Iraq Army...are they ready?

[CVsIS250]

Is Iraq ready to take over command of their own army. The government thinks so...what do you think?

Iraq to take control of its army



Transfer called huge step toward U.S. withdrawal


By Elena Becatoros ASSOCIATED PRESS




BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq is scheduled to take control of its armed-forces command today, in a major step on its path toward independence and an essential move before international troops can withdraw.
Still, there was more bloodshed yesterday, with at least 36 people killed across the country by car bombs, mortar attacks and drive-by shootings. Police also found 29 bodies.
U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said of the shift in the Iraqi command, "This is such a huge, significant event that’s about to occur tomorrow. If you go back and you map out significant events that (will) have occurred in this government’s formation in taking control of the country, tomorrow is gigantic."
The highly anticipated ceremony, which will put the prime minister in direct control of the military, comes five days after it was scheduled. The government called off the original ceremony at the last minute.
The U.S. and the Iraqis said the disagreement that led to the delay was more procedural than substantive.
After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, the U.S. disbanded what was left of the defeated Iraqi army. The U.S.-led coalition has been training and equipping the new Iraqi military, hoping it soon would be in a position to take over security for the entire country and allow foreign troops to return home.
But it is still unclear how fast this can be done.
"It’s the prime minister’s decision how rapidly he wants to move along with assuming control," Caldwell said. In today’s ceremony, the prime minister will take control of Iraq’s small naval and air forces, and the 8 th Iraqi Army Division.
"They can move as rapidly thereafter as they want. I know, conceptually, they’ve talked about perhaps two divisions a month," Caldwell said.
The 8 th Division was recently engaged in a fierce, 12-hour battle with a Shiite militia in the southern city of Diwaniyah. More than 20 soldiers and 50 militiamen were killed.
Days before the battle, the division’s commander, Brig. Gen. Othman al-Farhoud, said that while his forces were capable of controlling security, they still needed support from the U.S.-led coalition.
He said there was still a need for coalition air support, medical assistance and military storage facilities.
"In my opinion, it will take time," al-Farhoud said when asked how long it would take before his division was completely self-sufficient.
Politicians have been optimistic.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani predicted in a Tuesday meeting with visiting British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett that fighting in Iraq will have abated by the end of 2007, and that Iraqi forces will be able to handle any remaining violence.
Yet the killing continues.
Yesterday, two bombs targeting an Iraqi army patrol exploded in northern Baghdad, killing at least nine people and wounding 39, police said. Two of the dead and eight of the wounded were Iraqi soldiers, police said.
In northeastern Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a procession of pilgrims heading to the Shiite holy city of Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, killing one person and wounding two.
Tens of thousands are expected in Karbala on Saturday to observe Shaaban, a religious celebration. Many of the pilgrims travel to the city on foot. State television said a vehicle curfew had been imposed in Karbala from last night until the end of the celebration.
Mortar attacks in residential areas in Diyala province, north of Baghdad, killed three people: a 2-year-old child in the Khan Bani Saad area and two people in Muqdadiyah, 60 miles north of Baghdad, police said.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military said the arrest of al-Qaida in Iraq’s second in command took place in June and was the most significant blow to the terror network since the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Caldwell said Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, also known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, was captured on June 19 — not a few days ago as the Iraqi government initially announced.

[Lil4X]

They've come a long way, but they have a lot to prove. Middle Eastern armies, like those throughout the third world are engines for distributing patronage to families and political supporters. You often see those with political connections installed at the top - with little training or experience in leadership or battlefield tactics. Most of the air forces of the region are riddled with mediocrity among their pilots. Land forces have a long history of nepotism credited with placing family ties above actual competence. Iraq has the additional difficulty of turning this system into something resembling an effective fighting force, not just a parade unit.

It's been a rough transition, particularly for the leadership. You have to recall that even though Iraq's was probably the premiere army in the region, it suffered badly from poor leadership up and down the chain of command. The few competent, experienced, motivated field leaders were shackled by the old Soviet-style command structure that demanded micromanagement from the top. Guerilla or terror war is going to requrie initiative at the squad level, and extremely quick reactions - not something that can be reviewed by a Star Chamber in Baghdad. The primary reason our armies ran through them in a matter of days was largely this breakdown in command.

A secondary reason for their continuing failure is that frankly, this is still the gang that can't shoot straight. That comes from a lack of training. Knowing the weapon, understanding it's use, and hours of practice on the firing range with live ammo is required to produce an effective soldier. The "pray and spray" tactic in the employment of automatic weapons has gotten a LOT of Iraqi's killed by our troops at ranges their soldiers can't even imagine.

The old Soviet style command structure was developed on the Stalinist model that concentrated authority at the top - among a committee of generals. This was done to prevent a military coup developing in the ranks. With only a select few generals actually trusted to make even routine decisions, they were slow to react to a developing situation. They fought more to stay out of trouble, rather than to gain and maintain real estate. That's a mind-set they're going to have to break, but it's going to be with them for a while yet.

We've made a lot of progress, particularly in training the front-line troops, but old habits die hard. Worse, the experienced non-coms in the ranks, just like the officer corps were once on Sadaam's payroll. Their loyalties could still be called into question. It is important they support the new government, not a local warlord.

Iraq comes from a long tradition of a corrupt military, and an even more corrupt police agency. Not only will both have to prove themselves on the streets, but they will have a tough job gaining the trust of the man in the street.

[bluestar]

Iraq to take control of its army

Transfer called huge step toward U.S. withdrawal

OK, something doesn't quite add up here...

First, the President declared we were not leaving Iraq anytime soon
Second, we were told the war in Iraq is tied to the war on terror, and we must fight them over there, so that we don't have to fight them over here..
Thirdly, we are actually increasing our troop level in Iraq

So forgive me if I don't quite get this transfer to Iraq military, and its meaning (symbolic, it may be)... If all of above is correct, what does this transfer symbolize ? Sorry, my brain is a little slow today

[Kepeli]

They are not ready to take over yet. I'n my opinion their military is saturated with terrorists waiting for the day we pull out and all hell will break loose. You are all lucky I am not the president because my answer would be going nuclear on Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria. If i run for president I will use this name so you all can keep me out of office! That's my 2 cents.

[DASHOCKER]

Originally Posted by bluestar

OK, something doesn't quite add up here...

First, the President declared we were not leaving Iraq anytime soon
Second, we were told the war in Iraq is tied to the war on terror, and we must fight them over there, so that we don't have to fight them over here..
Thirdly, we are actually increasing our troop level in Iraq

So forgive me if I don't quite get this transfer to Iraq military, and its meaning (symbolic, it may be)... If all of above is correct, what does this transfer symbolize ? Sorry, my brain is a little slow today

*Cough* November elections are coming up lets show that progress is being made *cough* Its still a mess in Iraq. Sorry right wingers.

[DASHOCKER]

Bin Laden mixed tapes Volume 8 should be coming on a televison near you.

[DASHOCKER]

Originally Posted by DASHOCKER

Bin Laden mixed tapes Volume 8 should be coming on a televison near you.

Ahhh what did I say..Lets see here LETS PLAY FEAR FACTOR! http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...911/index.html

Video is said to show bin Laden prepping for 9/11 attacks
POSTED: 4:39 a.m. EDT, September 8, 2006
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

(CNN) -- For the first time, a video has been released showing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden meeting with suspected terrorist Ramzi Binalshibh, purportedly as they prepare for the September 11, 2001 attacks, according to Al-Jazeera, which aired the tape Thursday.

Binalshibh is a Yemeni who allegedly admitted a role in planning the attacks. He was among 14 al Qaeda operatives that President Bush on Wednesday said had been transferred to the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The 14 men were transferred from CIA custody so they can face military hearings if Congress approves the tribunals, the president said. (Watch suspected terrorists practice martial arts -- 2:44)

It is alleged that Binalshibh intended to be one of the September 11 hijackers but was unable to get a visa to enter the United States despite several attempts.

In one of the segments of the tape, bin Laden tells his compatriots that the news from "the brothers who went out for martyrdom operations ... is delightful."

"And I strongly advise you to increase your prayers for them and beseech Allah the Exalted in your prayer to grant them success, make firm their foothold and strengthen their hearts," the al Qaeda leaders says.

The video aired four days before the fifth anniversary of the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

CNN was unable to independently verify whether the video, made by al Qaeda's production company, Al Sahab, was made in 2001. But two of the men seen on it -- Hamza Alghamdi and Wail Alshehri -- were hijackers who died in the suicide missions.

Alghamdi was aboard United Airlines Flight 175, which hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center; Alshehri was aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which crashed into the North Tower.

Al Qaeda military commander Mohammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs al-Masri, also is on the tape. He was killed in Afghanistan in 2001 in a U.S. missile strike.

Many of the faces in the video are pixelated to hide the men's identities.

The men are seen in training or in scenes from their daily lives.

"If struggle and jihad is not mandatory now, then when is it mandatory? The destination from which Prophet Mohammed was sent to Heaven is being transgressed every night and day," says one militant, Wael al Shehry, according to Al-Jazeera.

"When is it time to help Muslims who are under fire in Chechnya? And what about Kashmir and the Philippines? Blood continues to flow. When will it be?" he asks.

Yasser abu Hilala, an Al-Jazeera bureau chief who did the voice-over for the report, said the video is more than an hour long and uses archive footage from Western television networks.

After the video was released, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino reiterated the administration's commitment to bringing to justice those connected to the September 11 terror attacks.

"As the president has said as recently as yesterday, one by one we will bring the 9/11 plotters to justice for their vicious acts, including Ramzi bin al-Shibh who is now in DOD (Department of Defense) custody," she said.

CNN's Kelli Arena contributed to this report.

[CVsIS250]

Originally Posted by bluestar

OK, something doesn't quite add up here...

First, the President declared we were not leaving Iraq anytime soon
Second, we were told the war in Iraq is tied to the war on terror, and we must fight them over there, so that we don't have to fight them over here..
Thirdly, we are actually increasing our troop level in Iraq

So forgive me if I don't quite get this transfer to Iraq military, and its meaning (symbolic, it may be)... If all of above is correct, what does this transfer symbolize ? Sorry, my brain is a little slow today

I think that it just means that they are in charge of their own troops now. They listen to their own generals. I don't know how much pomp this is, but I wouldn't think that our involvement would change much.
CV

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by CVsGX470

I think that it just means that they are in charge of their own troops now. They listen to their own generals. I don't know how much pomp this is, but I wouldn't think that our involvement would change much.
CV

Thanks for the clarification... I sure hope no one believes Iraq can defend itself from within or without yet. And their are enemies on all sides bordering Iraq. So I can see the US military remaining there for quite awhile in some form.

[bluestar]

Details of an interview from a Pentagon chief of logistics, claiming Rumsfeld did not want any post-war planning for Iraq.... How does no post-war plan add up with "building a democracy in Iraq" ???

Read on...

"HE WOULD FIRE THE NEXT PERSON THAT SAID THAT"....Today, via Orin Kerr, comes a remarkable interview with Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning. Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, he says, Donald Rumsfeld told his team to start planning for war in Iraq, but not to bother planning for a long stay:

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

...."In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging."

In a way, this is old news. As much as it beggars the imagination, there's been plenty of evidence all along that Bush never took the idea of rebuilding Iraq seriously. The plan was to remove Saddam from power, claim victory, and get out.

However, this is the clearest evidence I've seen yet. The guy who was actually in charge of logistics has now directly confirmed that Rumsfeld not only didn't intend to rebuild Iraq in any serious way, but threatened to fire anyone who wasted time on the idea. Needless to say, he wouldn't have done this unless it reflected the wishes of the president.

And this also means that all of Bush's talk about democracy was nothing but hot air. If you're serious about planting democracy after a war, you don't plan to simply topple a government and then leave.

So: the lack of postwar planning wasn't merely the result of incompetence. It was deliberate policy. There was never any intention of rebuilding Iraq and there was never any intention of wasting time on democracy promotion. That was merely a post hoc explanation after we failed to find the promised WMD. Either that or BG Scheid is lying.

This is an astounding interview, all the more so for the apparently resigned tone that Scheid brings to it. It belongs on the front page of the New York Times, not the Hampton Roads Daily Press.

POSTSCRIPT: An alternative explanation, based on Rumsfeld's admonition that "the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war," is that Rumsfeld and Bush were planning to stay but simply lied about it in order to build support for the war. However, based on the rest of the interview with Scheid, as well as the other evidence that there was no plan to stay and rebuild in any serious way, that explanation seems unlikely. The bulk of the evidence continues to suggest that democracy and rebuilding were simply not on Bush's radar.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._09/009469.php

This government is one heck of a government, ain't they ???? When one excuse for invading Iraq fails, simply pick another one and run with it and hope the truth is never told.... Like I have always said, what has been hidden will be exposed to the public someday.... sooner or later... and history will judge this government for what they were...

[cpone]

According to my buddies on the ground in IRAQ today.
They are not ready for a FULL US withdrawl.
That day is comming. But not yet. They still need more time to ensure that Iran doesnt impose its will on the nation.

[DASHOCKER]

Originally Posted by cpone

They still need more time to ensure that Iran doesnt impose its will on the nation

The U.S or Iran? Because the U.S is imposing its will in Iraq.How do you think the Iraqi citizens feel about our presence in the region? Ask your buddies about that.

[cpone]

I have and their responses have been the same.

Other then a few pockets of secretatian violence in the center of Iraq. The southern region as well as the northern region of Iraq are calm.

For the most part, the large majority which are the shia want us there. It is the Sunnis that do not. They are the ones that want to regain the sole power they had prior with Saddam.

And I dont know about you. But I would rather have the US instill democracy in Iraq then another Iranian Totaliterian regime.

[Lil4X]

Peace doesn't make headlines. What you see on TV is the stuff that makes for DRAMATIC headlines. It represents the real situation in Iraq no more than a summer Saturday night in South Central represents all of California. Networks, news organizations, even individual reporters want to capture that lead story. With most newsrooms subscribing to an "If it bleeds it leads" editorial style, it's no wonder Iraq seems to be one big IED.

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by cpone

I have and their responses have been the same.

Other then a few pockets of secretatian violence in the center of Iraq. The southern region as well as the northern region of Iraq are calm.

For the most part, the large majority which are the shia want us there. It is the Sunnis that do not. They are the ones that want to regain the sole power they had prior with Saddam.

And I dont know about you. But I would rather have the US instill democracy in Iraq then another Iranian Totaliterian regime.

This guy is funny, eh ? US instill democracy in Iraq ? Are you kidding ? Do you have any semblance of what "instilling democracy" entails ? What democratic institutions are being built to sustain lasting democracy in Iraq ? What cultural or societal changes are been supported to cultivate and build a sense of democratization of the citizenry ? What political process exists to support such efforts ? Iraq is today more theocratic than democratic.... Did you even notice that, or you'd just like the sound of the word "democracy" ? A people with such long history (longer than the US) has never had democracy, and you expect a foreign occupier will provide them with democracy ? In what planet did you live where you found democracy instilled from the outside, rather than from within ?

People like you just talk from the side of your mouth (like Cheney, the Darth Vader of the WH). You gotta think about what you write first, rather than just regurgitating talking points that are meaningless words.

Democracy in Iraq when there was ZERO planning for us to stay in the first place ? Yeah right..... Dream on, capone...