| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq-Jordan | ||
| General: Much of Iraq's Forces Have Quit | ||
| 2004-04-22 | ||
| WASHINGTON (AP) - About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces "actually worked against" U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation, the commander of the 1st Armored Division said Wednesday. In an interview beamed by satellite from Baghdad to news executives attending The Associated Press annual meeting, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey said the campaign in Iraq was at a critical point. "We have to get this latest increase in violence under control," Dempsey said. "We have to take a look at the Iraqi security forces and learn why they walked."
The failure of Iraqi security forces to perform is significant because it could hurt the United States' overall exit strategy from Iraq, which is dependent on moving U.S. troops out of the cities and handing authority to Iraqis. Officials have said the U.S. military would delay its withdrawal from parts of Iraq until Iraqi forces were ready to take control. Dempsey maintained in the interview that popular support for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is still "very solid." But he acknowledged "a form of descending consent" for the U.S. military presence occurring among Iraqis as time passes. "There is a point where it doesn't matter how well we're doing, it won't be accepted that we have a large military presence here," he said. "We're all working very diligently trying to figure out where that point is." Dempsey was asked about the remarks of two other U.S. commanders who questioned the wisdom of banning former Baath Party members from government jobs when their skills are needed in the reconstruction effort. "History is going to have to decide whether that was right or not," he said.
Dempsey commands the Army division in charge of Baghdad. He has been in Iraq for more than a year, focusing on intelligence gathering and combatting terrorism as he works to help Iraqi security forces take over those tasks. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #13 Have all the Iraqis watch "High Noon". Maybe a few will get the idea... |
| Posted by: Tresho 2004-04-22 6:15:46 PM |
| #12 Uncoordinated training also may have some piece of the problems. Training was being done by individual units, officers sent to Jordan, some by contractors, etc. SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I think if you look back over the period of time, a portion of the Iraqi security forces' responsibilities fell to CENTCOM and a portion fell to the Coalition Provisional Authority, and some training responsibilities were with other countries and with the Department of State. It was decided, properly, I believe, very recently, within the last month or two or three, that all of the Iraqi security forces should fall under CENTCOM for a period. It is all -- it will include the army, the police, the site protection, the ICDC, the Civil Defense Corps, and the border patrol -- all will fall under General Petraeus. And clearly, it is a complicated matter as you transition from those forces being part of the CPA and CENTCOM's responsibility to establishing a Ministry of Defense, which has now been done; appointing a minister of Defense, which has now been done; and having a chain of command develop on the Iraqi side. And it will be General Petraeus's responsibility to work with all the coalition countries to -- and all of those involved in training, and mentoring, and equipping these forces. And that is a big job and it's an important job. General Petraeus brings a lot of good experience, of course. When he was up north, he had a good deal of experience in recruiting and training and deploying various Iraqi security forces. So we think he's a good choice. If you remember,General Petraeus did outstanding work and the Iraqis really liked him and worked well with him. Maybe a little late in getting some coordination in this, but a good man has been chosen. He is now in field. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2004-04-22 2:34:16 PM |
| #11 The "pressure" an Iraqi must feel to not be seen as cooperating with coalition troops must seem enormous to them. Not sympathy, just fact. The first time a fireteam of Iraqis gets to call in the Snakes to wax people who've got them bottled up, and the Snakes actually show up and do the job, will end all doubt - for that group. Nothing like the feeling of having your ass saved - by someone you've never met. It's the first glimpse of the Big Picture. We get it because it's common for us. It's a blinding flash, a new reality, for them. One incident at a time, these guys will get it, will know that feeling of being part of something bigger, better, something that actually works, and the numbers will eventually add up. This is OJT under fire. Tough way to learn an already tough lesson. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-22 1:45:15 PM |
| #10 Sun Tzu says if you're recruiting from the enemy's army you should not keep them in units of their own, but thoroughly mix them with yours The question that I have is whether these Iraqi Army units are outgunned by the insurgents. Certainly they have no heavy armor. They probably don't even have personnel carriers. And they most likely have restricted rules of engagement. Combined with what JFM said, I'm not surprised that many quit. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-22 11:24:36 AM |
| #9 maybe they would have been better off being more selective, and taking the resulting forces and integrating them into American units, maybe attaching a half-size Iraqi infantry platoon to US Army infantry companies. For the attaching, I think thats pretty much what theyve done with the ICDC. You dont do that with the police, cause you want the police out doing routing patrols, and you dont have enough US troops to go out on routine patrols in every city. Should we have been more selective - damn straight!! But Rummy et al wanted to show that they could do this on the cheap, and wanted to get US troop totals down fast. So they wanted to get Iraqi force totals up FAST, even when everyone outside the admin (including some conservative commentators, I think) was saying this is a problem waiting to happen. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-22 10:14:32 AM |
| #8 Phil That’s exactly what Alexander and then later the Romans did but I have doubts about doing it now. In theory, it sounds solid but in practice I think the experiment would fail. Soldiering back then was pretty much the same everywhere - there weren't any real technology/education barriers. Now with 'combined arms' tactics and advanced weaponry I think the Iraqis would be at a big disadvantage. The Iraqi literacy rate might be a big impedance too. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2004-04-22 10:14:02 AM |
| #7 "It's very difficult at times to convince them that Iraqis are killing fellow Iraqis and fellow Muslims, because it's something they shouldn't have to accept," he said. "Over time I think they will probably have to accept it." What is this horseradish? Arabs have been slaughtering each other for centuries. Their internecine power struggles are the stuff of legends. Suddenly it's inconceivable that Iraqis might be murdering each other during the biggest internal power struggle in decades? This sort of self-induced myopia was demonstrated in Basra after the car bombings. People began stoning the British troops because of rumors that a British helicopter rocketed one of the police stations. It's beyond belief that a car bomb might ever be set off in an Arab country! No, never! All of this bodes ill for democracy taking root in Iraq. Until the Iraqi people honestly face up to the murderous political imbroglios their religious factions are instigating, they will continue to be gulled by tyrants like Saddam and Sadr. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-04-22 3:32:28 AM |
| #6 JFM, I don't expect Kerry to make it to the Convention. His poll numbers plummet in any location that he actually visits. The DNC will kick him to the curb shortly the same way they did Dean. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-22 2:29:24 AM |
| #5 One of the main problems we face in Iraq is the perceived weakness of the home front. If the democratic candidate were a Truman or a Kennedy we would have no problems but what we have is a Kerry and that means there is a distinct possibility of him winning the election and the US leaving Irak. That would be a death sentence for the people who helped the Americans and for many neutrals. So what would happen in the last months of US presence is is that neutrals would try to get "resistance" credentials while people now aligned with us would either try to appear neutrals or act as double agents just to save their hides. In fact I believe some of the people who aligned with the rebellion have just done that. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-04-22 1:57:28 AM |
| #4 Lately I find myself thinking that the US made some mistakes in the way the Iraqi forces were structured; maybe they would have been better off being more selective, and taking the resulting forces and integrating them into American units, maybe attaching a half-size Iraqi infantry platoon to US Army infantry companies. Sun Tzu says if you're recruiting from the enemy's army you should not keep them in units of their own, but thoroughly mix them with yours; this is where I got the idea. Does anyone want to comment? |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-04-22 12:55:29 AM |
| #3 Snellenr, good point, hadn't thought of it that way. 50% of the Iraqi police/civil defense stuck despite the problems. Hmmm. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-04-22 12:46:43 AM |
| #2 Another way to look at this is that after less than a year of training, 50% of the Iraqi forces didn't run away. Considering the type of battle they were going to face and the kind of adversaries who are involved, I'm pretty impressed. I'm guessing that a higher percentage of Iraqi soldiers stayed to fight with us this year than stuck around to fight against us last year. These guys did better than many of the Republican Guard divisions. |
| Posted by: snellenr 2004-04-22 12:42:43 AM |
| #1 The fifty percent that has remained is a good hard core. They are dedicated and brave. Some of Iraq's best future leaders are in that core. Let's keep that in mind. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-04-22 12:35:09 AM |