Iraq PM Orders Halt To Shelling Of Civilian Areas

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

Sep 13, 6:20 AM EDT

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's prime minister said Saturday he has ordered the army to stop shelling populated areas held by militants in order to spare the lives of "innocent victims" as the armed forces struggle to retake cities and towns seized by the Islamic State extremist group this summer.

"I issued this order two days ago because we do not want to see more innocent victims falling in the places and provinces controlled by Daesh," Haider al-Abadi told a news conference in Baghdad, referring to the Islamic State group by its Arabic acronym.

He accused the militants of using civilians as a human shield to stop the advance of Iraqi security forces. But he vowed to continue military operations against the al-Qaida breakaway group, which seized large territories in the north and west in an unprecedented June offensive.

"We will continue to chase them (IS fighters) and we know that they are hiding behind the civilians," he added.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-13-06-20-36

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. That seems sane. n/t

[MADem]

2. We don't understand the "human shield" thing. It is de rigeur over there, though.

They don't understand why we don't understand it.

They use human shields to get EXACTLY this response--a cessation of the shelling, so they can try to reacquire the advantage.

In the west, our modus operandi is to call them barbarians and keep shelling.

It's a very different cultural mindset. We have a view that there are combatants, and non-combatants, and they have a view that it's a religious battle and everyone of faith is a combatant, and, besides, if they die, they'll be better off in paradise.

[CJCRANE]

3. The Ukrainians bombed civilians.

I'm not sure it's some kind of unique mindset.

We did the same in WWII.

These days we pay lip service to the concept of avoiding civilians but I'm not sure how effective it's been so far.

Also note that the Iraqi army originally ran away rather than fight ISIS so the idea of religious fatalism as a general rule may be overblown.

[MADem]

4. Believe me, it IS a unique mindset.

Our "lip service" is an expression of our sentiment--that we "disapprove" of using non-combatants as human shields. Hiding behind the "skirts" or using a child to prevent from being shot is the DEFINITION of a coward. The "horrible man" holding a knife to a woman's throat or holding a kid with a gun to the child's head is the quintessential "bad guy" in films.

In Islam, though, the use of hostages and human shields is seen VERY differently. In the old days, it was customary to take "important" hostages (and treat them well, often) in order to dial down the hostilities. On rare occasion, a warring leader might even send along a relative as a hostage as an expression of good faith in the hopes of initiating negotiations for peace.

We don't "get" this. We see it as something very different. It's a mindset issue. What we see as craven and cowardly, they see as a de-escalation device.

[CJCRANE]

5. I agree there is a different mindset

but it still smacks of generalization to say that they're all like that.

The ISIS guys are medieval throwbacks so they have more of this kind of fatalistic mindset but I doubt the ordinary Iraqis are the same as I pointed out in my example.

[MADem]

6. I am speaking culturally and historically, and most definitely religiously.

They--like USA--do not operate in a vacuum. They're perfectly capable of acquiring new information and incorporating it. For example, they understand very clearly our "Never leave a fallen servicemember behind" thing and they will exploit that. They also understand that we consider dismemberment (particularly beheading) especially gruesome and they'll play on that horror.

The mindset isn't necessarily "fatalistic"--it is couched in a firm understanding--not a "belief" but to them a "certainty"--that the next life is absolutely way, way, WAY better than this one. The only reason they don't kill themselves to get on to the "better" life is that, by so doing, they'd slam the door on the place they wanted to get "to" from here.

[CJCRANE]

7. FWIW I think the Iranians have a more hardcore mindset than the Iraqis.

Don't forget the Iraqi army melted away after "shock and awe". They preferred to go home rather than take a fatalistic last stand.

I have an acquaintance who is an Iraqi Kurd who told me about the Iran/Iraq war. He said that thousands of Iranians marched hundreds of miles into his region, many of them didn't have any modern weapons, just bare hands or farm implements but they just kept coming, wave after wave.

[MADem]

8. It's more shi'a-sunni than Iraqi-Irani, I think.

There are a shitload of shi'as in Iran (state religion, in essence) and Iraq, but as a percentage of the entire Muslim population, they are a small lot. They are viewed as a cult, as oddballs, as weirdos who follow the wrong path, who have fucked up the line of succession from the Prophet, by many Sunnis--and the Sunni fundies think they're the devil reincarnate. Of course, the fundies on the shi'a side are responsible for this attitude--so it's a little bit of zealotry on both sides of the fence.

During the troubles in Egypt, fanatical sunnis were hunting down shi'a, dragging them from their homes and beating them to death or lighting them on fire--ugly stuff. Religious wars are just so ... stupid.

The Iran-Iraq war was an awful thing, and it was all about Saddam v. Ayatullah--and that Khomeini was a miserable fucker. He sent fourteen year olds off to die, and yes, with NOTHING. Their heads were filled with visions of paradise, and off they went. And Saddam had better weapons, of course (where did he get those, I wonder?) and he had nerve gas, too. The reason so many Kurds died (Saddam gassed his OWN PEOPLE, was the theme) is because as the war stumbled to a gut-wrenching conclusion, Khomeini was sending the Irani through the Zagros--Kurdish territory, in essence, and he was funding the Kurdish Pershmerga insurgents in Iraq to try to cause local confusion. He was also sending conscripts into the marshlands down south, as well--no "cover," no strategy, a complete mess, and the bodies just piled up.

There are so many widows on the dole in Iran that they constitute a huge chunk of the national economy. There are ENORMOUS cemeteries in south Teheran that never existed before, the need for burial space was so great.

Kurds are very pragmatic people--smart as hell, no matter what side of whichever border you find them. Turkish/Iraqi/Irani--they know they have to take care of themselves, because alliances can be fleeting and allies can turn on ya in a heartbeat. They've been let down before. No one does a better job at taking the long view. I wonder if I will ever see a "Kurdistan" seated at the UN. It's been on the table since World War 2...!

USA has this "stand and deliver" attitude, fight to the last man, never retreat, never surrender, that does resonate over there...it impresses them, though they kind of regard it the same way the propaganda machine sold us the Japanese during WW2 (little kami-kaze robots, is how we viewed them).

The attitude in the greater Middle East is far more pragmatic -- "He who fights, and runs away, lives to fight another day!" It's not a question of bravery or cowardice, it's just a practical approach. "Bravery" applies to a victory, or a lost cause bravely fought when CORNERED. It's different from martyrdom, which is, in essence, sacrificing yourself to a cause (suicide bombers, e.g.). If you've the opportunity to escape and don't take it, you're viewed as stupid and that isn't a respected position to take. The whole idea is to win, and it's possible to win LATER, but only if you're alive to fight.

[Scootaloo]

9. Because the west does not value the lives of Arabs and muslims

If those were white people, or Christians or Jews, we'd "get it." but they're not. They're people that our culture has decided are completely expendable, whose lives are forfeit, and who are probably "bad guys" themselves.

[arcane1]

10. The Bundy ranch idiots even thought their own wives were expendable

They weren't going to hide behind them in order to prevent gunfire from federal agents, they wanted federal agents to open fire on unarmed women.

It's a kooky concept

[MADem]

15. No. It's just a cultural difference.

Because there is a religious component to their 'jihad' (struggle), they are more willing to stand in harm's way, and sacrifice themselves as martyrs because they are entirely CERTAIN that this life is a poor imitation of what is to come. When you believe with every fibre of your being that the next life will make this one look like a visit to the outhouse, then you're less likely to exhibit that fear (at least initially, and conceptually--when the shrapnel starts flying that could be a different story) and the inclination towards self-preservation is less strong.

FWIW, Muslims come in all colors--including "white people" color.

[Scootaloo]

17. I think you missed hte crux of my point... and sort of underlined it, actually

The US basically advocates bombing the shit out of civilian populations, dismissing them as "human shields" using the exact logic you just displayed - "They're Muslims, so they all want to die as martyrs, no loss."

[JDPriestly]

14. Very true.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. So you're saying the new Iraqi PM has a Western mindset?

because he's the one saying "there are combatants, and non-combatants".

I don't think your argument on this is coherent.

[geek tragedy]

11. Smart move. Step one to eroding support for ISIL

amongst tribes is to stop blowing up civilians.

[Uncle Joe]

12. This is good.

Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.

[quadrature]

13. deserves the Nobel Peace Prize ...

for not killing more than he already did kill

[Sunlei]

16. Thats good. They took a lot of woman/children as part of their looting of towns.

I have not heard of any 'rescues' from captivity of any of the woman/children taken.