Senator Bob Casey's taking his turn at the microphone right now and is making the point I made here about Iraqi Security Forces.
« Obama's Turn | Main | CITO »
Iraqi Forces
11 Sep 2007 01:40 pm
Comments (10)
Petraeus made an interesting point in response: Some Iraqi units that are not classified in the first level of readiness (the level where they are supposed to be capable of operating independently) are nonetheless operating independently.
Some Iraqi units that are not classified in the first level of readiness (the level where they are supposed to be capable of operating independently) are nonetheless operating independently.
This doesn't really change the story, though, since the Level I & Level II ISF combined show the same trend as the Level I ISF looked at alone. What's more, if being "capable of operating independently" isn't necessary for independent operations, then why do these metrics exist? Maybe they're bad metrics. But if they're bad, it seems we should stop using them.
Re Fred's comment "Petraeus made an interesting point in response: Some Iraqi units that are not classified in the first level of readiness (the level where they are supposed to be capable of operating independently) are nonetheless operating independently."
-----------
Yes, if the "independent" operation consists of going down to the corner grocery to get pizza and coke.
Maybe they're bad metrics. But if they're bad, it seems we should stop using them.
Good, bad or indifferent they are the best Petreaus and Gilespie could come up with. When was the last time a US Army field commander said that he had enough troops? The Army is exhausted in every sense of the word and there is no relief in sight.
Maybe those non-independent units will help when the Iranians invade.
The great unasked question is - if the Surge and the Anwar strategy are actually the way to go - then what further merit does the gold-bricked high tech military have.
After all, if the Surge is good; then is not Shock and Awe bad? So why continue to spend money upon a Shock and Awe military?
Should not all the weapons systems be shelved and more emphasis placed upon Special Forces and upon human intelligence, and such?
It's worth pointing out as well that most of those "independent" Iraqi units are -- and always have been -- a small group of Sunni Kurdish squads consisting of Peshmerga milita men.
Matthew Yglesias:
"What's more, if being "capable of operating independently" isn't necessary for independent operations, then why do these metrics exist?"
My guess is that these metrics were originally designed to delay letting Iraqi troops go into battle solo, so as not to repeat the poor performance of earlier incarnations. So a high bar was set: units would need a certain number of certified NCOs, commissioned officers, equipment, etc.
A related point Petraeus made is that combat can knock these units down a rung. Let's say a 2-rated unit performs valiantly in combat but loses a couple of lieutenants. Competent platoon sergeants are given command of those lieutenants' platoons. The unit might still be able to operate decently, but it may also have dropped below the personnel requirements for level 2.
It's all irrelevant. The Iraqi military doesn't exist because Iraq as a country - an operating state - does not exist.
I don't care how many Iraqis you "recruit" into the Iraqi Army with the promise of money. They aren't going to kill their relatives or their co-religionists for the benefit of the United States or for the state of Iraq (unless they are members of the same religious parties that make up the state of Iraq.)
There are 25 million Iraqis - minus the 3-4 million who have fled the country. Out of twenty million left, 50-60% are Shia, the rest mostly Sunni. Probably more Sunnis than Shia have left the country, so even those numbers may be skewed.
As someone else pointed out, the only known effective Iraqi units are Kurdish peshmerga militia who are loyal to Kurdistan and are just collecting a paycheck shooting a few Shia militia or Sunni Arabs.
It's a joke. You can spin the numbers any way you want. It's all irrelevant. There IS NO Iraqi Army! And there never will be again until exhaustion sets in and the leaders of the factions manage to hammer out some sort of agreement.
Even then, whatever comprises the resulting Iraqi military, the majority of those troops will STILL be primarily beholden to their tribe, their religious faction, and their families - not to the Iraqi state in any manner reminiscent of the US military, let alone as a professional military.
It's just a joke to even discuss it as if it made any kind of sense.
Comments closed September 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Webb just finished with Petreaus and it is clear that Petraeus is desperate to save the Army. It is broken as constituted and he knows it. Its why he's bringing the troops home the way he is and its what Webb was trying to get him to admit. This cannot continue with volunteers and as MY points out at Stagnation, the graph shows that Iraqis will never be ready. It is a race to get the Army to hold together until Bush leaves because the Iraqis can't save the situation. Peteaus may be a careerist but I hope that the Armed Services Comittee gets at the health of the military.
Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 11, 2007 2:07 PM