Meanwhile back in Iraq...

jazkiljok

Brown Belt
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
450
Reaction score
5
U.S. officer describes disarray in Iraqi army
POSTED: 6:26 p.m. EST, November 2, 2006


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- In an assessment for a military journal, a U.S. Army officer who advised Iraqi troops concludes the goal of having Iraq control its security "will exceed" the new army's capability "for some time to come."

In an article for Military Review, Lt. Col. Carl D. Grunow wrote that "without steadfast American support, these officers and soldiers will likely give up and consider the entire effort a lost cause."

Grunow recounted his experience of 12 months as the senior adviser to an Iraqi army armored brigade in Taji, north of Baghdad. His stint ended in June. The article in the July-August issue of Military Review is titled "Advising Iraqis: Building the Iraqi Army."

Grunow found and grappled with several problems during his experience.

One was what he called the Iraqi "death blossom," in which any enemy attack on the soldiers "provokes the average Iraqi soldier to empty his 30-round magazine and fire whatever belt of ammunition happens to be in his machine gun."

"Ninety percent of the time, there is no target, and the soldiers always agree that this is extremely dangerous, in addition to being a grievous waste of ammunition. But they continue to do it."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/02/training.iraqis/index.html
 

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
I used to see this a lot while working with foreign troops. Sometimes, I've heard it said, it's a cultural issue. In my experience though it's almost always a training issue. I'm wondering if this brigade is a "1st Gen" (trained by US) or "2nd Gen" (trained by Iraqis that were trained by US).

Jeff
 

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
As an addendum to my previous post, regardless whether they were trained by US troops or fellow Iraqi troops, the blame still lies with the initial trainers.

Jeff
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Personally I think we need to force the Iraqi's to step up so to speak. Make them do the day to day policing. (after all they know the dialect and speak the language) Then use our military as a strike force or in a military manner and not police work. (which is what we do best) Only when we tell them that they have to do this and that will they actually do that. (after all as long as dad is taking care of everything why not sponge off of him) Unfortunately know matter what there will be some serious bumps and bruises along the way. Iraq is a huge mess right now and it is certainly not due to our military at this point but the politicians running the show.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
According to the President, something like 300,000 Iraqis have been trained to do the day-to-day policing.

Of course, reports also indicate that the police have been heavily infiltrated by militia-types, and may be participating in the death squads.

An invading nation has the international obligation to provide security for the territory captured. This was never accomplished by our military. It is incorrect to 'pass the buck' now, and absolve our military from its obligations, regardless of the citizen leaders of the military - be they Rumsfeld and co. or Al-Maliki and co.
 

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
According to the President, something like 300,000 Iraqis have been trained to do the day-to-day policing.

Of course, reports also indicate that the police have been heavily infiltrated by militia-types, and may be participating in the death squads.

An invading nation has the international obligation to provide security for the territory captured. This was never accomplished by our military. It is incorrect to 'pass the buck' now, and absolve our military from its obligations, regardless of the citizen leaders of the military - be they Rumsfeld and co. or Al-Maliki and co.
Michael, I'm not trying to snipe or get into an argument with you, but this post could be interpreted as an argument to keep our troops there. Now from your other posts, I'm pretty sure that you don't believe that. Maybe I'm being dense here, but would you care to clarify/elaborate?

Thanks,

Jeff
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Michael, I'm not trying to snipe or get into an argument with you, but this post could be interpreted as an argument to keep our troops there. Now from your other posts, I'm pretty sure that you don't believe that. Maybe I'm being dense here, but would you care to clarify/elaborate?

Thanks,

Jeff

It is more an argument about the responsibilities of invading a sovreign nation by choice. That our government took the action of invading, it assumed responsibilities for the security of that nation. SecDef Rumsfeld has been trying to abdicate that legal responsibility from the days he said that 'freedom is messy'. If you read State of Denial, it is obvious that SecDef Rumsfeld has been trying to push responsibility of Iraqi Security onto the State Department from prior to the invasion. In fact, it is probably why General Garner was removed, and Ambassador Bremer was installed in Iraq.

We did the wrong thing three and a half years ago. And we continue to pay for that.

I have stated that the Iraq war is lost.

They only way the United States will be able to 'win' in Iraq, is to restart the war. Because we never created the security required to transfer authority, the statement could very well be seen as a call to keep troops, or increase troop levels in Iraq. That is what we must do, if we want to "Win".

If we want to "Win" - we need to implement a severe tax on the nation - so that all citizens and residence are 'paying' for the war. We need to implement the draft - so that we have enough bodies available to properly staff the military (estimates of 500,000 troopos are probably low, but closer to the correct number than the current number). We must redefine what it means to win - an unconditional surrender by the current elected leadership in Iraq. (This, of course, would expand the battle into World War III - When Iran and Syria go through the roof).

If we don't have the stomach for these changes - the war is lost. We just haven't recognized it yet.
 

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
I agree with some of your points and disagree with a few others. Thanks for the clarification.

Jeff
 

Latest Discussions

Top