• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1,000 + Iraquis Ran Away . . .

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
NYT sub link.">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...ml?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</a>

BAGHDAD ? More than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen either refused to fight or simply abandoned their posts during the inconclusive assault against Shiite militias in Basra last week, a senior Iraqi government official said Thursday. Iraqi military officials said the group included dozens of officers, including at least two senior field commanders in the battle.

The desertions in the heat of a major battle cast fresh doubt on the effectiveness of the American-trained Iraqi security forces. The White House has conditioned further withdrawals of American troops on the readiness of the Iraqi military and police.

The crisis created by the desertions and other problems with the Basra operation was serious enough that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki hastily began funneling some 10,000 recruits from local Shiite tribes into his armed forces. That move has already generated anger among Sunni tribesmen whom Mr. Maliki has been much less eager to recruit despite their cooperation with the government in its fight against Sunni insurgents and criminal gangs.

A British military official said that Mr. Maliki had brought 6,600 reinforcements to Basra to join the 30,000 security personnel already stationed there, and a senior American military official said that he understood that 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqi forces had deserted or underperformed. That would represent a little over 4 percent of the total.

A new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq cites significant security improvements but concludes that security remains fragile, several American government officials said.

Even as officials described problems with the planning and performance of the Iraqi forces during the Basra operation, signs emerged Wednesday that tensions with Moktada al-Sadr, the radical cleric who leads the Mahdi Army militia, could flare up again. Mr. Sadr, who asked his followers to stop fighting on Sunday, called Thursday for a million Iraqis to march to the Shiite holy city of Najaf next week to protest what he called the American occupation. He also issued a veiled threat against Mr. Maliki?s forces, whom he accused of violating the terms of an agreement with the Iraqi government to stand down.

Estimates by Iraqi military officials of the number of officers who refused to fight during the Basra operation varied from several dozen to more than 100. But three officials said that among those who had been relieved of duty for refusing to fight were Col. Rahim Jabbar and Lt. Col. Shakir Khalaf, the commander and deputy commander of an entire brigade affiliated with the Interior Ministry.

A senior military official in Basra asserted that some members of Colonel Khalaf?s unit fought even though he did not. Asked why he believed Colonel Khalaf did not fight, the official said that the colonel did not believe the Iraqi security forces would be able to protect him against threats to his life that he had received for his involvement in the assault.

?If he fights today, he might be killed later,? the official said.

The senior American military official said the number of officers was ?less than a couple dozen at most,? but conceded that the figure could rise as the performance of senior officers was assessed.But most of the deserters were not officers. The American military official said, ?From what we understand, the bulk of these were from fairly fresh troops who had only just gotten out of basic training and were probably pushed into the fight too soon.?

?There were obviously others who elected to not fight their fellow Shia,? the official said, but added that the coalition did not see the failures as a ?major issue,? especially if the Iraqi government dealt firmly with them.

Mr. Maliki, who personally directed the Basra operation, which both American and Iraqi officials have criticized as poorly planned and executed, acknowledged the desertions without giving a specific number in public statements on Thursday.

?Everyone who was not on the side of the security forces will go into the military courts,? Mr. Maliki said in a news briefing in the Green Zone. ?Joining the army or police is not a trip or a picnic, there is something that they have to pay back to commit to the interests of the state and not the party or the sect.?

?They swore on the Koran that they would not support their sect or their party, but they were lying,? he said.

On Sunday, Mr. Sadr gave the prime minister a somewhat face-saving way out of the Basra fight by ordering the Mahdi fighters to lay down their weapons after days in which government forces had made no headway.

Mr. Sadr simultaneously made a series of demands, which senior Iraqi politicians involved in the talks said they believed that Mr. Maliki had agreed to in advance. But the prime minister has since denied any involvement in the talks, and government raids on Mahdi Army units ? something Mr. Sadr had said must stop ? have if anything become more frequent in Basra and Baghdad.

Accordingly, Mr. Sadr?s latest statement began by quoting a section of the Koran promising doom to those who make promises and then break them. He then complained bitterly that his followers were being unjustly suppressed and arrested, and warned that nothing would force them to completely withdraw. But he did not explicitly call for new fighting.

American support for Iraqi government forces has also continued, and on Thursday the American military said it had carried out two airstrikes on Wednesday in Basra, one ?to destroy an enemy structure housing a sniper engaging Iraqi security forces in Basra? and another to destroy a machine gun nest.

The Iraqi police said one of the strikes leveled a two-story house in Basra?s Kibla neighborhood, killing three people and wounding three, all in the same family. The police made no mention of hostile activity.

Ryan C. Crocker, the United States ambassador to Iraq, said Mr. Maliki took the lead in talks with Shiite tribes and said that the turnout of thousands of security applicants in Basra was testament to his success.

?It is very clear that they have moved over toward the prime minister in a very significant way,? Mr. Crocker said during a briefing in the United States Embassy in Baghdad.

?The tribal element he managed himself, as far as I can see,? he said. ?You may recall he had a series of meetings with different tribal leaders, three or four of them, maybe more. That was something he focused on almost from the beginning, and pressed it hard straight through and has seen it pay off. Did he have counsel to do it, I don?t know. But he is the one who did it.?

Two southern tribal sheiks said that by providing recruits for the security forces, they were expressing support for the government. But the sheiks made clear that the promise of good-paying jobs for the largely unemployed young men in their tribes had also been a powerful inducement.

Sheik Kamal al-Helfi, head of the Basra branch of the Halaf tribe, said by phone that he was still bargaining to increase his tribe?s allotment of 25 jobs in the security forces. ?Many people faced a bad situation since the time of Saddam, and they have no jobs,? he said.

Another southern tribal leader, Sheik Adel al-Subihawi, said larger and more powerful tribes had received quotas as high as 300 jobs.

Mr. Maliki also announced $100 million in economic assistance to Basra, to be administered by the central government in partnership with the provincial government, and said the government would create 25,000 jobs in the city over the coming year.

Citing that promise of assistance and the tribal discussions, Mr. Crocker said, ?Were there deals? Like everything else, that is not an engagement you win purely by military means. The prime minister is employing the economic dimension of power right now, and good on him, I think. Money is in many respects his most important weapon and he is using it.?

Mr. Maliki said that the tribal recruits would be carefully vetted. But that was not enough to satisfy some Sunnis farther north who have been waiting for months to see comparable numbers of their tribesmen accepted into the government security forces. Tens of thousands of these Sunnis, including many former insurgents, are working alongside Iraqi and American troops in a so-called tribal awakening movement ? clearly a model for the tribal outreach in Basra.

?Recruiting large number of young people in Basra to fight the JAM proves once again that the government of Nuri al-Maliki is a sectarian government, a double-standard one that favors one sect at the expense of other sects,? said Abu Othman, a senior member of Fadhil Awakening Council, referring to the Mahdi Army by its Arabic acronym.

Abu Othman said four months ago he had presented 100 Sunni names for enrollment in the Iraqi police and had received no reply.

?The Maliki government wants security forces that are controlled, manipulated and moved by them,? he said.

The tribal and sectarian clusterfuck we have unleashed continues. :roll:


 
A British military official said that Mr. Maliki had brought 6,600 reinforcements to Basra to join the 30,000 security personnel already stationed there, and a senior American military official said that he understood that 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqi forces had deserted or underperformed. That would represent a little over 4 percent of the total.

...

But most of the deserters were not officers. The American military official said, ?From what we understand, the bulk of these were from fairly fresh troops who had only just gotten out of basic training and were probably pushed into the fight too soon.?

So 4% deserted or underperformed and most were fresh troops straight out of basic training? Compared to what I've seen over the years of the performance of Iraqi troops, even counting the troops in Saddam's army that deserted in waves, I say thats progress.
 
Originally posted by: maddogchen
A British military official said that Mr. Maliki had brought 6,600 reinforcements to Basra to join the 30,000 security personnel already stationed there, and a senior American military official said that he understood that 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqi forces had deserted or underperformed. That would represent a little over 4 percent of the total.

...

But most of the deserters were not officers. The American military official said, ?From what we understand, the bulk of these were from fairly fresh troops who had only just gotten out of basic training and were probably pushed into the fight too soon.?

So 4% deserted or underperformed and most were fresh troops straight out of basic training? Compared to what I've seen over the years of the performance of Iraqi troops, even counting the troops in Saddam's army that deserted in waves, I say thats progress.

an optomist. They are like the french of the middle east.
 
Originally posted by: EXman

an optomist. They are like the french of the middle east.

I can see the ads now:

For Sale

1500 Iraqi AK-47's.
Never fired.
Only dropped once.
 
WTF do people expect? The Iraqi army to be as well prepared and ready to fight as the US military? The Iraqi army did the same thing under Saddam and just about every other military has experienced this in it's infancy. Wake up people, Iraq may have been a bad idea but nit picking every story is pathetic. If you don't support it than fine, just don't be ignorant as well.
 
4% really isnt that big of a number. I wonder what percentage of US troops are ready for guerrilla warfare after such short training?
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
4% really isnt that big of a number. I wonder what percentage of US troops are ready for guerrilla warfare after such short training?

4% IS a big number--if you consider that many of them were superior officers, and not just grunts.

Given the situation in Iraq, and how we've fumbled and mismanaged training of Iraqi forces, I would not be surprized that once the commanding officer jumps ship, the rest of the troops under their command shit their pants and go home.

The meat of the Iraqi army does not want to take on the personal liability of fighting against their religious brethren. By "personal liability," I mean something along the lines of "I don't want to take initiative because I don't want my family to get slaughtered." It's a perfectly excusable pointn of view in Iraq, but here we are sitting at our keyboards and strategizing on how people with real problelms should carry on with their fucked up lives.

Our (American) liberation of Iraq has destablilzed the country beyond the point of repair. The political and thuggish (same difference) powers within that country are going to fall back into a "circle the wagons" mentality soon enough.

Don't expect those shills General Betrayus and Ambassador Crocker to tell you anything but the candy-coated brown stuff.
 
Originally posted by: fallout man
Originally posted by: blackangst1
4% really isnt that big of a number. I wonder what percentage of US troops are ready for guerrilla warfare after such short training?

4% IS a big number--if you consider that many of them were superior officers, and not just grunts.

Given the situation in Iraq, and how we've fumbled and mismanaged training of Iraqi forces, I would not be surprized that once the commanding officer jumps ship, the rest of the troops under their command shit their pants and go home.

The meat of the Iraqi army does not want to take on the personal liability of fighting against their religious brethren. By "personal liability," I mean something along the lines of "I don't want to take initiative because I don't want my family to get slaughtered." It's a perfectly excusable pointn of view in Iraq, but here we are sitting at our keyboards and strategizing on how people with real problelms should carry on with their fucked up lives.

Our (American) liberation of Iraq has destablilzed the country beyond the point of repair. The political and thuggish (same difference) powers within that country are going to fall back into a "circle the wagons" mentality soon enough.

Don't expect those shills General Betrayus and Ambassador Crocker to tell you anything but the candy-coated brown stuff.

Well, I dont know about the side rant, but the article clearly says "But most of the deserters were not officers. The American military official said, ?From what we understand, the bulk of these were from fairly fresh troops who had only just gotten out of basic training and were probably pushed into the fight too soon.?

The article says a couple dozen. Lets say 24. It also says very few were not officers. How much is very few of 24? 4 maybe?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sounds terrible. If only those numbers or the math were valid it would actually be the truth.

http://talismangate.blogspot.c...es-and-assertions.html

So we have two or more conflicting versions of the truth and the true numbers. So automatically some TLC cited blog spot is right and the NYT has it wrong. And if only the NY Times would shut up, we would be winning in Iraq.

And meanwhile back at the ranch, no one realizes this is just one measurement, most of them yet not even known, that will give us a clearer picture at some future dates.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sounds terrible. If only those numbers or the math were valid it would actually be the truth.

http://talismangate.blogspot.c...es-and-assertions.html

So we have two or more conflicting versions of the truth and the true numbers. So automatically some TLC cited blog spot is right and the NYT has it wrong. And if only the NY Times would shut up, we would be winning in Iraq.

And meanwhile back at the ranch, no one realizes this is just one measurement, most of them yet not even known, that will give us a clearer picture at some future dates.
Care to argue the numbers?

As Mark Knopfler said, "Two men say they're Jesus. One of 'em must be wrong."
 
It may be difficult for the "lose at all costs" Left to admit, but the Iraqis performed well. It was not flawless, and it was certainly not anywhere near US or British levels. The Mahdi Militia has a fair amount of combat experience and has received expert training, in particular from the Iranians, and has been well supplied with advanced weaponry from, again, the Iranians. Nevertheless, the Iraqi Army and to a lesser extent the National Police made tangible gains in a stronghold of the Mahdi Militia without the presence and backing of large amounts of US troops. That last point cannot be overstated. The logistics of moving and committing that many troops were considerable, and the Iraqi ability to undertake and mostly succeed in that portion of the operation is just short of astounding.

Bottomline: The Iraqis committed large numbers of troops at various cities around the country and launched a major operation aimed at rogue militias, without significant assistance from US forces. In most cities, the Iraqi Security Forces succeeded in seizing and controlling their targets. In Basra, the ISF took the Mahdi Militia head-on and survived, inflicting sizable casualties in the process. As recently as last year, NONE of that would have been possible. To deny the progress of the ISF is to bury your head in the sand. Period.
 
As TlC makes an unwitting post with---Care to argue the numbers?

As Mark Knopfler said, "Two men say they're Jesus. One of 'em must be wrong."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact TLC no, I don't even think its a super important current metric although it may become more important in future.

But when it comes to arguing if one of two men are Jesus, it seems to me, you are in the if the Shoe fits wear it position
arguing that only YOUR version is correct. It never occurs to you that your future name will become tastes like crow and you will be eating it.

Only time will tell.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
As TlC makes an unwitting post with---Care to argue the numbers?

As Mark Knopfler said, "Two men say they're Jesus. One of 'em must be wrong."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact TLC no, I don't even think its a super important current metric although it may become more important in future.

But when it comes to arguing if one of two men are Jesus, it seems to me, you are in the if the Shoe fits wear it position
arguing that only YOUR version is correct. It never occurs to you that your future name will become tastes like crow and you will be eating it.

Only time will tell.
Time may tell but there is only one truth right now. Apparently you don't want to actually talk about numbers now though, even as you do mention them somehow being relevant at the same time.

Convenient how that works.

Considering that your previous prognostications in this forum haven't amounted to a hill of beans though it's no surprise either.
 
That is somewhat the TLC delusion in a nutshell---Time may tell but there is only one truth right now.

As if somehow GOD is somehow keeping score in some precisely quantifiable manner?
 
TasteLikeChicken, you can say that the whole 4% figure looks good after all that's a low number however it's a 1,000 soldiers.

One-Thousand-Fucking-People

Something isn't working right and no one can spin that.
 
Originally posted by: Tab
TasteLikeChicken, you can say that the whole 4% figure looks good after all that's a low number however it's a 1,000 soldiers.

One-Thousand-Fucking-People

Something isn't working right and no one can spin that.

if i wore the same rove-tinted glasses that some bush-backers like to wear around here i bet'cha i could.😉

 
Its starting to look like Maliki is really feeling his oats. And really is going to pit the Iraqi army against Al Sadr.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...xqDa3vyxwQQcmxAVWs0NUE

It could well be that its going to start involving urban combat. And in terms of there being one truth, there will probably be lots of conflicting opinions within the Iraqi army about being forced to kill their fellow Iraqis as they risk death themselves. As I mentioned previously, I did not think Iraqi army desertion rates were a super important figure now, but they sure might become very important in future at the rate Maliki is going. Urban combat can get very nasty very fast.

My guess would tend to be that Maliki will over reach himself and get removed if he is seen as the person forcing too much violence, but now events are rolling downhill and seemingly picking up speed. Now only time will tell as a simmering pot gets vigorously shaken.

As I mentioned in the other similar thread, Petraeus will be testifying before congress and is likely to be as clueless as anyone else as events unfold.

 
I have a feeling this was just an acid test before the storm. You quickly find your loyalists in this kind of quagmire. It is essential to what builds a nation. If Washington had turned around prior to Valley Forge would there be a single United States today? Maliki may not survive the turmoil. But there will be someone who pops out of these events ready to lead Iraq into the future, good or bad.
 
Hey didnt the New Orleans police dept disappear during and after Katrina?

Cowardice is a value many people hold.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Hey didnt the New Orleans police dept disappear during and after Katrina?

Cowardice is a value many people hold.

Yep, sad commentary in both cases.
 
Originally posted by: Tab
TasteLikeChicken, you can say that the whole 4% figure looks good after all that's a low number however it's a 1,000 soldiers.

One-Thousand-Fucking-People

Something isn't working right and no one can spin that.
I'm not saying it looks good. I'm saying the numbers are wrong.

I guess the whole Ratherian "Fake but accurate" applies here though because apparently some people don't care if the 1000 soldiers/4% in Basra claim is true or not. They just take a number that suits them and run with it, oblivious to the facts of the matter. Don't let those pesky little facts get in the way.
 
I don't have a link, but I seem to recall that the Iraqi army desertion rates have always been fairly high. With jobs very short, the Iraqi army was seen as a way to bring in money. And when the training was at the local level, it was often seen as attractive. But when some of the recruits suddenly found they were going to be removed from their home turf and stationed far away from home, it was no longer seen as that attractive an option. And some of that metric may be due to possibly illiterate recruits not reading the fine print, and some due to the fact army recruiters are the same the world over as they conveniently gloss over the downsides.

What will happen to desertion rates in future if Maliki really engages the Iraqi army remains to be seen. But its often the veterans who have been through many battles that often prove to be the most loyal in any army.
 
Back
Top