Talk:New Iraqi army
RE (read: new "Iraqi Army" not "new Iraqi" army), or not.
Actually, I think that at this juncture, with so much to be blurry at best, just simply new Iraqi army is the best generic description. You might want to see my reference to it in the write up for New Iraq ... it's just a generic term at this point to differentiate it from Saddam's army.
12/13/03 08:42 (EST) AI
Why is it in the SourceWatch at all? and please note that I am not a strict adherent to scope requirements here.
Well, not to be snippy, but this is a Disinfopedia. The item that stands out for me is that, back in June, not only Bremer but Cheney's daughter made the announcement, backed by another news release, that "the new Iraqi army" was already on its way as of July 15, 2003: "starting with the 1st Brigade of 5,000 armed men who will serve under Iraqi officers. Conscription of 40,000 men is targeted by the end of this year..." The June article estimates that number to be at thousands by the end of the year. So ... what happened? I don't know ...
However, if you look at recent events, December 11, 2003, if memory serves me, half of the "new Iraqi army" quit. Well, this article says 300 out of 700:
- ""The first and only battalion of the new army serves under the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division. ... About 300 of 700 members of the new Iraqi army have resigned, citing unhappiness with terms, conditions and pay and with instructions of commanding officers, a representative of the U.S.-led coalition said."
... but since part of my role here, as I interpret it, is to provoke thought, I put forth the info, or "disinfo" as it may be, and wait for others to jump in or until I find some more answers.
Guess this is not the answer you was looking for .... hmmm .. "scope requirements"? Damn, hate requirements ... DDD ... let me go look.