The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     How do I ...»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageIraq: For An Army of Its Own

Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Saikat Basu (Maverick) in Politics | 16 comments | 360 views
Next in Politics
Related News
Advertising
As America continues to pump in man, machinery and money into the blackhole that is Iraq, the lead question remains - Will the Iraqi army be able to stand up on its own? The answer will determine the dateline of American withdrawal.
The ghost of Saddam Hussein still pervades Iraq and its people. US forces probably never thought that the capture of an erstwhile dictator was just the beginning; not the end of the cauldron that is Iraq. Each American footfall on Iraqi soil has been greeted with suicide bombers, car bombs and mortar attacks.

The targets are no longer Americans in uniform, but Iraqi officials and more unfortunately, ordinary civilians caught in a conflict not of their own making. As strident voices grow at home and abroad calling for America's withdrawal, it is also apparently clear that a Saigon style rapid exit would leave a vacuum which would push the region into a bloody no-holds-barred civil war. And the echoes will pulsate into the neighboring countries too. America has started a war which it cannot possibly end without the involvement of a stable Iraqi leadership and a strong professional military to prop it up. And this is probably the toughest policy challenge that George Bush's inheritor will face. Economic and military aid can only go so far.

The political process had started with parliamentary elections and a government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. But Iraq is a fractious country which has been ruled by fear of the gun for most part of its recent history. In such an environment, a strong military that knows its job is vital for lasting stability.

America understands this better than most as its own body count increases, and therefore the training of the Iraqi military is the top most priority in its agenda. It is a realistic goal for Iraqi self sufficiency and American withdrawal. The American forces can leave with the belief that they have created something sustainable as they board their ships and planes for the journey home. But looking at the reports from the field in the midst the latest insurgency, American initiatives though commendable have still not yielded a professionally competent Iraqi army. The American administration has tom-tommed the performance of the Iraqi soldiers, but ground realities are giving a different picture.

"Iraqi forces are taking the lead."
Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll told journalists in Baghdad over reports over their performance in an offensive launched against the Mahdi Army militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

A TIME report however reflected the growing dissatisfaction of the American soldiers who have to bear the brunt of the attacks in the name of the Iraqi army. The soldier told TIME.
"A gunfight broke out and we were fighting [the Mahdi Army] for about four hours. The army article made it sound like we were just there supporting the Iraqi Army, but we did all the work. We just had four Humvees out there with some Iraqi troops."

Another incident during a routine patrol in the town of Mahmudiya — about 50 miles south of Baghdad, brings home the lacunae of professionalism in the new Iraqi soldier. An Iraqi platoon was expected to patrol the village but the entire platoon overslept. The American Colonel in overall charge covered up by saying,
” The army is very good at what they do. They just have a problem with sleeping in."


More pragmatic reports are downbeat. The readiness of many Iraqi units is low, regional and ethnic divisions are sharp, their loyalty and morale are questionable, their reported combat actions glorify their real effectiveness and desertions are rampant. Moreover, Iraqi commanders themselves revealed a lack of confidence in the troops under their command. General Ali, the commander of Iraqi forces in Mahmudiya told TIME,
” If you're talking about [U.S. forces withdrawing] tomorrow, I need more equipment. The Iraqi army needs more equipment to function on its own self. It needs time and support from both the Iraqi government and coalition forces."

With this belief comes an underlying dependence on Western forces. "I need [American forces] here until 2015," said Sheikh Amash Saray, the head of the Mahmudiyah local council. It is a bleak outlook for the thousands of young American soldiers stationed in a foreign land.

As the US pours in more money and men into the Iraqi reconstruction, insurgency is also steadily growing worse. Despite the heroic efforts of the men on the ground, it seems like a quagmire without the comfort of a bottom.
article:253676:17::0
3 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  LewWaters
    #1
    The first thing I would do is take articles from media sources that have been against the war all along with a grain of salt.

    Abandonment was tried once before with disastrous results for the people we were previously helping.

    The Troops have performed magnificently in spite of the constant and continual opposition and even congressional demeaning of their efforts.

    If they need equipment, get it to them! Congress needs to stop playing politics with funding and get what is needed to the Troops.

    If they need more personnel, stop protesting and blocking potential enlistees that try to enter the recruiters office.

    We've had Troops in Japan and Germany for 62 years, South Korea nearly as long, with South Korea still considered Hazardous duty. We've been in Bosnia almost 10 years, with a shaky peace at best.

    Why is it only Iraq is considered a "Black Hole?"

    Quagmire is quite rhetorical. Within days of the Afghanistan invasion it has been being thrown about, mostly by those who have never been in a war or faced danger.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Johnny Simpson
    #2
    Great reporting, Maverick!
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh)
    #3
    Realistically, it takes a while to get any military force up to combat effectiveness, even without the complexities of Iraq's murderous mix of circumstances.

    Given that their opposition is trained and contains at least a few experienced mujihadin, it's not workable to expect them to fight on their own yet.

    The troops in Iraq have achieved more than they've been given credit for, and the shift in areas of fighting is an obvious result.

    What's needed is a military operational goal, not just a political goal. Military goals can be achieved, political goals can be talked about.

    It wouldn't be much of a withdrawal, if it means coming back every five minutes to patch up whatever needs patching.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Saikat Basu (Maverick)
    #4
    @ Johnny Simpson
    Great reporting, Maverick!

    Thanks to David Silverberg for the lead!
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Saikat Basu (Maverick)
    #5
    @ Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh)
    Realistically, it takes a while to get any military force up to combat effectiveness, even without the complexities of Iraq's murderous mix of circumstances.

    Given that their opposition is trained and contains at least a few experienced mujihadin, it's not workable to expect them to fight on their own yet.

    The troops in Iraq have achieved more than they've been given credit for, and the shift in areas of fighting is an obvious result.

    What's needed is a military operational goal, not just a political goal. Military goals can be achieved, political goals can be talked about.

    It wouldn't be much of a withdrawal, if it means coming back every five minutes to patch up whatever needs patching.

    True, US has done a commendable job. Signs of change are already their. Attrition and desertion are significantly down. And the new Iraqi army is contributing to some extent it seems. The US has brought in its best people for training the Iraqi army. the problem gets compounded because of the deep religious sectarianism in the people and consequently the army. The military should always be a secular force and removed from politics. Unfortunately, so far (at least the former) it doesn't seem so. And the Gulf is always a powder keg.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Mark L Harvey
    #6
    Having been there and done that, the current IA and IP are doing a bang-up job and my son reports the same thing. At first he was not liking the Iraqi Army but he soon grew to trust them.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  David Silverberg
    #7
    "I need [American forces] here until 2015,"


    I think that is a key quote, because it shows how dependent Iraq is on American military in the region. A full and complete pullout would be disastrous, and the U.S. has to be smart about how it withdraws troops. The Iraq army needs help, that much is for certain, and their fragile presence shows how closely linked America is to Iraq's future. They can't abandon them now, while on the other hand they can't continue their strong-arming like before. It will have to be a delicate balance of both.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Saikat Basu (Maverick)
    #8
    @ Mark L Harvey
    Having been there and done that, the current IA and IP are doing a bang-up job and my son reports the same thing. At first he was not liking the Iraqi Army but he soon grew to trust them.

    Thats news from the ground, and thats good news! Mutual and healthy respect will raise the self esteem of the IAs and through them the people of Iraq.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Bocephalus
    #9
    And if the Iraqi army doesn't clean up America's mess you can just bomb them till they do.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Saikat Basu (Maverick)
    #10
    @ David Silverberg
    I think that is a key quote, because it shows how dependent Iraq is on American military in the region. A full and complete pullout would be disastrous, and the U.S. has to be smart about how it withdraws troops. The Iraq army needs help, that much is for certain, and their fragile presence shows how closely linked America is to Iraq's future. They can't abandon them now, while on the other hand they can't continue their strong-arming like before. It will have to be a delicate balance of both.

    Yes, and its here that the man(or woman) who comes into the White House will have to play a pivotal role. It is already on the election agenda of all the three. In this at least, I support McCain and not Obama. Obama's stand on immediate troop withdrawal, is dangerous as it is immature. This is what I believe though, I am not too much of an analyst on politics.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Helena Handbasket
    #11
    Sky .... pass the ointment .... stat.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Saikat Basu (Maverick)
    #12
    @ Bocephalus
    And if the Iraqi army doesn't clean up America's mess you can just bomb them till they do.

    Well, napalm and HID bombs didn't do much to the VietCong and it won't do too much to the Iraqi's either except kill innocents. No, the US I think is doing the right thing by at least trying to make the Iraqi's stand on their own.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Chris V. (cgull)
    #13
    Great post Maverick. If there had been UN forces in the first place, the training/withdrawal could have been managed better. It is costing a lot of money every day to manage the forces. If the country has a huge cachet of money it is understandable, but we have a huge deficit and this war is being paid by the Chinese and Japanese funds and add the interest payments it is going to be a disaster in the long run.
  • avatar Posted Apr 23, 2008 by  Saikat Basu (Maverick)
    #14
    @ Chris V. (cgull)
    Great post Maverick. If there had been UN forces in the first place, the training/withdrawal could have been managed better. It is costing a lot of money every day to manage the forces. If the country has a huge cachet of money it is understandable, but we have a huge deficit and this war is being paid by the Chinese and Japanese funds and add the interest payments it is going to be a disaster in the long run.

    I think it's billions of dollars ( an article on the cost of the war had come sometime back). But the major cost is in lives lost. So, lets hope everything gets back to normal soon and all that sacrifice doesn't go in vain.
  • redhawk Posted Apr 24, 2008 by  redhawk
    #15
    @ Bocephalus
    And if the Iraqi army doesn't clean up America's mess you can just bomb them till they do.

    DEEEEPPP Really deep... truly deep.. Go boyo deep no less.. Obtusely deeeppp .. what a trap mind deep!! Go on deep..
  • redhawk Posted Apr 24, 2008 by  redhawk
    #16
    Prematurely leaving might mean a more costly return in terms of lives lost and treasure.. as it appears that things are coming into line as originally but poorly executed until the surge, Iraq is beginning to take hold.. After all it took the NEW Experiment called the USA 12 plus years to get it together, and USA troops are still deployed in key parts of the world which are more prosperous that Iraq is at present in order to safeguard Security..
    I know that the timing of this , along with a lower unemployment rate just reported, a stronger Dollar Vs Euro just reported along with a 4 1,00 drop in price per barrel for oil before Elections Might actually Upset some.. but then it will be made to be all W's doing anyhow right??

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?