It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GI Killings Hurt Trust in Iraqi Troops

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

GI Killings Hurt Trust in Iraqi Troops


www.military.com

May 07, 2009
International Herald Tribune

When the gunfire broke out, Capt. Sean K. Keneally scrambled over to Master Sgt. Anthony Davis, who was lying flat on his back, and dragged him to a nearby building.

It was too late. Sergeant Davis, a member of a small team of American military advisers embedded with an Iraqi Army battalion in this remote town, was dead. Minutes later, Captain Keneally learned that a soldier in that battalion, with whom the advisers had lived and worked for months, had killed him.

The shock set in, and so did the new reality.

"The force that is provid
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Another potentially bad sing regarding the War in Iraq and its occupation that may lead to even darker days ahead for U.S. Troops stationed there and reconsideration of the Troop Withdrawal dates.

Though the cases are isolated, the U.S. Soldiers on the ground being embedded as Advisors with Iraqi Security Forces to help train Iraqi Security Forces and bolster their effectiveness and readiness for a planned U.S. Withdrawal and turnover are on occasion being murdered by the very same Iraqi Troops they are being tasked to train.

Some Ground Soldiers are being quoted as saying that one of the biggest threats to their own security and safety in Iraq now are the Iraqi Security Forces that ultimately have to protect the U.S. Troops during their withdrawal from the country in planned incremental stages.

Are we missing the boat on our Iraqi strategy because of cultural differences? Are we abandoning the security of the Iraqi people to hastily arrange sectarian elements into regional Security Forces that upon our withdrawal will just turn the country into a Civil War at the expense of the law abiding and peace leaning Iraqi citizens as factional elements suppressed by U.S. Politics and Firepower then go about the often bloody process of realizing a true political reality? Or have we acquired so much ill will through political mistakes and poor strategies that Iraqis will opt for the increasing chances to take pot shots and deliberate murder plots against fewer and fewer less protected Military personnel as our troops slowly leave the country?

What are your thoughts? What could be done to better protect our troops in such a difficult environment and bring as many of them back home safely in one piece and alive


www.military.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I found this story to be a great read on better understanding the developing situation in Iraq.

Managing a War Zone sure has it's ups and downs. I sure do hope we can figure out a way to get our troops home soon and safely.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I remember reading about the same thing happening a few months ago.

This does seem to be happening more then just once or twice.

The GIs must have heard about this, I wonder how it effects how they train the Iraqis.

We shouldn't have went there in the first place, but I really don't see a way of getting out.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by breakingdradles]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
I remember reading about the same thing happening a few months ago.

This does seem to be happening more then just once or twice.

The GIs must have heard about this, I wonder how it effects how they train the Iraqis.

We shouldn't have went there in the first place, but I really don't see a way of getting out.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by breakingdradles]


It sure is a lot easier to occupy a county like German or Japan where the nations and their people opted for an agressive war that they started. I imagine it's a lot easier to look at an occupation then in circumstances like that, than some country that didn't share your main language, culture or religion 10,000 miles away just coming in to get rid of your not so benevolant dictator who always got 97% of the vote in each reelection and hundreds of thousands are killed and maimed in the process and millions displaced. I can't imagine we would be too appreciative in a situation like that because someone stronger militarily just didn't like Bill Clinton or President Bush.

What a mess, they like to highlight in the media how happy the poor people are for anything we can give them over there, but lets face it, it was ten years of our economic sanctions against a nation with the 3rd richest oil reserves on the planet that made them so poor! That and bombing to rubble a fair percentage of their businesses and homes.

I can see how an political elite class of Iraqis would be happy to smile warmly and shake hands and nod because we are providing them an opportunity to power and wealth through it. I can see how a percentage can smile and nod and hold out their hands for a hand out of food, water, medicine, money, toys that they might not have any other source of because of the situation...but I can't see how the average guy in the street over there with his world turned upside down because of our invasion and how we have handled the occupation could have much but murder and revenge in his heart? I don't know, some people are the foregiving types but not everyone.

It was a real bad idea to go in there, and we really didn't seem to have a strategy for really running the place well or keeping it secure once we did, and I can't help but wonder if maybe since we really shouldn't have gone in there, if the bad plan is designed to keep creating reasons locally of why we can't really ever leave while sitting ontop of all that oil!

Thanks for the post.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
My son in law is a soldier serving as we speak in Iraq with a Stryker brigade. When things were a little calmer they actually have started and maintained friendships with the Iraqi`s they are training and spend so much time with.But know as they file in new guys for training they are very leary and running on adrenaline from the fear that something is going to happen,one of these guys may be the enemy



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleah
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
My son in law is a soldier serving as we speak in Iraq with a Stryker brigade. When things were a little calmer they actually have started and maintained friendships with the Iraqi`s they are training and spend so much time with.But know as they file in new guys for training they are very leary and running on adrenaline from the fear that something is going to happen,one of these guys may be the enemy



Wow! Your Son in Law sure has a lot of courage, you must be pretty proud of him? Our soldiers do a great job, and it's a shame the politicians don't spend more time talking to the guys on the ground. I live in Miami Beach and every now and then you will see a recently returned veteran out on the beach missing an arm or a hand and talking about their experiences over there. I don't think I have yet to meet one enduring those circumstances that hasn't said, I want to get back over there anyway I can as soon as I can, and I think we really ought to stay there until we can get the Iraqi people happy and stable and in charge. There biggest complaint always seems to be not enough troops, not enough force, that if they could just keep everything calm and everyone protected it would all work itself out. I think there may be some truth to that, during those years they barely had a 100,000 troops over there, when you add up all the law enforcement personnel on duty in Washington D.C. between the D.C. Metro Police, Park Service Police, F.B.I. and Secret Service is close to that same number just for once city of a couple hundred thousand.

Here is wishing your Son in Law a speedy and safe return! Thanks for the post.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Proving that there is a difference in Media Outlets in how stories are presented there are some pretty noticable differences in how Military.Com whose daily online news is geared primarily for military and their family members and how CNN present the story as they opine and editorialize it in the rendering:


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iraqi soldier fatally shot two American soldiers and wounded three others on Saturday, the U.S. military said.

The shooter was killed when U.S. soldiers returned fire, Maj. Derrick Cheng told CNN.

The incident took place at a combat outpost just south of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, where there has been a strong presence of anti-U.S. militants, and it underscored the dangers for U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces in that city.

A second gunman also fired on other U.S. soldiers at the outpost and fled, said Cheng, a spokesman for the U.S.-led Multi National Division-North.

Iraq's Interior Ministry said the gunman was a soldier in training who was standing close to U.S. soldiers when he aimed his firearm at them and began shooting.

There have been similar incidents of men in Iraqi security force uniforms in the Mosul area opening fire on U.S. troops. In February, insurgents dressed as Iraqi police officers killed a U.S. soldier and an interpreter in the city.

Asked whether there seems to be a rise in such attacks, Cheng replied, "We still view these as isolated incidents either by individuals posing as Iraqi Security Forces or members acting out on their own."

"These events do not represent the overall relationship or partnership U.S. forces have with our Iraqi counterparts."



CNN.Com



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
Ditto with me, it seems that no matter how badly hurt they are they always want to back to their unit and back into combat. The sad part is that for the majority of these soldiers, the only place they are going is back to civilian life and out of the army. It's very rare that someone without a limb is allowed to remain on active duty ... Gen. Fred Franks who commanded VII Corps in the 1991 War with Iraq is a notable exception (he lost his left leg during the invasion of Cambodia in 1970 serving with the 11th Cavalry Regt.).



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


Actually more and more are returning to duty. It is their option.

I knew a female who had her leg blown off and opted to stay in. Most get out voluntarily.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 


you'd think the military would do the math.

you invade a country, kill thousands of innocent people and insurgents.
you tell them its gonna be ok, your here for democracy.
then you put guns in their hands, give them military training and after the fray sit and scratch you're heads when they start killing you.

there's no irony like training your own enemy.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
Ditto with me, it seems that no matter how badly hurt they are they always want to back to their unit and back into combat. The sad part is that for the majority of these soldiers, the only place they are going is back to civilian life and out of the army. It's very rare that someone without a limb is allowed to remain on active duty ... Gen. Fred Franks who commanded VII Corps in the 1991 War with Iraq is a notable exception (he lost his left leg during the invasion of Cambodia in 1970 serving with the 11th Cavalry Regt.).


It sure is sad when they can't return to duty for one of those reasons. Prostetics have come a long way in the last 10 years. It might not be the best option in a combat unit to have someone the other troops in a squad might not feel fully comfortable about being able to maintain their interlocking field of fire, but there are plenty of jobs in the rear with the gear, and in PR that someone could perform missing a limb. I think a lot of time the decision is made based on some politics and the skills you might have acquired through West Pointe or the Naval Academy or some Specialty School up in the Great Lakes and things like that. Of course if your Dad went to West Pointe and your Grand Father was a U.S. Senator...and you can combine that with a mind for tactics or logistics or both, they are going to want to make an accomodation no doubt. If you made Full Bird Collonel or even light before an injury they are going to likely want you to stay. Sometimes those are the guys they love to put in charge of recruiting in some big city, and if all of a sudden something like the first Gulf War pops up, they have you back out there in some kind of saddle whether you want to or not. That's Familly for you, whether it's Uncle Phil or Uncle Sam once your in the Familly there is just no telling what surprise or shock awaits you at Thanksgiving or some unexpected knock on the door some quiet Sunday Afternoon.

Hey thanks for sharing that story. I am going to Google him. I love Military History...Charlie Mike friend!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


Actually more and more are returning to duty. It is their option.

I knew a female who had her leg blown off and opted to stay in. Most get out voluntarily.


I think they should all be allowed in some capacity to serve if they want to stay in. Their Country and their buddys and their sacrifice has a lot of meaning to them in 99 out of 100 cases and finding a way to keep them active in that engagement with and employment to the system in my humble oppinion would have to serve about making them feel a lot better about their loss and sacrifice and that they haven't lost their identity or usefulness along the way. No one should ever be discarded in life if there is a way around it. I would rather have my tax dollars going to pay some brave man or woman rearanging colored paper clips if that's all they were any longer capable of doing if they wanted to do it, to stay in uniform or in theatre and uniform than paying for all these rediculous Bailouts. Isn't it funny how we tend to short change the people who do and give the most, and most honestly and reward the people who do the least and give the least dishonestly?

Thanks for sharing.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by spearhead
 



you'd think the military would do the math.


I just hope its incompetency and not calculated to create a pretext for continual and endless occupation.




you invade a country, kill thousands of innocent people and insurgents.
you tell them its gonna be ok, your here for democracy.
then you put guns in their hands, give them military training and after the fray sit and scratch you're heads when they start killing you.



I tell you I have had a girlfriend or two over the years try taking a shot at me for one whole heck of a lot less than what you just described!




there's no irony like training your own enemy.


Maybe they will wise up and start having the guys who can’t shoot straight do the training of them. “Yamir my cousin I am so sorry I swear I meant to hit the American!”



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
mmmm that is indeed bad.

with all respect to the soldiers I don't hope the whole army will one day turn against them with that new Islamic leader.

because it would be kind of ironic.

invade a country, train their men to be soldiers and get kicked out of the country by their new army.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey Magic
mmmm that is indeed bad.

with all respect to the soldiers I don't hope the whole army will one day turn against them with that new Islamic leader.

because it would be kind of ironic.

invade a country, train their men to be soldiers and get kicked out of the country by their new army.


It sure is not good!

Politics makes for some pretty strange bedfellows. There really is no telling if the main Iraqi leaders in power right now have the true support of the Iraqi people, or just the true support of the U.S. Government. I guess time will tell when and I guess if we can every withdraw?

I do wonder whether we would let them kick us out or whether we would just send the Airforce and the Tanks back in?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
i'm sure history is repeating itself.
what happened when the CIA put saddam into power.
"oh yes, my american friends, i will be the leader of the arab world."

years later.
"die you kurdish barstads, die! and shut up america this is no business of yours."
then desert strike #1
and
desert strike #2

let's play again.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
i'm sure history is repeating itself.
what happened when the CIA put saddam into power.
"oh yes, my american friends, i will be the leader of the arab world."

years later.
"die you kurdish barstads, die! and shut up america this is no business of yours."
then desert strike #1
and
desert strike #2

let's play again.


We should start a new little city in Southern California for people like the Ex President of South Vietnam, the Ex President of Cuba, the Ex President of Panama, the Ex Shah of Iran, the Ex President of Iraq, the Ex President of Georgia...oh he still has his job...the Ex Chancelour of Germany, the Ex Dictator if Italy, the Ex President of Pakistan, the Ex President of Haiti.

Wow could you imagine all the egos working in that 7-11!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


funny, they all started working for the CIA. once they got the job, they started whistling a different tune.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
these people don't work with america, they work for america.

in this case, once the oppurtunity arises in the fog of battle the iraqi's will pop off a few GI's and hope to get away with it.
if they do, victory for the insurgents.

[edit on 8/5/09 by spearhead]



new topics




 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join