OT: a serious question about Iraq

Almost daily, there's another news item when someone from the Federal
Government (like Rumsfeld or a General) says something about Iraqi soldiers
and police and their training. How the training is (or isn't) progressing,
how many more US troops would be required to act as trainers, cadre,
advisors, etc. etc.

My question (and I'm serious, not attempting to draw fire from our
Republican, pro-administration members) is this.....
Many of you (and I too) have been in the military, either army, navy or air
force, and presumably you were trained to perform your jobs. In my case, I
had four years of ROTC in college, and a six week summer camp. Then when I
went into the army, I spent roughly four and a half months at Ft. Benning,
after which I went off to Korea to do my job.
We've been in Iraq for three and a half years now, and presumably we have
trained a bunch of locals in the art and science of military operations...
So, what's the problem? Are these folks slow learners? Have we been
teaching them in English, which they don't understand? Have no members of
Saddam's former army been recruited into the "new" army?
I'd really like to understand the holdup here, and would appreciate some
serious answers, because as far as I can tell, this is another boondoggle
without an end to it.

mack, 11/1/2006,7:42:10 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> So, what's the problem? Are these folks
> slow learners? Have we been teaching them in English, which they
> don't understand? Have no members of Saddam's former army been
> recruited into the "new" army? I'd really like to understand the
> holdup here, and would appreciate some serious answers, because as
> far as I can tell, this is another boondoggle without an end to it.[/color]

This is just my opinion. These people have been dependant upon the
government to take care of them for a long time. It will take a while
for the spirit of freedom and ingenuity to set in. It will take a
while for the fear and distrust of government to subside.
Unfortunately the government hasn't helped in reducing any of the angst
these people have regarding their lives. There are many different
factions fighting for control and using the commoners as pawns in their
quest for power. These people are yet to have any loyalty to anyone
lest their choice is not the one who wins. If they choose wrong then
they will be dead also.

What all this means is 1) those who are being trained are being killed
before they can begin performing their duties, 2) they get trained then
desert the military/police forces and join the insurgents, 3) recruits
are hard to find because there is no clear-cut authority flexing its
muscle and holding violence in check. For some reason the Americans
are being prevented from doing anything drastic that would put a hurt
on the insurgents and unfortunately that is making them even bolder.

Until the current Iraqi government establishes itself as the authority
of that country by whatever means there won't be any peace and we will
continue to be sitting ducks to be taken out by CNN sponsored terrorist
snipers. The Defense Department is going to have to be given the green
light to show we mean business soon.

--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who
are willing to work and give to those who would not." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:12kifn6eaepgsc9@corp.supernews.com...[color=blue]
> Almost daily, there's another news item when someone from the Federal
> Government (like Rumsfeld or a General) says something about Iraqi
> soldiers and police and their training. How the training is (or isn't)
> progressing, how many more US troops would be required to act as trainers,
> cadre, advisors, etc. etc.
>
> My question (and I'm serious, not attempting to draw fire from our
> Republican, pro-administration members) is this.....
> Many of you (and I too) have been in the military, either army, navy or
> air force, and presumably you were trained to perform your jobs. In my
> case, I had four years of ROTC in college, and a six week summer camp.
> Then when I went into the army, I spent roughly four and a half months at
> Ft. Benning, after which I went off to Korea to do my job.
> We've been in Iraq for three and a half years now, and presumably we have
> trained a bunch of locals in the art and science of military operations...
> So, what's the problem? Are these folks slow learners? Have we been
> teaching them in English, which they don't understand? Have no members
> of Saddam's former army been recruited into the "new" army?
> I'd really like to understand the holdup here, and would appreciate some
> serious answers, because as far as I can tell, this is another boondoggle
> without an end to it.[/color]
IMHO, from what I have personally observed of a number of non-US Armed
Forces is that they should not be compared to what we think an armed force
should be. The troops have very little discipline, are not technically able
to run sophisticated equipment, are apt to bug out at the earliest
oppurtunity.

"Tom in Macon" <TomMacon@member.org> wrote in message
news:tOd2h.45561$Zn1.4299@bignews2.bellsouth.net...[color=blue]
>
> IMHO, from what I have personally observed of a number of non-US Armed
> Forces is that they should not be compared to what we think an armed force
> should be. The troops have very little discipline, are not technically
> able to run sophisticated equipment, are apt to bug out at the earliest
> oppurtunity.[/color]

Oh, Tom, you got that right. While in Korea, our regiment was down the road
from an allied company from a friendly southeast Asian nation (unnamed to
protect the innocent) where I went daily for a couple of months, honchoing a
quonset-building team, building some of their housing. They were nice
folks indeed, but as soldiers I think a bunch of American boy scouts would
have outclassed them by a wide margin. They (or their company commander)
didn't believe in training, and in the one longish field exercise during the
winter, they stayed about a day and a half, then the CO thought it was too
cold, so they went back to their nice warm barracks. I'm sure that if the
balloon went up, they'd have lasted about an hour.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0et7mth22ivc1000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> mack, 11/1/2006,7:42:10 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> So, what's the problem? Are these folks
>> slow learners? Have we been teaching them in English, which they
>> don't understand? Have no members of Saddam's former army been
>> recruited into the "new" army? I'd really like to understand the
>> holdup here, and would appreciate some serious answers, because as
>> far as I can tell, this is another boondoggle without an end to it.[/color]
>
> This is just my opinion. These people have been dependant upon the
> government to take care of them for a long time. It will take a while
> for the spirit of freedom and ingenuity to set in. It will take a
> while for the fear and distrust of government to subside.
> Unfortunately the government hasn't helped in reducing any of the angst
> these people have regarding their lives. There are many different
> factions fighting for control and using the commoners as pawns in their
> quest for power. These people are yet to have any loyalty to anyone
> lest their choice is not the one who wins. If they choose wrong then
> they will be dead also.
>
> What all this means is 1) those who are being trained are being killed
> before they can begin performing their duties, 2) they get trained then
> desert the military/police forces and join the insurgents, 3) recruits
> are hard to find because there is no clear-cut authority flexing its
> muscle and holding violence in check. For some reason the Americans
> are being prevented from doing anything drastic that would put a hurt
> on the insurgents and unfortunately that is making them even bolder.[/color]

I think you're on the right track...lots of recruits have been killed by the
insurgents, even those trying to enlist have been hit by car bombs at the
recruiting stations, and as you say, they'd really like to know if they're
on the winning side before commiting to swear their loyalty to any
side....and I can understand the spot they're in.

Apparently when the US moved into Iraq, Rumsfeld kicked the first 3 levels
of commanders out of the Iraqi armed forces to make sure no one loyal to
Sadam was left. It was recommended to him that he only kick out the first
level but no one can tell Rumsfeld anything. Basically no one with any
military skills was left and the rest is history.



"mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:12kifn6eaepgsc9@corp.supernews.com...[color=blue]
> Almost daily, there's another news item when someone from the Federal
> Government (like Rumsfeld or a General) says something about Iraqi
> soldiers and police and their training. How the training is (or isn't)
> progressing, how many more US troops would be required to act as trainers,
> cadre, advisors, etc. etc.
>
> My question (and I'm serious, not attempting to draw fire from our
> Republican, pro-administration members) is this.....
> Many of you (and I too) have been in the military, either army, navy or
> air force, and presumably you were trained to perform your jobs. In my
> case, I had four years of ROTC in college, and a six week summer camp.
> Then when I went into the army, I spent roughly four and a half months at
> Ft. Benning, after which I went off to Korea to do my job.
> We've been in Iraq for three and a half years now, and presumably we have
> trained a bunch of locals in the art and science of military operations...
> So, what's the problem? Are these folks slow learners? Have we been
> teaching them in English, which they don't understand? Have no members
> of Saddam's former army been recruited into the "new" army?
> I'd really like to understand the holdup here, and would appreciate some
> serious answers, because as far as I can tell, this is another boondoggle
> without an end to it.
>[/color]

There is also the problem of the three (or more?) competing factions.
The minority group was the ones that got the "goodies" under Saddam
and apparently they are fighting like hell to keep it. They had most
of the training, most of the money and most of the guns and are not
wanting any peace there.

Killing Americans and other folks beats the shit out of herding goats
or camels which they are afraid might happen under a Kurd/Shiite
leadership. And they are probably right.

Ron

In article <tOd2h.45561$Zn1.4299@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"Tom in Macon" <TomMacon@member.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:12kifn6eaepgsc9@corp.supernews.com...[color=green]
> > So, what's the problem? Are these folks slow learners? Have we been
> > teaching them in English, which they don't understand? Have no members
> > of Saddam's former army been recruited into the "new" army?
> > I'd really like to understand the holdup here, and would appreciate some
> > serious answers, because as far as I can tell, this is another boondoggle
> > without an end to it.[/color][/color]
As has already been said the Iraq army were mostly Saddam's minority
Sunni population, who have no oil under their traditional lands and are
now fighting for their survival.
The Kurds who were sadly suppressed by Saddam for years have most of the
oil and just want to get on with life.
The majority Shia to the south have the balance of the oil and also want
to get their lives together after Saddam. Also they are of a different
Muslim sect than the Sunni so they don't get along.

* One feeling is shared by these very independent people is they wanted
* the western forces to be gone very soon after Saddam was removed.
(Learning English or American isn't one of their priorities and they
certainly aren't about to convert to the Christian religious club.)

They are very smart people, why waste your own on protection when the
USA and British are willing to waste their lives attempting to maintain
peace.
In the opinion of many what they need is a civil war to resolve their
internal problem, but as the USA found many years that's a brutal way
to resolve a political problem.
It may be late to separate the Sunni and Shia into two countries,
although the Kurds could probably be split off.
Of course the Shia could join their Iranian cousins, but the USA
couldn't stand for that.

"Spam away" <Trashhere@spam.net> wrote in message
news:Trashhere-523E21.09173903112006@news.telus.net...[color=blue]
> In article <tOd2h.45561$Zn1.4299@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> "Tom in Macon" <TomMacon@member.org> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> news:12kifn6eaepgsc9@corp.supernews.com...[color=darkred]
>> > So, what's the problem? Are these folks slow learners? Have we been
>> > teaching them in English, which they don't understand? Have no
>> > members
>> > of Saddam's former army been recruited into the "new" army?
>> > I'd really like to understand the holdup here, and would appreciate
>> > some
>> > serious answers, because as far as I can tell, this is another
>> > boondoggle
>> > without an end to it.[/color][/color]
> As has already been said the Iraq army were mostly Saddam's minority
> Sunni population, who have no oil under their traditional lands and are
> now fighting for their survival.
> The Kurds who were sadly suppressed by Saddam for years have most of the
> oil and just want to get on with life.
> The majority Shia to the south have the balance of the oil and also want
> to get their lives together after Saddam. Also they are of a different
> Muslim sect than the Sunni so they don't get along.
>
> * One feeling is shared by these very independent people is they wanted
> * the western forces to be gone very soon after Saddam was removed.
> (Learning English or American isn't one of their priorities and they
> certainly aren't about to convert to the Christian religious club.)
>
> They are very smart people, why waste your own on protection when the
> USA and British are willing to waste their lives attempting to maintain
> peace.
> In the opinion of many what they need is a civil war to resolve their
> internal problem, but as the USA found many years that's a brutal way
> to resolve a political problem.
> It may be late to separate the Sunni and Shia into two countries,
> although the Kurds could probably be split off.
> Of course the Shia could join their Iranian cousins, but the USA
> couldn't stand for that.[/color]


Also Turkey will not accept an independent Kurdish state.

Art, 11/3/2006,8:00:19 PM, wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > It may be late to separate the Sunni and Shia into two countries,
> > although the Kurds could probably be split off.
> > Of course the Shia could join their Iranian cousins, but the USA
> > couldn't stand for that.[/color]
>
>
> Also Turkey will not accept an independent Kurdish state.[/color]

I think you are right about Turkey, but what is the deal there? I know
there are lots of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. They have been
oppressed for centuries by Iran and Iraq but is that true for Turkey
also? Is Turkey that afraid of a Kurdistan seeking revenge on them?

mack wrote:
[color=blue]
>when I went into the army, I spent roughly four and a half months at
>Ft. Benning, after which I went off to Korea to do my job.
>We've been in Iraq for three and a half years now, and presumably we have
>trained a bunch of locals in the art and science of military operations...
>So, what's the problem? Are these folks slow learners? Have we been
>teaching them in English, which they don't understand? Have no members of
>Saddam's former army been recruited into the "new" army?[/color]

The main problem is we did not quickly establish complete control of
Iraq, and nothing matters nearly as much as control, especially in a
highly authoritarian society where expressing the wrong loyalty can get
you killed. With nobody in complete control, where should Iraqi
soldiers place their loyalty? The U.S. military? The national
government? Their ethnic tribe? The local warlord?

Even some of the most ardent neoconservative advocates of the 2003 war
are now critical of the way Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld have handled the war:


[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1939472,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1[/url]

Some quotes from the article:

Richard Perleman:

"I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today,
and people
had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?', I think now I probably would
have said, 'No,
let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that
concerns us
most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to
terrorists'."


Kenneth Adelman:

"I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent
national
security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent.
They
turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar
era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous
flaws, but
together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0etagkj4ya7zv000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> Art, 11/3/2006,8:00:19 PM, wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > It may be late to separate the Sunni and Shia into two countries,
>> > although the Kurds could probably be split off.
>> > Of course the Shia could join their Iranian cousins, but the USA
>> > couldn't stand for that.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Also Turkey will not accept an independent Kurdish state.[/color]
>
> I think you are right about Turkey, but what is the deal there? I know
> there are lots of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. They have been
> oppressed for centuries by Iran and Iraq but is that true for Turkey
> also? Is Turkey that afraid of a Kurdistan seeking revenge on them?[/color]

Art is too afraid that something that the administration supports might just
work and make the Dimmies look like the naive, spineless assholes they
always have been.

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> Art, 11/3/2006,8:00:19 PM, wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Also Turkey will not accept an independent Kurdish state.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>I think you are right about Turkey, but what is the deal there? I know
>there are lots of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. They have been
>oppressed for centuries by Iran and Iraq but is that true for Turkey
>also? Is Turkey that afraid of a Kurdistan seeking revenge on them?[/color]

I doubt that Turkey is afraid of anybody, but they're among the many
who have repressed the Kurds, and ancient Kurdistan did extend into
modern-day Turkey.

Sometimes the highly imperfect status quo borders, imposed by
Westerners who were totally ignorant or insensitive of local ethnic
groups, are better than any alternatives.

Tom in Macon, 11/1/2006,10:42:14 PM, wrote:

I just noticed your newsreader stripped the OT: from the Subject line.
This is a well known bug in MSOE you may want to keep an eye on in the
future for the benefit of those who try to filter these conversations
out.