| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq-Jordan | ||
| US makes gains in Iraq, but Iraqi security forces still need improvement | ||
| 2005-04-15 | ||
It's possible that these attacks represent a new insurgent offensive. US officials were particularly worried about the degree of sophistication shown by an attack on the Abu Ghraib prison earlier this month, in which a large group of 60 fighters detonated car bombs and fired rockets and mortars before US forces beat them back after an intense firefight. It's also possible they are just a blip. Since the election in January, overall insurgent attacks have dropped by about one-fifth, according to the US military. US fatalities due to insurgent action dropped to 36 in March, the lowest such monthly total in over a year. The number of wounded US troops has experienced a similar decline, according to a database kept by Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution. "The trend lines are better for the first time in a year," says O'Hanlon. The bulk of the insurgents are probably Sunni Iraqis who feel they face a loss of position within their country following the overthrow of their patron, Saddam Hussein. But some are Islamist foreign fighters such as the Al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. There are indications that in recent weeks these Islamists have represented a larger percentage of the insurgents captured or killed by US forces, says a retired general who asked that his name not be used due to continued ties with the Pentagon. This could mean that the native Iraqi portion of the insurgency is shrinking. It could mean that the Islamists are being driven to action due to increasing desperation. Either way, "if the numbers are correct and there are fewer Iraqis involved, this bodes well," says the retired general. At the same time, the number of Iraqi security troops is growing. In a speech at a Texas military base on Tuesday, President Bush noted that more than 150,000 Iraqi forces have been trained and equipped. "Iraqi security forces are becoming more self-reliant and taking on greater responsibilities. And that means that America and its coalition partners are increasingly playing more of a supporting role," said Bush. While it is true that some 150,000 Iraqis have participated in training of some sort, it is misleading to use that number as an overall gauge of Iraqi strength, say experts. "Such head counts say nothing about combat power, and are meaningless in terms of comparisons to US troops numbers," writes Anthony Cordesman of CSIS in his new assessment. Of the 150,000 total, some 85,000 are Ministry of Interior police, not military forces, notes Mr. Cordesman. Some 30,000 of these may actually still be awaiting training. About 67,000 of the Iraqi troops are indeed military. But most of these are lightly equipped and trained to accomplish only limited missions. Only one operational battalion has anything like the heavy armor used by US forces. "If one is counting manpower with some comparability to US forces the total is 
probably well below 20,000," Cordesman concludes. The good news is that US and Iraqi leaders are now mounting a serious effort to construct the mix of forces they need to get a handle on the country's security problem, according to Cordesman. It will simply take time to get those forces up and running. By late 2005 or early 2006, if Iraq's political situation continues to develop along a generally positive path, the nation might be able to begin fighting its battles largely on its own. "The US wants to leave with the perception, and ideally the reality, that Iraq is in good shape and on the right path," says Brookings Institution security specialist Daniel Byman. | ||
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #4 No matter how good the Iraq forces become, there will likely be suicide bombings. They may reduce the bombings to a few per month, rather than the current few per week but they can't be stopped entirely unless violent Jihad is more or less universally renounced through the entire Islamic world (instead of conditionally or contingently renounced as is the current practice; e.g., don't do it in Soddyland, don't do it against believers, etc.). |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-04-15 1:00:38 PM |
| #3 The US will train the Iraq army to the point where they can reasonably be assured to thoroughly whup Iran if they try it on. This means that we will rebuild them to a far better degree of functionality, if not raw numbers, than Saddam had. They *will* stand and fight, and they *will* dominate the battlefield, at least strongly enough so that Iran's military would be destroyed. And practically speaking, Iraq's military will *have* to force project, at least as far as having a Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force to defend their part of the Persian Gulf and shipping, etc. They are designed to be a regional power, so that is what we are training them to be. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-04-15 11:47:11 AM |
| #2 Interesting the MSM doesn't mention the Kurds have 100,000 Pergamesh they could mobilize immediately. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-04-15 11:15:45 AM |
| #1 police aint an army of maneuvre - but I think the point is can they do things like running raids on insurgents, search and destroy missions, etc. Can they guard their own police stations from an large scale insurgent attack. Are they trained for counterinsurgency, or just for routine police work? I suspect more are trained for counter insurgency than the MSM implies, but probably less than Bush's statement implies. I certainly havent seen anyone say we've got 130,000 Iraqis capable of doing counter insurgency work, particularly on their own with only US advisors and air support, and without US ground backup. Id say we're lucky if weve got 20 to 30 thousand. adequate vs excellent - I dont know. I think it would be much better to have the insurgency close to snuffed out, and not just contained. And Im concerned (see Belgravia Dispatch) with the political implications of a US withdrawl while the political situation in Iraq is still very fluid. I dont see why a full withdrawl is needed - a return to bases, and focus on training missions, would reduce or end US casualties, while keeping our troops as a backstop against both the smoldering insurgency AND political hanky-panky. As for our troops in Syria, or Iran, Id be VERY careful about that. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-04-15 10:43:03 AM |