General: Much Of Iraq's (Military) Forces Have Quit

AP/Yahoo ^ | 4-21-2004 | Connie Cass

[blam]

General: Much of Iraq's Forces Have Quit

By CONNIE CASS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - About one in every 10 members of Iraq 's security forces "actually worked against" U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation, the commander of the 1st Armored Division said Wednesday.

In an interview beamed by satellite from Baghdad to news executives attending The Associated Press annual meeting, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey said the campaign in Iraq was at a critical point.

"We have to get this latest increase in violence under control," Dempsey said. "We have to take a look at the Iraqi security forces and learn why they walked."

The militia violence aggravated underlying troubles in Iraq's new military and police forces — the unfulfilled desire for "some Iraqi hierarchy in which to place their trust and confidence" and a reluctance by Iraqis to take up arms against their countrymen, Dempsey said.

"It's very difficult at times to convince them that Iraqis are killing fellow Iraqis and fellow Muslims, because it's something they shouldn't have to accept," he said. "Over time I think they will probably have to accept it."

The failure of Iraqi security forces to perform is significant because it could hurt the United States' overall exit strategy from Iraq, which is dependent on moving U.S. troops out of the cities and handing authority to Iraqis. Officials have said the U.S. military would delay its withdrawal from parts of Iraq until Iraqi forces were ready to take control.

In one example of the problems, on April 5, a newly created Iraqi army battalion of several hundred soldiers refused to join U.S. Marines in their offensive against insurgents in the city of Fallujah.

Dempsey maintained in the interview that popular support for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is still "very solid."

But he acknowledged "a form of descending consent" for the U.S. military presence occurring among Iraqis as time passes.

"There is a point where it doesn't matter how well we're doing, it won't be accepted that we have a large military presence here," he said. "We're all working very diligently trying to figure out where that point is."

Dempsey was asked about the remarks of two other U.S. commanders who questioned the wisdom of banning former Baath Party members from government jobs when their skills are needed in the reconstruction effort.

"History is going to have to decide whether that was right or not," he said.

Dempsey recalled receiving a warning from Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah that the coalition forces would find it tough to bring order to Iraq after dissolving the country's only two powerful institutions — the army and the Baath Party.

"So part of me says our jobs may have been easier had we just found a way to keep some of the Baath Party in place," Dempsey said, echoing comments by Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste and Brig. Gen. Carter F. Ham published in The New York Times on Wednesday.

But Dempsey added: "On the other hand, the entire part of the population that was disenfranchised during these 35 years, largely the Shiite population, absolutely has no trust in any former member of the Baath Party. So we found ourselves exactly in the middle of this."

On the security forces, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said he is sending Maj. Gen. David Petraeus back to Iraq to oversee the training and equipping of all Iraqi security forces, including those who had been the responsibility of the State Department or the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Dempsey said efforts are under way to ensure Iraqi security forces that there will be Iraqi authorities in place to back them up after U.S. troops leave.

During the recent militia attacks, "about 50 percent of the security forces that we've built over the past year stood tall and stood firm," he said.

"About 40 percent walked off the job because they were intimidated. And about 10 percent actually worked against us," said Dempsey, describing that group as infiltrators.

Dempsey commands the Army division in charge of Baghdad. He has been in Iraq for more than a year, focusing on intelligence gathering and combatting terrorism as he works to help Iraqi security forces take over those tasks.

[monkeywrench]

"There is a point where it doesn't matter how well we're doing, it won't be accepted that we have a large military presence here," he said. "We're all working very diligently trying to figure out where that point is."

Well, the left want to send alot more force in, if that helps.

[USNBandit]

Hey, based upon historical data this is a much better performance than Saddam's troops. Only 50% deserted or gave aid to the enemy.

[Keith]

good point...I am sure that will be mentioned in all the major media reporting of these statements...

/sarcasm

[upchuck]

The Islamowacko terrorists have a 14th Century mentality and 21st Century toys. KILL THEM!!

[Burkeman1]

Iraqi "security" forces make the ARVN look like the Wermacht.

[jjm2111]

"Hey, based upon historical data this is a much better performance than Saddam's troops. Only 50% deserted or gave aid to the enemy."

But the USA did not have a super good idea on who was going to join the security forces. Who were we going to trust? The Ba'athists? Take the 50% that stood firm; protect them and their families and turn them into an efficient fighting force.

[68skylark]

Good point.

[blanknoone]

I think we should do some careful data analysis of both those that stayed and those that fought against us, and those that simply left. For instance, what are their tribal and clan affiliations. What is their family status.

This has vetted the forces...getting rid of the worthless and dead wood will help in the long run...at least our enemies and the weak weren't on the dole long. Furthermore, the information gathered can be used in recruiting. Rather than seeking a 'balanced' force, we should be hiring those whose interests align with us, and avoiding those who don't.

Another key fact is probably going to be having security forces operate in areas other than their own stomping grounds. I would suggest crossing ethnic and religious boundaries (Kurds and Shi'ites in Sunni areas for example), but at the very least have other tribes and clans than the locally dominant ones. Not that their should be no one local, but it should be a very distinct minority.

[LS]

I don't think this is a bit unusual. There is a serious vetting process that will have to occur, and it can only occur through blood when these units actually fight. Unfortunately, unlike the Brits in their empire, we cannot put the Kurds in charge of the Shiites and the Shiites in charge of the Sunnis, etc. We want a truly multi-ethnic army.

BTW, in the Am Rev, about 30% of the Americans fought with the Brits.

[livius]

Are we the only people in this world who still have any courage???

[swarthyguy]

>>>>So part of me says our jobs may have been easier had we just found a way to keep some of the Baath Party in place," Dempsey said, echoing comments by Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste and Brig. Gen. Carter F. Ham published in The New York Times on Wednesday.

Isn't just me. Finally, common sense and pragmatism seems to be sinking in. Apparently it always was, in the military, though not in the civilian authority.

[Oatka]

"About 40 percent walked off the job because they were intimidated. And about 10 percent actually worked against us,"

Hopefully we fingerprinted those bozos as they joined up. If so, those who ran are off the A-List for rehire in any government job. The 10% who ran should have arrest warrants issued or tracked down and killed (preferably the latter). Promote where possible those who stayed.
If we didn't fingerprint them (why not?), we're screwed.

[blam]

"Take the 50% that stood firm; protect them and their families and turn them into an efficient fighting force."

I agree...and, do most promotions from this group.

[wordsofearnest]

AK-47'S never fired dropped once.

[HardStarboard]

>>>I agree...and, do most promotions from this group. <<<

Correcting typo: "I agree...and, do all promotions from this group. "

[Paul_B]

Even the American Revolution was sharply divisive of our population, so this kind of thing shouldn't be surprising. The pressures on the citizens there must be enormous, considering the barbarism, which we by and large did not have. I don't think there is any easy way out of the problem, we have to go through. It will be especially intense leading up to the transfer, but if we stay the course, we will prevail, God willing.

[GraniteStateConservative]

This is how we wash our hands of them. We say "the Lord helps those who help themselves" and get out next year. We can't be their lifetime army-- helping is one thing. It's not negotiable. Even if we broke it and bought it, we can still sell it for nothing in a yard sale. In fact, I'm not so sure they won't kick us out in January anyway. The terrorists will threaten the voters in January like in Spain and they'll win like in Spain.

[GraniteStateConservative]

We still have those Baathists on ice in the meat locker. We can always bring them out and thaw them.

[Truth29]

What's the definition of "stood tall and stood firm." Did they take any offensive action against the militias and terrorists or they just stay in their barracks? Did we ask them to do anything? I'm not saying they didn't help, but I would like to see some evidence. The only group that seems to get reported as helping s is the Kurds.