Beetle Bailey in Baghdad

U.S. News- Washington Whispers ^ | 08/11/03 | Paul Bedard

[Pokey78]

Not every part of the Pentagon's war plan to topple Saddam Hussein's regime is winning rave reviews, and one target of ridicule these days is the Defense Department's efforts to mold Iraqi exiles into a viable fighting force. In an initiative that morphed into a cross between a Monty Python sketch and the Keystone Kops, the Pentagon worked with two exile groups with maddeningly similar names, the Free Iraqi Freedom Fighters (FIFF) and the Free Iraqi Forces (FIF). The FIF were Iraqis trained in Hungary by the United States before the war. The Pentagon boasted that it would recruit 3,000 to 5,000 exiles to work with the U.S. invasion force. Volunteers were scarce, and by the time Baghdad fell, a mere 50 had been trained.

The FIFF, organized by the Iraqi National Congress, comprised some 1,000 exiles flown into southern Iraq by Central Command at the height of the war. Unfortunately, they became part of the problem. "The thing was sort of a disaster," a senior military official tells Whispers. "We had to detain some of them because they were looting."

[rageaholic]

Why does it take Uncle Sam millions of wasted dollars to discover that Arabs cannot be made into respectable soldiers?

[CWOJackson]

There are plenty of dead people who would disagree with that.

[meenie]

I served alongside French Moroccans and they were vicious. They sleep with one eye open even among themselves. Don't underestimate the ability of Arabs and their toughness under good commanders.

[rageaholic]

I said "respectable", I am sure they make excellent cutthroats.

[Screaming_Gerbil]

Oh sure - lots of people died during the Iraq - Iran war,
but that doesn't mean they're anywhere near our standards.

There was an article out some time ago on why Arab armies don't do so well against Western armies (like against Israel, even when they had overwhelming manpower superiority and the advantage of surprise in the 7-Day War in '67 and the Yom Kipper war, etc).

Short answers: Their leaders don't trust the military so they don't train together (combined arms, etc.) like they should - also a class structure of pampered officers vs enlisted men teated like dirt, with no real NCO corps.

They make good bullies against those who are weaker (civilians or smaller ill-trained military forces) - They are not so good against a well trained, disciplined and determined enemy.

Plus we expect our soldiers to be held to certain standards of conduct, both in combat and afterwards. (You know, no looting, raping, causing unnecessary suffering or destrustion, etc.) They don't seem to have the same idea.

[CWOJackson]

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

[Gunrunner2]

Good analysis.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Plus we expect our soldiers to be held to certain standards of conduct, both in combat and afterwards. (You know, no looting, raping, causing unnecessary suffering or destrustion, etc.)

I'm sure this will come as news to people who remember General Sherman. Of course, he was faced with an enemy with superior discipline, moral and ability, hampered only by their inferior logistics, numbers and sense of honor.

[Gunrunner2]

That was over 100 yrs ago.

Today, Arabs today have no respect for LOAC, we do.

Today, Arabs have a policy of abuse, we don't.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Actually we have co-opted Bobby Lee's boys into our own Army. The U.S. Army today owes more to the ethos of Bobby Lee than Billy Sherman. Thank God.

[Gunrunner2]

True.