« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Petraeus' Subordinate: Yes, We Are Arming Sunnis
On at least three occasions that I counted during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings, Gen. Petraeus flatly stated that the U.S. is not providing weapons to the Sunni tribal fighters who, over the past year, have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq. On Monday I noted how the U.S. was giving the tribes money that they used to buy weapons, making Petraeus' assurance precious and legalistic.
But it turns out that earlier this year, U.S. commanders weren't so defensive about the terms of their deal with the tribes. Here's Major General Benjamin Mixon, commander of U.S. troops in northern Iraq, on those terms in June:
[Question] (on camera): Will the assistance or the coordination with these former insurgent groups extend to arming [them] or helping them out in logistics in any sense?GEN. BENJAMIN MIXON, U.S. REGIONAL COMMANDER IN IRAQ: It certainly will. We have seen this in counterinsurgency operations before, using local nationals, if you will, arming them, forming them into scouts, if you will. And that's the primary role that we want to use them in. They know the territory, they know the enemy.
Did Mixon misspeak?
Comments (27)
dagolfnut wrote on September 12, 2007 2:55 PM:How come if they say it "they mis-spoke", but if I say it I lied? Does being in government give one the right of endless "clarification".
pirate jenny wrote on September 12, 2007 3:00 PM:"Did Mixon misspeak?"
Probably only in the sense that he said it in English instead of Gonzalese.
Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 3:00 PM:Because you're a liar.
Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 3:16 PM:Benjamin Mixon -- any connection to fraudulent GOP donor "Michael Mixon" ?
JEP wrote on September 12, 2007 3:43 PM:Whether overt or covert, no doubt all those "missing" AK-47's made their way into the hands of people who hate us, even if they are helping us right now.
Even if we did not officially arm them, someone like the Carlyle Group did, through surrogates.
Just more good reasons to get our own famly members out of there.
M M wrote on September 12, 2007 3:45 PM:I noted Petreus' testimony on arming the sunni's when I watched a CNN interview with a U.S. soldier in An-Bar who is doing "local concerned citizen" training who described his job as providing the sunnis with training and weapons. Someone could probably track down the tape.
jimmo wrote on September 12, 2007 3:52 PM:They do not want to stop the war. They want to keep it going. After all, war is money to these people. And money is what counts to them. They will arm anyone to keep it going. Also, there is no stopping them while the oil is out of their hands.
Gen. Petreus wrote on September 12, 2007 4:02 PM:Oh, I thought you asked if we were 'harming' them. My bad.
-- Gen. "I Shall Return (to previous force levels by springtime, if everything works out okay..)" Petreus.
1oldlady wrote on September 12, 2007 4:12 PM:read the article below and then ask "are generals political?" This answers this question!
:)
http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samgen/genover/pcnvrt02.htm
5ghostcommander wrote on September 12, 2007 4:22 PM:We have been in Iraq 1633 days and have lost over 3770 troops, over 26,00 have been wounded--20% of them have horrible, disabling wounds. Contractors are paid $400,000,000 weekly in Iraq. So, why are we there?
Elisabeth wrote on September 12, 2007 4:44 PM:Seems like I've heard this happening somewhere before----Oh Yes, when the US provided weapons and money to Bin laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. It really worked out well for us then. For reading and loving history so much (yes, I really believe that bit of spin!), Bush doesn't seem to learn much--can't seem to correlate actions gone bad in the past with his own actions in the present. If the US comes out still a kind of democracy in 2009, it will be a ****** miracle!
della Rovere wrote on September 12, 2007 4:54 PM:to 5ghostcommander:
lupercus wrote on September 12, 2007 5:05 PM:whatever the reason we are there, Boehner says it is a small price to pay (I forget how much he is paying . It might be a small amount).
If you will.
Junius Brutus wrote on September 12, 2007 5:10 PM:"Did Mixon misspeak?"
No. Petraeus lied.
That's not the only lie he told. The man's a liar. He may be a great general -- I'll have to take other people's word on that. But he's a liar too. A liar who has received a lot of misplaced respect.
dolly lanna wrote on September 12, 2007 6:23 PM:I found it interesting the use of the phrase "if you will"...in Patraeus's dialog. Also note the term in Mixon's dialog. Does Cheney coach these guys somehow? "If you will" (while not a rare phrase), is one of Cheney's favorite.
Emily Litella wrote on September 12, 2007 6:36 PM:Speech patterns occur by hearing them over and over,
especially catch phrases.
Oh, I thought you asked if we were 'harming' them. My bad.
-- Gen. "I Shall Return (to previous force levels by springtime, if everything works out okay..)" Petreus.
Posted by: Gen. Petreus
Ted wrote on September 12, 2007 6:39 PM:************
Couldn't have said it better myself. Never mind. --Emily
I can't help thinking of the similar policy of arming vigilante groups of "local nationals" that John Negroponte helped pioneer in Central America. They were politely called something like "citizen militias," more accurately death squads. I know Negroponte is out of Iraq, but could this count as a revival of his signature counterinsurgency tactic?
melior wrote on September 12, 2007 7:02 PM:The US armed the mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union.
Of course, based on that you'd also have to expect blowback in the outyears when their interests turn against yours.
DD wrote on September 12, 2007 9:20 PM:Michael Ware had a special 2 nights back on CNN r.e. the U.S.'s Anbar Sunni support that I believe MM above refers to. A soldier definitely said candidly, "we supply them weapons'". Who are you going to believe, the soldier with no real motive for lying or Petraeus? Michael Ware has not answered several emails from me on this - michael.ware@turner.com
Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 11:57 PM:My experience is that maybe 30% of CNN folks WILL engage you via email, but I can see why Ware would run from this like wildfire (doesn't exactly want to be the reporter who proved the beloved Petraeus a con artist)....
"one of the key things that Petraeus did was they decided -- him and his command decided -- that they were going to create this paramilitary force, the Special Police Commandos"..."the Special Police Commandos quickly morphed into Shiite death squads that were used against the Sunni insurgency and against Sunnis, in general, throughout Iraq. And this played a key role in terms of stoking and fomenting the civil war, because you had these death squads wearing government uniforms, being armed and trained by the US, going around killing Sunnis randomly"
"Now what Petraeus is doing is he’s funding and arming these Sunni militias"..."their main purpose is they want this money and weapons and aid to fight the Shiite militias."
" 'Well, we can't leave because a bloodbath will result.' But we’re not looking at the fact that it’s the US that’s creating this bloodbath."
-ARUN GUPTA Interviewed Democracy Now! Sept12 2007
Fascist Nation wrote on September 13, 2007 2:46 AM:Check and Mate!
Well, since Betrayus wasn't sworn under oath, he could pretty much say what he wished.
garhane wrote on September 13, 2007 3:01 AM:One of the things that has me puzzled is when are witnesses before a Senate hearing, in this case a pretty important one, sworn and when are they not. There have been a number of hearings where a great deal turned on how faithful a witness was to the truth, and whether they were in truth territory at all. But I do not believe Gen. Petraeus or the Former ambassador to Pakistan were sworn. Is there some point at which it is no longer polite to swear a witness in the pecking order, or is there some other reason. Swearing a witness is a very big weapon in getting at the truth.
Mellifluous wrote on September 13, 2007 5:56 AM:No.
He LIED OUT HIS EFFING ASS!
Anonymous wrote on September 13, 2007 8:38 AM:At what point does semantics used to facilitate deceptions and cover-ups become lying? Why is the press accepting of this so-called legalistic distinction when they know that government officials are intentionally misleading the American people by misrepresenting or not telling the WHOLE TRUTH? I grew up believing that a free press insured that Americans would be informed when a politician lied and or abused his/her of power. Today, the press is more editorial comment and partisan shill than unvarnished truth or fact. I rue the day that NEWS became a commodity rather than a responsibility. There is nothing free and there is very little that's honest about today's free press. Who is at fault for allowing this to happen? And why are so many members of the free press so willing and eager to participate in such deliberate contrivance and dishonesty? America is becoming more a land of self-serving political/financial whores rather than a land of the free and a home of the brave. And many in the free press are guilty of being a deceiver of the people rather than a protetor of their best interests.
Anonymous wrote on September 13, 2007 12:04 PM:You can't lie to Congress, whether or not you are under oath.
SC: again, as in why do I have to explain this again and again?
Lizzard Lipps wrote on September 13, 2007 8:49 PM:Heck... we're even arming the enemies who aren't pretending to be our friends.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430153/
It's all a scam. The military hasn't had to defend this country since the War of 1812.
LarryE wrote on September 14, 2007 1:17 AM:Did Mixon misspeak?
You forget this administration's mastery of verbal nitpicking. Mixon said "It certainly will," future tense.
So they can still say it never actually did happen.