Civil Offense Where are the U.S.-trained Iraqi forces?

Reason ^ | April 12, 2004 | Jeff Taylor

[neverdem]

	ALT="Support our Advertisers! Click Here!" BORDER="0"> href="http://www.reason.com/subscribe.html"> src="http://www.reason.com/ads/rsubadx.gif" alt="Subscribe to Reason" border="0">

Reason Daily
Recent stories

Civil Offense (4/12)

Doctor Who and the Fandom of Fear (4/8)

One For the Team (4/7)

Reason Daily archive

April 12, 2004 Civil Offense Where are the U.S.-trained Iraqi forces? Jeff Taylor An Iraqi battalion last week refused to go into battle in Fallujah and a third battalion of U.S. Marines was sent in instead. That is the crux of the awful problem facing the Bush administration one year into its optional war in Iraq. The ultimate goal of the U.S. invasion and occupation was pedagogical: America would teach the Iraqis, and by extension the entire Middle East, how a liberal civil society works. It turns out even the most basic police functions of the new Iraqi state remain in shambles. The Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Badran quit last week and it is becoming clear why. Badran was charged with putting together an Iraqi civil defense force. Some 50,000 men were given varying jobs in everything from police forces to front-line army units, with the idea they would be for the security of the new regime. However, American commanders estimate that up to a quarter of the Iraqi security forces quit or worse, actively changed sides in the latest round of fighting. The latter situation relates to the claim by Blackwater USA security contractors that their men were set up by Iraqi security forces in Fallujah, resulting in the deadly ambush and subsequent mutilation of the Americans' bodies that was then broadcast around the globe. If true, and no one up or down the official American chain of command is saying much about it, the set-up would explain the ferocity of Marine counterattacks in Fallujah, not to mention the U.S. resolve to find the bad actors in the incident. Regardless of the precipitating cause, the fighting in Fallujah represented the first attempt by the U.S. to insert newly-trained Iraqi forces into the field. The 2nd Battalion of the Iraqi army graduated basic training in January to great fanfare and with America's commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, in attendance. The unit's 620 men represent fully a quarter of the standing strength of the Iraqi army. Despite what must be grave disappointment, U.S. officials responsible for their training put the Iraqis' refusal to fight in Fallujah in the context of several miscues, one of which was training that emphasized defending Iraq from external threats, not civil unrest. Also "communication" problems which resulted in the Iraqis thinking they were going to be used as shock troops in bloody Fallujah instead of the support role actually envisioned are blamed. In other words, simple fear. But there is no glossing over the fact that if an American unit pulled the same stunt, hard time in Leavenworth would await them. American troops deserve to know that Iraqi troops will be held to some sort of standard, as well as that there are some Iraqis who are willing to fight for the new Iraq. As the Bush administration never tires of pointing out, Iraq is a big place, with millions of people in Baghdad alone. Coming up with a functional army of 2500 should not be that hard. In fact, the Pentagon has no choice but to grow a new Iraqi army, as America is tapped out of fighting units. Former drug czar Barry McCaffery wants 80,000 new troops for the Army, reflecting the upper range of a view common among the uniformed service. But there is no way that kind of number will ever get past Don Rumsfeld, who believes his commanders' obsessions with troop-counts are as antediluvian as mutton-chops and lancers. Here is where the principle disconnect with reality lies, a confusion that is oddly shared by both Rumsfeld and the hysterical headlines that say the U.S has "lost control" in Iraq. In a military sense, that claim is not true. There is no piece of Iraqi real estate an American commander cannot claim within a few hours given the forces at hand. But the blustering Rumsfeldian view mistakes this ability for the presence of actual civil control in the country. As the ongoing fighting shows, civil control can fall away in minutes. The Iraqi security forces were supposed to provide the framework for an Iraqi civil society based on the rule of law. That has not happened. What we have are American units tear-assing around the country hosing down the hot spots. In theory, this can be sustained indefinitely. But in practice, the June 30 transfer of power, absent any real Iraqi responsibility for safety and security in the country, will just be a change in letterhead for a perpetual American presence. Jeff Taylor writes the weekly Reason Express.

[neverdem]

I don't remember anyone saying the occupation would be short or easy. However Rummy had hopes the troop strength of our forces would be much reduced, IIRC.

[Blue Highway]

Bush himself said tonight he was a little disappointed in the progress of the US-trained Iraqi military. He also added that there were soldiers that were exeptional.

June 30th will be a day to go down in history.

[WOSG]

This is filled with way too many confabulations, fibs, and outright mis-statements of facts on the ground to warrant a detailed response..

instead, just read/watch was Bush said:
- we are there for good reasons
- we will stay there and get the job done
- we are on course for Iraqi democracy
- the violence is done by factions that dont want democracy, most Iraqis do
- if the military wants more, they get more

NAYSAYERS MISTAKE THE VIOLENCE FOR A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN THE COUNTRY. IT IS NOT. There is no uprising. There is terrorism.

[DHerion]

We have only been training these guys for six months or so, not a year as many arm chair generals suggest. Second, these guys see our forces going into battle with tankes, gunships, body armor and modern communications while they are armed with assault rifles - if I were them I'd be gun shy as well. Third, I'm sure many of these Iraqis are understandably nervous about the future. Many think we are going give up the ship leaving these guys holding the bag - you can imagine what the former baathists would do to these 'collaborators.' It's going to take a couple of years to turn these guys into a professional force. Or at least a semi-professional force.

[secretagent]

Good Point. The US has too many flip-flops for comfort, especially in Iraq.

Iraqis will have a keen interest in the US elections.

[MNJohnnie]

Email just sent to Reason Mag.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm

Remember McCafferty is a Clinton appointee and a heavy armor commander. He is not really qualified to make judgements about Counter Insurgency missions. He was also one of the leading commentators screaming about how we were "bogged down" last year during the Liberation. As you can see, out of 78 Combat Brigades we have 28 Deployed EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, Less than half of just our ARMY is currently deployed. This total does not include Marines. Check the link, We are no where NEAR being tapped out for troops plus most of our Navy and Air Force are not actively deployed. So, as you can see, most of this "over stretch" fear and hysteria is just more Democratic National Comittee "news media" propaganda designed to undercut Bush's War on Terrorism. .

[MNJohnnie]

We have only been training these guys for six months or so, not a year as many arm chair generals suggest. Second, these guys see our forces going into battle with tankes, gunships, body armor and modern communications while they are armed with assault rifles - if I were them I'd be gun shy as well. Third, I'm sure many of these Iraqis are understandably nervous about the future. Many think we are going give up the ship leaving these guys holding the bag - you can imagine what the former baathists would do to these 'collaborators.' It's going to take a couple of years to turn these guys into a professional force. Or at least a semi-professional force.

AND as even this "reporter" noted about 25% ran. That means 75% STAYED.

[MNJohnnie]

Good Point. The US has too many flip-flops for comfort, especially in Iraq.

What flip flops??????

Iraqis will have a keen interest in the US elections.

No, Iraqis will have a keen intrest in June 30th. Right now the terrorists strongest weapon is propaganda. I suspect that is what caused this latest round of mob violance. The transfer of troops gave the terrorirsts a golden propaganda opportunity "See, they will never leave. They just want to steal your oil. Join us to throw them out". The Iraqis will be more intrested to see if we keep our promise on June 30th then in our election

[neverdem]

AND as even this "reporter" noted about 25% ran. That means 75% STAYED.

The story only said one battalion refused to fight. Could you show me where I missed that the other three battalions were deployed at Fallujah?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your link mentioned 31 active duty brigades, which included 2 Armored Cavalry Regiment(ACR) equivalents, IIRC, and 37 Army National Guard brigades, which was less clear if the National Guard's ACR was included in that total.

We also have a Ranger Regiment, the 75th Infantry, and a number of Special Forces Groups. That still doesn't tally to the number that you previously cited.

The article didn't say if Army Aviation Brigades are included in their tally.

IIRC, troops in reserve components must be trained for 90 days prior to overseas deployments by act of Congress. With stop loss orders in effect that means many have 18 months of active duty.

I'm not disagreeing with Bush's course of action. I just want everyone to be for real.

[secretagent]

What flip flops??????

Like the following:

In the 1970s, to please the Shah of Iran, the U.S. government armed the Kurds for a revolt against Baghdad, but then abandoned them during the revolt when Saddam and the Shah reached an accommodation.

In 1991, toward the end of the Gulf War, the first President Bush encouraged a Kurdish uprising against the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but then failed to provide the expected American military support. Thousands of Kurds were slaughtered, and more than a million fled north as refugees.

A similar operation was encouraged during the Clinton administration in 1996, but Washington pulled the plug just hours before it was scheduled to begin. Thousands of Kurds had to be airlifted to safety in neighboring Turkey.

Bush Sr. also encouraged the Shiites to rise up, but didn't help when Saddam slaughtered them.

Iraqis can remember Vietnam, and our abandonment of same. Allies of the US have to figure that we may leave in a hurry, especially with a change in administration.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/iraq_kurds021123.html

No, Iraqis will have a keen intrest in June 30th. Right now the terrorists strongest weapon is propaganda. I suspect that is what caused this latest round of mob violance. The transfer of troops gave the terrorirsts a golden propaganda opportunity "See, they will never leave. They just want to steal your oil. Join us to throw them out". The Iraqis will be more intrested to see if we keep our promise on June 30th then in our election.

The Iraqis, both pro and anti-US, know that the propaganda war has more value than an outright military victory over the US, which can't happen. I think we agree on that point.

The reason Iraqis have a keen interest in the US elections: they know that Kerry might withdraw the US from Iraq, leaving our allies in the population at the mercy of the thugs.

Supporting the US presence takes great courage, and may seem foolhardy, given our history.

As to turning over Iraq June 30, it makes a difference who we turn it over to. Pro-US Iraqis know that their enemies can come to power through elections. "One man, one vote, one time".