the forced disarming of Baghdad

A place to talk about all things military, paramilitary, tactical, strategic, and logistical.
User avatar
mekender
Posts: 13189
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:31 pm

the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by mekender »

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?sect ... source=rss
BAGHDAD — In the past, the soldiers with 1st Battalion, 68th Infantry would have had no problem finding an AK-47 assault rifle in Omar Abdul Satar’s home. Iraqis have a long history of owning guns, and few homes in the country are without one.

But the government is trying to change that. It recently decided to prohibit guns in the capital. That was bad news for Satar. When the U.S. soldiers and their Iraqi counterparts found his AK, they confiscated it and took it back to their base in Baghdad’s Adhamiyah district.

Iraqi soldiers began collecting private guns around the capital in September after the Iraqi government instituted the gun ban. More recently, American soldiers have been searching homes to round up firearms around the city as well. Only citizens with the proper permit can keep their weapons. Unlike in the United States, they usually must have a job that requires a gun to obtain a permit.

The law previously allowed all homes to have one gun — invariably an AK — and one ammunition magazine. Most Iraqis deemed their guns to be an essential item for living in an environment where safety can’t be taken for granted. Capt. Patrick Soule, commander of Company D, 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, recalled their ubiquitous presence before the ban.

"Just about every home I went into in Dora (a Baghdad neighborhood) had an AK," said Soule, whose company is attached to 1-68. "Most people just showed it to you."

Soule, who is now stationed in Adhamiyah, estimated that his company has confiscated about 60 AKs so far. They have not yet arrested anybody.

{Snipped by mods for Fair Use considerations}
I know that it is their country and all, but why the hell are we letting this happen?

We all know how it will end.
“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” - Norman Thomas, a six time candidate for president for the Socialist Party, 1944
User avatar
mekender
Posts: 13189
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:31 pm

Re: the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by mekender »

after more thought, i can no longer support ANY American troops being in Iraq... Our troops should not be used to enforce policies that are directly against the basic rights of our country no matter where in the world they are...

is this perhaps practice for the Obama presidency?
“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” - Norman Thomas, a six time candidate for president for the Socialist Party, 1944
User avatar
Dub_James
Posts: 3833
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:20 am

Re: the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by Dub_James »

mekender wrote:after more thought, i can no longer support ANY American troops being in Iraq... Our troops should not be used to enforce policies that are directly against the basic rights of our country no matter where in the world they are...

is this perhaps practice for the Obama presidency?
I don't like it either, but they're doing this to themselves. Hopefully we won't see the logical end result of this until after November.

I'm reckoning this will backfire on the Iraqis.
Oh, the heads that turn
Make my back burn
And those heads that turn
Make my back, make my back burn

-She Sells Sanctuary
The Cult
User avatar
g-man
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by g-man »

I hope I am never ordered to carry out one of these kinds of missions. Pretty gut-wrenching dilemma.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
User avatar
Aglifter
Posts: 8212
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:15 am

Re: the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by Aglifter »

In Iraq, I don't think this would be an option, but I would think, if ordered to do this in the US, you would have to resign... Er, can military officers resign rather than comply w. an order, they believe in unconstitutional?
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor

A gentleman unarmed is undressed.

Collects of 1903/08 Colt Pocket Auto
User avatar
JAG2955
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:21 pm

Re: the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by JAG2955 »

Well, I'm kind of disappointed that you won't support the current members in Iraq, or myself this January. I'd kind of like to finish what we've started. We're close, trust me.

It is sad that we might be asked to do such a mission, but it is their country. We are only there to help them get their nation on the right track. We'll move the ball five or ten yards, and get them started, then they can finish on their own.

I can draw a lot of parallels between this article and the US. From what I last heard (today, in fact), all Iraqi households are allowed to own one AK (with a go-happy switch), and two magazines per adult male. They're not allowed to own pistols, however. It's much like certain US states banning certain types of weapons. Besides, this only covers the capital, and other cities and provinces have more lax gun laws. I seem to remember that somewhat recently our own capital began to allow personally owned firearms again. There are many differences that make personal firearm ownership difficult in the Iraqi culture. Things like blood feuds, honor killings, and hell, just the way that Mohammed celebrates his soccer team's victory make life dangerous in Iraq.

It's a moral dilemma that each person should conquer within themselves. I, personally look at the strategic value in it, in hopes that it will lead to the re-birth of a nation in the Middle East that will one day mature enough to allow the personal ownership of firearms.

Ag, we can disobey any order that we believe is unconstitutional, as long as we're prepared to face the consequences.
User avatar
Steamforger
Posts: 2785
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:41 pm

Re: the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by Steamforger »

Aglifter wrote:In Iraq, I don't think this would be an option, but I would think, if ordered to do this in the US, you would have to resign... Er, can military officers resign rather than comply w. an order, they believe in unconstitutional?
Not only can members of the military decide to not carry out an unlawful order, they are expected to not carry it out. "I was just following orders" is one of the oldest crutches in the world, and it just doesn't hold water.

From USmilitaryabout.com
An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.
I know, not the best source, but a correct one in this case.
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by Jered »

Yeah, that pretty much sucks.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
User avatar
Aglifter
Posts: 8212
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:15 am

Re: the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by Aglifter »

I didn't mean to imply that I don't support the mission in Iraq, but that refusing to follow an order to disarm Baghdad would be difficult to defend on constitutional grounds... We are founded on the Rights of Man, which apply to all men, by virtue of being born, but...

I would both understand, and support a man who refused to disarm a foreign populace, because of such a belief, and I think he would be, morally, correct... but I suspect he'd end up in a military prison...
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor

A gentleman unarmed is undressed.

Collects of 1903/08 Colt Pocket Auto
User avatar
Steamforger
Posts: 2785
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:41 pm

Re: the forced disarming of Baghdad

Post by Steamforger »

No, No. I read your comment as it would apply to US troops disarming a civillian populace at home. They would be bound to either willfully disobey an unlawful order, or they would place themselves in an excellent position to be prosecuted for following that order when sanity returns.

No doubt some (I suspect most) are grappling with the issue in Iraq this very minute. But Iraq is Iraq...

Either way, it sucks mightily.
Post Reply