In today's Irish Times (22/09/05) you ask, quite rightly, "how can they [Coalition forces] do that [hand over power to Iraqi police] if they cannot trust their designated successors to co-operate with them?" However, while coalition forces remain, at the apparent insistence of the Iraqi government, is it not also the coalition's responsibility to co-operate with the forces they are preparing to succeed them?
Two heavily armed undercover British soldiers were involved in a fire fight with Iraqi police, they were arrested and allegedly handed over to a Shia militia, the result was the British raid on an Iraqi jail, killing five civilians. The question is, how can the successors to the coalition maintain any sense of order if their trainers are working both with them and against them?
Would the media have reacted in the same manner if the roles were reversed?
"Iraqi forces raided Abu Ghraib to rescue two Iraqi civilians who were detained by Coalition security forces following a raid on Monday. The Iraqis said the men were held by a hostile military force who allegedly had been torturing inmates in the prison."
Britain's role in Iraq
The arrest of two British undercover soldiers in Basra this week by Iraqi police and their subsequent handing over to a Shia militia group and rescue by British troops raised serious questions about security in the city.............
© The Irish Times