Me Thinks They Doth Protest … Not At All

Iraqtroops

Last Sunday, an incident took place at Camp Habbaniya in Iraq — the base where the U.S. is training new Iraqi soldiers — suggesting that ethnic and religious tensions may now be undermining the creation of a national fighting force.

During a graduation ceremony, a disturbance broke out involving hundreds of recruits after being informed of their service assignments. The soldiers, from Anbar province, claimed they had been promised posts near their home towns. When advised of the opposite, the men became irate, shouting and tearing off their uniforms.

Although the U.S. military claimed the incident was short-lived, Iraqi media was on hand, and images of the event were broadcast widely and frequently over Arab satellite television.

So, what became of the story, and the tell-tale pictures, here at home? On behalf of the textual media, the NYT ran an article — without visuals. By way of YahooNews, at least– we got the one photo above. Taken together, however, the caption and the picture might as well have been issued by the Vice President’s office. The copy read:

Iraqi Sunni soldiers attend a graduation ceremony near Baghdad April 30, 2006. New Iraqi soldiers have no problem going anywhere to fight insurgents, despite a rowdy near-mutiny by Iraqi Army recruits angry at being posted away from home, U.S. military advisers said on Monday.

No problem going anywhere to fight insurgents? So say the advisers?

Considering the “no problem” problem, this pic is quite the curiosity. As our one photo of the incident, are we to imagine the flare-up hardly took place? Or, is it that — without the “heat packing” insistence of the U.S. — these guys might not be in (one) camp at all?

(image: Akram Saleh/Pool/Reuters. April 30, 2006. Near Baghdad. Via YahooNews.)

« Prev

Michelle Malkin’s Super Secret Scrapbook

TV With The Sound Off

RomanticOtaku

The photo has an audacious Sergio Leone feel to it.
The gun in the foreground is the only way to keep order over the rest of the men in the picture.
Not necessarily a man armed with a gun, rather the gun itself is the law and the dominant force over the crowd of men.
Scary.
kevo

I saw the video clip of this on The Jon Stewart show which aired on the 2nd. It was very revealing and the comedic jokes that went with it were to say the least pretty punchy
Marysz

The posture of the soldiers sitting cross-legged on the ground looks more like a kids’ summer camp than a national army. I read somewhere that young Iraqi men join the army only because there are no other jobs. Their body language here shows it. Everyone looks like they would rather be somewhere else.
weisseharre

“give them spandex & tlc & twc”
http://areyoudressed.blogspot.com momly

Kevo, you beat me to it. How ironic (again) that the comedians in our midst get more information out to the public than the media whose job it is to do it.
http://www.jaxxattaxx.com/ black dog barking

Some of the Atlantic Wall defensive emplacements encountered by the Allies on D-Day were crewed by non-German conscripts overseen by a German sergeant. His side arm kept the site’s weaponry pointed in a direct aligned with Germany’s interests.
Gasho

I feel horrible for these poor guys. Marysz said it right about the body language – they don’t look like soldiers, they’re victims of circumstance.
As for the media – why can’t they wake the F*&% up?? 2 out of 3 people think the prez screwed up – but the media “watchdogs” are still tiptoeing around the issues and pampering the official line? It used to be that people got news from Comedy Central because they needed the news to be funny in order to bother watching — now it seems the only outlet for the truth is this “comedy news” because they aren’t afraid (yet) to tell the story under the guise of “making jokes”. Orwell couldn’t have written a scarier script.
Jon, Bill and Stephen should never ever be in the same room together – let alone fly on a plane together. You know, for fear of “an accident”.
itwasnt me

Crooks and Liars has the video up now.
http://ruinsofempire.blogspot.com/ Rafael

“Hell no We Won’t GO!”
Or words to that effect, where uttered during last night Harball with Chris Mathews when they showed the clip. Here is the shows commentary:
“TRAINOR: Chris, I have to laugh when I see this, because I‘m pretty sure soldiers and Marines looking at that said, Jesus, I wish I could have done that when the sergeant told me I was going to Miami Beach.
MATTHEWS: What do we make of their general officers, there, General, who were standing around befuddled—I don‘t know what the right word is. Gee whiz, this isn‘t working the way it‘s supposed to. These guys are supposed to be saluting and heading off to their next posting; instead they‘re saying, Hell no, we won‘t go, like they‘re somebody from the ‘60s here in the United States.
MCCAFFREY: This is not a good day to be an Iraqi general. That‘s for sure. The other thing is, apparently the fellow got up there and he said, Look, if you people don‘t want to follow your orders, the gate is as wide as a camel can exit, and so—
MATTHEWS: Two camels can go through—yes, the biblical thing.
MCCAFFREY: — all the camels said, Get me out of here.”
http://scorpio.typepad.com/eccentricity/ Scorpio

The U.S. military is so used to lying to recruits, for them it’s SOP. It would be nice if the Iraqi taught them to be honest. I have no doubt that any given Iraqi is more honest than any US Military recruiter.
ummabdulla

“I read somewhere that young Iraqi men join the army only because there are no other jobs.”
Like many of the U.S. military personnel (at least since the draft ended)…
ummabdulla

After watching the video and reading the NYT article, it seems to me that these guys probably only joined up because they were promised that they would be protecting their hometowns (from Americans, Shias and Kurds). It’s not just a matter of not getting the orders they prefer – although I’m curious to know where they were trying to send them.
By the way, I joined the U.S. Coast Guard 30 years ago, and our boot camp was at least nine weeks, if I remember correctly – and this was peacetime. Five weeks isn’t much training for Iraqis who are supposed to be taking over military duties in the mess that’s Iraq today. Obviously it wasn’t enough in this case.
readytoblowagasket

The Times article has this curious thing to say: “The linchpin of American success in Iraq — and eventual American withdrawal — is the performance of the Iraqi security forces, and whether they can mature into a skilled force loyal not to sectarian leaders but to a unified Iraqi government.”
Success in Iraq = performance of “security forces” loyal to the government. Interesting. So can someone please explain how this is *different* from when Saddam was in power?
kevo again

I’ve been thinking about this one since viewing it on TV. Our reaction is obviously going to reflect our interests. But if I was stuck in a country at war and was going to get tossed into the fray….what better way to get the goat of those that are pushing the buttons. It undermines the very structure of their ability to plan and go forth and no one is in danger of getting hurt. I think it was a brilliant reaction or if you need to protect your interests a brilliant “stunt”. And I’ll betcha consider the circumstance that these people are in it was also pretty in your face brave not a cowardly act.
hauksdottir

I think Riverbend (respected Iraqi blogger) says it best:
“As for news of the new Iraqi army, it isn’t going as smoothly as Bush and his crew portray. Today we watched footage of Iraqi soldiers in Anbar graduating. The whole ceremony was quite ordinary up until nearly the end- their commander announced they would be deployed to various areas and suddenly it was chaos. The soldiers began stripping their fatigues and throwing them around, verbally attacking their seniors and yelling and shoving. They were promised, when they signed up for the army in their areas, that they would be deployed inside of their own areas- which does make sense. There is news that they are currently on strike- refusing to be deployed outside of their own provinces.
One can’t help but wonder if the ‘area’ they were supposed to be deployed to was the north of Iraq? Especially with Iranian troops on the border… ”
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Given the unrelenting violence, it is understandable that these men would want to protect their home neighborhoods, and it would be a potent recruitment gambit: an appeal to honor as well as a decent paycheck. If America attacks Iran, the odds of Kurdistan exploding and war spilling over to Turkey (or Turkey and Iran spilling into Iraq) go stratospheric. There are Turkmen as well as Kurds up there. Do these men want to stand on the borders between enemies unrelated to them? Or stay in Anbar trying to dampen the violence?
A further, subtle point… these are Sunni. Perhaps they fear ethnic cleansing if they leave their neighborhoods undefended.
So, where WERE these men to be sent?
As for the image-at-hand, I read several things into it. It appears to be hot and muggy, otherwise, why are the men not standing at attention? If this is a ceremony, they should be proud and erect. Instead they are sitting like preschoolers being watched by aides and the teacher. (There are 2 levels of supervision… and the varying eye heights as well as directions faced led to that choice of word.)
I would also expect some ordered groupings… platoons or squads or whatever their military units are called. Boot camp isn’t to teach a person how to kill, but how to be part of a bonded unit and how that unit fits within a hierarchy. It takes time for a team to learn to work together and trust one another. I see no evidence here of teams.
Thirdly… we do not see the speaker. The men on the field are watching and listening to somebody hidden from our view. Preacher, general, or politician? Hidden authorities and secret motives… the power behind a facade of government… converging lines behind a gun.
Cactus

If this is an official military ceremony, why are they all sitting? Isn’t proper military procedure to be standing, perhaps at ease? When sitting/lounging, they are not battle ready. Of course, in the sitting position it would take them longer to attack the officers posting the assignments.
The camera angle is outward toward the apparently relaxed and in control troops. But in the foreground is the reminder of who is in charge with the guns.
hauksdottir already mentioned this, but there are layers of control or supervision (‘eye-heights’). The troops – sitting on the ground = below eye level = below the power elite. The supervisors, sitting again, but the next level up on the stage = above the troops but below the bosses = first line of defense against the troops. Then standing on stage, well above all the rest, is the real power. Whoever is talking represents that power and it’s backed up by that gun. Put together it indicates a distrust of the rank and file.