Hackworth: Not Iraq's Finest

Military.Com ^

[Happy2BMe]

April 14, 2004

In blood-spattered Iraq, seasoned American soldiers and extraordinarily capable retired U.S. Army sergeants currently employed by the Vinnell Corporation have been busting their butts trying to forge a post-Saddam Iraqi army. It's probably the most daunting task either of these outfits has ever faced - and both have plenty of experience turning rabble into effective fighting machines.

Today's gold standard in this type of exercise is the U.S. Army's molding of the South Korean army, which pound for mean pound has become one of the best-trained and disciplined armies in the world.

This time around, the master plan calls for standing up 27 Iraqi battalions by the end of the year. Four battalions have graduated, but the 1st Battalion is already on its second commander. The first CO got bounced after only a few months for wheeling and dealing the way it used to work under the previous regime and the way it worked for countless centuries before Saddam Hussein shot his way into dictatorship.

Although Uncle Deep Pockets has sunk almost $100 million into this effort, none of the units is considered combat-ready. On average, all have about 25 percent of their soldiers on leave and 20 percent AWOL at any one time.

A Vinnell trainer says: "No one wants to rate them combat-ready because this is too risky - it would mean somebody's career slides down the tubes if one of these units got whipped. However, no one wanted to rate them not combat-ready either, because that would imply that all the money, time and effort devoted to these units had been wasted."

Yet our high brass has been stating that the training of the Iraqi army is already a tremendous success. Nothing is being said about most of the Kurds refusing to serve because of their feelings toward the Arabs. Nor that a lot of the men volunteering for the Iraqi army are of poor quality and seem to be signing up only for a quick buck: They join for a few weeks and then quit after they've picked up a few dinars. In one day alone last month, 139 NCO School candidates handed in their quit slips because they were Arabs who couldn't get along with Kurds or visa versa, or they didn't like the training or were just homesick and headed out the front gate.

It's rush, rush, rush to field an Iraqi army - regardless of quality - to replace our overextended forces. Otherwise, there's no way we'll ever be able to execute our nonexistent exit plan.
This con game reminds me of Vietnam when Richard Nixon ordered the war turned over to the Vietnamese so we could get our boys home muy pronto. Back then, the subterfuge was called "Vietnamization." I spent three years training some of the better units in the South Vietnamese army - Airborne, Ranger and Special Forces - and from the beginning it was clear that the effort was mission impossible - kind of like trying to turn a two-wheeled bike into a Sherman tank.

If we delude ourselves again as we did with the South Vietnamese army and cut and run too soon, all our sacrifices in Iraq will have been in vain. And right now, my take is that the new Iraqi army couldn't handle a tug-of-war with a Brownie troop, let alone the sort of serious stand-up, knock-down firefights we're seeing in Iraq, or the civil wars flickering on and off between the Kurds and Arabs and Sunni and Shiite Muslims that could easily blow up into major conflagrations.

In the movie "The Last Samurai," when Tom Cruise is ordered to take his newly trained Japanese soldiers into battle before they're ready, their defeat is painfully predictable. A Vinnell trainer puts the Iraqi army in the same category: "Even though they've been trained, they're a long way from being battle-ready," he says. "In short, they're not capable of doing what the Coalition Forces are doing right now, and they won't be for a long time."

Let's pray that we've learned from the past or at least from Hollywood and take the time to forge an effective Iraqi army in fact rather than hype before we pack up our toys and boys and beat feet back to the home front.

[Happy2BMe]

I know - I know - it's Hackworth.

But there indeed does appear to be "Another Side of The Coin."

[Happy2BMe]

Reality ping.

"Yet our high brass has been stating that the training of the Iraqi army is already a tremendous success. Nothing is being said about most of the Kurds refusing to serve because of their feelings toward the Arabs. Nor that a lot of the men volunteering for the Iraqi army are of poor quality and seem to be signing up only for a quick buck: They join for a few weeks and then quit after they've picked up a few dinars.

In one day alone last month, 139 NCO School candidates handed in their quit slips because they were Arabs who couldn't get along with Kurds or visa versa, or they didn't like the training or were just homesick and headed out the front gate."

[MNJohnnie]

- to replace our overextended forces

Same old lie.

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

Out of a total of 78 Combat Brigades in the US ARMY and Reserves (just the Army, not the Marines) we have 27 Deployed (21 active, 6 National Guard) EVERYWHERE in the world. This total includes those deployed, returing from deployment or training for deployment. GEE, less than half are Army and a bare fraction of our Navy and Air Force deployed yet we are "over extended"?

Maybe we better trust our Professional Commanders and the Bush team rather then the rantings of a "news media" pundit? After all, the "news media" got Afganistan wrong, Iraq last year wrong (remember the bogged down hysteria) and Iraq this month WRONG. Why should we take them serious NOW?

[Destro]

What's wrong with Hackworth?

[Bommer]

I know - I know - it's Hackworth.

First half of the name says it all.

[Betaille]

"Otherwise, there's no way we'll ever be able to execute our nonexistent exit plan. This con game reminds me of Vietnam"
And with that... I stopped reading. He has no credibility and is a left-wing political hack. I'm pretty upset to see this on military.com. I usually like that page alot.

[Destro]

Bush said Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, indicated he needs more troops in Iraq. Abizaid told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld he needs at least 10,000 more troops than he had previously envisioned. "If that's what he wants, that's what he gets," Bush said.

[thoughtomator]

We know that they will fight for what they believe in. Indeed, we see it every day - they are dedicated fighters as opposition.

The biggest hurdle is not cowardice, but education - we need to give these men the basic understanding of what it means to be free and why that is worth fighting and dying for, even more so than for a cleric's fatwa, or for a tribal decree.

I read a story about one Iraqi unit that is fighting with us in Fallujah, and from appearances they looked to be useful fighters, dedicated and trustworthy.

It's a hell of a task, and we need to resolve ourselves to the fact that it will take time to build an army capable of defending Iraq from its internal and external threats simultaneously.

[hatfieldmccoy]

Ho Hello Republican Guard- the NYT opposition of choice. Like somehow the part of country that watches a real news operation (ie Fox News) is surprised. This Iraqi military was seriously oversold. Clearly it was French training.

[MJY1288]

"This con game reminds me of Vietnam"

Hackworth's problem is that everything reminds him of Vietnam. As I recall, he said the same thing when we were just 2 weeks into Afghanistan.

I think Hack needs to up his Med's

[Happy2BMe]

I was a bit surprised to find it there also.

But we are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee on what it is going to take to raise up enough standing Iraiq forces (reliable ones - ones that won't cut our throats at night when we go to sleep).

I predict we'll have large forces on the ground in Iraq for a minimimum of ten years.

[Happy2BMe]

I focused more on a few facts in the article rather than the author.

The obstacles to training up a reliable security force are large, but so were they in Germany and Japan during reconstruction after WWII.

[DB]

What outside armies does the Iraqi army have to defend itself from?

It isn't like any of their neighbors are going to invade anytime soon.

With Vietnam there were the Chinese and Soviets supplying the attackers.

Here, Iraq is essentially a protectorate under our protection that no country wants to openly challenge.

The comparison to Vietnam remains bogus.

[Betaille]

"I predict we'll have large forces on the ground in Iraq for a minimimum of ten years."
Well we'll be stationed there with military bases because it is advantageous to us. We wont be doing day to day security in Iraq like we are now though.
Remember when we invaded Iraq and the mainstream media(including left-wing Hackworth) was insisting that Rumsfeld's war plan had failed? We took Baghdad within that week. You have to keep in mind that these media-types are thoroughly anti-american. Almost as bad as Al Jazeera in some ways.

[Happy2BMe]

20,000 U.S. Troops to Stay in Iraq Longer

[Happy2BMe]

Iran is waiting in the shadows like a hungry hyena after a lion kill.

[Happy2BMe]

hehe. . I'm "on" to Hack.

I followed it rather closely in fact.

Wasn't impressed. But again, on this one, all is not rosey under that pile of turds we will be relying on to keep the peace in Iraq when we finally are able to turn over the country.

In the meantime, it will be all we can do to keep a civil war from breaking out between the Kurds and the arabs and the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.

[DB]

And Iran will not openly cross their boarders to attack while we are there.

And we are going to be their for some time, Iraqi army or not.

We simply will not allow Iran to invade and survive.

Iran knows that if they did, that it would be over for them. It would provide the pretext for us to go in and clean the rat-hole AKA Iran out.

[DB]

Oops, make that "be there"...

[Happy2BMe]

Agreed.