Hey, haven't we been told the Iraqis aren't ready to provide "security"
in Iraq? Yet we're going to turn the hottest town in Iraq over to an
Iraqi unit? Furthermore, we no longer expect to find the killers of the
four contractors in Fallujah. After several weeks, we finally
acknowledge that the "perpetrators" may have slipped out of Fallujah, so
we've essentially dropped our demand that they be turned over:
"Senior American officers said their goal was still to eliminate the
insurgents in Falluja, collect all their heavy weapons and track down
the killers of four American private security contractors.
But they acknowledged that those guerrillas and other militants might
have already slipped through the cordon the marines threw around the
city earlier this month. 'We will get the murderers of the contractors
and we will find them,' General Abizaid said on Friday, 'but we may not
necessarily find them in Falluja.'"
If turning things over to Iraqis works in Fallujah, why wouldn't it work
everywhere else in Iraq? What is the real purpose of having US troops
there at all? The truth is, the Iraqis aren't ready to provide
"security" for Americans and collaborators. They're perfectly capable
of providing security to a city united in its opposition to the US
occupation, but not capable of cooperating with Neo-con dreams of
Fortress Iraq as the lynchpin of US empire in the Middle East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/international/middleeast/01MILI.html?pagewanted=2&ei=1&en=5c2074f48db22c86&ex=1084375042
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/international/middleeast/01MILI.html?pagewanted=2&ei=1&en=5c2074f48db22c86&ex=1084375042>
--
Bill Rood
.
|
