own future and in that case not really a bad person or atleast an lesser evil. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 19:38
i get where your coming from, just thought that it might as well be stated that they don't exactly "saw" off the heads, as that would be haram. It should just be a clean swipe, otherwise its the duty of every other muslim to declare a jihad on the killer (along those lines.....) |
Posted By: TeldeIndus
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 20:30
------------- We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 20:35
|
Byzantine Emperor wrote: "And no, Leonidas, it won't lead to America adopting the terrorists' tactics, sorry to ruin your hopes!" my point is you have already started adopting them. "Holding wives for ransom and not torturing them is a good deal more civilized than sawing innocents' heads off on TV in the name of Allah and blowing women and children up in cafes" So holding wives for ransom is civilised then? USA fights with less rules than smaller 'weaker' powers, what a shame you cant be a moral leader aswell as a military leader. As for "not torturing", well i think we have all seen pictures what your brave soldiers are capabale of. You will leave iraq with you tails between your legs and the smart americans are goin to try and forget it ever happened . The self rightious blind will always call it a victory but blame the politics of it all. |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 21:04
|
Talk about "boo-hooing" because holding wives for ransom is adopted as a tactic, it sure is a lot less violent and unfair as compared to what the "freedom fighters" are doing. If you think the terrorists are such good fighters, I would maintain that they are not. Their rag-tag banditry, suicide bombings, and random beheadings would probably make the great Muslim military men of history (Saladin, Mehmed II, etc.) condemn them and say that it is no wonder that the glory days of the Muslim world are long gone. Do you really think that the most powerful fighting force on the planet (that of America) would really be losing anything to the terrorists if all its actions weren't hamstrung by the leftist media, rogue lawyer groups (ACLU), and Democratic sob-sisters in Congress? I sure don't.
Well, when the rogue nations and Hitlerite leaders in the world start nuking and destroying the sophisticated European democracies, if there is anyone left, they will surely be whining and crying to America to beat the upstarts back into submission. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 21:07
Brilliant! I'd have stopped at "condemn them", but that's fine. You get the "Byzantine Allowance" for a jab or two.  But brilliant means of condemning terrorism. I'll be using that.  ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 22:20
|
Byzantine Emperor wrote: "Talk about "boo-hooing" because holding wives for ransom is adopted as a tactic, it sure is a lot less violent and unfair as compared to what the "freedom fighters" are doing. " Yeah right, there wouldnt be any freedom fighters if you werent there in the first place, you created the mess, it wasnt there waiting for you. "Do you really think that the most powerful fighting force on the planet (that of America) would really be losing anything to the terrorists if all its actions weren't hamstrung by the leftist media, rogue lawyer groups (ACLU), and Democratic sob-sisters in Congress? I sure don't" Dam that media! and real men dont cry..What your talking about, is using the unrestraint tactics the russians used in chechenia. Yes it would help you win the false war in iraq with such methods, but there wont be much left. You could win, by destroying the very country your suppose to be 'liberating'. Thankyou USA for world 'leadership' and global liberation!.  "Well, when the rogue nations and Hitlerite leaders in the world start nuking and destroying the sophisticated European democracies" former USA allies and regimes built up and supported by short sighted USA policies. Build them up when it suites you, and knock them down when they misbhave or get too strong. Good plan  , atleast someone is making a profit on the way up and on the way down." if there is anyone left, they will surely be whining and crying to America to beat the upstarts back into submission." here we can see a great attitude "beat the upstarts back into submission", trust me that line of thinking can lose a war How convenient for you to mix up the local forces who are fighting a rather effective guerrilla war with fundamentalist who dont give a sh*t about the local people. You point to the worst of them and say hey we are better than that. You then ignore why many local people, who had nothing to do with 9/11 or who were never a threat to the USA, are now fighting your forces. Look at how your ignoring or excusing what your forces have done and how they have behaved, in their country. Why are you over there agian? |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 22:36
|
Glossing over your CNNesque editorial (you should be Wolf Blitzer's co-anchor), I will proceed to the final line. I really am not sure why American troops are in Iraq anymore. Quite frankly, I think the focus should be on Afghanistan or wherever bin Laden is supposed to be. Although I do believe Saddam was an evil dictator and deserved to be overthrown, we should have concentrated on the perpetrators of 9/11 with military force. I was never bought and sold on the Iraq war and I do feel that it is going terribly. I do not stick up for Bush in this; however, I will stick up for the American troops. We are there, it is a mess, and I feel sorry for them and their families. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 00:12
The most Powerful fighting force on the planet? You mean China, no I suppose you can't they have no Congress. India then, they have a Congress Party, but no, pakistan is as strong as India. Do you mean russia? or Israel? Oh wait! you mean America. But they aren't strong at all. Firstly, they haven't won a war in 50 years. Secondly, They have only won one war against a equal opponent in 200 years. Should I list the strength of the US army? Unassited Victories: Japan Mexico Ignoring the miget countries. Defeats (often assisted): Vietnam Lebanon Somalia Korea (well Draw, but only to the brillance of Inchon) Canada (Lets not forget October 13 1814) Soon to be Iraq, and Afghanistan as well.
I'm sorry, you think CNN is left wing? You are so far out of touch with the world you may as well be living on mars.
"Afghanistan is where super powers go to die" - George Tenet (correct spelling?) If you can't beat Iraq, the Afghans will humilate you. Right now america has very few troops in Afghanistan and it is still taking more casulties per capita than in Iraq. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 01:46
|
Byzantine Emperor wrote: "Glossing over your CNNesque editorial (you should be Wolf Blitzer's co-anchor), I will proceed to the final line" You are giving your media way to much credit. The debate in your media generally follows your governments rational. The boundaries have never been extended to ‘are we right or wrong’ rather than ‘how long should we stay in " I really am not sure why American troops are in To find weapons of mass destruction, they didnt. To find a connection with Osama they didnt, but hell they sure opened it up for him . Theve destroyed the
security, infrastructure and standard of living, cant get out without replacing
what the destroyed.Yet many americans are complety suprised that most
Iraqi's dont want them there.  "I do not stick up for Bush in this; however, I will stick up for the American troops. We are there, it is a mess, and I feel sorry for them and their families." Yet you follow his logic, and his logic put your troops in harms way. When a |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 22:10
|
Well of course George Bush sent the troops to Iraq; I am not denying something as obvious as that. They didn't just pick up and go there out of their own volition. Apart from who sent them there, I will still stand up for the troops and my sympathy is with them, not the President and not the "warhawk" Republicans (I think these so-called Republicans are too much of pansies to be called warhawks). ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 02:19
| I think that the best way to support the troops is to bring them back to america and save their lives and the lives of the Iraqis |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 04:04
|
my point exactly |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 12:01
|
That's a terrible idea, it would just create another Afghanistan, and invite military adventurism by Iran. Even if you disagree with the war, I'd hope you'd be able to see that leaving Iraq broken and unfinished would be catastrophic. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 12:42
|
I tend to agree with that, but I'm utterly unconvinced that the US current administration is able to do so! There should be legal consequesnes to those who started this ridiculus war. And I mean both Bush and Blair, apart for Sadam Hussein.
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 13:55
|
dont understand...whats the problem?
The KGB once kid-naped the family members of terrorists, killed them, and sent the terrorists the body parts. As a result, kidnaped Soviet citizens were released (this happened in lebanon). I'm not saying thats right (in fact I"ll say itm it's pretty sick) but its a proven method to go after their familys. If we dont harm them I dont see the problem. In their minds we would harm their family and thats what counts. well most disgusting thing about this is that, most probably after 2 years, americans will make a film shows that an american woman kill 2352345324 terrorist by herself, and show world how big heroes she is. I wish easy war for USA army against house-wife, it is realy difficult job for might american armies, good luck. Disgusting asholes. cant take their man, but attack woman and childs. Errrr. sorry brave and good american soldiers. Democracy? human right? I think, no american accept this type of human rights and democracy in his country, but well np for iraqians. I hope none of you is enough stupid, USA army take this women, and only feed them.
Well, when the rogue nations and Hitlerite leaders in the world start nuking and destroying the sophisticated European democracies, if there is anyone left, they will surely be whining and crying to America to beat the upstarts back into submission. Rogue nation? you mean usa? by the way, your nation is only nation nuked.
|
Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 15:57
I agree that it's a whole lot better than public beheadings and suicide bombings! Besides, that's a tactic used in the U.S. as well. I have several criminal attorney colleagues who say in most drug related cases, the wives are taken into custody as well in order to get the accused husbands to fully cooperated in exchange for the wife's release. Even in some of those cases, the accused husband does not cooperate and the wives ultimately testify against the husbands in exchange for a lighter sentence. But, at least their "heads" are still attached to their bodies! ------------- "Morty Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 21:42
Yes, very good point. Obviously the other people in here do not understand this! ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 21:58
As catastrophic as an american occupation? I doubt it. The sooner america has a embarrising retreat the better.
I don't. And are we taking about the suidcide bombings, of which a predominate amount are fabricated or the ones that British SAS (no doubt CIA as well) plant to create divisions in Iraq (remember the incident when britian stormed the prision). And the beheadings, that apparently occur on american news more frequently than anywhere else? Please try not to get sucked in by Bushes propaganda machine |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 22:08
|
If this entire statement isn't a load of propaganda, what is? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Arabic news network al-Jazeera regularly airs the beheading videos and uses them as anti-American/anti-Western World propaganda? ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 22:23
|
That's a completely unreasonable argument which prevents anyone from refuting it with a reasonable response. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 22:42
Yes thats probably true. I consider that an american occupation to be worse than what would happen if america suddenly pulled out for the following reasons. America is a firepower heavy army. In order to reduce the number of american casulties they usually go into a situation with emoumous firepower, inflicting a huge amount of damage and death on the area on or around their target. If insurgents are shooting from a house, destroy the house etc. Also american weapons are Depleted Uranium. Which means they will leave radioactive waste behind every time they are used. Many areas of Iraq are already autonomous after having signed treatys with america (in the case of Moktadar I think) or not being important enough for america to have a garrison there. The areas where americans are, are already in complete chaos, I don't believe that a withdrawl of america troops could create more chaos. |
Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2006 at 02:03
|
Always the pragmatist, aren't we? ------------- AAAAAAAAAA "The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2006 at 05:09
|
well i think the USA is stuck in there with no real hard and fast exit strategy. Nor do i think its a good thing for them to leave right now, the mistake has been made and the responsibility of being the caretaker cant be thrown on anyone elses shoulders. If people support their troops then blame the people that started this thing and not the Iraqi's for doing what they think is right. I dont think the exit will be anymore a gracious event as the occupation itself. |