A bipartisan congressional group has released a report on the capability of the Iraqi forces, which the United States alleged to have spend $19 billion on recruiting, training and equipping, The Washington Post reported.
The report found that the Pentagon "cannot report in detail how many of the 346,500 Iraqi military and police personnel that the coalition trained are operational today.”
To that, I would like to respond.
Let’s see, and I’ll take recent examples:
On June 19, the US forces launched yet another military offensive in the city of Diyala in eastern Iraq. The offensive was meant to repress the group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which in recent months has taken the city as a safe haven. The Post reported that “about 10,000 soldiers” are involved in the offensive, officially dubbed “Arrowhead Ripper.”
The operation started “with a quick-strike nighttime air assault" by the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, a U.S. military statement said, the Post reported.
“Air assault,” have you noticed?
The Post also quoted an American commander as saying that the streets of Diyala are carpeted with bombs that are capable of destroying U.S. armored vehicles—vehicles that the Iraqi army doesn’t even have now.
What are the results of the operation? More deaths and more instability in the country. What have this major power achieved? Nothing.
How in God’s name do we dare to ask the Iraqi army to fight an insurgency that has cost the strongest military machinery in the world 2929 casualties in hostile action?
Any military operation in Iraq now depends on fighter jets, remote-controlled missiles and high technology.
Do we know what the Iraqi army is equipped with? I do:
AK47 rifles, pistols, 7.62 mm PKMS (BKC) Machine Gun, M16 [recently given to some soldiers] and less than a 100 humvees.
Do Iraqi soldiers have armored vehicles? No.
Do they have flack jackets? No.
Do they have night vision goggles? No.
The report also said that the US has spent $19 billion in recruiting, training, equipping and building training facilities.
What training? This is the army that fought eight years with Iran, invaded Kuwait, oppressed the Shiites in the south, killed the Kurds in the north, failed coups in the west and protected a dictatorship for more than 30 years. Train it to do what?
And who got the money? American contractors, right? [in Iraqi we say Hasna Jabata… Hasna Akhthata, roughly translated: Hasna brought it and Hasna took it back.]
What training facilities? They are using the old Iraqi camps. And we have more than enough. The whole country was turned into a bunker!
What equipment? The AK47s are the same ones Iraq had before the war. The BKCs? They are the same. Pistols? How many factories have they built with $19 billion!
"We have no idea what our $19 billion has gotten us," Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, told the Post.
Well, neither do Iraqis Meehan.
He said that the States spent $55,000 on each of the 350,000 Iraqi soldiers!
How can we ask the “Iraqi army” to fight insurgents and take responsibility if they are not equipped well enough?
The American military power was not able to quell the violence in Iraq and that’s why I believe Bush increased the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by 28,500 to total up to 150,000. if 150,000 best trained and best equipped soldiers in the world cannot do it, how can Iraqis do it?
The Iraqi army has to be equipped with the proper weaponry to perform properly. It just logic.
Some U.S. officials and citizens argue that they cannot trust Iraqis with weapons, and to that I say “end of discussion.” Because if they don’t trust the Iraqi army and that’s why they don’t equip it with what is needed, there is no way we can get out of this situation.
If the argument stays in the “I don’t trust you” and “you don’t trust me” area, it will never be resolved. Something has to change to make it work and that is the policy with which we are conducting our actions.
Calling for the Iraqi army to take responsibility is an offensive joke, I believe. It is like saying “take it. You will fail and I will be back.”
What are they doing? Showing the world how incapable the Iraqi army is? Well, it is their make.
If anyone argues that the U.S. has spent money on building an Iraqi army and equipping it, I will say “does it have fighter jets? Does it have helicopters? Does it have armored vehicles? Do the soldiers have flack jackets?” if one thing is missing, then there is no army. Very simple.
Painting by Iraqi artist Betool Fekaiki
At 6:51 AM, 
24 Steps to Liberty
Even if the crew was Iraqi, TWO? That's a joke, right!
Let's count how many helicopters and fighter jets the U.S. uses in Iraq, and still not able to end the violence, and then start making plans to arm the Iraqi army.
I just don't know why we should talk about this when it is a very obvious and logical issue!
At 9:18 AM, 
More than any other recent blog entry in the Iraqi blogosphere that I have read recently, Omar's entry here illustrates one of the main reasons why Iraq continues to flounder: they want everyone else to take care of their problems and give them things and they refuse to take personal responsibility for their own lives.
Why should we Americans let one more dollar of our tax money go to buying military equipment for the Iraqi military? This sounds like those Iraqis who complained one week after April 9, 2003, "Hey, where's our paradise that you promised us?"
Nothing is as revolting to an American as someone who expects to be given everything to them. Why? Omar, you live here and you know how hard we work. We have built a wonderful country through hard work, investment, education, and living in the stability that comes with representative democracy. We have gotten no help or aid from other countries.
We're also generous with our money, the Marshall Plan after World War II being just one example. But we absolutely DESPISE people who EXPECT something to be GIVEN to them. Iraq is a sovereign country now. If you want tanks and jets, you can buy them like everyone else.
*
At 10:57 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
No one asked you for money, Jeffrey.
We have enough money, either in banks or in our sprawling oil wells. We don’t need charity.
My point is that the Iraqi army is NOT ALLOWED to equip itself. Your government DOES NOT ALLOW my army to import any weapons. Wake up.
But I guess that this is your role, twist the meaning of any logical and to-the-point issue I talk about! Nope, you have not succeeded, and you will never succeed.
Jeffory,
I think Iraqis are not asking for the weapons to be given to them but to be sold.
I think the American operation in Iraq is exchanging operation. I don't think that you don't know the Iraqi oil is being sold to Americans in less price than other countries.
I think that you know by going to Iraq, the US now has one of the best strategical spots in the world.
Again,
We are not asking for weapons to be given we are asking for them to be sold to us.
When Aamericans went Iraq, they should have know that certain things should be done and equiping the army is one of the main.
At 11:55 AM,
Omar,
We have enough money, either in banks or in our sprawling oil wells.
Are you sure about that?
My point is that the Iraqi army is NOT ALLOWED to equip itself.
Hold it. Let me see if I understand you. Generally you and the other Iraqi blogges (especially the Sunni bloggers) are complaining that the Shia control the Iraqi Army, right? So do you really want the Shia-dominated Iraqi Army to acquire Abrams tanks, Black Hawk helicopters, and F-16s? If I know you guys (and I do), next week you would be complaining that military hardware had been sold the the Shia-dominated Iraqi Army!
What day is this?
Just another day in the APU!
*
At 11:57 AM,
At 12:13 PM, 24 Steps to Liberty
Jeffrey,
You don't know where I grew up and how, so before you start your nonsense, I would like to remind you that you should respect this platform and its authors. And I'm not going to comment more on that because I think the issue we are discussing here is omre important that what you want to talk about.
At 12:25 PM,
Omar,
Let's talk, okay?
Listen, do you really want a Mahdi-infiltrated Iraqi Army (this is what I hear everyday from the Sunni bloggers) in possession of Abrams tanks, Hummers, night-vision goggles, attack helicopters, and jets?
Is it possible that the American military does NOT such weapons systems to slip into the hands of a person like Muqtada Al-Sadr? Is it possible that the main reason to limit the heavy hardware the the Iraqi Army has access to?
*
At 12:28 PM,
At 12:34 PM,
Omar,
Before I forget, if you haven't yet, you should check out the most recent blog entry by M.H.Z. (currently in Erbil):
Who are the Iraqi bloggers?
I know you'll like it. His voice is an excellent addition to the Iraqi blogosphere.
*
Jeffery,
Even if it was trillions, it is not the Iraqis' fault that Americans went war that was poorly planned.
There is no such a thing called "Sunni bloggers" even if you figuered that our by their writings against the Shiite miltias, I would like to tell you that most of the Shiites who write against the Shiite militias as well. Iraqi bloggers write only as Iraqis
At 1:42 PM,
Omar,
Nothing is wrong with you helping me or anybody else. In fact, I really appreciate you help.
Thanks.
I just don’t appreciate the sugar-coated poison pills. You know…
Okay, I admit at times my tongue can be a little sharp. I've tried to cut down on sarcasm, but my sweet-tooth sometimes gets the better of me.
I will talk to you more about the issue tonight, when I am done with deadlines and have a few hours to enjoy with my readers.
Sounds good. Talk to you then. I'm off to evening classes now.
*
At 4:01 PM,
one observation.... the insurgents also do not have tanks or helicopters. the point is the iraqi army can win if they earn the support of the iraqi people. it is the intellegence that the iraqi people can provide that can win the war. after all, weaponry has not won it ... and high tech weapons in the hands of the iraqi army will not win the war either. the war is in the hands of the iraqi's. and that is what is meant by the iraqi army standing up. not simply fighting ... but winning.
At 4:02 PM, RhusLancia
24, first, I agree with your thesis, that the IA needs better equipment.
But I disagree with some of the details you give to support your argument. For example:
24: "What are the results of the operation? More deaths and more instability in the country. What have this major power achieved? Nothing."
Do you think they should leave Diyala for the ISI to have?
24: "What training? This is the army that fought eight years with Iran, invaded Kuwait, oppressed the Shiites in the south, killed the Kurds in the north, failed coups in the west and protected a dictatorship for more than 30 years."
It's not the same army. Saddam's army was disbanded, remember? And former soldiers are being re-integrated, but even so, the regular jundi are brand new, and I've seen elsewhere that a major deficiency is in non-commissioned officers. These are senior soldiers whose leadership & experience is vital to successful small unit operations. Maybe some of these have prior experience, but any vets from Iran/Iraq war are twenty years older now. Training high quality NCOs takes a lot longer than a basic training program.
24: "Train it to do what?"
Well, train it to not invade & oppress, for starters! Actually, one thing I keep hearing is the need for "fire discipline" so that they don;t start firing wildly in a "death blossom" if they get hit with an IED or something. This has been a challenge.
24; "If anyone argues that the U.S. has spent money on building an Iraqi army and equipping it, I will say “does it have fighter jets? Does it have helicopters? Does it have armored vehicles? Do the soldiers have flack jackets?” if one thing is missing, then there is no army. Very simple. "
Well it doesn't have fighter jets, so your challenge holds. All of Saddam's were destroyed in '03.
However, it does have armored vehicles(1), flak jackets(2), and a few helicopters & other aircraft(3). So it needs many many more, but they are building it up. Just too slowly.
24: "Some U.S. officials and citizens argue that they cannot trust Iraqis with weapons, and to that I say “end of discussion.”
I think the trust is growing. I read stories every day, usually from milbloggers or embedded reporters, about the MNF and IA working together. Read just this one, for example. Of course it has to be propaganda because it doesn't portray the situation as hopeless. But my biased perception is that the IA is standing up, and they are getting better & better day by day.
So yes, they need to put more resources into the IA, but they are making progress. Just not as much or as quickly as anyone would like.
At 7:50 PM, Iraqi Mojo
Why not buy the right military equipment for the Iraqi Army if it will help the US withdraw sooner?
The Iraq Study Group found that Iraqi "Units lack equipment. They cannot carry out their missions without adequate equipment. Congress has been generous in funding requests for U.S. troops, but it has resisted fully funding Iraqi forces. The entire appropriation for Iraqi defense forces for FY 2006 ($3 billion) is less than the United States currently spends in Iraq every two weeks."
At 8:40 PM,
Mojo,
Why not buy the right military equipment for the Iraqi Army if it will help the US withdraw sooner?
I don't like the idea of our taxpayer money ALSO going to buy the Iraqi military hardware that might end up in the hands of Muqtada Al-Sadr.
Iraqis need to pull together and kick Al Qaeda out of Iraq and arrest anyone attacking the state. It's a matter of will, in my opinion, and not of whether they have an Abrams tank or not.
I could be wrong, but I've been following all of this for four years and the last thing I want to see is Shia and Sunni armed with even more lethal weapons. If the Sunna have a death-wish, allowing Muqtada Al-Sadr to armor up with Abrams tanks and Strykers will bring them sweet and swift release.
Hey, it's possible that we have the beginnings of a good debate here. Let's keep it going.
*
At 8:56 PM, RhusLancia
Anonymous at 4:01 PM's comment was right on target.
Note also, and to add maybe just a little to that, that one key element of the current "surge", and by this I mean the actual strategy changes, is to get out of the tanks & armored hummers, and walk around among the people.
Of course, it helps if you can call in the heavy weapons when needed. But then again, Iraq already has those at its disposal thru us. Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?
At 5:01 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
RhusLancia,
I don’t know where your question on whether the U.S. forces should leave Diyala or not came from. Therefore, I’m not going to answer it.
The Iraqi army does have humvees, that’s what I said in my entry to begin with. So, you are not adding anything.
The point is: how many? Do you know how many Iraqi soldiers sit in the back of a pickup truck to go to an operations site and fight terrorisms?
I’m not even going to discuss the helicopter and fighter jets with you. You said it, the have “a few helicopters.”
Any yes, it is the same Iraqi army. Where do you think the soldiers came from? We didn’t import people. They are Iraqis. And what do you think they did before the invasion? If they had any other job or qualifications, they wouldn’t join the army now. Think about it.
At 7:03 AM, RhusLancia
24: "I don’t know where your question on whether the U.S. forces should leave Diyala or not came from. Therefore, I’m not going to answer it."
It came from your post, when you said this:
24: "What are the results of the operation? More deaths and more instability in the country. What have this major power achieved? Nothing."
I took that to read that there's no point in trying in Diyala, that it just made things worse. "more deaths and more instability in the country". Nothing achieved.
Was I wrong in how I read that? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth- just asking if you think they should not bother or something.
24; "The Iraqi army does have humvees, that’s what I said in my entry to begin with. So, you are not adding anything.
The point is: how many?"
And I agree the answer is "too few". However, they do have some, and some tanks, and some armored vehicles. Just not enough. I agree with your point, on this and overall. But it's not correct to say they don't have any armored vehicles, which is what you said in your last paragraph.
24: "Any yes, it is the same Iraqi army. Where do you think the soldiers came from? We didn’t import people. They are Iraqis."
Of course it is Iraqis. Just not the same ones. Many of them have no previous experience, and anyway the structure of the army and its tactics are completely different now. I hope you'll agree that the New Iraqi Army approaches counterinsurgency differently from how the old army did it.
24: "If they had any other job or qualifications, they wouldn’t join the army now. Think about it."
That's too bad.
At 7:26 AM,
Omar,
Let's take this one step at a time, okay?
What is the current sectarian composition of the Iraqi Army? What is the ratio of Shia to Sunna?
We'll go slowly through this, okay?
But, for the record, I don't disagree that the Iraqi Army shouldn't slowly build up its military hardware (by spending their own money, of course). And remember it's not just owning a tank or a jet, it's maintaining it also --- both having people skilled enough to operate them and skilled enough to maintain them.
*
At 7:55 AM, RhusLancia
Jeffrey: "Let's take this one step at a time, okay?"
And I agree with you, 24, that the IA needs more & better equipment.
I disagree with Jeffrey on this:
Jeffrey: "(by spending their own money, of course)"
They can spend my money on this. If it helps stabilize Iraq, go right ahead.
On the trust issue: have you noticed there have been virually no cases of the IA turning on the MNF that they work with? I've noticed. Probably many factors to this, among them that as foot soldiers work together on the ground they have a better relationship than when they don't, even if there are hidden trust or animosity issues.
At 8:28 AM, Iraqi Mojo
You're a cool cat, RhusLancia. But after thinking about it and reading some other articles, I've concluded that intelligence really is much more important than having the right military equipment. Having helicopters that can rip people apart from a mile away does no good when the wrong people get killed, as in this case.
At 8:29 AM,
RhusLancia,
And I agree with you, 24, that the IA needs more & better equipment.
Hold it. Didn't I agree with this with some modification? I wrote:
But, for the record, I don't disagree that the Iraqi Army shouldn't slowly build up its military hardware (by spending their own money, of course). And remember it's not just owning a tank or a jet, it's maintaining it also --- both having people skilled enough to operate them and skilled enough to maintain them.
More Hummers? Yes, go ahead. Tanks? I think they have some old refurbished T-series tanks, right? Maybe in the future they can buy some more. Helicopters and jets? I doubt if they have the personnel to maintain them. They are not like new cars. They need to be serviced ALL THE TIME.
You wrote:
On the trust issue: have you noticed there have been virually no cases of the IA turning on the MNF that they work with? I've noticed. Probably many factors to this, among them that as foot soldiers work together on the ground they have a better relationship than when they don't, even if there are hidden trust or animosity issues.
This is true and not disputed. My concern is what will happen if commanders who are equally aligned with both the Iraqi Army and the Madhi militia get control of tanks and night-vision goggles and attack helicopters and then decide to follow Muqtada's orders to take out Sunna neighborhoods. Which is stronger? Their loyalty to their sect or their loyalty to their country? Can anyone answer me with 100% certainty?
My original point is the tendency among Iraqis to blame us no matter what we do. I can assure you that if we did sell tanks and jets to the Iraqi Army and then they were used by the Mahdi-infiltrated Iraqi Army against Sunna, you would here Omar here as the first one to scream in our face that we had f*cked up and sold military hardware to them.
We don't sell them arms. We're not letting them re-arm and holding them back. The Americans are to blame.
We sell arms to them. We're responsible for the bloodshed when those arms fuel a civil war. The Americans are to blame.
See? Arab Parallel Universe. It will mess your mind up but good.
*
At 8:36 AM,
Mojo,
But after thinking about it and reading some other articles, I've concluded that intelligence really is much more important than having the right military equipment.
That's my understanding too. Later, of course, in a few years, the Iraqi Army will have to spend some serious cash on hardware to put a little fear into their neighbors. But right now it's the internal conflict that must be resolved and good intelligence and having Iraqis pull together and kick out Al Qaeda in Iraq and arrest ANYONE attacking Iraqi citizens (Shia or Sunna) are the most important elements to a good outcome. And there are MANY IRAQIS doing that right now.
I also worry that adding more lethal hardware into the hands of Iraqis right now might be like pouring gasoline on a fire.
*
At 8:54 AM,
Have you guys read Sam's 7 Rules of the A.P.U. recently? It's a masterpiece of satire.
Here's a clip that still makes me laugh:
And this, in turn, brings us to the APU rule #6: There is really no need for elections in the APU, because Presidents and rulers are presidents and rulers for life. The people like it this way, because people like their “leadership” and the “stability” they bring to the country. But since we are all democracies, we have elections anyway. In the Egyptian democratic elections, for example, u have the choice between voting yes for Mubarak and voting no for Mubarak, which would mean if he gets a 100% no vote, he would still win cause he is the only one running.
Saddam was a democratic leader, too, wasn't he? I remember following Saddam's referendums and wondering what strange universe this guy was living in. Now I know.
Sorry for being off-topic, but the blogosphere is a much duller place without Sam's dispatches from the APU.
*
At 9:49 AM,
excellent post Omar.
i think it is very clear to anyone w/a brain why there are limitation in terms of the kind of equipment alloted to iraqi forces. of course it is a trust issue, from the beginning america equipped tons or militias ans gave no concern for where the weapons ended up (they 'lost' the record, or the computer broke or they didn't have serial numbers etc). eventually there were plenty of weapons for lots of civil unrest.
now we have posters saying the most valuable thing iraqis can offer is intellegence. how is this any different? tell you what, we keep the big guns (air) and you guys do what you do best, point to the bad iraqis.. that is what this sounds like to me. theUS will never treat iraqis like a partner, they will always have the upper hand. you can't have the upper hand if you allow others to have equal potential for firepower. so of course it is a trust issue
Let's take this one step at a time, okay?
We'll go slowly through this, okay?
..... slowly build up its military hardware ....
how slowly, look over there, a community is getting a quick-strike nighttime air assault ! i guess this means when families are sleeping they wake up hearing jets overhead and maybe one willland on their house. slowly slowly, can we go thru this, okay? hey so cool we have the intellegence of iraqis to help on this campaign. that is really what they do best.
slowly now, very slowly. someday, around the corner(remember you have to be able to service this equipment), i am not sure how .....Later, of course, in a few years, qualified.......slowly.
no rush, we have until the wells run dry. how about you?
a
At 10:16 AM,
At 10:52 AM, RhusLancia
Me: "And I agree with you, 24, that the IA needs more & better equipment."
Jeffrey: "Hold it. Didn't I agree with this with some modification? I wrote:"
Yeah, and the only part of your reply that I disagreed with is that they can use my money for it. If my tax money goes to help in this way I have no problems with it. Probably their biggest need right now is armored vehicles, especially IED resistant ones. Did you read the article about the heavy machinegun they had mounted on a Chevy Silverado? "A" for effort, but we can do better.
But still and all, the most powerful weapon in Iraq, and the one that will turn it around quickly, is an unarmed, fed up Iraqi pointing at a terrorist safe-house, refusing to let them into their nieghborhoods, etc.
a: "slowly now, very slowly. someday, around the corner(remember you have to be able to service this equipment), i am not sure how .....Later, of course, in a few years, qualified.......slowly.
no rush, we have until the wells run dry. how about you?"
Hmmm. The writing style of "a" looks a lot like someone who has been posting critiques of the "US-trained" & "US equipped" Iraqi Security Forces for months and months. Now we're supposed to arm them pell mell & willy nilly?
Must just be a coincidence.
At 11:07 AM,
RhusLancia,
Probably their biggest need right now is armored vehicles, especially IED resistant ones.
I'm all for that. Let them buy (with their money) as many up-armored Hummers as they can afford.
But still and all, the most powerful weapon in Iraq, and the one that will turn it around quickly, is an unarmed, fed up Iraqi pointing at a terrorist safe-house, refusing to let them into their nieghborhoods, etc.
From the dispatches I've read out of Baqubah, that's been happening.
Hmmm. The writing style of "a" looks a lot like someone who has been posting critiques of the "US-trained" & "US equipped" Iraqi Security Forces for months and months. Now we're supposed to arm them pell mell & willy nilly?
APU in full effect.
*
At 11:12 AM, Truth About Iraqis
24 aghati, I thought this would mesh well with what you are talking about. The misappropriation of Iraqi funds etc:
Here is a factoid very few Iraqis know and even less non-Iraqis were ever aware of.
The United Nations has stolen billions of dollars from Iraqi coffers since 1996, when the tainted oil-for-food scandal went into effect.
Actually, even before.
Here is the insult:
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The Security Council voted Friday to immediately close down the U.N. inspection bodies that played a pivotal role in monitoring Iraq's unconventional weapons programs under Saddam Hussein.
The resolution terminating the mandate of the U.N. bodies responsible for overseeing the dismantling of Saddam's programs to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles was approved by a vote of 14-0.
Let me tell you why. Every ticket purchased by a UN inspector, every drink, every meal, every cigarette, every call, every laptop, every pencil, every car, every gas tank refuelling, every new pair of tires, every maintenance, every internet connection, every satellite connection ... EVERY SINGLE EXPENSE accrued by the UN inspection team was paid for by IRAQ.
Not by the US. Not by the UN Security Council, but by Iraqi money supposedly derived from the sale of oil under the oil-for-food scandal.
Iraqis were starving, being butchered by an inhumane sanctions regimen, and here Iraq was paying for UN inspectors to travel up and down its rear end, seeking and destroying armaments.
BUT WAIT, the insult did not end with the liberation of Iraq or when Duelfer and the other cowboys found no weapons.
No. In fact, Iraqi monies were still used to pay the salaries of some 400 inspectors and support staff. That might be a conservative number, if I know how the bureaucracy of the UN works.
And monthly salaries went for at least $10,000 a month.
Tally it up, how many millions and millions of Iraqi funds were stolen?
Iraq's new leaders also have been lobbying for the council to stop using the country's oil revenue to pay the salaries of the inspectors — and to have all money remaining in the U.N.'s oil-for-food account transferred to the government.
The resolution authorizes Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to transfer all remaining unallocated funds in the oil-for-food account to Iraq's Development Fund — about $60 million. (AP)
At 11:30 AM,
TAI,
Could you stop your snarling and yapping and barking JUST ONCE and try to FOCUS on the topic at hand?
Here's the question. Take all the time you need to formulate an answer.
Do you think the Iraqi Army, as it is currently constituted (Shia-dominated), should be allowed to acquire military hardware like tanks, howizters, attack helicopters, and jets?
Please, just this once. Can you offer us a coherent opinion on this matter? Listen, I'll never ask this of you again and you can go back to your spammed, hysterical, incoherent yapping.
*
At 11:37 AM,
At 5:38 AM,
cheneyco is concerned the nationalists may not 'invite' them to stay.
I asked David Satterfield, the State Department's chief Iraq person, if the United States could see itself supporting an alternative to Maliki, he shot down the suggestion in the strongest terms. "We strongly, explicitly support the government of Prime Minister Maliki," he said, through a clenched jaw, and looking me in the eye. "It is not helpful to talk about alternatives."
......
The new US policy of arming Sunni tribes and even some resistance groups against Al Qaeda in Iraq is not a strategy; instead, having spent billions of dollars to arm and train the Shiite-led government's army and police, the United States is now arming the other side in Iraq's civil war, as well. Perhaps it makes too much sense for the delusional Bush Administration, but rather than arm both sides in the civil war it ought to arm neither
annie
At 6:57 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
Jeffrey:
“Do you think the Iraqi Army, as it is currently constituted (Shia-dominated), should be allowed to acquire military hardware like tanks, howizters, attack helicopters, and jets?”
that’s exactly how your administration deals with the issue, turning it into a trust conflict. And by doing this, we will never have an Iraqi army and your troops will have to stay in Iraq. And if they don’t stay in Iraq, and of course they won’t, they’ll leave it to the insurgents.
But I know you and your administration would never care about Iraq and Iraqis, not in a million years. So, go ahead and commit another political suicide. Be my guest.
Just asking this question of yours shows how little your mind becomes when you deal with this issue.
For all who asked the question of Shiites and Sunnis in the Iraqi army and how can they be trusted with weaponry: Iraq will always be Sunnis and Shiites, Kurds and Arabs. There is no other way. We have to deal with it as it is.
I don’t like to bullshit, like some Iraqi and American officials. The Iraqi army is Shiites and Sunnis, like Iraq is. They should be armed properly to defend the country. If not, the Americans shouldn’t go to the media after they lose every battle and whine about how the Iraqi army is not capable of defending the country and blame them for their failure.
You had the weapons, why did you fail?
Omar,
Lose every battle? Name one. How about Operation Phantom Fury (Fallujah II, November, 2004)? If I remember correctly, you were there. Did it look like that Americans lost that battle?
How long did it take the Americans to topple Saddam's army and regime? Three weeks -- from halfway around the world.
But I asked the question because I've heard MANY SUNNI BLOGGERS complain day in and day out that they CAN'T TRUST the Iraqi Army because it's been infiltrated by too many Mahdi militia. I don't know if it's true or not. I was asking your opinion.
that’s exactly how your administration deals with the issue, turning it into a trust conflict.
Are you NUTS?! WE turn it into a trust issue?! This is a lack of trust between Shia and Sunnis! To Americans, the one group is as reliable or unrealiable as the other. Adnan Dulaimi or Muqtada Al-Sadr, for example. Which one do you trust more?
*
At 12:28 PM, Lynnette In Minnesota
24,
What are the results of the operation? More deaths and more instability in the country. What have this major power achieved? Nothing.
What you are seeing in Diyala is only a beginning. You cannot state that it is a failure yet. Everyone seemed to make such a big thing about the surge even before it started and then said it had failed. What you saw last week was the true beginning of the surge.
Diyala is running in conjunction with operations elsewhere.
At 12:38 PM, 24 Steps to Liberty
I will not name a battle only, let me name a war "The war in Iraq"
The U.S. has clearly lost that war and is still losing every day. GO check your facts.
How much time it took to topple Hussein's government? It took one day. It was the day when Bush announced the beginning of the war. That's when the Iraqis decided not to defend the country, because they had hope.
Look what happened when a small number of Iraqis lost that hope. They are fighting the strongest army in the world with AK47s and IEDs and costing it casualties every day.
Wake up.
At 2:57 PM, 24 Steps to Liberty
Jeffrey,
I'm going to warn you this time, behave yourself and be polite. I know this might be dificult for you since you don't know how a real man and human being should behave, but try.
When I say the right thing with evidences, that, as usual, makes you angry. But there is a chance to discuss. Or, just suck it up and admit.
I never insulted you. Don't make me.
At 4:29 PM, RhusLancia
For the insurgents to "win" they just have to make Iraq look like a failed state ruled by fear, and "resist" any development or services therein. They have to make tyrany or Sharia look better than democracy & the rule of (constitutional) law.
For the Iraqi gov't & MNF to "win", Iraq has to be viable, stable, and moving forward.
We have our work cut out for us, that's for sure. Especially when some people think the former "deserve" to win, at any cost, vs. the latter.
Omar,
In the comment that you deleted, I made three points which I'll re-write here (without the touches of sarcasm), any of which you may dispute.
First, the Iraqi Army has historically had poor fire-training, which translates into not being hit your targets with any accuracy, using either their AKs, mortors, or artillery. Read any account of Gulf War I and you will see this is true. In the tanks battles, the American tanks had over 800 kills while the Iraqi tanks disabled two of our tanks. The American tankers learned to drive around oil drums in the desert because the Iraqi military had adjusted fire to hit the oil drums and were not able to adjust fire off of those drums. The Iraqi soldier used the spray from the hip method with their AKs and rarely aimed. In general, the Americans were surprised by the overall poor training habits of the Iraqi military.
Second, the Iraqi Army used a Soviet-style top-down command structure which made individual initative and responsibity at the officer level not very important. And thus the individual units were not very flexible and cohesive in real combat. They were always waiting for orders from above.
And third, the Arab militaries of the region, for a variety of reasons, have not been able to win an engagement with a Western military in a long, long time. I challenge you to tell me of any military victory by an Arab army against a Western army in the last fifty years, for example. But this can change, if those militaries -- and I hope the Iraqi military is the first one -- to admit past mistakes and acquire new command structures and new kinds of training.
There are no insults here, just observations from lots of reading and listening to those who have fought against and, later, worked with the Iraqi military.
*
At 11:09 PM,
I have never heard anyone in US
government/military etc state that Iraqi forces are supposed to enter
hostile areas with only limited
equipment ...
All operations
in heavy insurgent areas are going to be softened up with the fighter jets and tanks etc ... no one is suggesting Iraqi army go into those areas alone without that equipment and without Helicopter
support.
Thats why US forces
are still in Iraq with full capability ... Right now what
Americans want to see and I imagine
Iraqi also is for Iraqi to fight with American infantry when operations call for it and to take the lead perhaps first group in
AFTER The jets and Tanks move through ... and of course to handle
more and more of the house to house
stuff.
The most important thing Iraqi forces can do now is to hold areas
which were cleared ... and to do this they should have
1) Amored Humvees
2) good machine guns with lots of ammo
3) some heavy machine guns on the Humvees
4) perhaps some rpg
5) protective Vests
6) well guarded fairly comfortable
bases
7) good communication equipment
Its really the interaction with
civilians that the Iraqi must
excel
Right now Iraqi army does not need
Helicopters/Tanks/Jets Americans
can provide this easily ...
Its infantry patrolls and
working with American units
thats where the need is
Note also
The American military is not calling for this fast withdrawal
leaving Iraqi Army weak ...
Its the politicians and the left wing zealots who would rather see
Iraqi die by the thousands every day
just to discredit Bush !!!
Note also the money spent may include a good deal of the Iraqi
police and military salaries
Civilaina ares must be flooded with Iraqi police and military first ...
Then the helicopter and heavy vehicle training comes ...
Then the Fighter Jet training
and modern missile defense
systems need to be set up
Its the foot patrol first
for Iraqi ... that has to be the way it works ... to get American soldiers away from civilian contact
Then all the other stuff will be provided in an organized way
hopefully in conditions of much less violence
In addition the US policy in Iraq
has sought to minimize civilian casualties while fighting the insurgency ... that is the reason
we have lost so many soldiers ...
The choice was not to lay to waste
Iraqi cities or neighborhoods.
In Ramadi this policy has seemed to work as the tribal leaders finaly realized that al-queda
was the real threat to Iraq
and iraqi culture not the Americans ... in addition
annie fails to point out the the tribal leaders whose people we are arming in Anbar actually were
in Baghdad to meet with Maliki and support reconcilliatin before some of them were killed ....
There is no reason Anbar can
1) First become peacefull and prosperous for its own citizens
2) Then reconcile with Maliki
In fact that should be the goal
of all Iraqs provinces
a) Kill off all these insurgents
operating in your areas with the help of US forces
b) start reconstruction and a return to your normal lives
c) meet with Malikis officals
and begin the healing process
I would like to point out to "24"
in previous posts you made a point
of calling the conflict a civil war ... well its now iraqi
moderates war to win or lose.
Americans can always pull back to bases in kuwait and Kurdish region
and simply pound away
with air power if we see violence spread to other countries or the Kurdish region ... thats what many
republicans now want ....
They want to limit US casualtius
at the expense of Iraqi civilian casualties that are bound to ensue
as we shift back to an air war.
In anycase Jeffrey is correct
in that now is not the time for
heavy weaponry to be given to Iraqi
army ... perhaps in six months
But for now lets get Baghdad
improved with patrols first
Thanks 24 for pointing out this very important issue with respect to the lack of proper equipment for Iraqi soldiers. The American media really don't talk about this.
Yesterday, I was listening to public radio and some Senator was talking about the need to accelerate the building and deployment of the MRAP vehicles (much bigger and stronger than a Humvee with a V-shaped bottom to deflect IED blasts). If Humvees can't protect U.S. soldiers, they wouldn't do any better for Iraqi soldiers.
I think that having the right equipment is important, but not necessarily the most important thing. American cops used to walk the streets with nothing but a night stick many years ago. They got to know the people in their neighborhoods. If there was a problem, they reported it and got the support they needed. Peace and order is not kept very well in American inner cities by police in squad cars who never get to know the people in the neighborhoods. In Iraqi cities and towns, the Iraqi army and police need to start walking around at some point (it might be suicide right now!), getting to know the people, and earning their trust. People in Iraqi neighborhoods know where the bad guys are, they just don't know who they can trust to do something about it.
Well, that's my take, for whatever its worth.
At 5:55 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
Jeffrey
“First, the Iraqi Army has historically had poor fire-training, which translates into not being hit your targets with any accuracy, using either their AKs, mortors, or artillery.”
How about the U.S. forces? Are they “accurate” in hitting their target?
Do you know how many Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. fire during the invasion? I have a friend who lost a leg because of poor targeting by the Americans. The Washington Post wrote a story about her. Go read it. She was one of the brightest students in college, and now she lost her future.
I suggest you read the few links bellow and then come back and celebrate the “accuracy” of your troops in targeting CIVILIANS.
U.S. troops charged with murder
U.S. troops charged with murder
soldiers charged in Iraqi deaths
Residents Say 17 Killed by U.S. Were Not Insurgents
At 6:10 AM,
You are young but you have understood quickly that all your people can do is to join the antiamerican bandwagon and go to hell with it. Smart. You know what you deserve? That another Saddam rises in the next years and hurts you, hard. Maybe then you will understand to be grateful to someone who's trying to help you, while all you do is to cowardly dream of backstab him.
Omar,
Michael Yon reports from Baqubah, where the 5th Iraqi Army is fighting alongside the Americans. In this dispatch, the soldiers come upon a village outside Baqubah in which the locals had been killed and dumped into shallow graves by Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Even if you can't figure out who the real enemy is in Iraq, believe me, those Iraqi soldiers in the 5th IA do.
*
At 8:49 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
It’s so bazaar, irrelevant and ill-intentioned.
What do you mean “you can't figure out who the real enemy is in Iraq” ?
I do know who the enemies of Iraq are. That’s why I am writing about them on my blog. If you don’t know, I suggest that you do the homework before you utter such nonsense.
If you haven’t figured it out, the biggest insult to me is when someone hints that I don’t know my country, especially someone who’s never been within hundreds of miles of Iraq, like you.
And ask your Michael Yon to go and interview real people in Diyala, not only those who can come close enough to the Bradley he is hiding in.
Don’t ever, ever accuse me of such again. Patience has limits, and mine has reached its stretch with you.
Omar,
And ask your Michael Yon to go and interview real people in Diyala, not only those who can come close enough to the Bradley he is hiding in.
Did you read the dispatch? The reason why Michael Yon wasn't able to interview the people in that village is because Al Qaeda in Iraq had murdered them. It's tough to interview someone when they're dead.
*
At 9:39 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
Jeffrey,
�Omar,
Who is the real enemy of the Iraqi people? Who has killed the most Iraqi citizens?�
I will not even try to amuse you with an answer to such a stupid question that shows nothing but inhumane, insulting and ugly way to make fun of what my country, my people and I have lost and are losing.
Shame on you, you little rat.
You are not welcome on this platform until you show your regret for asking your foolish question. Otherwise, go find another place to post your hatred and inhumanity.
At 9:53 AM,
"I will not even try to amuse you with an answer to such a stupid question that shows nothing but inhumane, insulting and ugly way to make fun of what my country, my people and I have lost and are losing."
You mean you can't honestly answer this question without insulting someone.
I mean, if its the Americans, then what the hell are you doing in their country (apart from plotting a Glasgow style car bombing)...
If its Al Qaeda, well then you would be on Bruno and Annie's "CIA Operative" list...Wouldn't that be horrible - to be Annie's enemy?
Omar,
Who are the enemies of Iraq? I think that's an important question to ask and try to answer. Okay, I'll go first.
Here are four groups that I consider enemies of Iraq in a descending order of virulence:
1. Al Qaeda in Iraq. They have suicide-bombed and killed thousands of Iraqi citizens, men, women, and children.
2. Former regime elements -- ex-military officers (mostly Sunni) -- who in the past collaborated with Al Qaeda in Iraq in the hopes of toppling the new Iraqi government and thus returning themselves to power. Some of them have started to turn on Al Qaeda now because too many Sunna had been killed by the foreing jihadists and they had started to impose their own ideas of goverance on the local people. They had started to infringe, that is, on the authority of tribal leadership and guidance in Iraq.
3. Muqtada Al-Sadr and the rogue elements in the Madhi militia. Just as Al Qaeda in Iraq wants to kill Sunna, elements in the Mahdi mlitia want to kill Iraqi citizens who are Sunni just because of their religious affiliation.
4. Surrounding countries like Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia who support one side or the other in the sectarian struggles between the Sunna and the Shiites.
*
Omar,
One more point. I am NOT trying to make fun of your country or its people. I have been blogging almost daily for over three years now and have made many Iraqi friends, as you know. I do not see the United States as the enemy of Iraq. Is Japan our enemy now? Is Germany our enemy now? No. The Wahhabists and those in Iraq who will kill citizens in their attempt to return to power are the main enemies of Iraq and its future. I KNOW that there are many Iraqis who agree with me. I've sat with Iraqi Mojo right here at a restaurant in New York and we agreed on this issue. He's Iraqi and he agrees with me.
*
Efforts are under way to rebuild the Iraqi Army, with more arms and equipment to be delivered in the next few months, Fox and Ghaidan said.
“We have now eight divisions that are at a second-level state of readiness, meaning that they have full manpower, light weapons and some logistical capabilities, but lack heavy weapons and support units, like artillery,” the Iraqi general said.
Two more divisions should become operational in June, and their M60 main battle tanks, M113 armored personnel carriers and other mostly U.S.- and Western-built heavy weapons will arrive in the second half of the year.
“The objective is to have 10 divisions — six infantry, three mechanized and one armored — fully ready and equipped,” Ghaidan said. “The armament process has been slow, but it seems to be picking up at the moment and we hope it is complete soon.”
One U.S. Army official said medium and heavy weapons, which are needed only to repel foreign threats, were given a lower procurement priority than internal-security gear.
“Once security in Iraq is established, then we can move to completing the armament of the Iraqi Army,” the official said.
Ghaidan said an Iraqi military committee is in charge of procurement; the U.S. military is just providing advice.
http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2681008&C=mideast
At 11:35 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
I have never said that the U.S. is an enemy of Iraq.
Go read my entires, ALL of them, and if you find one suggesting the the U.S. is the enemy of Iraq, I will stop blogging today.
Stop doing your little things and respect this platform and its writer. Otherwise, all your future comments will be deleted.
I have showed and proved patience. I have warned you more than 20 times before and this is the last one.
At 12:13 PM, Lynnette In Minnesota
24,
I will not name a battle only, let me name a war "The war in Iraq"
The U.S. has clearly lost that war and is still losing every day. GO check your facts. my emphasis
I have been, 24. That's why I wrote that comment. I don't know if the surge will work, no. No one does. But you have to at least give it a chance.
Because despite what you think, there is still a chance that it will work.
airforce quietly building iraq presents
BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq - Away from the headlines and debate over the "surge" in U.S. ground troops, the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces.
The escalation worries some about an increase in "collateral damage," casualties among Iraqi civilians. Air Force generals worry about wear and tear on aging aircraft. But ground commanders clearly like what they see.
Statistics tell the story: Air Force and Navy aircraft dropped 437 bombs and missiles in Iraq in the first six months of 2007, a fivefold increase over the 86 used in the first half of 2006, and three times more than in the second half of 2006, according to Air Force data. In June, bombs dropped at a rate of more than five a day.
....
As chronicled in the Air Force's daily summaries, more and more pilots are getting the "cleared hot" clearance for bombing runs, usually with 500-pound bombs....
Iraq Body Count, a London-based, anti-war research group that monitors Iraqi war deaths, says the step-up in air attacks appears to have been accompanied by an increase in Iraqi civilian casualties from air strikes. Based on media reports, it counts a recent average of 50 such deaths per month.
The Air Force itself does not maintain such data.
....
Air Force engineers, meanwhile, are improving this centrally located home base, which supports some 10,000 air operations per week.
The weaker of Balad's two 11,000-foot runways was reinforced — for five to seven years' more hard use. The engineers next will build concrete "overruns" at the runways' ends. Balad's strategic ramp, the concrete parking lot for its biggest planes, was expanded last fall. The air traffic control system is to be upgraded again with the latest technology.
"We'd like to get it to be a field like Langley, if you will," said mission support chief Reynolds, referring to the Air Force showcase base in Virginia.
....The new Iraqi air force thus far fields only a handful of transports and reconnaissance aircraft — no attack planes.
Hello 24! You make a great point as always. As for the helicopters, I've seen 2 Iraqi Army helicopters, but I'm pretty sure the crew were not Iraqis...