-
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.
At what point can we say the Iraqi army is fully trained?
- Thread starter techs
- Start date
jackschmittusa
Diamond Member
Fern
How is their training and equipment properly defined as 21st century? We are not giving them any gee-whiz tech. They are basically armed with assault rifles, machine guns, and RPGs, all derived from WWII tech. Comm gear? Refined WWII tech. Training for urban and guerrilla warfare? Refined WWII methods.
Besides, I would imagine the OP was pointing out that large armies have been trained in the past and proved their effectiveness in a relatively short time, regardless of how alien the profession of soldiering was to the recruits. I don't care if you project into the 22nd century, soldiering will never become so complicated that a soldier cannot become proficient and effective before his first hitch is up.
How is their training and equipment properly defined as 21st century? We are not giving them any gee-whiz tech. They are basically armed with assault rifles, machine guns, and RPGs, all derived from WWII tech. Comm gear? Refined WWII tech. Training for urban and guerrilla warfare? Refined WWII methods.
Besides, I would imagine the OP was pointing out that large armies have been trained in the past and proved their effectiveness in a relatively short time, regardless of how alien the profession of soldiering was to the recruits. I don't care if you project into the 22nd century, soldiering will never become so complicated that a soldier cannot become proficient and effective before his first hitch is up.
yours truly
Golden Member
its an interesting question, personally i would say no
but if i was a US general, i would say yes, now lets get the fuck out. goodluck
but if i was a US general, i would say yes, now lets get the fuck out. goodluck
Fern
Elite Member
But he's saying why can't they be trained up quick like in WWII and be at WWII levels. My point is that they are. But that's not sufficient for the much different task at hand.
I believe if the objective was to train them up for a WWII *big theatre* combat operation against, oh say, Iran that, yeah, we could do that quickly. But counter-insurgency seems a whole different ball of wax to me. I seem to recall WWII methodology not working so well in Vietnam - a counter insurgency/guerilla thing. (And jungle fighting strikes me much different than desert/Medina fighting too.)
But again, the time consuming problem is officers and command from what the military says.
Fern
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Multiple reasons. Just a couple off the top of my head:
1) We had an existing military structure in place for WWII as dilapidated as it was with lots of military experience to build upon. Meanwhile, we completely scrapped the Iraqi army and are trying to rebuild it from the ground up.
2) NCOs are an invaluable resource. The Iraqi army essentially didn't have the benefit of these or even higher up commanders because of #1
3) The original training plan was a disaster that had to be scrapped and redone. The new training plan is working.
And to say the Iraqi Army doesn't want to fight is ridiculous. They are leading operations in Iraq now with support from US troops. Iraqi troops are in control of the majority of provinces in Iraq. The Iraqi Army taking over Mosul was a success. Meanwhile, the Iraqi PM just announced that the Iraqi Army will take over security by year's end.
1) We had an existing military structure in place for WWII as dilapidated as it was with lots of military experience to build upon. Meanwhile, we completely scrapped the Iraqi army and are trying to rebuild it from the ground up.
2) NCOs are an invaluable resource. The Iraqi army essentially didn't have the benefit of these or even higher up commanders because of #1
3) The original training plan was a disaster that had to be scrapped and redone. The new training plan is working.
And to say the Iraqi Army doesn't want to fight is ridiculous. They are leading operations in Iraq now with support from US troops. Iraqi troops are in control of the majority of provinces in Iraq. The Iraqi Army taking over Mosul was a success. Meanwhile, the Iraqi PM just announced that the Iraqi Army will take over security by year's end.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
The US fought and won WW2 and then spent 7 more years occupying Japan and Germany. Then we kept their military forces severely limited for decades beyond that. So there's no comparison whatsoever.
Do you even bother to read history, techs? Or do you ignore it so you can create these troll threads?
Do you even bother to read history, techs? Or do you ignore it so you can create these troll threads?
Lemon law
Lifer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the entire techs flawed idea in this post is the implicit assumption that US training is the big MIA in action
factor that explains the poor performance of Iraqi troops.
Which is largely poppycock.
When IMHO, the big missing factor is the unwarranted implicit assumption that Iraqi troops would in any way share the goals of the USA. Especially when the Iraqi veterans were kicked out of the army and replaced by raw recruits who looked at army pay and training as simply the only available way to get employment. It may be all well in fine initially as their units trained in the same areas as they enlisted, but when they are suddenly ripped away from their families, marched hundreds of miles away, and then told to kill or be killed by their fellow Iraqis, for many, this is simply not what they signed up to do. That plus the fact that their ideas of protecting their narrow sectarian interests often conflicts with the mission they are suddenly asked to preform.
Over time, the Iraqi army may lose some of these fair weather troops, but at least during the early days of the surge, it was a matter than Iraqi troops were so co opted by the the Iraqi insurgencies, that these troops were worse than useless as they caused more ethnic cleansing than they prevented.
jackschmittusa
Diamond Member
Fern
There was extensive urban fighting during WWII. We did some of it, trained many others to be urban fighters, The Germans fought extensively in urban environments against many people not wearing uniforms. None of this knowledge and experience disappeared.
I doubt it takes rocket scientists to operate anti-IED gear. We also seem to guard our night vision stuff, feeling it is of significant advantage to us, particularly in armor and helos.
Computers? They may use them to keep inventories, but command-and-control is likely very limited. We will never allow them access to our sat links that make ours work so well.
Comm intercepts? Electronic communication does not seem to be the method of choice by the various insurgent groups.
Previous officers up to and incl. Lt. Col were allowed to rejoin the army (noncomms too). They don't use army, division, or brigade size units in any operations, so experienced majors and Lt. cols can lead battalions and regiments. Combined arms training is of little use as they really don't have an air force, navy, or armor to speak of. I know of no plans to immediately give them any either. When they rely on our heavy stuff, we call the shots.
Sadamm's army fought the Iranians for 10 years. The army didn't fall apart after that and more got experience during the first gulf war.
We also have an extraordinary amount of data collected and preserved about combat in this specific region (voice, video, after action reports, etc.) to draw upon for creating superb and accurate training. Not to mention the opportunities for OJT for the Iraqis.
I believe training the Iraqis has gone poorly for various reasons and cannot be excused as being difficult or extraordinarily broad. Without examining and understanding the real reasons for the slow pace, one cannot even begin to guess when they will finally "be ready".
There was extensive urban fighting during WWII. We did some of it, trained many others to be urban fighters, The Germans fought extensively in urban environments against many people not wearing uniforms. None of this knowledge and experience disappeared.
I doubt it takes rocket scientists to operate anti-IED gear. We also seem to guard our night vision stuff, feeling it is of significant advantage to us, particularly in armor and helos.
Computers? They may use them to keep inventories, but command-and-control is likely very limited. We will never allow them access to our sat links that make ours work so well.
Comm intercepts? Electronic communication does not seem to be the method of choice by the various insurgent groups.
Previous officers up to and incl. Lt. Col were allowed to rejoin the army (noncomms too). They don't use army, division, or brigade size units in any operations, so experienced majors and Lt. cols can lead battalions and regiments. Combined arms training is of little use as they really don't have an air force, navy, or armor to speak of. I know of no plans to immediately give them any either. When they rely on our heavy stuff, we call the shots.
Sadamm's army fought the Iranians for 10 years. The army didn't fall apart after that and more got experience during the first gulf war.
We also have an extraordinary amount of data collected and preserved about combat in this specific region (voice, video, after action reports, etc.) to draw upon for creating superb and accurate training. Not to mention the opportunities for OJT for the Iraqis.
I believe training the Iraqis has gone poorly for various reasons and cannot be excused as being difficult or extraordinarily broad. Without examining and understanding the real reasons for the slow pace, one cannot even begin to guess when they will finally "be ready".
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
I think that Techs raises a legitimate question. We have a "basic training" period here of a couple of months and then you are sent onto your designated role/station training which lasts up to a couple of years.
We have long exceeded the standards for training military personal that we place within our own ranks are surely are not training them up to the same capabilities/standards so as to have them use that knowledge on us some day.
Why is the training taking so much longer?
Oh, and about Patreus' fabulous plan that is now working....You guys do realize that it was Patreus that was in charge of training of the Iraqi army in the first place before his promotion, right?
Did he feel that the training regimen was inadequate while he was supposed to be implementing it and didn't have the stones to stand up to the Bush admin and tell them? If he hasn't made any wholesale changes in the plan and felt that it was a viable solution to the training needs, was he just incompetent and unable to implement it himself?
We have long exceeded the standards for training military personal that we place within our own ranks are surely are not training them up to the same capabilities/standards so as to have them use that knowledge on us some day.
Why is the training taking so much longer?
Oh, and about Patreus' fabulous plan that is now working....You guys do realize that it was Patreus that was in charge of training of the Iraqi army in the first place before his promotion, right?
Did he feel that the training regimen was inadequate while he was supposed to be implementing it and didn't have the stones to stand up to the Bush admin and tell them? If he hasn't made any wholesale changes in the plan and felt that it was a viable solution to the training needs, was he just incompetent and unable to implement it himself?
Lemon law
Lifer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There we have it, the typical palehorse74 chest thumping ego enhancing diplomatic answer
we have come to expect from him. No underlying logic, just ego.
But its totally lame on this thread, because its signed " Thank You, the US Military."
Pardon me, I thought this thread was about the Iraqi military and when they would be ready.
And instead, we have palehorse74 begging for more time for the US military to finally get ready to do the job they have been bungling at for five plus years in Iraq and six plus years
in Afghanistan. So finally we get some honesty from palehorse74, and we can now ask when the US Military will finally be ready to fight in some more intelligent manner.
This side comment posted on behalf of the the US taxpayer.
techs
Lifer
I think the entire techs flawed idea in this post is the implicit assumption that US training is the big MIA in action
Actually my point is that they have had way more than enough time to be trained.
And therefore it is not a question of training, but that the Iraqi government doesn't have any support and that soldiers in Iraq will NOT fight not CAN'T.
Like Viet Namh the defining issue is that the government doesn't have the support of the people.
And like Viet Namh we can stay for 100 years and that won't change.
JTsyo
Lifer
I think we can say they're finally ready when they invade and defeat Iran for us.
Really though, from what I hear they've come a long way so far. I don't think it's the actually training that's the hold up but getting them experienced in the job. The army's job in Iraq is a lot different than those during WW2. It's more of a policing action than assault roles.
Really though, from what I hear they've come a long way so far. I don't think it's the actually training that's the hold up but getting them experienced in the job. The army's job in Iraq is a lot different than those during WW2. It's more of a policing action than assault roles.
As decent army requires a cadre of NCOs to control the troops and an officer corp that have been trained to lead.
Iraq has neither.
It takes 7-10 years for a person to get to that training level.
The troops also have to have an opponent that they want to beat.
Without that, it takes longer with higher casualties.
Iraq has neither.
It takes 7-10 years for a person to get to that training level.
The troops also have to have an opponent that they want to beat.
Without that, it takes longer with higher casualties.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
I answered that in my post above.
1) We had an existing military structure in place for WWII as dilapidated as it was with lots of military experience to build upon. Meanwhile, we completely scrapped the Iraqi army and are trying to rebuild it from the ground up.
2) NCOs are an invaluable resource. The Iraqi army essentially didn't have the benefit of these or even higher up commanders because of #1
3) The original training plan was a disaster that had to be scrapped and redone. The new training plan is working.
Petraeus was not in charge of training the Iraqi forces originally. That was another General. Petraeus practically had to scrap everything and start all over.
Link
Petraeus is the one that wrote the current book on counter-insurgency operations btw.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
