Militants Kill 15 Iraq National Guard Hostages

Probably more on Reuters.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=979184&tw=wn_wire_story

:eyes:

<snip>

"Let them be an example to all those who fight God and his Prophet and help the Christians," the group said in a statement, referring to the U.S. and other foreign forces in Iraq.

The Iraqi military said the Guards' convoy was ambushed last week on a western desert road in the latest insurgent attack on security forces in the run-up to Jan. 30 elections.

In October, the Army of Ansar al-Sunna claimed the killing of 11 abducted National Guards.

The bodies of Iraqi troops and police kidnapped by insurgents often wash up on river banks or are found dumped in streets and orchards.

My husband was in and around Al Diwaniyah from 2003-2004. Just a few days before they left, the local city (tribal) leader told my husband ,quite frankly, that they were the last group of military the city would tolerate. After they left, attacks would occur. And they did. Not 3 days after my husband left to return to the states, Al Diwaniyah was attacked repeatedly. The tribal leader told my husband they didn't expect to get another group willing to work with them and the time has come.

Spain took over and the tribal leader hated Spain. He felt the Spanish had abused their authority. (another story for another time)

Prior to that the attacks were minor and few and far between(mainly sniper). The local city (tribal) leader made sure of it. That was his job and had been his job before the Americans got there...to protect "his" city.

My husband told me they (his unit) never made a decision they didn't first talk over with this leader. Without his help, few things got done. So a cooperation was built if anything was to be accomplished.

My point is, I seriously doubt many such relationships are or were being built by all teams of military in Iraq. There was a police academy at Diwaniyah and the tribal leader helped pick those who would attend. Naturally, those trained would lend in the effort of protecting the city.

The troops that went in with a heavy hand and neglected the established chain of power within Iraqi cities, I would wager had the most problems. Mainly because they didn't treat the Iraqis with respect and they poo-poo'ed the traditions of the various tribes.

I think an already bad situation(illegal invasion) was made much worse by American policy and soldiers that didn't take the history and traditions of Iraq into consideration. We are seeing the fruits of American arrogance in more ways than one.

We know that particular tribal leader is still alive.(friends of ours over there now have spoken with him) I think he's alive not because he worked with the Americans...but rather...because he made the Americans worked with him. The tradition was respected. His place as the tribal leader was honored. The people saw this...

If that makes sense

Your comments are right on, all intelligent empires respect local autonomy.

Germany felt that the US military did not have enough training (if any) to understand Iraqi culture and Muslim traditions. The German govt. said that their own soldiers were trained to understand and respect the mores of the Iraqi people, but that since the US would be providing the bulk of the security in the country, Germany felt their soldiers' security would be jeopardized when West (the US) inevitably bumped heads with Middle East (Iraqis). So it refused to get involved.

The lack of troop training, even in the use of common sense, to respect the local national culture (which ever tribal culture that might be) would indicate that the Bush administration was never concerned about not offending it to begin with. They expected immediate capitulation, which was what "shock and awe" was supposed to do--make the people submissive to the almighty world power. The opposite happened, and Germany is now saying, "We told you so."

That your husband's unit chose to use common courtesy rather than offend the people they were there to free was probably met with impatience and a lot of eye-rolling by the likes of Rumsfeld.

Great try on your husband's unit's part, though. It must be frustrating to see good works be undermined by less sensitive unit commanders.

invaded Iraq in the first place.

Iraqis deserve Saddam.

than being aggressive"

His commander said as much before they left.

They had some problem soldiers, to be honest. Those people were dealt with and the local tribal leader was always involved. He couldn't determine the military punishment but he did get a say. I know a couple of soldiers that were banned from having direct contact with Iraqis in the city because of disrespectful attitudes and remarks. This was the tribal leaders call too. They weren't allowed to shop at local markets for one thing...that might not seem a big deal but it was..especially since local markets were the only place to buy needed items in some places.

The more egregious were brought up on charges and sent home pending the outcome of those charges. That's another story and one that's truly shameful. It was only 2 soldiers but 2 is 2 too many.

My husband's old unit has a new commander now and he does not think the same way. I'm told they are having a lot of problems now. The old unit is currently heading a TIF camp.

As you know I'm in Germany now and well out of that unit. I worry a great deal since a "new attitude" has taken hold of the unit.

Which is exactly what we're trying to force on the Iraqi people. The complexities of the Iraqi culture were never honestly evaluated before this invasion. The result is a war that will never be won and enemies that were not there before.

Bush's arrogance has come at the price of senseless destruction of human life. No matter how much they spin, they will never validate the blood that has been spilled, the lives lost and the families destroyed.

I'm glad to hear your husband was lucky enough to leave before things really went to hell.

life"

How True!

Ignorance and stupidity.