Posted on 09/16/2006 10:56:35 PM PDT by neverdem
Op-Ed Contributor
APPROACHING the city of Karbala last year for a meeting with a local Iraqi Army commander, my convoy of four Army Humvees came across hundreds of bearded men in green camouflage uniforms lining the road. They were directing traffic and searching vehicles for bombs — good things — and they waved us through, just as Iraqi security forces should.
But we don’t issue green uniforms to Iraqi troops.
After the meeting, I sent an e-mail message to my headquarters in Baghdad, asking whether an entire Iraqi battalion, usually 700 to 1,000 soldiers, had been newly authorized for this relatively peaceful province.
Of course, it hadn’t. This was another new militia. And even though the militia had already been approved by Iraqi officials, and recruited, outfitted and deployed in daily operations, no senior American commander in Baghdad knew about it.
Still, it wasn’t hard to explain how this could happen in Karbala, a major city just two hours from Baghdad. There were hardly any Americans there.
The last American base in Karbala was closed in the summer of 2005. Ostensibly our departure was a victory — an area turned over to Iraqi control. The American troops weren’t sent home, though; they were simply shifted north to a town near Falluja, where they were needed more.
For most of 2005, I worked for the American commander in charge of training Iraqi security forces. My job was to keep tabs on Iraqi troops in several provinces south of Baghdad that were mostly Iraqi-controlled. As a young Marine lieutenant, I was honored to have the responsibility, but it was a sign of how thinly our forces are stretched. My team of two marines could have used about 50 more.
Time and again I watched as American forces drew down, and militias blossomed...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Op-Ed Contributors write guest commentary columns.
The Right Troops in the Right Places
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news2.shtml
this guy needs to shut up and quit criticizing our leadership.
"This guy needs to shut up and quit criticizing our leadership."
I recently read Tom Clancy's "Shadow Warriors" a factual book about Special Forces. He points out that the "big Army" has always mistrusted SF, and made poor use of them. It looks like the big Army is still making the same mistakes, and criticism is well warranted. Incidently, my son just came back from Afghanistan, and would probably agree.
On the one hand, it is a mistake that American forces didn't know about this militia, but on the other, if any such militias are cooperating under Iraqi leadership, it is important news of the success of our joint efforts there.
My son also served in Gulf War I. His unit of the 82nd was "on mission" when Saddam invaded Kuwait. He was there a week later in early Aug. 1900 until April 1901.
When it looked like we would be attacking Iraq in 2003, and Gen. Shinsecki (sp) was getting heat for recommending 350,000 troops, I asked him how many he thought we would need. His figure was 450,000. Subsequently, Bremmer said in retrospect we should have had 1/2 million.
Our leadership now speaks ex cathedra? I think NOT. When the dems want a disaster, I would take any constructive criticism that I could get.
"early Aug. 1900 until April 1901."
???
"When it looked like we would be attacking Iraq in 2003,"
I am talking about in a war, not before a war.
Sorry, I meant Aug. 1990 to April 1991. It is 3 am where I am I better get to be soon.
That's the time frame from when Saddam first invaded Kuwait until after it was liberated.
The Madhi Army and other militias really sprung up in 2004 when US and Iraqi troops were drawing down far faster then Iraqi troops were building up.
Rummy wanted to push US troops under 100,000 by Spring 2004 and he just about did. But, the second the number of troops got to about 100,000 all hell started broke loose because everyone who wanted to take over Iraq saw that we hadn't put a workable security force in place and we were drawing down as fast as possible. The UK was even worse then us. They started in the south with about 40,000 troops and cut down very fast. They also had a hands off policy with the Madhi Army.
The enemy in Iraq is instability. The terrorists and militias want to fill the void in areas we leave. The goal is to make sure we have enough of a presence everywhere to train Iraqi forces to secure every chunk of Iraq so there are no holes the militias can move into.
bah I meant to say US and UK troops were drawing down
Back to the future.
"The Right Troops in the Right Places"
I figured coming from the Slimes that would mean Okinawa.
Do we even have that many *combat* troops to deploy?
I know the USAF is going to dump another 20K troops this next FY year, on top of the 18K dumped this year.
McGovern must be smiling.
Bush has said quite frequently that he is allowing the commanders there in Iraq and Afghanistan to make the decisions on how to conduct the war.
Why is it that people even within the military keep making it out that this is being micro-managed by politicians?
Any real answers to that question?
On another note, I think these larger bases are coming about in part because who here honestly thinks ALL the troops are coming home at some point in this decade or the next unlike Germany, Japan and Korea?
"Do we even have that many *combat* troops to deploy?
Anticipating a "peace dividend" after the USSR's meltdown, our presidents were under strong pressure to balance the budget, and therefore reduce our military expenses. So, yes, we are understaffed in the military. Anyone for a draft? Now, of course, we have both an unbalanced budget and an inadequately staffed military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.