The training of the Iraqi military and security services is a crucial element to the defeat of the Iraqi insurgency and the establishment of a secure Iraqi nation. The New York Times weighs in on the issue of the status of the training of the Iraqi military, and estimates it will take upwards of two years or more for Iraqi forces to be able to operate independently from Coalition forces. This should not be surprising as building a competent fighting force, particularly in a nation subjected to over thirty years of oppressive rule, is a slow and difficult process.
The two main questions concerning the Iraqi security forces are the quantity of men serving, and their quality. There is no shortage of Iraqis to man the new security apparatuses. And it should be noted there is no draft in Iraq, the security services are a strictly volunteer force. So the real question is: how capable are the Iraqis to fight independently against a violent insurgency?
The answer is they are not quite ready, and are in need of coaching and better equipment. But the state of the Iraqi security forces is not as dire as the New York Times would like you to believe, and the Coalition is adapting to improve the fighting capability of the Iraqi forces.
We have already seen that Iraqi forces are being deployed outside of their local regions to minimize problems with insurgents threatening and attacking the soldiers families and reduce their loyalties to the local establishment. To compensate for the shortcomings in Iraqi units, American soldiers will be assigned to Iraqi units to assist with training and operations.
The American command has already created military transition teams of soldiers to work with Iraqi troops, and there are plans for up to 10,000 Americans to be attached to Iraqi units at every level from divisions down to battalions and companies, with up to 10 men at the battalion level, and 2 with each company.
The article documents the current and projected manpower in a section misleadingly titled “Few Battalions Are Operational”.
Few Battalions Are OperationalAt three main training centers established at former Hussein-era bases - Taji, north of Baghdad; Kirkush, near the Iranian border; and Numaniya, southeast of Baghdad - a $5.7 billion American-financed program to train and equip the new forces is in high gear, graduating soldiers in battalion-size classes of 1,500 troops.
From a single American-trained Iraqi battalion a year ago, the American command says there are now 107 battalions of Iraqi troops and paramilitary police units, totaling 169,000 men. The total is set to rise to 270,000 by next summer, when 10 fully equipped 14,000-man Iraqi Army divisions are scheduled to be operational.
But figures alone tell only part of the story, since only three battalions are rated fully operational by the Americans, and many others are far behind in terms of manpower, training and equipment.
It appears the author is referring to combat readiness, defined as "a unit's ability to perform in combat. Includes the status of personnel, logistics, morale, and training." A deficiency in any of the areas mentioned would make a unit less than ‘fully operational’, however this does not mean the units cannot perform certain duties such as patrols, garrison or others. The battalions which are not rated ‘fully operational’ are not able to operate independently of Coalition forces. This is the reason the military transition teams have been created. Also, many of the Iraqi units are currently deployed in the field and have been ‘sistered up’ with Coalition units.
The New York Times leads the article with two examples of failures of Iraqi forces in the field, a stupid rookie mistake made on cordon and search mission (leaving a detainee behind), and a deadly and unprofessional mistake made in even the most professional of armies (falling asleep at your post). Yet there are examples of success that go unreported, such as the one described by Captain Charles Ziegenfuss.
One of my checkpoints was attacked tonight. It was manned by one of my IA [Iraqi Army] partnership platoons. It was more of a drive-by and mortaring than an all-out assault, but the initial report (which is almost always wrong) said they were under attack. Off I go with the QRF [Quick Reaction Force]. We arrive on site and all's quiet. The IA had dispatched one of their platoons and they were already on the ground, securing the area. Good. They're getting better every day… I sent three trucks to pick up DJ, (whom I thought they had when they rolled out) and secured the checkpoint with the IA (they didn’t need us there, but they feel better when we’re there.)
If you read the entire post, you will note CPT Ziegenfuss is frustrated with his Iraqi interpreter, not his sister Iraqi Army unit. Another example of Iraqi forces successfully defending themselves is given by ‘Phil’ who serves with the US Army in Iraq.
A few days ago, the enemy conducted a coordinated, complex, and violent attack against the headquarters of one of the Iraqi Army companies in our sector. However, I think it is a fair bet that most people did not hear about it, even though some of our guys did find it mentioned obscurely in an article online.The attack started with a HUGE explosion from a VBIED -- a flat-bed truck drove into the compound and detonated. After that, the AIF (our acronym for the enemy, since we have acronyms for everything, is AIF -- anti-Iraqi forces) stormed the compound. In the past, if the only thing you read is the major media, you would assume the sequence of events for one of these episodes to be: (1) big explosion to begin (2) RPG, rocket fire and small arms fire (3) IP/IA run away (4) AIF take over compound until we come and kill them.
However, this time something different happened. After the initial blast, instead of running away the Iraqi Army soldiers at the guard towers got up, returned to their posts and repelled the attack. When the AIF stormed the compound, they undoubtedly expected little resistance, and they were gunned down. In fact, the fighting was largely over by the time our guys got there.
In both cases, the Iraqi forces fought off attacks independently, and their American sister units arrived after the Iraqi units repelled the attacks. These Iraqi units may not meet the New York Times definition of ‘operational’, but they certainly possess the characteristics of an effective fighting force.
Iraqi units are slowing being given independence from the Coalition: “Tiger Unit Given Control of Area in Baghdad”; “Iraqi Army unit takes control of Forward Operating Base”; Iraqi troops take control of the dangerous Dora neighborhood and Haifa Street in Baghdad. The last article on Haifa Street was published by the New York Times, demonstrating their remarkable deficiency in short term memory.
Congressman Curt Weldon and Senator Joe Biden recently returned from Iraq and conducted an appraisal of the Iraq Army’s capabilities (hat tip to Joe). Host Tim Russert interviewed them on NBC News Meet the Press to discuss the visit.
MR. RUSSERT: Realistically, Congressman Weldon and Senator Biden, how long in your estimation will it take for the Iraqis to have, say, 150,000 level-one troops so the Americans can come home?REP. WELDON: I would say a minimum of eight to 10 months, maximum probably two years, and that's assuming everything goes well.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden?
SEN. BIDEN: Yeah, I think two years, Tim. You may get to the point where you have a competent number, somewhere 70,000, 80,000 by the end of this year, but to get to the point where you have 150,000 or 163,000 as the vice president is taking about, you're talking two years. There's overwhelming consensus, nothing less than a year, some say as long as three years, and this is talking to the guys standing on the ground who can shoot straight and are getting shot at.
The availability of “70,000, 80,000 [Iraqi troops] by the end of this year” to independently operate and maneuver does not bode well for the insurgent’s prospects for victory. This will also free up an enormous amount of American troops for combat operations against the insurgency as well as securing the restive Anbar province.
In fact, it appears the planning for future operations is currently in place. Buried within a Telegraph article on an air strike in Anbar which killed over 40 insurgents is the following information:
In the past three months, US forces have mounted offensives against both places, but on a more limited scale than the major operations last year. A US military official said more intensive operations were being planned later in the summer in the province, which is overwhelmingly Sunni.
Iraq’s Interior Minister Jaber Solagh has also stated two more independent Iraqi operations are planned after the completion of Operations Lightning; “We are preparing for two more massive operations which we intend to launch once the current operation is completed.”
In the post Progressing in Iraq, the following overview of the current strategy against the insurgency was outlined:
For good or ill, the strategy in the Wild West of Anbar appears to be one of establishing distinct garrisons in locations such as Qaim, Haditha and other locations, patrolling the territory, conduct search and destroy missions at opportune times when targets and threats materialize, and waiting for Iraqi security forces to train up and deploy to fill the security needs of the region.
I fully understand the frustrations of Gregory Djerejian, and share some of these frustrations myself. Mr. Djerejian gives a fair critique against the Bush administration and the lack of troops available in the current Army. I am of the opinion the US Army should have increased in size by at least five divisions immediately after the attacks on September 11 (remember our Army consisted of 18 active divisions during the Cold War and was downsized to current 10 divisions during the drawdown after the defeat of the Soviet Union). Is it was clear military operations would commence in the Middle East and require long deployment that would stress the current force structure and call for an over reliance on National Guard and reserve unit. But the current troop levels in Iraq, particularly with the integration of Iraqi forces into the fight, do not spell defeat.
At this stage in the struggle in Iraq, there is value in waiting for the Iraqi Army to get up to speed and assist in defeating the insurgency. The Iraqi security forces will gain valuable experience in fighting the terrorists and will become cohesive fighting forces. The Coalition is taking political steps to offer the local tribes in Anbar the option to reject the insurgency or face the force of arms. Most importantly, the Iraqi nation will have taken the responsibility in defeating the terrorists who are brutally killing seniors and children. There is no greater way to appreciate your freedom than by fighting for it, and the Iraqis have the chance to fight the enemies of their nascent democracy.
UPDATE: See my follow-on post. The NY Times' claim that few Iraqi battalions are operational has seroius holes. Col. Asutin Bay reporting from Iraq, says Iraqi units have "tactical combat proficiency" but are short on logistics and heavy weapons. Those 2 things take time, but putting the problem that way changes one's assessment.
Good stuff Bill. The whole premise of the article is bent. Building the Iraqi army isnt like building an airplane, its not like you cant use it before it is completely done. This is in fact very good news. The IA is getting better and better by all accounts, and the fact that they have a lot of room for improvement but can still contribute materially means that a year from now the situation will be dramatically different on the ground. In fact every single day is an improvement. Double the amount of current Iraqi troops, the second half of which will be as good as the first half is now, while the first half will be both veterans and trained as well as we can train them? Thats huge. Iraq will have far and away the best army in the region, and significantly greater numbers than America ever had at any given time. Needless to say that indeed means it wont be US troops in Iraqi living rooms anymore, but it will be a whole bunch more US troops available to take the fight to the ratlines and hideouts and secure the borders. They send 2 brigades of marines now to mow down an area like Qaim, imagine when they send 2 divisions to lock down the whole region. Such raids become the rule instead of the exception, and indeed Iraqi and if necessary American forces will be availble to garrison every hot Sunni town in the nation if called for. Our biggest problem, and the root of most of the others has been lack of troops since the day the shooting war ended. That is slowly but very steadilly being addressed. It is impossible to overstate the importance.
Thank you, Mark. Agreed on your comments as well, you fully grasp the implications of the ramp up of the Iraqi forces. For the record, we sent 2 battalions to Qaim in Matador (typically 3 battalions per brigade, 3 briagdes per division for those who do not know). I am of the opinion Anbar will get very hot this coming fall, and the Iraqi Army will play a big role. I know Mr. Djerejian was angry of Wretchard's comments about the insurgency being defeated, but technically Wretchard is correct. When the Iraqi Army continues to independently field more and more forces, allowing for the military defeat to add onto the political defeat.
"Yeah, I think two years, Tim. You may get to the point where you have a competent number, somewhere 70,000, 80,000 by the end of this year, but to get to the point where you have 150,000 or 163,000 as the vice president is taking about, you're talking two years. There's overwhelming consensus, nothing less than a year, some say as long as three years, and this is talking to the guys standing on the ground who can shoot straight and are getting shot at."
this is of course good news. Progress is being made. There is a POSSIBILITY, which even us cautious types should acknowledge, that the insurgency COULD go into a downward cycle very fast. IE 70,000 more or less useful Iraqi troops could be enough to make it clear the insurgency is lost, leading to Sunni tribals and FRE's deciding to negotiate, isolating the Jihadis, leading to less need for US troops and a less visible US troop presence, leading to even less support for whats left of the insurgency, etc. its possible. All cleaned up by the next round of elections in December.
BUT - its quite possible that wont happen. The insurgents MAY continue to show resiliency, as they have so far. We may need all 160,000 Iraqi troops plus the coalition to occupy ground, seal borders, etc. And I think Biden and others are talking about private enlistees, mainly, when they talk about full readiness in 2 years. IIUC it takes a lot longer than that to make a good midlevel officer, or a senior noncom. I would expect even in two years those 160,000 troops will still have lots of problems, if less than now.
and I think that was Gregs problem. That thinking that its all almost over (on limited evidence) will either A. lead to a premature withdrawl, by folks who arent really commited to democracy building. OR B. Will lead to TET type problems - where a relatively minor setback blows away the homefront cause the homefront was fed polyannish news by the govt.
BTW, that the NYT covered the handover in Haifa St would seem to show that they DO cover good news.
Also - BTW - Greg now posts a quote from Cheney that is MUCH more cautious. More along the lines of what i had wanted.
"Iraq will have far and away the best army in the region"
no, the IDF will remain far and away the best army in the region, if not QUITE as experienced in urban warfare, but probably better able to absorb the lessons of said warfare. And with both a US style approach to war, AND with an experienced officer corps and non-coms, AND with a highly educated manpower base. The Iraqi army MAY be superior to the Syrian, Saudi and Iranian armies - its advantages will be its US style approach and its combat experience. Its disadvantages will be its still relatively inexperienced officers and noncoms, etc. against the Turkish army its main advantage will be experience in urban warfare.
liberalhawk,
I have no major arguments with what you have said, and do fully understand Mr. Djerejian's concerns. I did not adress all of those in the post as it wasn't applicable to the topic at hand. Just an addition:
The training of senior NCOs and junior and mid-level officers is definitely a difficult process, one which should be helped along by the military transition teams. This is an interesting development and I am curious to see if the US Army retains knowledge in this area for future use.
As an aside, the NYT is capable of reporting good news. I even think this article on the Iraqi Army was a bit of good news, if you understand the difficulty of putting together an army in a nation like Iraq and are patient. Not everyone understands this, and the article is used to demonstrate failure. I do think the NYT should have balanced this articles with some successes of the Iraqi Army, or had even mentioned Haifa Street since they reported on this. But this is their editorial decision, not mine.
also - Suppose tomorrow Ayatollah Sistani had a heart attack and died - are United Iraqi Alliance leaders yet in a position to hold the Shia together without him? Theres alot yet that could go very wrong.
"We may need all 160,000 Iraqi troops plus the coalition to occupy ground, seal borders, etc. "
By next summer its supposed to be 270,000, plus at least 100,000 coalition troops. Thats significantly more pure manpower even if the coalition is drawn down some. I find it very unlikely the insurgency grows significantly stronger in that environment, particularly as they seem now to be largely confined to launching indescriminate attacks against civilians. Not a sign of strength.
"And I think Biden and others are talking about private enlistees, mainly, when they talk about full readiness in 2 years. IIUC it takes a lot longer than that to make a good midlevel officer, or a senior noncom. I would expect even in two years those 160,000 troops will still have lots of problems, if less than now. "
Oh no question. They will by no means be a first class Western force, probably not for decades if ever. Military traditions take a real long time to develop. But they dont need to be. Remember, we are asking them to defend their home turf against insurgents who, while stiffened by some experienced and tough Chechens and AQ types, are generally about the same quality as the rawest Iraqi recruit is now. Most of these Saudis never held a rifle before and the Syrians have about the same background as Husseins Iraqi conscripts got. And it seems likely that IA veterans will live and learn while insurgents tend to get killed unless they are quite lucky. The insurgents replacements are largely riffraff while the IA replacements are getting the best training we can manage. Lets not make the mistake of dwelling only on our own problems without realizing the enemy has the same problems only worse.
LH,
That's my worst nightmare. Sistani is key to holding the whole show together.
"no, the IDF will remain far and away the best army in the region,"
Ah, I wasnt including the IDF, who are perhaps pound for pound the best army in the world.
"The Iraqi army MAY be superior to the Syrian, Saudi and Iranian armies - its advantages will be its US style approach and its combat experience."
Fair chance the Iraqi army is already superior to the Saudis, who have American equipment and no idea how to use it (outside of a pretty decent airforce). As to the Iranian and Syrians, when fully trained and equipped the IA will certainly be superior. Those armies were rated worse than Saddams and we know how well they fought. Give the IA Western training, western weapons, and experience fighting insurgents daily and you have a real modern army, which is not how I would describe Syria and Iran. By no means western, but certainly better than the Iranian levies or the Syrian rabble.
"Its disadvantages will be its still relatively inexperienced officers and noncoms, etc. against the Turkish army its main advantage will be experience in urban warfare"
True, but every Arab army is plagued by an absense of NCOs. The Turks are fairly well equipped and trained even by Western standards, but I dont think Iraq has anything to fear from Turkey without a pretty massive upheaval of global politics.
The Iraq Army is not easy to define,her capabilities that is. We read of good conduct and cowardly conduct all in the same week,in areas maybe 80 miles apart.
I know soldiers in Iraq,they work with generally pretty good guys,growing up on the job,showing much courage,my friends like the Iraqis they work with. This in Diyala Province. Read some Milbloggers and we see some IA are
worthless. Some are becoming professionals right before their mentor's eyes.
I think we need to supply them better EQ myself,most I see are in Toyota Pickup trucks.
I am particularly worried myself about the ability of the terrorist side to create more dangerous IEDs. Read today where they have developed some shaped charges to penetrate armored vehicles,that's not a small accomplishment.
If 2 years from now the Iraqi Army is not in a position to pretty much take this job over,I fear we are shot,the US public is weak fellas. THAT is the weak link in this GWOT,not the IA,not our Army,but our populace. I have almost 0 confidence in the average American to show enough determination to outlast our enemy in 2005.
I promise,the enemy will not lose patience or determination.
"I find it very unlikely the insurgency grows significantly stronger in that environment, particularly as they seem now to be largely confined to launching indescriminate attacks against civilians. Not a sign of strength."
Im not sure thats the case, just those are the attacks that get publicity. If this is so, that there arent many attacks other than the booms against civilians, then we should see a fairly swift restoration of electricity (which WAS growing nicely, but has been stagnant since June of 2004) and of oil exports (ditto) all of which we've been told is basically held back by the security situation.
"Lets not make the mistake of dwelling only on our own problems without realizing the enemy has the same problems only worse."
Yessir, General Halleck.
But this isnt the peninsula in 1862. The downside of overconfidence is huge - i see little downside to pessimism here, as long as we stay. We could use a little Mclellan - and a little Grant, too.
As a side-note, 'Six Days in June' by Eric Hammel is a great account of how the IDF developed 1949-1967. In short: it was not always thus.
It took the Israelis about two decades (see Hammel's book).
Hmmm...
Anyone here read Jerry Pounelle's Sparta series, set in his Co-Dominium universe?
Same kind of situation, building a local army at the same time you fight an insurgency.
JP points out that one of the advantages to this kind of situation is that you grow a good crop of junior leaders, NCOs, LTs and CPTs.
Which you then splice onto the new troops as they are formed. Which makes the new units combat ready even faster.
Pournelle is a smart guy.
[I will be darned, however, if I can remember the co-author of the series]
I think that the Iraqi army will be a decent force when we finish training it. I wonder how long it will be able to maintain that quality. Probably for about as long as its able to keep itself out of Iraqi political life.
As for the best army of the region, I used to think that the IDF was the best quality army in the world. I no longer hold that opinion. I think that the IDF does very well given the material deficiencies it had to deal with during its wars. The IDF also has done well to create a doctrine that emphasizes its strengths. But I think that the US Army exceeds its quality today and probably has since the late 80's.
Today, the region's armies probably rank: IDF, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lebanese militias. I'd be impressed if the Iraqi army equalled Jordan's army when we were done.
Throwing in the Towel
In an institution where can-do optimism is about as mandatory as patriotism, it's remarkable to hear Army generals talking like this:
Military action won't end insurgency,
growing number of U.S. officers believe
"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that ... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. "It's going to be settled in the political process."
[follow link for the rest of the post]
Hmmm.... Democracy is a politcal process. Thanks for the update JC.
Great reading. I especially like the care and precision used to evaluate the capabilities of the IA. If Rumsfeld asks for metrics to evaluate the GWOT, that may be too much to ask, but metrics to evaluate the capabilities of the IA and the impact they are having should be doable. Why couldn't the blogosphere track IA capability, in a "fair" manner?
I also wanted to say a word about using the guard and reserves so heavily, besides rotation. In many local communities, we now have a dispersed counter-terror force with combat experience. That may be useful in the days ahead...
You may want to actually read the article - especially the comparison quotes from 2003 2004 - the changes compared to now are dramatic.
This is why I posted the entire article, b/c I knew that if cut down, the part shown HERE would be all that would be commented on, and thus lurker, the distortion that you engage in with your comment, would follow.
I'm assuming that Bill cut it down to save space - not that this has ever stopped the voluminous comments from other conservative posters. A different standard I suppose.
At any rate, the points of the article are the following -
a. Reality is settling in. No more triumphalism, even from this far right group (WOC posters), which can only be good. This article by Bill reflects this to a degree.
b. A different take on just how possible it would be to get a grip on the insurgency in the Sunni areas - from both a military and political perspective.
c. For the Sunni elite, it seems to be in their eyes that they are in a lose-lose proposition, and no political settlement may be possible.
Billmon has a fundamental error in the article - he doesn't split the various Iraqi army groups into various factions. While one could see that all the Sunni-based military units of the Iraqi army will suffer from massive infiltration and undermining, this isn't going to be so in Kurdish and Shiite units of the Iraqi army.
And definitely won't be so in the paramilitary groups.
Still, it's worth it to get another perspective.
JC,
I did cut it back for space reasons, it had nothing to do with the content. When linking to established content, I'd prefer that it be excerpted if a link is available. Length on original content from posters is not an issue, however brevity is nice.
JC, I think any sane person has known along that this w\was going to be a combination of force and politics. It's the whole hearts and mind thing we've been hearing about forever.
We all get that you're against the war. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your comments. What is it exactly that you think the US should do from this point on? Or are you here mainly in an attempt to get yeild up some small acknowledgement to your unjustified gloating?
Well, you're not going to get much from me. I supported the idea of overthrowing Saddam before Bush announced it. Even with all the setbacks, Iraq is STILL going much better than I initially expected.
The only concession that I'll make is that Bush is an imperfect vessel for the execution of the policy that I supported. Seeing how this is a fallen world and all, that will have to do.
Bush isn't perfect. So gloat away. But when you're done, answer these questions. What would you have us do now? And how what that be better than what Bush is doing?
I don't understand why this is such big news. Of course the insurgency has to be solved politically. The only other way to solve it is genocide, one way or the other (re: Vietnam).
I do think all of those comments in 2003/2004 about being over the hump were unfortunate. Likewise, I think that the Nov effort in Fallujah did break the back of the insurgency: it broke their political back and allowed the success in the Jan elections. That is a significant event. They lost the population they operate from, even many Sunnis.
Something about a long, hard slog comes to mind. It isn't a surprise: it is merely political ammunition.
Outside of weapons the best armies in the Middle East on a man bases are:
Hezbollah (thankfully small), IDF, Jordan, Underground Iraq army, Turkey, Kurdish Army, SCRII & other Shiite militias, Iran, Syria, Gulf states, everybody else who can handle a ak47, official Iraq army.
The goverment of Iraq has a total army of around 300 000 men (kurds 100 000 + Shiite 200 000) under its control but they wont fight this year except if the Americans leave.
The change that the Iraqi army will get better is also very small because anybody who is good and not an idiot will transfer to one of the militias.
If you include weapon systems than the IDF is best.
Lurker,
I made my point fairly clear. Bill's excellent analysis notwithstanding, it's worthwhile to get another view. It is very possible his outlook is still too rosy. Hence the link to other information.
Again, one more time. While the personal attacks may satisfy you, it remains the case that Bill's analysis may err (and probably does err) on the side of unfounded optimism.
Given the premature triumphalism from far too many corners, I actually view this post of Bill's more positively than quite a lot of other posts here at WOC, as it is attempting to provide information, while staying reality based.
#23 You are dreaming. Not participating in the election was the best thing the Sunni's could do. It is not like they would be have a large representation otherwise and now they can use the heroic nationalisme card.
"a", regarding your #24, you are again making absolutely no sense. Hezbollah? Your comments are getting more and more distant from reality.
Re: What to do -
I'm not sure we're that far apart - as Joe says.
"Do what Sen. Biden advises re: talking to the American people about Iraq would be a fine start".
No more Cheney "last throes" comments.
Also, as this article suggests, some reality-based defense appropriations would be useful. The death grip that the military-industrial complex has on the nation's purse strings can harm national security at times.
(Apologize if this is off-topic, was asked a question.)
RE: #21... Ah, so this is what Bill meant. Yes, we've clipped stuff before if it's linked, and insisted on tighter excerpts when it seemed necessary.
Have to be a bit careful re: copyright violations and Winds' exposure on that front, and it's better for readers as well.
We'll make all this a bit clearer in our official comments policy.
Good exchange, folks....
Well a, i suppose thats good news that the IA is worse than a random collection of guys with AKs, considering your theory that we are actually supporting the Sunni Iraqis in their efforts to stop the Shiia from overruning the entire middle east. The Shiia army we are army and training, and the Sunni insurgents we are blowing up on a regular basis just to clarify. For those scoring at home I think 'a' has officially blown past Sean Penn on the out of touch with reality scale.
Mark, that happened long ago. About the time his recommended policy was for the USA to "give up and leave the Middle East." Though recent assertions that the Boers won the Boer War and defenses of Marxism's historical record were amusing.
JC, check out this article at Defense Industry Daily. It speaks to defense procurement item cost issues, which are a subject of growing and very bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill.
Always amusing the improbability drive propelled left....
If we crush them easy,,, then they was never a threat and we was wrong .... if the enemy is like WWII Japanese fanatics to the last man, all the more dangerous and deadly the closer to defeat (closer to the truth), we are wrong again....
Their brain is all over the place at once,, on display by them is everything except the ability, or even the approval, of victory. opposition for its own sake.
On display in this life and death issue, their inability to defer this opposition, because they hate everything America stands for, our every achievement causes them angst, our every error is put to use for attack on us without delay
Which shows why the left should never be in charge.... even Bush's flaw is his leftist taint, made easier to live with due to his deference to the miliary to find its own opertunities to advance to the goals.
Efforts in which the left is dependbly unhelpfull,, On display is anti-american propaganda in service to our enemies, complete hostility to the national interst,,, and lives held up to be worthless by a media and a left that hold us in contempt.
David Horwitz says in no uncertain terms, that the left must be defeated for us to survive as much as does the enemy,,, proven by the left themselves.
A common theme recited by most ex-leftists who should know them best.
Behold our enemies, not all of them use guns and bombs.
What a load of commie garbage lame attempt of a straw man ... we went in with 10,000 body bags on hand, dressed in chem suits because we expected the worst, had to work around the denial of the 4th ID in the north ... and the anti american hoping for failure leftist media propaganda flood to program americans against the effort.
And if it wasnt for the internet and blogs how would we have done .. the very reason "Hood News From Iraq et all is done here,, because of the bald face FACT that our media is the leftist propaganda engineers of failure.
Its the left thats gotten all the reality checks, why not try the "Brutal Afgan Winter" on us again.
The left may operate as what they said yesterday has been forgotten ... but our list is rather long already ,,,
You would think the left would be tired of running with the goalposts ... but if they think they will ever be able to put them down,,,
Can do, adapt and overcome, leaving defeated and discretied defeatist in our wake ... better get used to that ....
The goals are far more real than Kerrys vaporware "plan" that would not, even if it existed, lasted beyond the first reajustment of our enemy.
At least they can reajust, something the left seem unable to do, except the constant adjusting the placement of the goal posts.
If ever I had cause to feel triumphalism, it would be the endless parade on display of the discredit of the left, our every success along the way landing like a 2×4 in the mouths of all the lefty predictions of doom the last few years.
Must really suck to be you, and everyone like you. dont skip doses on that prozac perscription.
.
Mark
A perfect nuronic reality inverter.
The USA is the most successfull state in the history of planet earth ,,, never have such a body of people ever existed in a state of such confort, had the ability to project so much power (this is .001% what we could do compared to if the people actually felt a true threat).
Never has their been a land of such oppertunity to excell in the persuit of dreams. untill something better comes along ... its so far is the total absolute pinnacle ....
The world is fortunate our founding reformist Christian ethic and principles is the protector of good peoples.
The left have produced the opposite, the most evil that ever wasm the most misery there has ever been, a mountain of skulls that stands as the singular example of man inhumanity to man..
And the most marked denial, refusal to accept the absolute objective truth of proven left=evil tested among the entire range of geography cultures and races of peoples
Has any science ever had proof so damning and irrefutable ?
And yet their false socialist gods still have control of their souls ,,, instead of accepting reality ,,, this irrefutable defeat, they have abandoned reality...
And the events of the world are sifted for brickbats to throw at the victors ..
As I said, sucks to be them, buy more stock in the vendors of prozac and its similars, cause thats where all those magic pills are going.
There is nothing like participating in a shooting war to upgrade the quality of NCOs and mid-level officers. Rather quickly.
Compare the US Army of around June 1942 with the same Army in June of 1944.
Joe mentions:
defense procurement item cost issues, which are a subject of growing and very bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill.
Well it is the Capitol Hill boys who drive a lot of that cost.
Anecdote:
The Air Force called a defence contractor I worked for and ordered 4 stainless steel bolts. Our cost about $5 ea.
We said we will send them to you no charge. Our pleasure.
The AF got back to us: we can't accept the bolts without the paper work.
So we charged them $90 a bolt. Which included Congressionally mandated charges for all the labor items and overhead involved in the paper work. Plus a profit on the bolts.
Paper work is probably 50% of the cost of military procurement.
So we spend 10X to prevent the normal 5% of waste fraud and abuse. Because scandals are very politically expensive, to all concerned.
This paper work did not prevent cheating. The FBI started an investigation into some of our company's shadier practices. Those practices ended. The crooks were never punished. Better for all concerned if the problem just went away. And never returned.
Politics.
The answer?
I haven't got one.
JC,
#25
What personal attacks?
#28
Please correct me if I'm wrong as I have no desire to put words in your mouth...
So, you're pretty much in agreement with the current Bush policies WRT Iraq? Other than better PR? If so, you are correct, we are in substantial agreement.
Is your only concern really that WoC exhibits too much triumphalism? I disgaree with this. I certainly don't feel very triumphant and for the most part WoC gives us a balanced view of the war, moreso than any other blog that I've found.
Now an aside...
Remember your campaign to harrass Joe into more "balanced" coverage and accusing him and this site of sophistry? Was that also part of your campaign to battle triumphalism? Your charges were unfair and ill-advised if the goal was to stimulate debate. In fact, your posts demonstarted the troll behavior of counting-coup with your homies. So if my first post seemed dimissive, that is why.
Now to your points...
I trust my own judgement more than PR, whether it's from Bush or his generals. I also understand that "no plan survives contact with the enemy". So, it doesn't disturb me very much if early predictions of success are not bourne out over time as it is expected that our generals adapt to the situation within the overall goals of the war effort.
Do you remember the presidential election debate where Bush kept saying over and over over, that it is hard work? I do, and I agreed. I fully supported the invasion before Bush announced it; and, like I said before, events in Iraq are going BETTER than I expected. I'm staisfied as long as progress is being made. I do not expect perfection. That's another reason, when you point out that what the Generals are saying has gotten more negative, it doesn't change anything with me.
It was NEVER going to be a purely military endeavor. Everyone that thought about it before knows this. And your pointing out the obvious changes nothing in my mind or, most likely, anyone else's here either. It has already been cogitated! That's why you got so little traction in this thread.
#27 Is the IDF still in Lebanon? Don't think so.
Hezbollah's militia is one of the best if not the best army in the Middle East. They don't have a airforce but for the rest they are one of the best
#30
Iran is arming the Shiite militias, the US on the other hand is faking the act of arming the Iraqi army. How many airplanes, helicopters, Tanks & APC have been delivered to the Iraqi army?
Where have i said that the US is supporting the Sunni's. What i said is that the USA will switch sides in a couple of years.
On 22 May, WaPo reported that 13 FOB's had been turned over to Iraqi forces with 106 FOB's sill in US hands.
Bill linked with 2 more FOB's turned over.
A balance of 104 FOB's
The rate would appear to be roughly one FOB per week which would coincide with Biden's "2 years" projection as well as Kerry's "by 2007" campaign promise.
It is unlikely at this point that Rumsfeld would reduce troop levels prior to the December elections, if for no other reason than avoiding having to send them back. But by my simple math, 14 FOB's, even if they were just company sized FOB's represents at least a Full Brigade being freed up every 3 months.
"Boers won the Boer War"
threadjack warning.
Thats not all that crazy. I mean its not as crazy as saying that the Japanese won WW2. or Niall Ferguson saying that the EU is not really different from what Europe would have been like had Germany won WW1. I mean were the Boers really in it for formal sovereignty? Or for cultural and political autonomy, white supremacy (touch of anachronism, as there was little challenge to this in 1900) and for their material prosperity. Their problem with Uitlanders was that they would be swamped and Anglicized. DIdnt happen. They regained autonomy under Smuts, in conjunction with their cousins in the Cape Colony. They got Union, but on their terms. Eventually they even got their Republic. They didnt "lose" till 1991.
Was A making an Iraq analogy??? My take on the Boers and Iraq. The UK won the "war" narrowly defined, but the Boers won the peace. and they did so precisely cause the UK sacrificed the majority population - given UKs other interests, they wouldnt and couldnt support a black power rebellion in 1910 or so. To keep the peace it was much easier to cut a deal with Smuts. Which, come to think of it, is ALSO how Iraq got to its mess. Same folks. Brits kept the Sunni power structure in place, and kept the Shiia down. Which made sense, given their interests in Egypt, India, and elsewhere.
Now some folks have suggested we restore Sunni Arab power in Iraq, to avoid alienating KSA, Jordan, etc. I think this would certainly mean losing the peace. Unlike UK, we CAN take the side of the Shiite majority, and lead Iraq to a multireligious, multicultural polity, that RSA didnt reach till 1991 (and is still struggling with)
Maybe the problem is trying to use words ("death throes" "quagmire" "long hard slog") to describe reality.
Not be too McNamarish, but maybe numbers would be better.
Heres my take.
A safe secure attack, with minimal insurgent activity, which can be handled by the Iraqi police, with moderate support from the regular Iraqi army. BY
August 2005 (imminent insurgent collapse) - 1%
December 2005 (new elections) - 10%
November 2006 (US midterm elections) 25%
June 2007 (Bidens 2 years) 50%
Novemener 2008 (US election) 75%
March 2011 (8 to 10 yrs to beat guerillas) 90%
Ever (if we stay long enough) - 99%
Note this is a demanding condition. If we specify not a beaten insurgency, but one contained enough to be handled by major Iraqi army effort (the de minimus condition for a safe withdrawl), the percentages would be higher.
should be safe secure Iraq.
I think the Iraqi police already can handle the insurgency, mostly because they are part of it. What they can't handle is the protection of US interest because they don't want to.