Alberto Gonzales takes charge in Iraq
…but he swears he has no recollection of ordering any of the firings:
BAGHDAD, April 29 — A department of the Iraqi prime minister’s office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.
Since March 1, at least 16 army and national police commanders have been fired, detained or pressured to resign; at least nine of them are Sunnis, according to U.S. military documents shown to The Washington Post.
Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field.
Your daily dose of sectarian violence.
Comment by Nell —
April 30, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Beauty title and post, Thoreau.
{Sigh.}
Comment by Tom Scudder —
April 30, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Considered by whom to be among the better officers? (Apparently, by American officials & officers). Interesting use of the passive voice.
Comment by Michael H. —
April 30, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Clearly American officials and officers if you read past the lead and synthesize a few of the elements in the article.
We have Col. Ehrich Rose, “chief of the Military Transition Team with the 4th Iraqi Army Division,” who offers this about the Iraqi army:
“The Iraqi army, as far as capability goes, I’d stack them up against just about any Latin American army I’ve dealt with,” he said. “However, the politicization of their officer corps is the worst I’ve ever seen.”
So one established baseline for what makes the army good or bad is its politicization. It follows that non-political officers are better soldiers:
And there are several anonymous sources, including “a senior U.S. military official,” “a senior Iraqi army official,” and “a U.S. official” all grousing throughout the story.
So it’s an absolutely uninteresting use of the passive voice. Probably should have been sharpened up a bit, but the writer might have come up under an editor who’d forgive constructions like that if it kept the lead lean and was handled further down where there’s room for expounding. Not unheard of. Had one myself. Seems clear to me the author took out the garbage adequately later down the article.