Y W F

Phase Two of Oil Terminal Security Turnover Begins

International Strategic Defense and Security Issues
http://www.DefenseTalk.com

MANAMA, Bahrain: The Iraqi military has begun the next phase in the security turnover process to assume responsibility for the Khawr Al Amaya and Al Basrah oil terminals.

In an interview July 12 aboard USS Normandy (CG 60), Royal Australian Navy Commodore Steve Gilmore, commander, Task Force 58 said that the process will be complete when Iraq's military takes command and control of the oil terminals.

"We’re beginning phase two of a three-phase process, which will transition the point-defense of the Iraqi oil terminals to the Iraqi Marines," said Gilmore.

The oil terminals provide significant revenue for the Iraqi economy. Iraq and coalition forces are working together to progressively transfer full security of the oil terminals to Iraqi forces.

“[The Iraqis] are part of the task force,” said Gilmore. “They are not being placed alongside coalition units; they are replacing coalition units.”

The multinational task force works directly with Iraqi maritime forces to prevent attacks against the Iraqi oil terminals. Gilmore, who took command of Task Force 58 April 17, is the first Australian to lead a multinational coalition since World War II. He is responsible for coalition maritime security operations (MSO) in the North Persian Gulf. He said coalition and Iraqi forces have the ability to ensure security and stability in the area.

MSO set the conditions for security and stability in the maritime environment, as well as complement the counter-terrorism and security efforts of regional nations. MSO deny international terrorists use of the maritime environment as a venue for attack or to transport personnel, weapons or other material.

URL of this article:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_002679.php

Ray

One thing that keeps niggling me is that there is a lot of ex soldiers of Saddam being used or so is reported.

What is their quotient of loyalty?

Anyone aware?

Y W F

Their quotient for loyalty is that they get loyalty back with money. As long as they can support their families, it doesn't matter who they work for.

Ray

That seems logical.

However, the motivation of Islam that prompted the London bombers, even though they were not poor ,by immigrants' standards, or deprived or discriminated by the State is what worries me.

I have also seen it first hand.

Y W F

London bombing is another and completely different story and I don't think associating that with Iraq WAR is a logical or a smart thing to do. Obviously, Iraqi insurgents wouldn't benefit from bombing a few tubes and a bus some where in london. From military stand point, it doesn't seem logical or strategically sound to think that somehow london attacks are works of or related to iraqi insurgents.

Cheers

Wraith601

I think his point is that Islamic fanatacism can outweight monetary or nationalistic concerns for some people. Basically Islamic radicals owe more loyalty to their perverted view of Islam than to their employers or their country, even if they are same.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Y W F

If that is the case, then such risks should have been considered prior to going in Iraq. Now, either US uses whoever is going to help/willing to help or not. There isn't a third option. Obviously, people won't come to you with a "terrorist" written on their foreheads. US has to take that risk and go along.

Btw, it doesn't have anything to do with "islamic fanatism" bullcrap. It has to do with how you treat people and the occupation. If someone is loyal to you and you treat them badly and make them feel like they are OCCUPIED then obviously, he isn't going to shower roses on you ( it doesn't matter if that person is a moderate muslim, "radical" muslim, extremist christian or a libral).

Wraith601

If you actually beleive the Iraqi insurgents are fighting the "occupation" out of patriotism then you're a fool. They're fighting for either a Sunni dominated Iranian model theocracy for the al Qaeida types or a return to Ba'athist rule for the ex Saddam era thugs.

Shek

Wraith,
You could make an argument that Sadr's henchmen are fighting against the occupation, but then again, they're fighting for the ghost of Sadr's father, not his tubby son who doesn't even have the education and credentials to be a true cleric. However, Sadr was smart to quit fighting last fall while he was still ahead. Otherwise, he Mahdi Army would have to specialize in small unit tactics since he wouldn't have much of an army left.

Wraith601

I excluded Sadr as he isn't part of the Sunni insurgency that's caused most of the problems in Iraq, also I don't think he ever posed nearly as much as a threat as the other factions did and still do.

Shek

If Sistani weren't as pro-stay the course with the Americans, then Sadr would have been a huge threat. He's done many things that successful insurgencies have done through his formation of a shadow government that enforces laws (albeit in kangaroo courts), providing social services (funded by Iran), and proposing a clear alternative for the future. Only Sistani quietly reigning him in has made him irrelevant and thus an outspoken annoyance.

Amled

Here is Moqtada Sadr's latest interview which was aired ealier this week.

__________________
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

Shek

If Sadr had continued fighting, his Mahdi Army would be no more. They were getting killed by the bushel last spring and fall. The residents of Najaf, Kufa, and Karbala hated him and his kangaroo religious courts. He has a small, but waning, following in Sadr City that do so out of loyalty to his father. He is a small time player that will remain on the fringe of Iraqi politics as long as Sistani is alive.

Amled

al Sistani is around 75 years of age, is known to have serious health problems, and has already been the target of a number of assasination attempts.
It's equally true that his followers are fanatically devoted to him; therefore while he retains the reins of power the Shia he controls appears willing to give the new status quo a chance to succeed.
The problems will arise when he is no longer part of the power structure,
Something that is certainly not unknown to the likes of Moqtada Sadr and the Sunni insurgents!

Ray

Are you aware of the concept of "ummah"?

Have you experienced "Islamic fundamentalist" first hand. I have. Hand to hand!!!

Are you aware that you are a Moslem first and then whatever your national identity is?

Check this forum and you will find Jimmy said the same thing and so did Dr Wazeed in the BBC Talking Point on London Bombings - that they are Moslems first and then whatever their national identity is!

Therefore, Islamic fundamentalism is not just a figment of imagination.

If Britishers (by religious affliation Moslems) who are not the deprived classes and have got the best from the State can throw away everything for Islam, what gives you the confidence that the Iraqi Baathists turned Iraqi soldiers, given a good pay, would not do the same?

Some of the London Bombers had families and just born children! And they went ahead blowing themselves up!

How do you explain the logic of Britishers of Pakistani and Jamaican origin going and blowing themselves up for a third country Iraq, which they have never seen but only heard of!
So, is it BS?