The Protection Business
The question is what happens after the fighting stops and the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police are unable to absorb all the CLCs into their ranks. U.S. authorities are aware of these concerns. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker says the CLC initiative "was never intended to be a stand-alone movement for an indefinite period." Crocker suggests that they should receive vocational and job training so that they can find civilian employment further down the road. "It makes no sense" to try to incorporate them into the Iraqi security forces, he says. Current plans indicate that those standing security forces will accommodate only about 20 percent of all the CLCs. That would leave more than 60,000 men, accustomed to having authority and receiving a paycheck, suddenly without jobs. The big question then will be whether they'll be willing to give up their weapons, too.
© 2008
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: rif2422 @ 07/08/2008 7:38:03 PM
Comment: ouch you really messed up on that whole "surge thing not working"..... You can apologize here or just email me... Thanks
George W. and General "Betray Us"
Posted By: rif2422 @ 07/08/2008 7:37:45 PM
Comment: ouch you really messed up on that whole "surge thing not working"..... You can apologize here or just email me... Thanks
George W. and General "Betray Us"
Posted By: Bill Washienko @ 05/02/2008 3:04:46 AM
Comment: Page 1 of 8
Before the war in Iraq started, and after my own research, I determined that we would not find 400 tons of anthrax or 400 tons of VX gas or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Nor would we find Al-Qaeda in Iraq of such a sufficient nexus to have considered them a threat to us. There was never any credible evidence put forth to support this military action. I could provide a laundry list of examples, but that is for another time, Suffice it to say, there was just as much evidence contravening any evidence supporting the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction as there was supposedly the truthful kind. Who in America had first-hand knowledge of whether Saddam had WMD? When people suggest that one needs to be in Iraq to fully know what is going on there, I always bring up the fact that no American was over there to find out if Saddam had WMD, except for Scott Ritter, who was a U.N. weapons inspector and went on untold inspections. He stated, prior to the war, that Saddam had no WMD. Did every American rely upon the words of the only American that had been over there to determine whether Saddam had WMD? The answer is a resounding: no. Why not?
Certainly, relying upon the information from the Iraqi National Congress and Chalabi was not the appropriate thing to do. I mean, according to what I have read, and in my opinion, if you relied upon the information from the Iraqi National Congress and Chalabi then you might as well have been relying upon evidence given to us by the Iranians. The same people who are providing IED???s to Iraqis that are killing our great soldiers in Iraq. Furthermore, did not the country of Jordan convict Chalabi, in abstentia, for embezzling money from the people and banks of Jordan? So, an American would rely upon the word of Chalabi and not the word of an American, who had first-hand knowledge regarding the potentiality of Saddam having WMD? There is a recent book about Chalabi on the bookshelves that should be read, particularly by those of you who supported the war in Iraq. It will shed some light on some things that I understood before the war was commenced. Read it. It is enlightening.