Al Maliki says Iraqi forces to take charge in '07

[dustdevil28]

Iraq forces to take over security in '07
AP - 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Thursday he believed Iraqi forces would be ready by June 2007 to take full control of security in Iraq, an issue on which he pressed President Bush during their meeting in Amman, Jordan. In making the argument that his military and police could handle security in the country, al-Maliki has routinely said the force could do the job within six months.


news.yahoo.com/fc/World/iraq

[peterd]

I heard bits and pieces of it. I am willing to bet that Iraqi security forces are not totally ready to fight the insurgents. Al Maliki is trying to sit on the top of a fence, on one side cattering to Al Sadr on the opposite side telling the free world that they can handle the situation. Once we start leaving, kurds will try to declare autonomy. They don't want to be part of the current Iraqi government system. If that happens, Turkey and syria will have to act. That would be a mess. Kurds got 120,000 pershmergas.

[Sailor]

peterd said:

I heard bits and pieces of it. I am willing to bet that Iraqi security forces are not totally ready to fight the insurgents. Al Maliki is trying to sit on the top of a fence, on one side cattering to Al Sadr on the opposite side telling the free world that they can handle the situation. Once we start leaving, kurds will try to declare autonomy. They don't want to be part of the current Iraqi government system. If that happens, Turkey and syria will have to act. That would be a mess. Kurds got 120,000 pershmergas.

It's going to be a mess no matter what.

[peterd]

If Maliki thinks that he can do better job in Baghdad, that we should pull out and see what troops can do. If he fully engages Al Sadr, he is gone need our help with armor and aircraft. It is a mess.

[dustdevil28]

..... maybe less.

I don't want to see a drawdown of our forces just to hear latter that the Iraqi forces assisted in 'calming' Baghdad by assisting Al-Sadr in wholesale slotter of the Sunnis.

Still, at some point this is a decision that is going to have to be made. If the government is going to regain any legitimacy from the gangs and militias than we're going to have to give more control of their armed forces over to the Iraqi government with the understanding that all malitia's will either disband on their own, or be forced to.

[peterd]

To fight the insurgents in Baghdad we need better tactics. This job is for small special forces. For unconventional warfare you need to apply unconventional forces.

[dustdevil28]

peterd said:

To fight the insurgents in Baghdad we need better tactics. This job is for small special forces. For unconventional warfare you need to apply unconventional forces.

Agreed Peter,

I'm not sure of the actual number, but I think Iraq currently only has about half of what they need in a effective special forces unit. Perhaps the replacement of some of our conventianal forces with Iraqis and the maintainment of of the Special forces would best aid the situation.

[peterd]

We have to take into consideration how long it takes to traine a soldier to became fully effective. I am not just talking about basic training. Even to traine our special forces troop takes few years. In Iraq we are starting from beggining. None of these Iraqis will be fully effective until about next summer. Our politicians are playing with loaded gun and that can backfire on them.

[MrDoublel]

Training soldiers is easy. During WWII we trained millions in the same amount of time we have been in Iraq. It's making/training effective leaders that takes time. During WWII we had a cadre of officers and NCO's to build on. In Iraq we are starting from scratch and that's what's taking time. Plus there's the the whole culture of corruption in that part of the world...It's an uphill battle...

[dustdevil28]

sfcdoublel said:

Training soldiers is easy. During WWII we trained millions in the same amount of time we have been in Iraq. It's making/training effective leaders that takes time. During WWII we had a cadre of officers and NCO's to build on. In Iraq we are starting from scratch and that's what's taking time. Plus there's the the whole culture of corruption in that part of the world...It's an uphill battle...

And with the media and the newly elected dems tinking of desperation I don't think this bodes well for us.

[peterd]

During the WWII we trained many soldiers from many different nations. The focus was to defeat Hitler and Tojo. This was a free nations effort. Today we still train many soldiers and officers from many different nations. I have nothing against the training. The key question here is politics and tactics. If politics does not allow you to fully engage the enemy, then you have a problem. Maliki is sitting on the top of a fence and he does not know whom to appease. He is talking from both sides of his mouth. Fact is that Al Sadr and his Mahdi army is a menace. Maliki is trying to appease Al Sadr and our politicans are trying to appease Maliki. This will never work.

[MrDoublel]

I just never understood why we let al Sadr get away when we had him cornered.

[dustdevil28]

peterd said:

The key question here is politics and tactics. If politics does not allow you to fully engage the enemy, then you have a problem.

This can be used to describe the whole war on terror. President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have said time and time again that they were working with the Generals on the ground and going with whatever suggestion they made to help keep up the fight in Iraq, but with the politcal atmosphere in the country right now, people I think are getting a little restless and our enemies are seeing this and taking the initiative.

Maliki is sitting on the top of a fence and he does not know whom to appease. He is talking from both sides of his mouth. Fact is that Al Sadr and his Mahdi army is a menace. Maliki is trying to appease Al Sadr and our politicans are trying to appease Maliki. This will never work.

I'll give Maliki enough creadit to say that the situation in Iraq is not entirely his fault. The Iraqi government does not have full control over their military and so their ability to take action against the militias is limited and this has shown in his frustration over our pressure on him.

From the Iraqis perspective, they are being attacked and the government cannot protect them. The militias can, so they support the militias over the elected government. As soon as the Maliki goverment gets the controls they say they need they should take immediate action to curb the militias with their own forces along with US air support to try and quell the violence and regain confidence of the populace and put the militias out of business. Perhaps better press coverage of these events should be needed.

I wonder what the reprocussions would be right now if we pursued action against Al-Sadr? They would be much worse than it was a few years ago, but he and his malitia continue to be a major problem for peace, and I only see that problem getting worse, and as even that Baker report and our new SECDEF have pointed out, Iraq is the key to the middle east right now. Our results in Iraq will shap the ME for years to come.

[peterd]

The problem is that militias are out of control. They kind of remind me the old Chicago mafia gangs in 1930's. At least those who combat them had enough fire power and more freedom to do it. Our soldiers need the same type of support. I still say that job to get rid off Al Sadr and his mutly crew is for special ops. They don't need to capture them, just eliminate them. If our government is affraid to do it, give this job to the private security companies like Executive Decision. There are plenty of those going around. They did very good job in Sierra Leone. They got eventually defeated by politics and my "most favored" organization, U.N.. What a worthless organization.