Progress in Iraq

``Every day, the number of Iraqi security forces are getting bigger, and they're getting better, and they're getting more experienced,''
Well there you have it , the truth today according to Rummy .

Completely in agreement with yesterdays testimony to congress by the US commander in Iraq that the number of Iraqi forces capable of operating by themselves is currently 1 battalion , which , as I am sure you realise , is great improvement on Junes figures of 3 battalions .

If such further exellent progress is maintained they should be able to hand over Iraqi security to the Iraqis in about...3 years ago .

Yes indeed, that was quite odd. Even Republicans like McCain seemed to be loosing patience with General Casey, who, together with Rumsfeld and Meyers, was delivering the report to congress. For a bit more information, see this article on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9531843/

How can you say that progress has not been made? The republicans are almost out of Iraq...they would allready be out if there was a day of doing it without the whole globe laughing at them...

...On the other hand the US forces have trained a rather large amount of resistance fighters who have joined the security forces for that reason exactly. Well...the resistance fighters seem to be much better now...that is progress...somehow...kinda...maybe...

I wonder how many months/years it will take until someone finds the courage to swallow his ego and say 'ok its vietnam all over again, let get the hell outa here'

Blimey Hurin , I hadn't read that one .
So according to that statement , in another 3 months they will have trained and equipped a total of 27,000 less people than were already trained and equipped over 6 months ago .
Are they making up numbers as they go along .~:confused:

Estimating troop requirements hasn't exactly been a strength of Rummy & Co. so I can't say that I'm surprised. Just more of the same unfortunately. I find it hard to believe that we are making progress at this time. If there is something fundamental changing I'm not seeing it. There were some fundamental changes earlier (general Iraqi disgust with the bombings, etc), but they have not carried through as I had hoped.

Unless things start turning around soon, I suspect Iraq will go down in the books as having been lost in the first 3 months or so after the invasion. We needed to hit the ground running, and didn't.

I am sure I don’t know all the details of the training process but for the love of all I hold holy! How can it take so freaking long to train them? What do they need to know? Isn’t our basic training only 6 weeks? Aren’t they already soldiers? I mean they aren’t the marines or anything but were not training them to take over the Middle East, just to protect themselves, right?

Do you know how to fire a gun? Can you follow orders? Ok then, that guy (pointing at a bearded guy with puppet strings attached to a coalition soldier) is in charge. Bu-Bye.

Would they mess everything up if we just left a small force there to “guide” them? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Progress in Iraq? Isn't that a bit of an Oxymoron?

---

Not if you’re the Jama'at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad, better known as the Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

I'd like to know what happened to the other 2 battalions that were supposed to be ready to act independently. Why were they downgraded?

Oh... I guess I can sort of answer my own question. According to another article on this subject in USA Today (can't link at the moment), the downgrading of those two battalions was due to the US adopting a "new, more demanding standard" to assess readiness.

Just what that standard entails is not discussed, nor why it was felt that the old standard was insufficient.

The article also mentions in passing that Gen. Casey and Rumsfeld: "acknowledged that insurgents had infiltrated Iraqi security forces." But, they played down the significance and Casey said "we don't see it in the way that would render these forces incapable"... whatever that means.

I would think having your forces infiltrated by insurgents would render your forces perhaps not "incapable", but certainly compromised, less capable, and more vulnerable.

Of course, if you remember, during the 2004 debates Bush and Cheney were talking about the 100,000 trained Iraqi security forces that were supposedly already on duty. Yeah, right. Of course, they constantly changed those numbers. One would have assumed that trained Iraqi security forces might be expected to be able to do their jobs independently, but apparently that hasn't been the case.

That USA Today article also mentioned that a lot of Iraqi police aren't even being paid. You'd think that would be a top priority.


Here's a section from the article:

Rice defended Bush's contention during the debate that 100,000 trained Iraqi security forces are on duty, a figure that has been disputed by some Democrats in Congress.

Democratic members of the House Appropriations Committee were quoted by Reuters last week as saying that based on Pentagon documents they had seen, only about 23,000 Iraqi security forces, which include police, border patrolmen and national guard troops, had enough training to be "minimally effective."

"Not one single, solitary Iraqi policeman has completed the 24-week training course on the ground," Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" last month.

Biden said his information came from Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is in charge of recruiting and training operations, and Pentagon officials at the time could not say how many police had undergone the training course.

The Pentagon itself has had trouble coming up with a count of trained Iraqi forces. Initial estimates were 206,000, but Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last month the figure was less than half that.

"We figure we may still have that many people on the rolls. But of the ones that are trained and equipped, the number now looks to be, the latest number -- last week it was 105,000 -- now it looks to be 95,000, that is to say that are trained and equipped," Rumsfeld told the National Press Club on September 10.

That was ONE YEAR AGO. They really don't seem to have accomplished much in the last year.

Considering the effect of the police in the British area I would say that it is indeed a sort of progress that numbers are declining.~:rolleyes: :dizzy2:

Considering the effect of the police in the British area I would say that it is indeed a sort of progress that numbers are declining.
So the numbers of effective units are declining because they have found that Shia and Sunni arabs are "unreliable" as they may be sympathetic to one of the many militia or insurgent groups .
Which leaves the units that are mainly Pershmerga .
Unfortunately the State Dept identifies former Pershmerga units in the security forces as being responsible for murder , looting , extortion , corruption , extra-judicial killings , torture ....
Thats great , rely on 20% of the population to run the other 80% . Sounds just like Saddam all over again .
But that still doesn't addresss the complete fabrication of total numbers of personell .

Surely someone of the "war is good" or "we are making progress" persuation can make a post to explain it all .~;)

i've heard that the USA has confimed that soldiers are planning to stay there for at least 6 more years. i guess stories like that don't get all that much press though

anyhow this whole "progress in Iraq" thing is hilarious in the sense that Iraq should be irrelevant to USA. Iraq was not USA's problem until the USA made it into a problem.

USA has no legitimate business being in Iraq, and now they're paying the price for forcing themselves into a place where they're not wanted. i don't feel sorry for them.

Things aren't looking too good in the states either. Protests are starting to launch everywhere. There has been a protest here with something like 6000 people that have been annoying people consitantly by blocking traffic and causing a general disruption is peoples social life. Pretty soon people are going to be like "hell, I'm sick of this constant disruption, just bring the boys in Iraq home already!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Surely someone of the "war is good" or "we are making progress" persuation can make a post to explain it all.

---

Naw - just let all the nay sayers have their cake and let them eat it to. Its more interesting that way.~:cool:

But here are some links to the newest information coming out of the United States Army and the Department of Defense on Iraq

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2...0929_2877.html

http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=7987

http://www.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil/

[B][/But here are some links to the newest information coming out of the United States Army and the Department of Defense on Iraq
B]
Very good Red , and of course the defense dept and army won't be contradicting these reports in 3 months time will they ~D ~D ~D
Wow 86 million and they can see some power lines going up and fixed some pumps , thats great . Now all they need is electricity to put through the power lines and some water to use the pumps .:dizzy2:
just let all the nay sayers have their cake and let them eat it to.
Yes , when all is looking grim and descending into chaos , a complete refusal to accept the reality of the situation will always see you through .
Still , at least you have the balls to stand behind your government even when they are making a complete mess of it .
Your loyalty is admirable , misguided , but admirable still the same.~:cheers:

I dunno, if you ask me, there may be a positive future. The current levels of violence are about as bad as it can get, and if we can take this and not pull out, then we can stay there for the long haul if we decide that's best.

After a certain period of very intense violence without concrete signs of a US withdrawal, the insurgency will start to lose steam and progress may be possible. I hope so anyway, as there's a good chance I'll get mixed up in the middle of it within the next year or two.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

I dunno, if you ask me, there may be a positive future. The current levels of violence are about as bad as it can get, and if we can take this and not pull out, then we can stay there for the long haul if we decide that's best.

After a certain period of very intense violence without concrete signs of a US withdrawal, the insurgency will start to lose steam and progress may be possible. I hope so anyway, as there's a good chance I'll get mixed up in the middle of it within the next year or two.

DA

---

I dont think that people who try to resist an oppresor and liberate their country are tired that easily...

...their country has lost its independence and they are a nation with pride and history, they can fight for centuries and have done so before...

...a 'lets sit down and see how it goes policy' is too optimistic in my oppinion. Its a recipe for a new Vietnam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

I dont think that people who try to resist an oppresor and liberate their country are tired that easily...

...their country has lost its independence and they are a nation with pride and history, they can fight for centuries and have done so before...

...a 'lets sit down and see how it goes policy' is too optimistic in my oppinion. Its a recipe for a new Vietnam.

---

There is only one thing for certain-- they won't be able to keep up the current level of intensity for long. Even if nothing else changes and no one else does anything, at the very least the perpetrators and supporters of insurgent violence will become frustrated and take a rest.

If the US appears unmoveable, and does not move, and STILL does not move, the borderline supporters will become exhausted and go back to fence-sitting.

Endurance alone will not solve the problem, but it will without any question buy us a second chance. Now, whether we'll be able to act effectively on that chance is another story.

..

Another couple of points-- (1) This is not Vietnam, the circumstances are quite different, though some of the problems are the same. (2) Our two main problems in Vietnam were that we did not act decisively when we had the chance, and then we lost heart and quit at the first major reversal.

We've missed our first chance in Iraq, but if we don't lose heart and last through the current wave of carnage, we'll get another opportunity. We fought Filipino muslim insurgents for what? 12 years? before we pacified that country. We may be looking at a similar time frame for Iraq, if we wish to win.

And I personally don't feel we can afford to lose.

DA

P.S.: Rasoforos-- you wax all eloquent about the Iraqis' dignity and sovereignty and history, blah blah blah, but the truth is, it ain't all that clear-cut. It never is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

But here are some links to the newest information coming out of the United States Army and the Department of Defense on Iraq

---

~D
As if anyone is going to trust any "information" from that source!
I'll go check out some fair and balanced information from Al Jazeera instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

There is only one thing for certain-- they won't be able to keep up the current level of intensity for long. Even if nothing else changes and no one else does anything, at the very least the perpetrators and supporters of insurgent violence will become frustrated and take a rest.

If the US appears unmoveable, and does not move, and STILL does not move, the borderline supporters will become exhausted and go back to fence-sitting.

---

Ok. As long as you see the opposition as supporters of violence you wont see whats going on. Lets set aside US administration terms for a bit and venture into the real world.

This is a resistance movement. Its simple, you just dont get tired of fighting the oppressor, you go on and on and on and for as long as it takes. This is not some bandit group you are dealing against. The resistance is becoming more efficient and the occupation forces are causing more and more negative feelings.

Think of the case where someone invades your country. You wouldnt say ' oh I ll resist for a couple of years and then I ll give up '

Seeing the resistance the way you describe it let to comments like yours from the even before the war:

Bush and his friends were very sure they will be wellcomed in Iraq, they didnt believe that resistance existed...

Then they were sure that Iraq will stabilise in a few months....

Then they were sure it will stabilise in a couple of years...

Now they are sure it will stabilise in 5-6 years...


If the US administration doesnt move they:

1) Will have to spend a fortune on Iraq as they now do and they will leave the rest of the world alone... ( good )

2) Will get to repatriate yet more bodybags. The Iraqis have nothing to lose. On the other hand the US public will not accept losses for ever. 2000 troops have died and many many thousants have sustained permanent disability...

Iraq appeared to be a good way to win elections and a good way to finance a number of corporations. It has proven a costly mistake and , either conservatives want to realise it or not, it stinks of Vietnam. The Iraqis will be there to fight even after 5-10 or 50 years, I doubt the US army will...

We fought Filipino muslim insurgents for what? 12 years? before we pacified that country.
Try 40+ years , then a little break for a small world war then back to the same , and now the Phillipine government is fighting them .
Not a very good example to choose Del ~;)

There is only one thing for certain-- they won't be able to keep up the current level of intensity for long. Even if nothing else changes and no one else does anything, at the very least the perpetrators and supporters of insurgent violence will become frustrated and take a rest.

Thats what they have been saying since week one . Any progress yet ?

And I personally don't feel we can afford to lose.

I agree , which is why they shouldn't have chosen to start an unwinnable war .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

[B][/But here are some links to the newest information coming out of the United States Army and the Department of Defense on Iraq
B]
Very good Red , and of course the defense dept and army won't be contradicting these reports in 3 months time will they ~D ~D ~D
Wow 86 million and they can see some power lines going up and fixed some pumps , thats great . Now all they need is electricity to put through the power lines and some water to use the pumps .:dizzy2:
just let all the nay sayers have their cake and let them eat it to.
Yes , when all is looking grim and descending into chaos , a complete refusal to accept the reality of the situation will always see you through .
Still , at least you have the balls to stand behind your government even when they are making a complete mess of it .
Your loyalty is admirable , misguided , but admirable still the same.~:cheers:

---

Poor misguided Tribesman you have no ability to guess why I posted that - you call it loyality. I posted it because its information - you may do with it as you please. However it seems its easier for you to dismiss the informaion verus looking into the whole picture.

Hell yes I still support the tumbling of Saddam's Regime. And in doing so the United States has an obligation to fix the rest of the country that we broke. Care to guess why I support it - after one has talked with Iraqi soldiers on the battlefield in 1991 - and discovered the conditions in which Saddam's regime forced them to fight under. How about driving through Iraqi Artilley postions and seeing the chemical munitions on the gun line. How about working with several Kuwaiti officers and enlisted after the war who gave me first hand accounts of Saddam Regime's actions to their countrymen. Or how about knowing that the only way the issue with Iraq was going to be resolved was that Saddam had to be removed. Hell lets just discount those facts because the administration has made a mess of the occupation. Lets just forget the past because a few bad soldiers have committed crimes that futher inflame passions in the area. Lets forget the past because of poor planning of the military to carry out an occupation of Iraq.

If you focus on that the United States screwed up because of a lack of proper planning of Occupation and fixing Iraq after we broke it - then I might just jump on the bandwagon - but going into Iraq to remove Saddam was the correct thing to do in my opinion. So why would I change my opinion on that because the adminstration and the military has made a mess of the occupation.

I am only loyal to what I took an oath to be loyal to, which by the way even though I am out of the military - I never forswore the oath that I took. That doesn't mean someone can not question the government nor its information. However it seems that some want to believe the negative press without looking at any other information that might be coming out of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Peru

~D
As if anyone is going to trust any "information" from that source!
I'll go check out some fair and balanced information from Al Jazeera instead.

---

By all means don't trust it - and check out AL Jazeera to - I read that web site at least once a month to get a prespective that I normally would not from reading American and European media. You might want to try looking at other sources to get information then just the ones that agree with your opinion.

So are you unable to look at multiple sources from multiple view points to come to a conclusion? Are you stuck so hard in idealogue that you can't look at other sources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Hell yes I still support the tumbling of Saddam's Regime. And in doing so the United States has an obligation to fix the rest of the country that we broke.

---

That pretty much sums it up. Whether one agrees with the war or not, it was started and is still going on. Despite the unfavourable circumstances the US now has the responsibility to help Iraq rebuild, and I'd like to think other nations can play a part in helping Iraq and make the best of the situation rather than constantly bitching about past decisions. That helps no-one at the moment.

If you focus on that the United States screwed up because of a lack of proper planning of Occupation and fixing Iraq after we broke it - then I might just jump on the bandwagon - but going into Iraq to remove Saddam was the correct thing to do in my opinion. So why would I change my opinion on that because the adminstration and the military has made a mess of the occupation.

Well as it was patently obvious from the beginning what would happen , then if people had even given it the slightest bit of thought then they wouldn't have to change their minds would they ?
Why do you think most people object to this war , do you think it is because they want Saddam in power ???
Or do you think it is because it was a complete ballsup sold on a pile of bullshit from before the word go .:idea2:
Even the reconstuction has become so underfunded that your government has resorted to asking private citizens to make donations .
Time to dig deep , as the $600 raised so far is ever so slightly short of the millions needed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

There is only one thing for certain-- they won't be able to keep up the current level of intensity for long. Even if nothing else changes and no one else does anything, at the very least the perpetrators and supporters of insurgent violence will become frustrated and take a rest.

---

i don't think this will happen. there are insurgents blowing themselves up every day

now that's about as strong of conviction as there can possibly be

and i'm pretty sure most of them have convictions which are that strong

they are fighting to preserve their religion and their way of life. "getting tired" is probably not ever going to happen to them.

Well said Navaros.

About Reconstruction:

What is reconstruction? Are we talking about bringing Iraq to pre-2003 levels of a stable thirld world country or to pre-1991 levels of an almost developed country?

From the point of view of an Iraqi, the americans established a dictator in their country ( shadam ) and then gave him weapons and money. They turned a blind eye on his human rights record for decades. Then they got back and took him off power destroying the country in the process and causing the direct death of thousants and the indirect death of millions ( life expectancy drop, huge infant mortality ). Now they have a new puppet council to control the country and the human rights abuse , with the US blessings and all new techniques, has resumed.

Nothing has changed for the average Iraqi.

And reconstruction cannot occur before the US administration wardogs and their multinationals get the hell out of Iraq. Noone will trust any international reconstruction efford before this happens...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

We fought Filipino muslim insurgents for what? 12 years? before we pacified that country.
Try 40+ years , then a little break for a small world war then back to the same , and now the Phillipine government is fighting them .
Not a very good example to choose Del ~;)

---

Actually, according to this article, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...17/ai_n8573960 , the US pacified Christian areas in 1902, and finally established control over Moroland in 1915. Now, there may have been some subversive activity after that point, but essentially the insurrection was over. There were other rebellions later on, but that's a different issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasoforos

This is a resistance movement. Its simple, you just dont get tired of fighting the oppressor, you go on and on and on and for as long as it takes.

---

You keep repeating "they're a resistance movement!" as though somehow that makes them immune from the laws of gravity. YES, Ras, they are a RESISTANCE movement. Many RESISTANCE movements have been defeated before, and we can defeat this one with the right steps.

No matter how they fight or however "noble" you term their cause, they are mere mortal humans, and they can be killed or persuaded to behave themselves. We killed nearly all of the VietCong rebels in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive-- if we'd not then decided to give up, we could have won the war with the right actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Thats what they have been saying since week one . Any progress yet ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by navaros

i don't think this will happen. there are insurgents blowing themselves up every day

---

Actually, in case you haven't been paying very good attention to the Iraq situation, 90% or more of the suicide bombers are actually foreign fighters (though the foreigners make up a very small percentage of actual insurgents). So it seems that very few "resistance" fighters are quite that convinced, wouldn't you say?

We've been saying "they can keep up the current intensity for long" since the beginning-- and each time we've been right! There has always been variance in the level of violence the insurgents are able to produce. And that's just talking logistics. Currently the Sunnis have a steady supply of foreign idiots that they can use as ordnance, but what if that supply situation were to change? Everything changes with time.

But, more importantly, NOW, when it seems almost certain that the US will withdraw, when they can almost touch victory with the tips of their fingers, can almost taste it-- NOW, when they are doing literally all they can, if we do not move, MANY whose conviction is less strong will become discouraged. There is simply no arguing with this. They are insurgents and we are counter-insurgents and we both must obey the laws of gravity.

..

Many of you say the Iraqis have nothing to lose and therefore will win. But in truth, folks, however you view the overall situation or the US's chances of bringing a positive solution, currently we have nothing to lose by sticking it out, and EVERYTHING to lose by quitting.

US casualties are STILL low. Yes, soldiers are dying, but the insurgents have never been very efficient in this respect, they are even less-so now, and it is certainly not a strong argument for the US to leave. And yes, we are spending a great deal of money over there, but not a catastrophic amount. We can keep spending just as much or even quite a bit more, for many years, and not run the risk of a financial catastrophe (though if we don't repeal Bush's tax cuts then those could get us in trouble).

Furthermore, there is no draft, nor is there any on the horizon, and while many have severe doubts about our involvement in Iraq, few at home are truly resisting it. Yes, there are some pathetic whack-jobs trying to pretend it's still the 60's-- but they don't matter. Public support for the war has proven to be steadily sufficient, and that is unlikely to change in the near-long-term.

Simply put, we've spent hundreds of billions, sacrificed the lives of over 2000 americans and the limbs of thousands of others, as long as there's a long-shot chance of winning and we aren't critically low on resources (or public support), we've nothing to lose by staying. On the other hand, leaving would be a catastrophe. It would be an immediate catastrophe for the geo-political landscape in the middle east. And the sheer humiliation-- it is simply not thinkable, not while we have a shot at winning. We simply cannot afford to lose another goddamn war. Yes, we should pick our fights more carefully, but we've got this one, no sense crying now.

..

And a last note to those of you who are convinced the Iraqi insurgents are saints fighting towards a just and inevitable end-- why not go and join them? It certainly wouldn't be out of the ordinary-- plenty of Americans did it during the Spanish Civil War. Don't know how to work a gun? No worries! I'm sure they will think of very special assignments for you all. ~D

DA

Actually, in case you haven't been paying very good attention to the Iraq situation, 90% or more of the suicide bombers are actually foreign fighters (though the foreigners make up a very small percentage of actual insurgents). So it seems that very few "resistance" fighters are quite that convinced, wouldn't you say?

So you haven't been paying attention to the recent rise in local suicide bombers , and this weeks new first , a local female suicide bomber .

Actually, according to this article, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...17/ai_n8573960 , the US pacified Christian areas in 1902, and finally established control over Moroland in 1915. Now, there may have been some subversive activity after that point, but essentially the insurrection was over. There were other rebellions later on, but that's a different issue.
Really , I wonder who all those rebel leaders they were stringing up in the 20s and 30s , they must have been different Phillipino rebels eh ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well as it was patently obvious from the beginning what would happen , then if people had even given it the slightest bit of thought then they wouldn't have to change their minds would they ?

---

Wow - you are gifted with 20/20 hindsight ability to call things correctly. What an amazing individual you are.

Quote:

---

Why do you think most people object to this war , do you think it is because they want Saddam in power ???

---

LOL - nice try.

Quote:

---

Or do you think it is because it was a complete ballsup sold on a pile of bullshit from before the word go .:idea2:

---

Better yet - but again your gifted with 20/20 hindsight.

Quote:

---

Even the reconstuction has become so underfunded that your government has resorted to asking private citizens to make donations .
Time to dig deep , as the $600 raised so far is ever so slightly short of the millions needed .

---

News to me - but then I don't watch television to get my news either.