With Troop Rise, Iraqi Detainees Soar in Number

Have to post whole thing, it is a member-only article.

With Troop Rise, Iraqi Detainees Soar in Number


During a series of helicopter raids in July south of Baghdad, American forces seized people suspected of being insurgents.

By THOM SHANKER
Published: August 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The number of detainees held by the American-led military forces in Iraq has swelled by 50 percent under the troop increase ordered by President Bush, with the inmate population growing to 24,500 today from 16,000 in February, according to American military officers in Iraq.

The detainee increase comes, they said, because American forces are operating in areas where they had not been present for some time, and because more units are able to maintain a round-the-clock presence in some areas. They also said more Iraqis were cooperating with military forces.

Nearly 85 percent of the detainees in custody are Sunni Arabs, the minority faction in Iraq that ruled the country under the government of Saddam Hussein; the other detainees are Shiites, the officers say.

Military officers said that of the Sunni detainees, about 1,800 claim allegiance to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign-led. About 6,000 more identify themselves as takfiris, or Muslims who believe some other Muslims are not true believers. Such believers view Shiite Muslims as heretics.

Those statistics would seem to indicate that the main inspiration of the hard-core Sunni insurgency is no longer a desire to restore the old order — a movement that drew from former Baath Party members and security officials who had served under Mr. Hussein — and has become religious and ideological.

But the officers say an equally large number of Iraqi detainees say money is a significant reason they planted roadside bombs or shot at Iraqi and American-led forces.

“Interestingly, we’ve found that the vast majority are not inspired by jihad or hate for the coalition or Iraqi government — the vast majority are inspired by money,” said Capt. John Fleming of the Navy, a spokesman for the multinational forces’ detainee operations. The men are paid by insurgent leaders. “The primary motivator is economic — they’re angry men because they don’t have jobs,” he said. “The detainee population is overwhelmingly illiterate and unemployed. Extremists have been very successful at spreading their ideology to economically strapped Iraqis with little to no formal education.”

But the detention system itself often serves as a breeding ground for the insurgency and a training opportunity for those who, after they are released, may attack Iraqi or American-led forces, military officers say.

According to statistics supplied by the headquarters of Task Force 134, the American military unit in charge of detention operations in Iraq, there are about 280 detainees from countries other than Iraq. Of those, 55 are identified as Egyptian, 53 as Syrian, 37 as Saudi, 28 as Jordanian and 24 as Sudanese.

Some foreign fighters are difficult to identify with certainty, the officers said, because they tried to conceal their identities with forged documents and aliases.

About 800 juveniles are held in the American internment facilities. The officers said insurgent groups had used them to plant roadside bombs and to serve as lookouts, assuming that American and Iraqi forces and their allies would not see them as suspicious. Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, returned this week from a seven-day visit to Iraq that included tours of the detention facilities, and he said Friday that a six-room schoolhouse is operating for the education of the juveniles.

For the adults in detention, he said, the goal was to separate “the worst of the worst” from the other detainees, so hard-core insurgents and suspects have less chance to influence other detainees. A current goal is to set up a brick factory and a textile mill where adult detainees would work, he said.

Over all, the average length of detention is about a year, the officers said. So far this year, 3,334 detainees have been released, they said. Military officers in Iraq said the growing detainee population had not strained the internment system, nor had it hindered combat operations.

In preparation for the troop increase ordered by President Bush in January, plans were made to increase the number of detention officers and to build extra space for detainees. The task force is expanding the internment facilities at Camp Bucca, in southern Iraq, and Camp Cropper, near Baghdad, with the help of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The most notorious of the detention centers, at Abu Ghraib prison, is no longer used by American-led forces to hold captured insurgents. Images of American jailers abusing their detainees at Abu Ghraib stained the reputation of American fighting forces in Iraq.

Few reliable numbers exist for those detained by the Iraqi government, according to John Sifton, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, an advocacy organization. The American military in Iraq will not provide numbers for detainees held by the government of Iraq.

“The allegations of abuse are far worse for Iraqi facilities than for those detainees in U.S. custody,” he said. “It is difficult to know the Iraqi detainee population. There are both official and unofficial Iraqi detention systems.”

Over all, he said, human rights organizations “have concerns about a 50 percent increase in detainees because it is 50 percent more people at risk of having been arbitrarily detained or, worse, of being handed over to Iraqi officers who might subject them to torture.”

Yeah, we are the good guys.
Time to go.

[yesman065]

So what are you saying rk - we shouldn't detain those that try to kill us? Aside from the idea of just packing up and leaving - which no one believes is a good idea, whats your plan?

My plan is to leave the nation that we are occupying illegally, to stop imprisoning people we have no right to imprison. We have no right to go into their homes, search their cars, detain them.
We?
Over there, there is no "we".
If a nation occupied the US I would kill them, all of them, every change I got until they left.
It would be legal and right.
What we have done and continue to do is wrong, every day it is wrong and every day we continue to do it it becomes more wrong.
We are JUST invaders and occupiers.

[yesman065]

And what of the hundreds of thosusands, if not millions that will be killed and/or tortured because we left?

As opposed to the hundreds of thousands we have murdered so far?
They have a government, we need to focus all of our energy on getting their police force up and running and not getting involved with their politics, that is not our problem.
Get them trained, then leave... that is all.
That we don't like their government is meaningless.

[yesman065]

We haven't "murdered" hundreds of thousands. I agree our energy needs to be focused on getting their Gov't up and running, but that will not happen within the current environment that exists. Whether we stay long enough to do it at all is another question.

[minnmirman]

I dont know how much you know about Iraq's own army and police force right now, but leaving and pumping money into them would just cause a fight between the two. They definitely hate each other like you wouldnt believe. The corruption present in the current day government and connected agencies in Iraq would prevent the country from becoming functional and independent were we to leave now.

Its widely accepted that we were wrong to ever invade the country (personal politics aside), but pulling out now would leave the region in a deeper quagmire than it's in now.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

And what of the hundreds of thosusands, if not millions that will be killed and/or tortured because we left?

If you really meant that, then you would be complaining of the few hundred Iraqis already fleeing their country because they helped Americans even many years ago. America refuses to let all but a few hundred immigrants flee to America. With well publicized embarrassment, that number increased to a paltry 7000 annually. Meanwhile the numbers that already must flee Iraq because they helped Americans - tens of thousands annually (including their families).

Why so much silence from yesman065? Even in 8 months, America accepted 113,000 Vietnamese boat people. But Iraqis are not worth protecting? They should go home?

Numbers that will only increase as Iraqi breaks down into more insurgencies - an inevitable fact based upon a strategic objective that is being lost every month. But this is good. Since America refuses to help former friends, then we should stay to only make others fear for their lives?

Long before using Iraqis as example, yesman065 should first explain why America does nothing even for the 2 million destitute refugees we already created? Why a double standard? The argument does not hold water when those who worry about in-country Iraqis also completely ignore the 2 million in worse condition.

Meanwhile, the Iraq Study Group that actually learned this stuff arrived at a conclusion completely different from yesman065's.

[piercehawkeye45]

Defeat Al Qaeda and set up a secure government (that probably means dictatorship) then get out is my best hope.

[tw]

Originally Posted by minnmirman

Its widely accepted that we were wrong to ever invade the country (personal politics aside), but pulling out now would leave the region in a deeper quagmire than it's in now.

Read how the Iraq Study Group defined a withdrawal. They studied this problem long ago and arrived at what was and still is our only viable option. Your assumption is that withdrawal is a cut and run out this month. Even that is not possible because America installed itself with intent to stay. Even a withdrawal means over a year. Only alternative is to stay for over a decade. You advocate we stay and keep making enemies for 10 years? That was the Vietnam mentality.

Painfully obvious problem with your reasoning: conclusion violates fundamental military principles AND therefore means a long, protracted, and painful defeat. Welcome to the same reasoning that justified Vietnam. Even American massacres then resulted. Also happened because war was fought by violating fundamental military principles. Yes there are only lose-lose options because a strategic objective is not being achieved.

Fail to take a bigger perspective - worry about little things like the resulting civil war - then end up killing even more and still losing.

Time for worrying about those Iraqi lives were many years ago. I feel your frustration because I saw that problem years ago when something still could be done. Show me a strategic objective that can be achieved? A hint - review how a withdrawal is conducted per ISG. Extremist rhetoric from both extremes says a withdrawal is a complete evacuation. It is not and cannot be accomplished. Show me a strategic objective that can be achieved?

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Defeat Al Qaeda and set up a secure government (that probably means dictatorship) then get out is my best hope.

How do we defeat an enemy when we cannot even define it? There is no central Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is insurgencies of all colors who often even hate each other.

One way to lose a war? Fail to identify the enemy. They are called insurgencies. Like in Lebanon, there are numerous warring parties. We did not call them all Al Qaeda in Lebanon. Why do that in Iraq?

Meanwhile, a theocratic dictatorship is already forming under Malakei. A dicatorship dominated by and for the benefit of a Shia majority at the expense of all other minorities. Civil War is inevitable with that dictatorship.

In some wars, the only solution is to let people keep killing themselves until all tire of war. In such conditions, best is to equip all sides so that none will obtain victory. Iraq's only viable solution may be how Lebanon finally came to peace. Welcome to what we created and what could only be avoided if Americans had taken the bigger perspective four years ago. Too late now.

[9th Engineer]

Well from now on I hope our policy makers will be sensible enough to never deploy troops to anywhere outside our borders where we don't have large, tangible assets. The next time a cry goes out to put them somewhere where they aren't guarding something either massively expensive or irreplaceable, the voice of reason has only to shout back "Remember Iraq!".

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Why so much silence from yesman065?

WHAT??? I have been a lot of things you mental midget, but silent is certainly not one of them.

Speaking of silence, where is your response in the "Stock Market" thread? How conveniently you avoided answering anyone there. That leaves one to wonder - why? Because you were wrong and you can't even admit it. Your credibility is shot. You have been revealed as nothing but a blowhard. You were repeatedly challenged and asked to respond, yet it is you, tw, who has been proven wrong and refuses to be a man and respond accordingly. You are so pathetic that you would make all types of accusations, denials and statements, yet when challenged you don't even have enough balls to respond, not only to me, but other posters as well.

I'm not even going to read through your long winded redundant posts to respond to you, not until you reply there - you don't deserve it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Well from now on I hope our policy makers will be sensible enough to never deploy troops to anywhere outside our borders where we don't have large, tangible assets. The next time a cry goes out to put them somewhere where they aren't guarding something either massively expensive or irreplaceable, the voice of reason has only to shout back "Remember Iraq!".

Good luck with that. The problem now is, there will always be the Urbane Guerrilla types that want to go beat up somebody.

1-Normal people, are confused about how much trust to put in leaders who should know what's best. Bush has shown that's not wise.
2-People today are simply too busy with their self centered lives to bother with what the government is doing, until it smacks them upside the head.
3-Even people who take the time to be aware, are becoming increasingly frustrated with trying to communicate with, no less influence, what the politicians are doing.

It's as if the federal Government has taken on a life of it's own. It's that 20-something living in the basement, you support financially and emotionally, but won't listen to reason. That makes you nuts, watching him making mistakes you could have warned him about, if he would only listen.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

The next time a cry goes out to put them somewhere where they aren't guarding something either massively expensive or irreplaceable, the voice of reason has only to shout back "Remember Iraq!".

You may not have been here in 2003 when voices were shouting "Remember Nam". But a majority was convinced Saddam wanted to attack America (which was never true) only because American leaders lied in a heated frenzy. We could have also easily gotten into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane for same reasons. Simple concepts made obvious both wars as wrongheaded.

People such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfovitz, etc also said we could not liberate Kuwait. It was not until Margaret Thatcher put a backbone into George Sr in Denver and then Brent Scowcroft finished the operation in Camp David - then our leaders suddenly realized a smoking gun existed. It took an almost shameful something like two weeks for America to realize that was a justified war.

Both "Mission Accomplished" and Nam were wars justified by lies. Desert Storm and WWII were justified by a smoking gun, fought with a defined strategic objective, and therefore military victories. Even the Balkans, so criticized by wacko extremists as a defeat, is instead a massive success story complete with politicians negotiating the Serb leader right out of his job and without any 'big dic' military invasion.

In each case, fundamental military concepts were either used or violated. The resulting success or failure followed accordingly.

Returning to Iraq - an American victory is not possible as a Nam victory was not possible - even defined in David Halberstam's 1965 book "Making of a Quagmire". Lessons from both "Mission Accomplished" and Nam are what happens when 'big dics' believe winning battles automatically means winning a war. We are still seeing some make that assumption with the 'Surge'.

The Atlantic is littered with ships torpedoed by Germans. And yet that still did not justify war. To enter a world war, the smoking gun was Pearl Harbor. Only powers that don't want to be will go to war over things silly. Silly examples include a China spy plane incident or mythical WMDs held by a man who wanted desperately to be an American friend - not attack America. War is inevitable. But war is only jusfitified by the most extreme of events - the smoking gun. Do you remember the smoking gun that finally started America's involvment in the Balkans?