« Talking Heads | Main | Murry on "the days of their lives." »

30 October 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

b

"The army was also not to be allowed to be big enough or strong enough to have the capability to attack its neighbors. Following this line of reasoning, the army was not to be allowed to have armored vehicles or artillery."

I donĀ“t think that the possibly attacking the neighbors is the reason not to let the Iraqi army have heavy weapons.

1. It is the fear that these weapons would likely be used against the US forces in Iraq.
2. It creates the rational to keep US forces in Iraq "See they can not defend themselfs. We need to stay to help those poor people."

To be able to protect against a Turkish invasion into Kurdistan or an Iranian march on Baghdad the Iraqi army would need multiple heavy divisions plus a reasonable air force. To build that will take 15 years and lots of money (to pay for second grade refurbished US equipment).

b

There are a number of explanations of why they did they things. Some were BS and some were not mutually exclusive.

Pat

John Howley

Your post helps me as I struggle to get the dust out of my eyes. For all the DoD talk about drawdowns next year, it seems that actual, current troop levels are creeping up. I heard a radio report this morning to the effect that current deployments in Iraq are the highest ever -- over 160,000. I've heard the line about rotating in extra troops for the referendum. What's going on on troop levels? How long can we maintain this level of deployment?

John

The best estimates I have seen indicate a crisis in late '06 if we go on this way.

Pat

blunt

2 footnotes:

- My recollection on the disbanding of the Iraqi army is that we originally planned not to pay the ex officers. After a few protests we agreed, but it indicates the magnitude of bungling.

- From what I've heard a number of heavy weapons made it to the Kurds. Right now most models ignore them in a potential future civil war, but they have a lot of interests.

here it comes

The following articles is interesting:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4947

Note how it claims the soldiers over there are uneducated and misled by the terrorist loving traitor press.

Now if the right is beginning to admit demoralization of troops we probably have a problem.

Of course to them it's a potential victory. They don't live in a world where places like Iraq exist. Gasoline appears magically at the pump and if we all bought hummers our problems would vanish. It's this Jimmy Cahtah attitude which cause problems just as bad press cause the problems in Iraq.

But it's no big deal if that place explodes because all that matters is bickering on talk radio and failure will "prove" the Democrats stabbed us in the back.

Our stupid uneducated soldiers didn't know how great our victory even though they were over there because armed forces media were controlled by the commies.

avedis

Ah, you ask the post the very question/point I have been putting out there for some time.

In fact I asked you a while back what the plan was for arming and financing a real Iraqi army; one capable of defending against foreign invasion as well as domestic insurgency.

That you - given your access - are only able to re-ask the same question convinces me that there is no plan. This is just another glaring example of the fantastic level of incompetence demonstrated from the get go by the PNAC chickenhawks.

Avedis

I don't have any special access. what I have is a lifetime of experience including a lot of time on Iraq.

They had no plan for security becasue as utopians they did not think one was necessay.

Having started from way behind they are still mired in ignorance and stubborness. pl

Dan

The Iraqi "army" drives around in toyota pickups and unarmored trucks. I have seen ad-hoc efforts in diyala and elsewhere to "up-armor" trucks with scrap-metal, but that probably doesn't do much good. Were the will and the training there, they still don't have the equipment to fight on their own. Iraqi forces are currently dying at a rate at least 4-1 of US deaths. That number will spike sharply if and when there's a big reduction in US forces patrolling the dangerous roads.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad