| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Former US general sez Iraqi army willing, but not yet ready |
| 2006-05-03 |
| The new Iraqi army is "real, growing and willing to fight," but lacks basic equipment and will need up to five more years before it can wage war without U.S. military help, says a new report by a retired four-star general who toured Iraq in April. Perhaps just as important, Sunni Muslims -- the minority sect who dominated Iraq under dictator Saddam Hussein but now find themselves at a political disadvantage -- are joining the army in large numbers, reports retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey in a seven-page memo written for his colleagues at the U.S. Military Academy. Gen. McCaffrey also warns that "there is a rapidly growing animosity" among U.S. troops toward the press. "The reason it bothers me is shades of Vietnam," Gen. McCaffrey said in an interview. "It took my generation 20 years to get over Vietnam, the sense that the press had been against us as soldiers." Much of his April 25 memo focuses on the Iraqi army and police. "The battalion-level formation are in many cases excellent. Most are adequate," Gen. McCaffrey says. "However, they are very badly equipped with only a few light vehicles, small arms, most with body armor and one or two uniforms. They have almost no mortars, heavy machine guns, decent communications equipment, artillery, armor, or [Iraqi] air transport, helicopter and strike support." The assessment from Gen. McCaffrey -- a Vietnam combat veteran, division commander in Desert Storm and President Clinton's counterdrug czar -- is more evidence that Iraq's 250,000-strong security force, which includes the army, is much improved compared with 18 months ago. The U.S. has sunk $8.7 billion to date into building the Iraqi force and has embedded teams of seasoned American officers and noncommissioned officers to guide newly created battalions. "This is simply a brilliant success story," Gen. McCaffrey writes. "We need at least two to five more years of U.S. partnership and combat backup to get the Iraqi army ready to stand on its own. The interpersonal relationships between Iraqi army units and their U.S. trainers are very positive and genuine." Gen. McCaffrey was last in Iraq a year ago as part of his duties as an adjunct professor of international affairs at West Point. "It's likely we're going to pull this off," he said in the interview. "But it's still a great danger." Creating the Iraqi security force (ISF) is the critical component in President Bush's strategy to create a democracy in Iraq and bring home U.S. troops, who now number about 132,000. Gen. McCaffrey toured Iraq for seven days in mid-April, meeting with top generals such as Gen. George Casey, the overall coalition chief. The retired general also spoke with brigade and intelligence commanders. The U.S. command has declared 2006 the year of the Iraqi police as it tries to clean up corruption and teach tactics more compatible with democratic rule. The force was so mired in corruption during Saddam's rule that U.S. administrators disbanded it and have been rebuilding it from scratch. "The police are heavily infiltrated by both the [anti-Iraq forces] and the Shia militia," Gen. McCaffrey says, predicting a turnaround will take 10 years. "They are widely distrusted by the Sunni population. They are incapable of confronting local armed groups. They inherited a culture of inaction, passivity, human rights abuses and deep corruption." In other findings: • Foreign fighters led by al Qaeda in Iraq chief Abu Musab Zarqawi "have been defeated as a strategic and operational threat to the creation of an Iraqi government." • U.S. agency support for the Iraq operation is "grossly inadequate." "The bottom line is that only the CIA and the U.S. Armed Forces are at war." (U.S. officials have told The Washington Times that outdated personnel rules make it difficult to assign civil service workers to Iraq.) • The command has improved detainee treatment to the point where "we may be in danger of overreaching." Gen. McCaffrey writes, "Many of the [enemy] detainees accuse U.S. soldiers of abuse under the silliest factual situations knowing it will trigger an automatic investigation." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #20 Honestly we didnt need 100K more - the 4th ID coming in the back door with 30-40K more would have done the trick since they would have hit the triangle before it could dig in. Stinking Turks, we really ought to arm the Kurds in Turkey (& Iran) and let them carve out land that should be theirs. McCaffrey is an honest man, and like any honest man he can be mistaken about things, like the 100K. I hope he is correct in this assessment, and form what I hear of people I know that have been there and have gone back, his current evaluation has the ring of truth. One good point he brought up: the US Government and society are not involved in this - it seems tob eonly the Military and Intelligence Community. And thats it - state is sitting on their hands, and none of the other agencies is that involved. Bush needs to push for better involvment of the whole array of USG to be available in Iraq to speed the formation of that new nation. And needs to get the public involved - what about selling War Bonds to involve the public - daily reminders that we are a nation at war even though we don't act like it. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-03 21:54 |
| #19 No-Caff makes it sound like its the military's fault that the MSM press are such fuck heads. The animosity has been there since Vietnam, it's not a growing problem. Let's face it, No-Caff, the press thinks the only good soldier is one that shows up as a statistic or a sadist. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-05-03 21:52 |
| #18 he's a smart guy with a lot of experience. The MSM could not get enough of him because his views where different than those of the administrations, and people listen when he speaks. He was great for ratings, and his intentions are good. He was wrong about what was going to happen that's all. He is like countless others with his experience. Keep the risks down by having overwhelming numbers. I think the truth is somewhere between he and Rummy. Overwhelming force can lead to victory without the personnel numbers that the U.S. armed forces have had in the past, but there is still a danger in having to few boots on the ground. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2006-05-03 17:44 |
| #17 As best as I can recall, McCaffery was very pessimistic during the initial weeks of OIF and drew some criticism from the serving brass for his TV appearances. He gave interviews projecting very high casualties due to not having enough troops, particularly as ground forces approached the Karbala Gap. He seemed more concerned about the straight up fight with the Republican Guard and not the number of troops needed for occupation. Although the fighting near Karbala was extremely intense, it turned out McCaffery's worst fears were not realized. I remember thinking in the immediate aftermath that his comments seemed to be based on the calculation that the 101st Airborne was not heavy enough to be a factor in the campaign against the RG and skepticism that the air campaign could be as effective against the Iraqi formations in the area as it turned out to be. I am no military expert so I could be wrong about this approximately 3 week period when he was last on TV a lot. I know my father, who had been an Army officer, was absolutely irate at McCaffery's comments which he termed to be defeatist in nature and politically motivated. Post invasion, his comments seem to have returned to voicing concern about the institution of the Army and the need for keeping heavy divisions and upgrading systems. He seems less political than the retired generals we've heard from recently even though he served in a politically appointed position in the Clinton administration. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-05-03 16:32 |
| #16 Thats funny... lots of officers I know like Rummy. Its Cohen we could F&!king stand. |
| Posted by: Armylife 2006-05-03 15:47 |
| #15 "I don't he has many fans among the brass that served under him. " Probably as many as Rummy has. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2006-05-03 15:31 |
| #14 we did need 100,000 more troops. And we had them - it would have stressed the army to send that many at once, but not as much as the succeeding 3 years have stressed the army. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2006-05-03 15:31 |
| #13 Mc Caffrey maybe smart but he has some major personal defects. For one thing his early comments on OIF were self serving of the 'we need more EU support' or 'we need 100k more troops' variety (we also needed invisible green demons). Also, this General's performance in the Balkans was only 'fair' at best featuring pronouncements that were disjointed and in conflict with previous pronouncements and similar problems with battle orders. His tenure as a drug czar was basically an empty shirt role. I don't he has many fans among the brass that served under him. |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-05-03 14:01 |
| #12 Nimble, I don't see a split, or a foot in the door. In any media, if you allow criticism of your bile, the fact based point of view will prevail. That's what we get in the internet, and talk radio. Those few outlets who remain on the left and allow criticism are camped out with Michael Moore seeking the fall guy, making up conspiracies. Does anyone think that Fat Kennedy would make a statement about the anniversary of Bush standing in front of a 'Mission Accomplished' sign if he took questions from the audience afterwords ? I see it now..... 'Er ah, do you have a question wxjames ?' 'Yeah, were you drunk when you killed that girl, Mary Joe ?' |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-05-03 13:13 |
| #11 Belmont Club has links to what's publicly available of the memo plus commentary. OS, interesting insight into General McCaffrey. He seems very intelligent. I thought he would have been a candidate to run the CIA had he not been so vociferous in his criticism of Rumsfeld and Gen. Franks in March 2003. From what I can tell he's aggressive and his drug czar experience would have been relevant as well as his military experience. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-05-03 12:45 |
| #10 Does anybody have a link to the original memo ? |
| Posted by: buwaya 2006-05-03 12:39 |
| #9 McCaffrey sees the same thing I do - how "Vietnamization" SHOULD have been carried out, but wasn't. It's working in Iraq, because Iraqis are in charge, with American help. It may take five or ten years to develop a professional officer and NCO corps, and it may not. I believe that with US help, that can be shortened to two to five years. I've never met General McCaffrey, but I do know a colonel that was his aide for two years, and John's highly impressed with him. I think McCaffrey's also beginning to see where Rumsfeld is heading with the restructuring of the US Army, and may have cooled some of his disagreements with the new strategy. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-05-03 12:31 |
| #8 I light of our hightened sensitivity to muslim feelings, the Crusader will now be called the Jihadi. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-05-03 11:23 |
| #7 McCaffrey has been a big critic of elements of the Iraq effort and of Rumsfeld. Therefore, his relatively positive assessment should carry weight in the media. I have heard that some in the military did not appreciate his TV appearances during the first 3 wks of OIF but otherwise I think his criticisms have been substantive. His arguments in favor of the Crusader struck me as particularly compelling. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-05-03 10:45 |
| #6 Moose, Nobody's stopping you from opeining a newspaper or magazine. I think the right has a foot in the door on radio also. What we see in the media is a reflection of the split in the country. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-05-03 09:56 |
| #5 Animosity towards the military will continue to exist until the media oligopoly has been broken up. It is intolerable that the federal government has allowed a business situation to evolve with overt antitrust violations, even the establishment of monopolistic territories, all designed to prevent competition. In effect, only the opinions expressed in two blue States, California and New York, utterly dominate the rest of the nations opinion; and fewer than half a dozen wire services control and restrict all widely distributed national and international news. Book, magazine and newspaper print; television and radio, there is nothing left for independent thought other than the Internet. The amazing vitality and diversity of Internet news and opinion shows what print, television and radio could be, but aren't. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-05-03 09:48 |
| #4 Gen. McCaffrey also warns that "there is a rapidly growing animosity" among U.S. troops toward the press. General officers are so very observant. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-05-03 09:36 |
| #3 It's one thing when they lie to you, and another when they lie about you. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2006-05-03 09:15 |
| #2 When I was in the military back in the early 90s, we already had a loathing for the press. I can only imagine it has gotten worse. How long before the press is deliberatly targeted? Wouldn't break my heart. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-05-03 07:45 |
| #1 Gen. McCaffrey also warns that "there is a rapidly growing animosity" among U.S. troops toward the press. ... In other findings: • Foreign fighters led by al Qaeda in Iraq chief Abu Musab Zarqawi "have been defeated as a strategic and operational threat to the creation of an Iraqi government." Wow the later is news you sure don't read in the MSM. Wonder if it has anything to do with the former? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-05-03 07:26 |