Why did we disband the Iraqui police force and army and send thousands of armed men into unemployment and plunge the country into lawless chaos,forcing armed but desperate men to band together for protection in warring gangs headed by goons and thugs and leaving the general populace at their mercy? By doing this our occupation has made sudden violent death, kidnapping,rape and armed theft a daily occurrence for the majority of Iraquis in urban areas.
A U.S. Marine wrote in to say that we are NOW in Iraq to protect Iraquis from this violence. And I can believe that he really sees it that way. But ,if we had not gone in in the first place and disbanded their police force and their army, wouldn't it be safe to say that the problem wouldn't be there for us to have to solve?
Isn't this another reason why we should never have ventured there in the first place? I would say so.
2007-09-08 15:29:21 · 7 answers · asked by josefina f 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm getting some thoughtful answers to this and it will be hard to award points! I hope more come in because i'm surprised at how many people have a good grasp of the situation.
2007-09-08 16:01:55 · update #1
Disbanding the police and military is just another example of Bush and his Administrations poor planning of this war.
The disbanding was done under the misguided belief that they could not be trusted to cooperate with US forces as they viewed them as "Saddam Loyalists". They apparently never realized that in order to have a semi decent quality of life and provide adequately for your family you HAD to be a "Saddam Loyalist".
There were no murderous insurgents before the invasion because the very definition of insurgent makes that scenario an impossibility with the type of control Saddam Hussein had over his country. We created the insurgents by disbanding the army and police causing thousands upon thousands of young men with nothing to do leaving them to fall to the anti-US militias who exploited their anger.
2007-09-08 15:43:08 · answer #1 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The majority of Iraqis want an independent and free Iraq. The minority of "warring gangs headed by goons and thugs" should not - and cannot be allowed to determine Iraqi's future.
They have always been there - acting either as Saddam's power to maintain his reign of terror or now, as the independent gangs of murderers you allude to in your question.
We have indeed made mistakes and perhaps our strategies have not always resulted in the desired effects - but, make no mistake, our intentions are noble and in the best long term interests of the Iraqi people.
These thugs are hell bent on an ideology of hatred and a fanatical religious domination - they more often indiscriminately slaughter their own defenseless citizens - rather than equate them with the term "insurgents," one would be more accurate to describe them as what they are - thugs and murderers. They have chosen their sides - they could have just as easily (as many have) joined up with the police and military forces that are allied with the government and the people who freely and courageously voted for their new leaders to help promote a stable and secure Iraq.
2007-09-08 15:51:18 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think Stephanie says it all pretty well and i agree with her.
There was law and order pre war and people did go in fear of their life and had to be in Saddam's army or in Saddam's police force. What choice did they have? To destroy the infrastructure of law is to put a country at the mercy of a dog eat dog type of chaos - the law of the jungle. WE(our elected politicians) did that to them. And now our boys are having to die to remedy the mess.
2007-09-08 16:47:52 · answer #3 · answered by Tebow 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because, evidently according to Rumsfeld, democracy is messy sometimes. It's perfectly natural in a democracy for people of different religions to start trying to kill each other en masse you see, at least according to Rumsfeld. But the surge is working you see, just like the insurgency was in its last throes some two + years ago when Cheney said that. But there's been so many "turning points" we don't know what's going on now. But we're sure the surge is working, you can believe these guys, they've been right so many times before.
2007-09-08 15:43:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The murders were so much neater and organized under Saddam.
Ask the people that were ruled under the former Soviet Union if they would rather be under a dictatorship?
2007-09-08 15:45:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
There aren't...they did not appear out of thin air...they were already there...only now they aren't in hiding and we have a better shot at destroying them...you cannot make someone into something they aren't...it was always there inside them...
2007-09-08 15:41:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I don't recall anybody doing a census report on murderous insurgents before our 'invasion'.
2007-09-08 15:36:05 · answer #7 · answered by Pancakes 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋