LAT: Maliki goes own way to fill top post, picks unknown to lead Baghdad forces; motives questioned

Iraqi leader goes own way to fill top post
He picks an unknown to lead forces in Baghdad, which raises questions about his motives.
By Louise Roug and Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writers
January 13, 2007

BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has filled the top military job in Baghdad with a virtually unknown officer chosen over the objections of U.S. and Iraqi military commanders, officials from both governments said.

Iraqi political figures said Friday that Maliki also had failed to consult the leaders of other political factions before announcing the appointment of Lt. Gen. Abud Qanbar.

The appointment is highly significant because it is Maliki's first public move after President Bush's announcement that he was sending more troops to Iraq. The prime mission of those troops is to reduce violence in Baghdad, much of which is blamed on sectarian fighters.

As the Iraqi commander for the capital, Qanbar would play a central role in that campaign, and any ties he might have to sectarian groups could undermine the new U.S. effort....

***

Maliki's decision to push through his own choice for one of the country's most sensitive military posts — and to reject another officer who was considered more qualified by the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey — has renewed questions about the prime minister's intentions....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-commander13jan13,0,2026180.story?coll=la-home-headlines

.....U.S. officials are skeptical of Qanbar not only because of the way he was named, but because they know little about him. Moreover, they have questioned the degree to which Maliki's government is reliant on sectarian figures, particularly Sadr. Maliki essentially is asking American officials to take Qanbar on trust at a time when they have little left.

Qanbar, a commander in the navy during Saddam Hussein's reign, has not worked with American military officials, who say they know little about him other than that he hails from Amarah, a city in Iraq's Shiite-dominated south, and that he was taken prisoner by American forces near Kuwait during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

U.S. commanders have said that officials in Maliki's government have intervened several times to block them from combating Sadr's Al Mahdi militia, which is accused of being behind much of the bloodshed in Baghdad. When U.S. forces did raid the militia's stronghold of Sadr City, a largely Shiite neighborhood of east Baghdad, Maliki's government publicly criticized them. On several occasions, Maliki ordered the release of suspected militiamen captured there, frustrating U.S. commanders.

The appointment of Qanbar comes as the U.S. military is debating whether to attack Sadr City. As the Iraqi commander, Qanbar could have advance knowledge of U.S. operations. He would command 18 brigades of Iraqi forces that are supposed to be deployed to work with the Americans.

Iraq is a sovereign nation and it's PM has every right to chose who he wants. The fact that American commanders are apparently afraid of this guy is one more sign of how far gone and intractable the situation is there.
To clarify, a Kurdish friend of ours predicted this situation (sectarian violence)when the invasion started and went further to state that while he himself certainly was no fan of Saddam, there was a reason that Saddam was as iron fisted and brutal as he was and that any future government would have to be nearly as bad to keep the country control.

edited for spelling

a Bush puppet? He won't last much longer.

I do not know why the GOP are so far off on the UN and sending forces places with the UN if they are ready to give so much control of our military to some big wig ex military in Iraq. Did we not fight those two military twice now? This is beyond any thing that makes like some reason . I think finally Bush may have slipped these earthly ways.

depends on Maliki. Nice start.

What Bush apparently doesn't understand is that Maliki has ties to Sadr. Even after the (Saddam) hanging fiasco, he fails to get that.

BTW, Iraq is NOT, in Bush's mind, a sovereign country. This is going to make that VERY clear.

Dirge! Merge! Purge! Scourge! Splurge! Spurge! Urge! we're on the Verge!

"stand up" then when they make a decision without the stamp of approval of the US, we whine that they are subversive.

Which, of course, is how we know with certainty that there is no way BushCo wants Iraq in control of Iraq.

I don't trust them. I just saw on the news the other day, somebody was talking about their family member, an American soldier, who was training Iraqi soldiers and the Iraqi soldiers killed him.

I have no words to describe my rage at this whole friggen mess.

the Iraqi Troops (in addition to the plan of the surge).

"Dear ____:

Great to hear from you; even considering the topic. YES, I agree with you completely. But forget surge; why are we still there, now, anyway, given the "civil war" situation. That was the one condition that was always drummed into us when I attended the Army's most senior leadership school (The Army War College); selection rate for this was something like 4.8% and toughest cut to make outside of General Officer .... anyway .... never get involved in a civil war was a recurrent theme while in training. You are right that Ft Irwin and the National Training Center is VERY important in deployment training. It is like the final exam and is how a unit determines it's readiness and what weaknesses it has; can't imagine skipping this critical step in the deployment process. One of the things that bothers me most about this surge idea is that these units are going to be "embedded" with the Iraqi's -- they are going to be "forted up" with them; go on patrol with them, be in direct support of them and essentially be under their Command and Control ... this certainly exposes them more and one would expect an increase in casualties. I don't have an answer on how we can get out. It will not come from the military as this would amount to mutiny and you really don't want the military deciding what is right for our country (Seven Days in May-wise). It must come from our civilian leadership. I see more and more republicans coming out against what we are doing every day and think that even the die hards will be pounding on the Presidents desk in the next 90 days when this surge thing goes south. You've been against this from the beginning and been a passionate vocal advocate of getting out quickly; I'd say about 3 more months and no one will be able to justify our continued presence there."

In summary on the "embedding" ("forting up") and going on patrol - that our troops are in more danger and to expect an increase in casualties.

Bush is going to burn in hell...he's basically sending our troops on a suicide mission. :grr: