U.S. officer describes disarray in Iraqi army

[International Machine Consortium]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/02/training.iraqis/index.html
In an assessment for a military journal, a U.S. Army officer who advised Iraqi troops concludes the goal of having Iraq control its security "will exceed" the new army's capability "for some time to come."

Grunow found and grappled with several problems during his experience.

One was what he called the Iraqi "death blossom," in which any enemy attack on the soldiers "provokes the average Iraqi soldier to empty his 30-round magazine and fire whatever belt of ammunition happens to be in his machine gun."

"Ninety percent of the time, there is no target, and the soldiers always agree that this is extremely dangerous, in addition to being a grievous waste of ammunition. But they continue to do it."

How's that stay the course thing going? Doesn't sound so good....
The Republicans assure us that the Iraqi Army will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq's security. That appears to be rather dubious at this juncture. Unless you consider firing a full load of ammo every time something moves assuming responsibility....

 

[Red Dawn]

I have a feeling that the Iraqi soldiers we train today we'll be fighting against tomorrow so maybe it's a good thing they suck.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Heh. Good point. The gov has proven time and again how adept they are at manufacturing their own enemies.
Osama, Saddam, etc....

 

[International Machine Consortium]

DP

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by Googer

"Author Icon
International Machine Consortium
Senior Member

Posts: 576
Joined: 08/01/2006"

What a name!

-------------------------
# WWII in Colour
# XMS vs. Value: A RAM Showdown
# PICS.BBZZDD.COM Contest
# Silicon Zoo

I'm a big Carl Sagan fan.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Heh. Good point. The gov has proven time and again how adept they are at manufacturing their own enemies.
Osama, Saddam, etc....

We had nothing to do with "manufacturing" Osama. That is 100% anti-war rhetoric. None of our money or training support during the Soviet-Afghan War went to Osama and his group. He had his own financiers and the Pakistani ISI, who acted as the middle-man in all of our support for the Muj, never directed a single weapon or penny toward Osama, for whom they had no love at the time.

just an FYI... I hate seeing people go on believing that nonsense.

as for the topic at hand, most realists recognize the need for American troops to stay in Iraq for a long time to come. now, will the American public let that happen, or will they force the next Admin to pull out prematurely? This is the million dollar question...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Heh. Good point. The gov has proven time and again how adept they are at manufacturing their own enemies.
Osama, Saddam, etc....

We had nothing to do with "manufacturing" Osama. That is 100% anti-war rhetoric. None of our money or training support during the Soviet-Afghan War went to Osama and his group. He had his own financiers and the Pakistani ISI, who acted as the middle-man in all of our support for the Muj, never directed a single weapon or penny toward Osama, for whom they had no love at the time.

just an FYI... I hate seeing people go on believing that nonsense.

as for the topic at hand, most realists recognize the need for American troops to stay in Iraq for a long time to come. now, will the American public let that happen, or will they force the next Admin to pull out prematurely? This is the million dollar question...

Anti War?' As compared to what, Pro War? Are you Pro War?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Heh, exactly. Pro War! What an admirable thing that is.
Of course I'm anti-war. Everyone should be. Some of my best friends are. 😉
So we didn't help arm Osama in order to offset the Russian foray into Afghanistan? What history books are you reading? The Karl Rove history reinvented version?
Any comment on the actual OP btw? Or just more diversionary crap...

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Heh. Good point. The gov has proven time and again how adept they are at manufacturing their own enemies.
Osama, Saddam, etc....

We had nothing to do with "manufacturing" Osama. That is 100% anti-war rhetoric. None of our money or training support during the Soviet-Afghan War went to Osama and his group. He had his own financiers and the Pakistani ISI, who acted as the middle-man in all of our support for the Muj, never directed a single weapon or penny toward Osama, for whom they had no love at the time.

just an FYI... I hate seeing people go on believing that nonsense.

as for the topic at hand, most realists recognize the need for American troops to stay in Iraq for a long time to come. now, will the American public let that happen, or will they force the next Admin to pull out prematurely? This is the million dollar question...

Anti War?' As compared to what, Pro War? Are you Pro War?

when the need arises yes.

of course in your opinion the need wasn't there...but that's your opinion.

Don't give me the "well we were lead astray because they told us Saddam had WMD" BS...I can remember when BEFORE we even went in and we had what we thought was real evidence that there was WMD provded to us by sources OTHER than the CIA and there was a large segment of the population that was too put off by the thought of war to actually pull the trigger.

So no, you were not fooled by this administration at all because you never believed in the first place.

but if you recall WMD was not the only reason, there were others and no, 9/11 was not one of them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Heh. Good point. The gov has proven time and again how adept they are at manufacturing their own enemies.
Osama, Saddam, etc....

We had nothing to do with "manufacturing" Osama. That is 100% anti-war rhetoric. None of our money or training support during the Soviet-Afghan War went to Osama and his group. He had his own financiers and the Pakistani ISI, who acted as the middle-man in all of our support for the Muj, never directed a single weapon or penny toward Osama, for whom they had no love at the time.

just an FYI... I hate seeing people go on believing that nonsense.

as for the topic at hand, most realists recognize the need for American troops to stay in Iraq for a long time to come. now, will the American public let that happen, or will they force the next Admin to pull out prematurely? This is the million dollar question...

Anti War?' As compared to what, Pro War? Are you Pro War?

when the need arises yes.

of course in your opinion the need wasn't there...but that's your opinion.

Don't give me the "well we were lead astray because they told us Saddam had WMD" BS...I can remember when BEFORE we even went in and we had what we thought was real evidence that there was WMD provded to us by sources OTHER than the CIA and there was a large segment of the population that was too put off by the thought of war to actually pull the trigger.

So no, you were not fooled by this administration at all because you never believed in the first place.

but if you recall WMD was not the only reason, there were others and no, 9/11 was not one of them.

Actually I did believe them and I gave them my support with one caveat, they better be 100% right which they weren't. They were wrong, we were led astray and now we're fscked. That's what we get for believing Bush and his Neocon handlers. It won't happen again.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's what we get for believing Bush and his Neocon handlers. It won't happen again.

Agreed! I'll be damned if I vote for Bush again!

 

[Lemon law]

as for the topic at hand, most realists recognize the need for American troops to stay in Iraq for a long time to come. now, will the American public let that happen, or will they force the next Admin to pull out prematurely? This is the million dollar question...Or so says Palehorse 74

Where the hell did you come up with only the million dollar question?

To put things in proper perserspective---its a 2.5 billion dollar question-----each and every week!!!!!!!

And each and every week total mis-management puts victory---whatever that is---further away!

And does not count such human costs as death and disability---the US has only lost less than 3000---and Iraqi deaths are now estimated at 655,000----or as Ted Rall says---formely living people.

All so GWB can put war time prez on his resume.

I may have a better idea---impeach the current administration---and don't kich the can down the road to the next President.

 

[imported_Infidel]

How can we expect the Iraqi military/police force to ever become a competent entity when we have incompetents directing the entire operation?

Unqualified Cronies Appointed to Coalition Provisional Authority. Department of Defense political appointee Jim O'Beirne had been tasked with filling positions on organization which is to rebuild Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority. "Applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration. O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade." Jim O'Beirne is married to conservative commentator Kate O'Beirne. [Washington Post, 9/17/06]

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's what we get for believing Bush and his Neocon handlers. It won't happen again.

Agreed! I'll be damned if I vote for Bush again!

:roll: However you'd probably buy into any reason he'd give to invade another country.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Heh. Good point. The gov has proven time and again how adept they are at manufacturing their own enemies.
Osama, Saddam, etc....

We had nothing to do with "manufacturing" Osama. That is 100% anti-war rhetoric. None of our money or training support during the Soviet-Afghan War went to Osama and his group. He had his own financiers and the Pakistani ISI, who acted as the middle-man in all of our support for the Muj, never directed a single weapon or penny toward Osama, for whom they had no love at the time.

just an FYI... I hate seeing people go on believing that nonsense.

as for the topic at hand, most realists recognize the need for American troops to stay in Iraq for a long time to come. now, will the American public let that happen, or will they force the next Admin to pull out prematurely? This is the million dollar question...

Anti War?' As compared to what, Pro War? Are you Pro War?

My clarification with regards to OBL was sem-OT. The claim that we somehow "created" Osama is an old one with its roots in the initial Anti-war rhetoric immediately following 9/11. It is blatantly false and that was my only reason for commenting on it here in this thread.

I continued on to comment on the actual topic of this thread and don't mean to derail it into a discussion of OBL.

This Army officer is not far off in his evaluation of iraqi Army performance, but he does not mention often enoguh the progress that they have made since their trainign began. Like I said, most of us who are involved in the war have already admitted to ourselves that we will likely need to stay in Iraq for some time to come. The only reason to pull out sooner, rather than later, would be due to political pressure at home. In order to "accomplish the mission" we set out to accomplish, it will take several more years of commitment to the arming and training of the the Iraqi forces. This is true in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They are longterm projects being harrassed by an an American populace who do not have the patience or tenacity to see them through.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Heh, exactly. Pro War! What an admirable thing that is.
Of course I'm anti-war. Everyone should be. Some of my best friends are. 😉
So we didn't help arm Osama in order to offset the Russian foray into Afghanistan? What history books are you reading? The Karl Rove history reinvented version?
Any comment on the actual OP btw? Or just more diversionary crap...

I made comments of OBL -and- the OP. but to answer your question, we most certainly did not supply arms or money for OBL during the Soviet-Afghan War. I suggest that you do a little reading on the subject instead of repeating the lies you've heard through the anti-war grapevine. One good place to start is "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll. In the book you will learn how we funneled support and moneys through the Pakistanti ISI. You will also learn that none of that support ended up in OBL's hands. (The ISI did not like OBL with his Arab arrogance... and he also didnt need our support. He had money flowing in from Arab doners that made any U.S. support unnecessary). Our support went to many other Muj leaders and soldiers, but never OBL directly.

/end lesson

now, as I tried to do in each of my other posts here, let's back to the topic at hand.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's what we get for believing Bush and his Neocon handlers. It won't happen again.

Agreed! I'll be damned if I vote for Bush again!

:roll: However you'd probably buy into any reason he'd give to invade another country.

No, but I would buy into the fact theres countries out there with bad men who wish harm upon us. How you can sit back and compromise our national security in the sake of our own warped political interests is beyond me. I for one appreciate the fact we have people with spine in office who think maybe its better to take a hard stand against those who would do us harm, rather then give them the means to do it.

But you can stand on whatever side you wish. Thats the beauty of this country. And although you choose to stanbd on the side that wants to see this country ruined, that doesnt mean you cant still enjoy what this country has to offer until you've done your part to destroy it.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Heh, exactly. Pro War! What an admirable thing that is.
Of course I'm anti-war. Everyone should be. Some of my best friends are. 😉
So we didn't help arm Osama in order to offset the Russian foray into Afghanistan? What history books are you reading? The Karl Rove history reinvented version?
Any comment on the actual OP btw? Or just more diversionary crap...

I made comments of OBL -and- the OP. but to answer your question, we most certainly did not supply arms or money for OBL during the Soviet-Afghan War. I suggest that you do a little reading on the subject instead of repeating the lies you've heard through the anti-war grapevine. One good place to start is "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll. In the book you will learn how we funneled support and moneys through the Pakistanti ISI. You will also learn that none of that support ended up in OBL's hands. (The ISI did not like OBL with his Arab arrogance... and he also didnt need our support. He had money flowing in from Arab doners that made any U.S. support unnecessary). Our support went to many other Muj leaders and soldiers, but never OBL directly.

/end lesson

now, as I tried to do in each of my other posts here, let's back to the topic at hand.

Where do you come up with this crap? lol!

According to the author of the newly released Charlie Wilson's War, the exception to CIA incompetence was the arming between 1979 and 1988 of thousands of Afghan moujahedeen ("freedom fighters"). The agency flooded Afghanistan with an astonishing array of extremely dangerous weapons and "unapologetically mov[ed] to equip and train cadres of high tech holy warriors in the art of waging a war of urban terror against a modern superpower," in this case, the USSR.

http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html
There are hundreds more Sites you can check out. You might start by reading some non-fiction!

The U.S. started the Mujahadeen. That's where Osama came from. We created him. Same thing with Saddam, we enabled him too, to counter Iran. Bush and Rumsfeld were good buddies of his. One f**k up after another.
/smackupsidethehead

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's what we get for believing Bush and his Neocon handlers. It won't happen again.

Agreed! I'll be damned if I vote for Bush again!

:roll: However you'd probably buy into any reason he'd give to invade another country.

No, but I would buy into the fact theres countries out there with bad men who wish harm upon us. How you can sit back and compromise our national security in the sake of our own warped political interests is beyond me. I for one appreciate the fact we have people with spine in office who think maybe its better to take a hard stand against those who would do us harm, rather then give them the means to do it.

But you can stand on whatever side you wish. Thats the beauty of this country. And although you choose to stanbd on the side that wants to see this country ruined, that doesnt mean you cant still enjoy what this country has to offer until you've done your part to destroy it.

Ohhh right, that must be the "Axis of weevils" I've heard so much about. :disgust:
NOW there are 3 countries that are going to harm us. Dubya's "brilliant" "plan" is going to cost us dearly.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Heh, exactly. Pro War! What an admirable thing that is.
Of course I'm anti-war. Everyone should be. Some of my best friends are. 😉
So we didn't help arm Osama in order to offset the Russian foray into Afghanistan? What history books are you reading? The Karl Rove history reinvented version?
Any comment on the actual OP btw? Or just more diversionary crap...

I made comments of OBL -and- the OP. but to answer your question, we most certainly did not supply arms or money for OBL during the Soviet-Afghan War. I suggest that you do a little reading on the subject instead of repeating the lies you've heard through the anti-war grapevine. One good place to start is "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll. In the book you will learn how we funneled support and moneys through the Pakistanti ISI. You will also learn that none of that support ended up in OBL's hands. (The ISI did not like OBL with his Arab arrogance... and he also didnt need our support. He had money flowing in from Arab doners that made any U.S. support unnecessary). Our support went to many other Muj leaders and soldiers, but never OBL directly.

/end lesson

now, as I tried to do in each of my other posts here, let's back to the topic at hand.

Where do you come up with this crap? lol!

According to the author of the newly released Charlie Wilson's War, the exception to CIA incompetence was the arming between 1979 and 1988 of thousands of Afghan moujahedeen ("freedom fighters"). The agency flooded Afghanistan with an astonishing array of extremely dangerous weapons and "unapologetically mov[ed] to equip and train cadres of high tech holy warriors in the art of waging a war of urban terror against a modern superpower," in this case, the USSR.

http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html
There are hundreds more Sites you can check out. You might start by reading some non-fiction!

The U.S. started the Mujahadeen. That's where Osama came from. We created him. Same thing with Saddam, we enabled him too, to counter Iran. Bush and Rumsfeld were good buddies of his. One f**k up after another.
/smackupsidethehead

The Mujahideen existed and fought prior to U.S. intervention; and the fact remains that no support went from the U.S. via the ISI, to OBL directly. He was just another fighter and a fanatic who traveled from Arabia to join the Muj in their battle against the Soviets. His personal fanaticism was not "created" by the U.S., nor was his founding of Al Qaeda after the war.

you really need to stop. I've taught courses on the Soviet-Afghan War. I already pointed you to one of the best sources of info (non-fiction btw). Coll's book is a fantastic account of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1988. I highly suggest you read it in its entirety before trying to debate me on this issue. It's one of dozens that I've read and used as references to give lectures on this very subject.

if you wish to speak of OBL's "creation," then shoot me a PM. I'd be very glad to teach you.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's what we get for believing Bush and his Neocon handlers. It won't happen again.

Agreed! I'll be damned if I vote for Bush again!

:roll: However you'd probably buy into any reason he'd give to invade another country.

No, but I would buy into the fact theres countries out there with bad men who wish harm upon us. How you can sit back and compromise our national security in the sake of our own warped political interests is beyond me. I for one appreciate the fact we have people with spine in office who think maybe its better to take a hard stand against those who would do us harm, rather then give them the means to do it.

But you can stand on whatever side you wish. Thats the beauty of this country. And although you choose to stanbd on the side that wants to see this country ruined, that doesnt mean you cant still enjoy what this country has to offer until you've done your part to destroy it.

Ohhh right, that must be the "Axis of weevils" I've heard so much about. :disgust:
NOW there are 3 countries that are going to harm us. Dubya's "brilliant" "plan" is going to cost us dearly.

And I would like to take a moment to thank the Democrats for putting us in this situation, and not helping us out of it.

Hang that picture of Chavez high my friend. Dont forget to every day work towards tearing the country apart.

But, it is your right to do so.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Really. The Republicans control every aspect of the government, have moved precipitously on all fronts, and now you want to run away from your record.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

That appears to be rather dubious at this juncture. Unless you consider firing a full load of ammo every time something moves assuming responsibility....

So the officer quoted in this story was my ex-boss('s boss...well, more like my ex-boss's peer who he, on paper, answered to). We had a good laugh around the OC when we found the article on CNN this morning.

Yes, the death blossom is a frightening thing and measuring the nominal quality of the IA certainly would make for frustration for people back in America. But if you could see all the growth the IA officers have done this year, and continue to do, you wouldn't be nearly as negative.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's what we get for believing Bush and his Neocon handlers. It won't happen again.

Agreed! I'll be damned if I vote for Bush again!

:roll: However you'd probably buy into any reason he'd give to invade another country.

No, but I would buy into the fact theres countries out there with bad men who wish harm upon us. How you can sit back and compromise our national security in the sake of our own warped political interests is beyond me. I for one appreciate the fact we have people with spine in office who think maybe its better to take a hard stand against those who would do us harm, rather then give them the means to do it.

But you can stand on whatever side you wish. Thats the beauty of this country. And although you choose to stanbd on the side that wants to see this country ruined, that doesnt mean you cant still enjoy what this country has to offer until you've done your part to destroy it.

No I stand against those who are in power now that are ruining this country.

 

[b0mbrman]

Much more importantly, if anyone cares about knowing the full story (I know I'm going out on a limb here), I recommend reading the writeup in Military Review that the CNN article references.