Since there isn't an explosion a day and it can't be worked in to an anit-Bush and/or defeatist angle, you won't see much of this reported in the MSM - so, we here at Blogs for Bush are pleased to bring it to your attention:
BAGHDAD — It’s a slow road and a difficult task: standing up an army, basically from scratch, especially when the soldiers were under the rule of one dictator for so long.
For the 1st Iraqi Army Division, the future heavily relies on U.S. Marine Military Transition Teams who live and work side-by-side with them, setting a positive and professional example.
Since early 2005, the transition teams have worked to rebuild the Iraqi Security Forces from the ground up as a modern, effective fighting force. Sourced mostly by the Army and Marine Corps, 11 to 15-person teams train stateside and in theater before embedding with their Iraqi counterparts.
Their mission is to advise, coach, teach, and mentor the IA, assisting them to assume full responsibility for the security of their country. MiTTs, as they’re known, provide a mix of combat and combat support specialties to include operations, intelligence, logistics, communications, engineering, and security—the things an army must do to stand alone.
Our Revolutionary War started in 1775 and it was 1778 before Washington had a reasonably reliable military instrument in hand. No matter how brave and dedicated the troops are, welding them in to an efficient force which will always obey its orders and always stand and fight takes time. Our military has been so good for so long that we take it for granted that any uniformed force will be similar to the United States military - but that is not how it is at all.
Some say we shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi army after the fall of Saddam. In response to that concept, I hold that there really wasn't an Iraqi army when Saddam was in charge. There was an armed force of slaves who were whipped in to battle at need - in terms of what we consider an army to be, what Iraq had was a corrupt, ill-trained and institutionally cowardly armed mob. To retain that organization would have just made matters worse - by starting from scratch we are able to build an army which knows its job from the ground up.
This will continue to be a long, drawn out process which will have many ups and downs - some units will prove rotten to the core, others will prove to be as good as our best. Our job is to get the average run to be good enough to handle foreign and domestic security for the Iraqi regime. Once that is done, our troops can come home.
Posted by Mark Noonan at October 30, 2006 06:52 AM
Comments
The historically challenged dems are highly critical of the progress made with the Iraqi army. They fail to remember that when the Continental Army was formed, over 33% of the army deserted during the winter at Valley Forge.
The army was an undisciplined group of farmers and merchants. The Prussians training them were constantly pessimistic at the potential of this group to successfully engage the British. And in fact, they lost most of the battles.
And yet, somehow they defeated the British, with the aid of military advisors from Prussia and France.
Posted by: phnxbmed at October 30, 2006 08:18 AM
"Our job is to get the average run to be good enough to handle foreign and domestic security for the Iraqi regime. Once that is done, our troops can come home."
I have to say I'm very skeptical that doing this will result in our desired "stable and democratic" Iraq.
It's been my opinion that once the US leaves, Iraqis will truly decide what kind of country they will have. Once we leave, all bets are off. If we just did this "stay the course, train Iraqis and leave" strategy, I think we'll be setting the stage for the US to be in Iraq for years to come with no guarantee that when we leave, the country won't just devolve into a violent civil war.
Problem is, there aren't many other options. One is step up the pressure on the Iraqis, set a staged withdrawal that will redeploy troops in northern Kurdistan and Kuwait and see what happens. In essence, speed up the process of the US getting out instead of spending more US lives and dollars for a goal we don't know will ever be reached.
These emails from a soldier that recently was killed in Iraq, seem to support being skeptical of Mark's take. Now, this is one quote and is a snapshot opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I think it's important to hear what a US soldier responsible for training the Iraqis believe:
"My 3 month informed opinion (based entirely on what I see in the Hit region) is that this war is futile. Even the Iraqi soldiers tell us that when America leaves, they'll quit. They trust us because they know Americans can take care of them, but they don't trust their government, or the Ministry of Defense, and they especially don't trust their officers [...] Funny, I feel the same way sometimes."
I recommend reading the entire thing. He is more optimistic in other emails, but overall, he seems skeptical of what exactly we're doing there.
(Note: Seems that when I post a link, it goes to a page where I have to wait for a moderator to post what I’ve written. And since not of these I subitted over the weekend have been posted by a moderator, I will try posting this without the link. If you go to the newsweek web site, you’ll find a link to these emails near the top of the page).
Then was also the security advisor to the Iraqi president last week saying the reason security operations have failed in Baghdad is because the Iraqi soldiers are poorly trained and equipped.
And Mark, Washington had soldier's that were fighting for their country. They believed in their cause. The problem with the US training these Iraqis is that they are not loyal to the US, doesn't even seem they are loyal to the Iraqi government. I believe somewhere in these emails, the soldier says he had the feeling the Iraqis he is training were more loyal to militia leaders than to the US or Iraqi government.
I think there are many reasons to doubt this "train Iraqis and leave" strategy. I believe it will keep us in Iraq for many more years and there's a good chance it will not bring about the desired goal of a stable and democratic Iraq. Unfortunately, there aren't many of great options, but I think there might be better ones. I'm interested to hear what the Baker group has to say.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at October 30, 2006 09:22 AM
We must get the Iraqi Army trained and get the boys of Iraq protecting their country. America can only do so much. We should not be doing for Iraq what the Iraqi's must do for themselves. It is taking far too long to transfer secruty responsiblities.
Posted by: Ames Tiedeman at October 31, 2006 09:36 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
The historically challenged dems are highly critical of the progress made with the Iraqi army. They fail to remember that when the Continental Army was formed, over 33% of the army deserted during the winter at Valley Forge.
The army was an undisciplined group of farmers and merchants. The Prussians training them were constantly pessimistic at the potential of this group to successfully engage the British. And in fact, they lost most of the battles.
And yet, somehow they defeated the British, with the aid of military advisors from Prussia and France.
"Our job is to get the average run to be good enough to handle foreign and domestic security for the Iraqi regime. Once that is done, our troops can come home."
I have to say I'm very skeptical that doing this will result in our desired "stable and democratic" Iraq.
It's been my opinion that once the US leaves, Iraqis will truly decide what kind of country they will have. Once we leave, all bets are off. If we just did this "stay the course, train Iraqis and leave" strategy, I think we'll be setting the stage for the US to be in Iraq for years to come with no guarantee that when we leave, the country won't just devolve into a violent civil war.
Problem is, there aren't many other options. One is step up the pressure on the Iraqis, set a staged withdrawal that will redeploy troops in northern Kurdistan and Kuwait and see what happens. In essence, speed up the process of the US getting out instead of spending more US lives and dollars for a goal we don't know will ever be reached.
These emails from a soldier that recently was killed in Iraq, seem to support being skeptical of Mark's take. Now, this is one quote and is a snapshot opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I think it's important to hear what a US soldier responsible for training the Iraqis believe:
"My 3 month informed opinion (based entirely on what I see in the Hit region) is that this war is futile. Even the Iraqi soldiers tell us that when America leaves, they'll quit. They trust us because they know Americans can take care of them, but they don't trust their government, or the Ministry of Defense, and they especially don't trust their officers [...] Funny, I feel the same way sometimes."
I recommend reading the entire thing. He is more optimistic in other emails, but overall, he seems skeptical of what exactly we're doing there.
(Note: Seems that when I post a link, it goes to a page where I have to wait for a moderator to post what I’ve written. And since not of these I subitted over the weekend have been posted by a moderator, I will try posting this without the link. If you go to the newsweek web site, you’ll find a link to these emails near the top of the page).
Then was also the security advisor to the Iraqi president last week saying the reason security operations have failed in Baghdad is because the Iraqi soldiers are poorly trained and equipped.
And Mark, Washington had soldier's that were fighting for their country. They believed in their cause. The problem with the US training these Iraqis is that they are not loyal to the US, doesn't even seem they are loyal to the Iraqi government. I believe somewhere in these emails, the soldier says he had the feeling the Iraqis he is training were more loyal to militia leaders than to the US or Iraqi government.
I think there are many reasons to doubt this "train Iraqis and leave" strategy. I believe it will keep us in Iraq for many more years and there's a good chance it will not bring about the desired goal of a stable and democratic Iraq. Unfortunately, there aren't many of great options, but I think there might be better ones. I'm interested to hear what the Baker group has to say.
We must get the Iraqi Army trained and get the boys of Iraq protecting their country. America can only do so much. We should not be doing for Iraq what the Iraqi's must do for themselves. It is taking far too long to transfer secruty responsiblities.