In the best of all possible worlds, the U.S. presence will over the next few years be gradually confined to "the restive Al Anbar province," with Iraqis in Baghdad and environs needing only a small bit of American support. We are pretty far from that goal as of yet, though, probably because of problems with Iraqi training and equipment. I'm pretty sure that we can get them better equipment than pickup trucks with machine guns in the back.

Wouldn't GM be happy to at least sell Hummers to the Iraqi government?

Its pretty obvious the tempo of American operations has increased substantially in the last few weeks. Its equally plain the forces have been freed up by Iraqi units. I dont see how that can be questioned. So why at this juncture are the bring em home contingent trying to play the quagmire card? Even Joe Biden, a reasonably level headed democrat, just said the Iraqi government and army doesnt have a chance without major US policy changes (does he spell them out? Not really). Note to Joe and the rest, there are major policy changes at work and we are just starting to see them. The opposition in this country is so invested in the notion of quagmire that they are tunnel blind. Iraqi is anything but static, things are changing constantly. The situation on the ground changes daily. We learn, they learn. Number of attacks are down, effectiveness of attacks is up. Contrary to the misguided belief of many (uneducated militarilly) war critics, war tends to escalate over time regardless of who is winning and often regardless of how close defeat may be. Some of the fiercest fighting occurred in WW2 immediately before Japanese surrender. To preempt the criticisms: does that mean more fighting means the end is near? Not necessarilly. But neither does it mean the enemy isnt struggling badly. The democrats have been very critical of the Bush admins happy face and optimism, would the alternative make them any happier? Dems need to acknowledge the truth. War is incrediably complicated and its notoriously difficult to tell how close the enemy is to defeat. It is unrealistic, unfair, and indeed unwise to demand accurate estimates of how much fighting is to be done. Especially when the underlying message is 'if we dont know now we should quit'. That message is coming more and more to the surface. If the message is (and it is) we havent had enough troops, well guess what, we just received a large infusion of troops by freeing up our garrisons in Baghdad and elsewhere with IA forces. If that is the criticism, it has already been addressed and the opposition is once again behind the times. And once again this problem is spurred largely from the lack knowledge Dems and the MSM have in military affairs. Joe Biden should know better, but there are plenty of voices who just dont understand what it means when we can suddenly carry out 3 major operations similtaneously and in rapid succession, when 6 months ago we could only do 1 at a time Fallujah style. Bottom line, this is a major development, and will accelerate as steady wave of Iraqi forces come on line for the next 2 years. This is only the beginning.

the bring em home contingent

Things are starting to turn. And most likely by the end of 2005 we will be able to pull out thousands of troops. 6 months of intense training for new guys and 6 months of combat experience for current Iraqi forces is more than enough time to prepare. They are just hoppin' on the train and yelling "hey look at me ... I got the troops home!"

This is all about playing politics and playing it safe.

I think that one on big change from the pre-election period that is being overlooked is that there are no significant protests generated by each one of these (mini) offensives. It seems to me that all of the following are true: (1)Iraqis are fed up with the rebellious Sunnis (even many of the Sunnis), (2) that the lack of protests shows that the govt. has stong legitimacy; and (3) that the US and Iraqi forces have learned that they need to keep these offesives relatively small and quick.

What are the projected dates for arming the Iraqi army with heavy weapons?

#1
Hummers are designed to work very well with tanks. They are crap if you don't have tanks.

#2
It was also obvious at that time that the Japanese were almost defeated. This is now not clear at all.

#3
Things are starting to turn. And most likely by the end of 2005 we must pull out thousands of troops or they will be massacred.

#4
You shouldn't read the MSM. Their glasses are way to rose tinted

#5
Their plan is last week. The US plan is never, but that plan isn't working to well.

I don't know if it's possible to get through to someone with your ideological priors, but an insurgent force simply cannot surround and massacre a unit of the U.S. military larger than squad size. Full stop. I don't think that you're entirely clear as to exactly how much firepower a Marine Corps rifle squad can lay down even before you take into account air superiority.

Every time the Ba'athists have gone for a big, splashy attack, the result has been lots of dead insurgents. Considering that several of the attempted splashy attacks have been against non-combat units, I think that you are over-estimating their combat skills by just a wee bit.

"a":
#1 - The Hummer is an unarmored light truck. It is a support vehicle; not a combat vehicle and was not "designed" to work "with" tanks.

#2 - The context for this comment is a mystery.

#3 - The idea that our troops will be massacred is among the most bizarre I've ever heard. There is no basis for this weird comment.

#4 - Your observation of the MSM makes no sense at all. The MSM prints whatever sensationalist story is in their lap each day. They don't emphasize good news of any kind much less in Iraq. You make no sense here.

#5 - Criticism of the current plan in Iraq devoid of any serious alternatives just demonstrates a lack of seriousness.

I think, though, that I can understand his thinking. Let me put on my communist/anarchist hat for a moment.

[Takes deep breath.] Leftist argument: The insurgents are in complete control of all of the roads in and out of Baghdad (the "triangle of death"). As such, the U.S. forces are cut off and their backup supplies are gradually dwindling. Soon, there will come a point when the U.S. forces do not have enough fuel or ammunition to operate, at which point the victorious insurgents will surround and massacre them.

Yes, I know that it's a narrative not particularly attached to reality, but like Peak Oil, it's a very good story of an Impending Apocalypse to Punish the Wicked.

Andrew, I'm reminded of the 101st Airborne's response to 3rd Army claiming they'd rescued them in Bastogne which appears at the end of an episode of the Band of Brothers.

Agreed that "massacres" are unlikely, given US complete and total air superiority (is there an "insurgent air force"?) along with a huge discrepancy in weapons and tactics.
However, that does not mean that Iraqization will be a success any more than Vietnamization before it.
Newsweek has a good article about the insurgent penetration of Iraqi forces
"In the long run, the insurgents' most powerful weapon may be one that is practically silent: a vast network of infiltrators, spies and recruiters.
According to intelligence officials in Baghdad, whose clearances bar them from speaking publicly, Iraq's security services have hundreds of "ghost soldiers"—members who vanish, sometimes for months on end, but continue to draw their pay. The fear is that they are working for the insurgency while keeping up their ties in uniform. " Network of spies

Although most WOCers deny it, the Wash Post had a good article about the lack of motivation/incompetence/poor equipment&training of Iraqi forces, especially as compared to the insane dedication and commitment of their insurgent foes. As in Vietnam, US officers speak with contempt for their Iraqi allies and respect for their Iraqi opponents.

The US failure to provide heavy weapons to the Iraqi forces speaks more than any words could about US distrust for the "death blossom" dealing locals. After 2 years, the only possible reason that Iraqi forces lack heavy weapons is a deliberate US decision not to provide them. If the US does not trust Iraqis to handle heavy weapons, then the US plain does not trust Iraqis.

Insurgents win by not losing, while the US loses by not winning. This dynamic, combined with reluctance of democracies to sacrifice their money and their people over long term for objectives that are unclear to most, explains the growing calls for "exit strategy","withdrawal timetable",etc.

Peak Oil is no story, but a simple geological fact of finite resources with an indeterminate time frame. The impact of peak oil depends so heavily on our own actions that nobody can reasonably predict whether it will be "Apocalypse for the Wicked" or "Minor Hiccup For Industrial Capitalism". My own guess falls somewhere in-between, since we clearly have the capability to adapt, but we seem to lack the will. The who used the Peak Oil narrative to inform investment decisions over the last 2 years are certainly doing better than the Peak Oil denial crowd who predicted $30 oil today.

My point about Peak Oil wasn't a denial that supplies will peak; rather, it was an example of the sort of fantasies about impending disasters seen among some leftists that have the feel of wish fulfillment about them.

I think, though, that the lack of decent equipment is less the result of a distrust of Iraqis and more a product of the fact that military procurement almost always operates on a time scale that can only be described as geological. Even so, there are 10 T-55's and 77 T-72's on the way.

You have, sadly, hit the nail on the head in your diagnosis of the problem with Iraqi troops. Until there are enough to actually hold down Al Anbar, then trying to unf***k Iraq is like trying to fill up a sieve with sand. I think, though that the eventual hope that the U.S./Iraqi governments have is to get the Baghdad area to a state in which the effort is reduced to police work and to eventually reach a point in which U.S. forces are mainly confined to Al Anbar.

Whether such a plan works is an entirely different story.

The Hummer was designed to drive on the same dirth tracks as tanks. That is the reason why it is so broad. This is also a reason why it doesn't work well on public roads and hence its comparetive uselessness in an insurgents war

The Humvee has a width of 85" (Escalade is 79.1) and the M1-A1 is 144" . Humvees drive just fine on public roads and just fine off road.

If you'rw going to make things up involving verifiable facts rather than simple conjecture there is this thing called "Google". It may help you to keep from appearing very foolish.

No, "a", the Hummer is broad to increase its stability against roll over - the cause of a lot of fatalities among those driving the original Jeep and its successors.

I've never heard anyone complain about the Hummer's width in relation to its suitability as a patrol vehicle in Iraq. Parking one in downtown Los Angeles yes, but none of my friends from Fort Carson complained of problems parking in Baghdad.

Making patrol vehicles survivable against mines has been a perennial problem for decades. Once upon a time, the South Africans designed an interesting armored car around the problem.

As for our soldiers being "massacred", I hope our fine servicewomen will forgive me one joke:

I might start to worry about our soldiers being massacred, when the jihadists learn to beat our women.

#8#2

The heaviest fighting with the Japanese was when Germany was defeated, Japan was on serious retreat and it was clear than the USA would win the war.
Claiming that it is obvious that the insurgents are almost defeated is IMNSHO premature

#8#3

For example the battle of Isandlwana shows that you can be defeated by a technological inferior force. Have a sandstorm and bad leadership and i can see this happen

#8#4

There is no good news in Iraq. The situation is so much worse.

#8#5

Maybe i wasn't clear. The Iraq goverment would want heavy weapons yesterday but the US goverment doesn't want to see Iraq having heavy weapons. The problem for the US is that Iraqi forces are acquiring heavy weapons

#11

The people who controll the state don't like to see money and lives wasted. The state doesn't have to be a democracy for this to be true.

Peak oil has some truth but most of is bull. Alternative forms of oil production (like from coal) are a lot more expensive but still affordable.

#12

These tanks will be used as infantry support. They don't need to be used anti tank weapon so even standard T72's can be used and those can be bought very cheap and fast. What does surprise me is that most of Saddam's T72 seem to have disappear because with a little money you can repair them into a functioning state. The same is true of the many guns he had. I assume that they have all been sold off as scrap (to Iraqi militias).

And by "Iraq," you mean, "Al Anbar, Baghdad, and its environs." And even there, compared to last year when the Ba'athists were in control of Samarra and Fallujah, the situation is much better. Police stations getting regularly overrun, which was a fairly regular occurence last summer, is much less so this year (though there was of course a fairly nasty attack today). More importantly, the number of daily attacks seems to be hovering in the area of 60-70, which is pretty much the same, on average, as it's been since last summer (100 ish attacks a day last fall, 30-40 ish a day this spring).

Which may indicate that there's not a gradual improvement in the security situation, but doesn't indicate an ever-victorious insurgent force gathering momentum to a final victory.

It's a bad situation, but there's no need to make it out to be worse than it is.

"a", your comments are not merely internally contradictory but completely confused. You claim in one sentence that the US is not providing the Iraqi army heavy weapons despite the fact you know that to be factually false and later make up some weird reason why heavy weapons are not heavy weapons.

Your continued claim doesn't even make any sense. Heavy weapons do not fit into the insurgents' tactics in any rational sense and would not do them much practical good. This issue exists mostly in your imagination.

Of course tanks can be used for infantry support. Its not exactly news about tank doctrine, but if you want we can dig up Gen. Lesley McNair for some earlier obsolete armor doctrine.

As for Saddam's T72's disappearing, actually most haven't disappeared but rather been rendered into scrap. We just had a war there a few years ago you might recall. It was in all the papers.

The US failure to provide heavy weapons to the Iraqi forces speaks more than any words could about US distrust for the "death blossom" dealing locals. After 2 years, the only possible reason that Iraqi forces lack heavy weapons is a deliberate US decision not to provide them. If the US does not trust Iraqis to handle heavy weapons, then the US plain does not trust Iraqis.

Umm...no.

It speaks to the fact that the American and Iraq military procurement systems are broken.

The Congress is still operating at peacetime paradigms of 'pork for my district' while both the Coalition Provisional Authority and the successor Iraqi interum governments were riddled with bureaucratic B.S. and corruption.

The first truck contract issued to arm the Iraqi army was awarded to a Jordanian company that turned out to be a front company with nothing to back it up.

That procurement was voided and the next go around was awarded to some of the same front people who arranged to obtain surplus Ukrainian trucks. They were the low bidders.

Both contracts that were awarded were written to also provide copious crew served infantry heavy weapons -- mortars, heavy and medium machine guns, and recoilless rifles -- with the trucks.

I have not heard anything about this since the 2nd contract award -- as I work at a losing bidder's truck plant -- but at a guess, the shortages in the Iraqi Army represent underperformance of the winning contractor and not American military "distrust" of the Iraqi Army and security forces.

It speaks to the fact that the American and Iraq military procurement systems are broken.

So whose fault is that?

both the Coalition Provisional Authority and the successor Iraqi interum governments were riddled with bureaucratic B.S. and corruption.

Again: is this some kind of Act of the Gods, or was there a big management screwup? Whom does one hold accountable? Ahmed Chalabi? Paul Bremer? Or the guy who trusted them?

And by the way, the new Iraqi army is riddled with more than "bureaucratic B.S." ... it's riddled with Ba'athist spies. And probably Iranian agents, too. What other explanation is there for such frequent insurgent successes in killing policemen and army recruits?

"And by the way, the new Iraqi army is riddled with more than "bureaucratic B.S." ... it's riddled with Ba'athist spies. And probably Iranian agents, too. What other explanation is there for such frequent insurgent successes in killing policemen and army recruits?"

Wait, are you talking about the Iraqi army or MSM stringers? Only difference is, IA would be upset if they found moles.

Wait, are you talking about the Iraqi army or MSM stringers? Only difference is, IA would be upset if they found moles.

Oh, I'm sure the Shiites in the New Model Iraqi Army would be upset if they found the moles. (Unless the moles were Iranian Shiite plants.) But the fact is, the moles are there.

Otherwise, how is it that high officials in the Iraqi Army keep getting waxed? How is it that uniformed members of the Wolf Brigade are able to hit mess halls? Why is the resistance not yet broken?

Or is the New Model Iraqi Army actually outperforming the ARVN at this point?

And I'll repeat the question:

It speaks to the fact that the American and Iraq military procurement systems are broken.

So whose fault is that?

"It speaks to the fact that the American and Iraq military procurement systems are broken."

Government and military procurement systems follow a "command driven, centrally planned economic model", more commonly known as the "Communist Model". History tells us that the system is full of flaws and inefficiency. Unfortunately, no one has figured out how to control spending of Taxpayer money using a Free Market model.

As far as Iraq getting tanks, Hungary is donating it's T-72's.

I was alluding to the fact that the Kurdish and Shiite militias had tanks and heavy weapons.

When the enemy force doesn't have tanks than you use tanks mostly in combination with infantry. Especially when your fighting insurgents.

Again: is this some kind of Act of the Gods, or was there a big management screwup? Whom does one hold accountable? Ahmed Chalabi? Paul Bremer? Or the guy who trusted them?

Every war starts with a broken military procurement system on every side. The primary purpose of government military procurement systems is to deliver the boodle for the politicos in peacetime, not to provide weapons, goods and services to the troops at war.

It takes wars of national survival and years of combat to get any military procurement system to be somewhat responsive.

Go read the history of US Navy torpedos in WW2 and of US Army tank development in the same war. Go read the history of the M-16 rifle's development in Vietnam and after.

What we are seeing here is NORMAL, an God help the American and Iraqi security forces.

"I was alluding to the fact that the Kurdish and Shiite militias had tanks and heavy weapons."

Source?

The Kurds had some heavy weapons before the Americans got involved and they catched a lot of the Iraq army's guns when it retreated.

The Shiite militias is simply a gut feeling.

i dont know who you people are but a hummer is an armored vehicle we have brand new up armored ones over here and we work just fine without the tanks as a matter of fact we run most of our missions without tanks
2.if you want the iraqis to have better equipment then we need to sell them our hillbilly up armored ones instead of shipping them back home even that is better than their toyota trucks and saffari jeeps.
3 when they learn how to use an ak47 without shooting eachother on accident all the time then maybe we can train them on bigger guns

Whom does one hold accountable?

For the procurement system?? Oh lordy, don't get me started. A lot of the responsibility lies with years of Congressional action. Some with the DOD bureaucracy. Some with media articles, accompanied on occasion by heavy breathing and what looks suspiciously like spittle flying, about "abuses" that in many cases are no such thing, but rather the best attempts of people honestly trying to accomplish the mission within a Byzantine set of regs written by people who don't have to live with the results.

It's been a few years since I had to deal with procurement regs for federal contracts. At that time, there were regs in place written to deal with perceived abuses from 2 decades ago, applied to very different situations and goods than those in question originally, which made our lives frustrating, to put it mildly.

If you're looking to pin blame on this administration, be sure you bring a lot of extras to pin on previous administrations and Congresses. There are lots of suitable targets for it.