What is really going on in Iraq?

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

One of the major problems with how the Us went about the war is this.

The US Army does not listen to anyone at all, they were messing things up a lot and not training the troops for what they would be doing whilst over there, but wouldnt listen to anyone who said so.

The lack of training meant that scared kids got trigger happy and kill a lot of people for no reason, by the time the fresh troops got to understand the AOO they would be shipped off as the tours were too short (6 months i think) with little to no phase out, i.e some of the current solders stay to help ease the next bunch in.

The army was not equipped for the job at hand, Hmvee's were not fitted out as they should be. for example.

Arty was used on civilians.

Services are still not reliable.

The CPA did not spend any time training locals.

the contracts for recontrustion were a complete sham. they should of be opened up and to international companies.

Iran and the saudis should of been brought in to help with the oil constructions


the baathist should of been giving positions in the new structures of governance

the Iraqi army should of been put under joint iraqi/us control and spent to areas out of the cities to test them out and as a process of trust building.




On a big side note; does it take a man like Saddam to control the messy brood in Iraq? and if it does, was he such a bad man?

[Redleg]

One of the major problems with how the Us went about the war is this.

The US Army does not listen to anyone at all, they were messing things up a lot and not training the troops for what they would be doing whilst over there, but wouldnt listen to anyone who said so.

The lack of training meant that scared kids got trigger happy and kill a lot of people for no reason, by the time the fresh troops got to understand the AOO they would be shipped off as the tours were too short (6 months i think) with little to no phase out, i.e some of the current solders stay to help ease the next bunch in.

The army was not equipped for the job at hand, Hmvee's were not fitted out as they should be. for example.

Arty was used on civilians.

Services are still not reliable.

The CPA did not spend any time training locals.

the contracts for recontrustion were a complete sham. they should of be opened up and to international companies.

Iran and the saudis should of been brought in to help with the oil constructions


the baathist should of been giving positions in the new structures of governance

the Iraqi army should of been put under joint iraqi/us control and spent to areas out of the cities to test them out and as a process of trust building.




On a big side note; does it take a man like Saddam to control the messy brood in Iraq? and if it does, was he such a bad man?

You realize how naive about the military your initial part of the post sounds. Three divisions on the ground destroyed the Iraqi Military with abosolutely no problem. Criticize the United States Military's ability to conduct an occupation and your dead on. Critizing the ability for the military to fight battles against other armed forces and your going down the wrong track.

Fighting battles the US military is good at, keeping the peace and performing occupation duty we suck. We can not handle the political aspect of doing so. We don't train for it, and we don't learn lessons from other nations in regard to that. Our political appratus within the military often gets itself in trouble,

Care to guess how long a man can function in a combat environment before they should be rotated out? Several studies by different militaries have been done in this regard.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

You realize how naive about the military your initial part of the post sounds. Three divisions on the ground destroyed the Iraqi Military with abosolutely no problem. Criticize the United States Military's ability to conduct an occupation and your dead on. Critizing the ability for the military to fight battles against other armed forces and your going down the wrong track.

Fighting battles the US military is good at, keeping the peace and performing occupation duty we suck. We can not handle the political aspect of doing so. We don't train for it, and we don't learn lessons from other nations in regard to that. Our political appratus within the military often gets itself in trouble,

Care to guess how long a man can function in a combat environment before they should be rotated out? Several studies by different militaries have been done in this regard.

No one ever doubted that the biggest military in the world could destroy the Iraqi army, by all reports it (the iraqi army) was not that strong after all. the point i was making was, that fighting armies is the easy bit, reaching bad-dags is the easy part. staying there and sorting out the god-forsaken mess that it creates is hard part and thats the part where things went seriously wrong.

The politics is another area where things went very wrong, both the administration and also the armies ability to handle the local population, blend in a little and not being seen as all that different from the locals. also not arresting people for no reason would of help as well.

the point with the 6 months rotations is that the locals and the soldiers start to understand each other and things start to almost become a state of "normal" then the solders up and go and the locals need to get shot to bits while the new guys get used to it all over again... this was not very well thought through at all, and could of saved a lot of ill will towards the army. This is something that the british and even better the australians do very very very well.

[Redleg]

No one ever doubted that the biggest military in the world could destroy the Iraqi army, by all reports it (the iraqi army) was not that strong after all. the point i was making was, that fighting armies is the easy bit, reaching bad-dags is the easy part. staying there and sorting out the god-forsaken mess that it creates is hard part and thats the part where things went seriously wrong.

Then you should of stuck with your point. Oh by the way the United States military is not the biggest in the world. At least one other nation has that honor.

Your previous attempt like I stated was naive, this is much better.

The politics is another area where things went very wrong, both the administration and also the armies ability to handle the local population, blend in a little and not being seen as all that different from the locals. also not arresting people for no reason would of help as well.

Have you ever been there? Do you realize how much an American Serviceman or woman stands out compared to the local population. Give you a hind blending in was not an option? What the United States planners failed to take in consideration was how many soldiers it would take to successfully occupy a country. Give you a hint - we would have had to take all our forces both Active and National Guard to do a proper occupation. So we where short from the get-go.

Then again you won't want to hear what soldier's state needs to be done to sort out the occupation, its rather simple and effective. But the politicans won't want to even get close to going there. So its rather a simple fact as someone alreadly mentioned. Bush is looking for a way to have an exit, which isn't going to happen until some type of agreement is struck with Iran - one that will surely be broken as soon as the United States withdraws.

the point with the 6 months rotations is that the locals and the soldiers start to understand each other and things start to almost become a state of "normal" then the solders up and go and the locals need to get shot to bits while the new guys get used to it all over again... this was not very well thought through at all, and could of saved a lot of ill will towards the army. This is something that the british and even better the australians do very very very well.

Again your mis-informed the rotations are one year. Your point about getting to know the population is valid - but once again how long can a man maintain is sanity in a combat zone? I see you avoided answering the question. Are you so sure about the brits and the aussies - I have heard that they also rotate out every year.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The USA does not have the political will to do in Iraq what was done in the Phillipines. Unfortunately, I think half-measures are less than adequate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the entire American view on occupation is screwy, no offense. The British go through three stages.

Peace Keeping

Peace Enforcment

War Fighting

The US forces, by accounts from British senior servicemen and their American counterparts do not understand the first, have trouble with the second and then default to the third. It is not a question merely of manpower, but of handling the situation.

Question: In Bosnia what were the two things that came out of every Warrior when it stopped?

Redleg: I believe breaking point is 140-180 days by US studies from WWII. That's about six months, which is what British troops spend in theatre, and twice what Americans did in Vietnam.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Alright bear with me hear, lets see how i go.

to highlight the point i am making about fitting in with the local population, i don't mean dress in local drab, live in huts and eat goats. I mean making concerted efforts to establish good relations with the local community, this takes a little bit of understanding and a little understanding local customs. A great example of the difference is by this. In the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan an Australian SAS patrol lived with the various villages around the area, making a concerted effort to understand the locals and getting the locals to trust them, so if things were happening the locals would be the eyes and ears for the patrol. the area in question is huge. after several months the 8 Australian SAS men were replaced by 1000 US marines, who built a huge base and never once tried to relate or build trust and understanding with the locals, the locals in turn stopped providing any information to them. the 1000 marines failed where 8 sas had done so much. boots on the ground does no one any good if you turn the local popultion against you due to over-whelming force, the pointless killing of innocent civilians and bad policy like arresting people based of nothing more then accusations of rival families or tribes.

Of cause bush is looking for an exit, he has 2 years to turn iraq into a non-issue for the elections or the republicans will loose the power they had dreamed off through the Clinton era. The republican party is basically now looking ahead to the next election and will be only doing things or saying things that give it a chance in 08.

The rotations were changed in the 2nd year of the war weren't they? as well as the rule of how many tours soldier's could do, as well as calling up any newly retired service personnel? and my point is not the the soldiers shouldn't be rotated but it is that they should be phased, so that the new guys learn from some vets until they ease into it. this was not done at the start at least.


FYI. My experience that i use to make most of my comments comes from the time i spent in East Timor during the UNMISET. I was there as a contractor teaching, instructing and reporting. i know quite a few Australian SAS who had/have/are working in Afghanistan, Iraq and timor. i have read a fair bit about all things iraq/Afghanistan and indo. whilst not a serviceman i would consider myself well-enough versed to comment on issues involved in nation building, peacekeeping, occupation.

[Redleg]

I think the entire American view on occupation is screwy, no offense. The British go through three stages.

Peace Keeping

Peace Enforcment

War Fighting

The US forces, by accounts from British senior servicemen and their American counterparts do not understand the first, have trouble with the second and then default to the third. It is not a question merely of manpower, but of handling the situation.

Question: In Bosnia what were the two things that came out of every Warrior when it stopped?

Redleg: I believe breaking point is 140-180 days by US studies from WWII. That's about six months, which is what British troops spend in theatre, and twice what Americans did in Vietnam.

Yes indeed you have referenced the study that I was refering to.

[AntiochusIII]

The USA does not have the political will to do in Iraq what was done in the Phillipines. Unfortunately, I think half-measures are less than adequate.

You do realize that, despite all the brutality and other oppressive stuff, it took decades fighting in the Philippines against a bunch of men with sticks on the islands, right?

Iraq is a desert, with very, very long borders; with a lot of people, usually with AK-47, going in and out; and quite a few countries sharing said borders have interests in actually allowing, if not downright sponsoring said people with AK-47's, to bother the occupation process. It might as well just take a little longer than, you know, decades, to do the same crush-them-beneath-our-boots thing.

[Tribesman]

You do realize that, despite all the brutality and other oppressive stuff, it took decades fighting in the Philippines against a bunch of men with sticks on the islands, right?

Whats even funnier about when people use the Phillipines as an example, apart from the fact that even though they declared victory several times they still ended up fighting again and again , is that the people they were fighting were the people they claimed they were liberating in the first place .