NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19200715/

1) Immediately take U.S. forces out of Samarra to see how the IA and IP handle the new mosque bombings.

If they handle it well

2) Immediately dedicate 20,000 more forces for the training of Iraqis and speed up the process by reducing U.S. presence in other areas.

3) Exploit the new alliance of Sunni tribes in anbar by giving them police powers in their specific village for the time that we are there. Once we leave, have the government decide

4) Send all new units to areas with fewest IA and IP to beef them up.

5) Once we have managed to free up around 50,000 forces, dedicate them to securing road ways and begin to transition force into solely a logistical train for iraqis

6) Build infrastructure for Iraqis to handle their own logistics.

7) Continue pulling out U.S. forces but leaving on air assets as leverage in case of a terrorist state being created.

If they don't handle it well

2) Consolidate IA and IP to begin an inkblot strategy

3) Transition force into one that is for logistical purposes only

4) Take U.S. forces out but leaving on air assets as leverage in case of a terrorist state being created.

I really think that now is a great time to form a plan, instead of a few years ago.

1) Immediately take U.S. forces out of Samarra to see how the IA and IP handle the new mosque bombings.
If they don't handle it well

2) Consolidate IA and IP to begin an inkblot strategy

3) Transition force into one that is for logistical purposes only

4) Take U.S. forces out but leaving on air assets as leverage in case of a terrorist state being created.

*puts hand up*

Um, explain how consolidating two forces that are riddled with death squads and members of militia's they're supposed to be fighting, into one bigger force, helps the issue?

*puts hand up*

Um, explain how consolidating two forces that are riddled with death squads and members of militia's they're supposed to be fighting, into one bigger force, helps the issue?

They're not exactly "riddled" and it's mainly just the IA. The inkblot takes a long time and it is hoped that over that time, the problem will be able to be sorted out from the inside. Either way, there really won't be much that we could do anyway.

They're not exactly "riddled" and it's mainly just the IA.

Ok, instead of "riddled", how about "a terrifyingly large amount of members"?

The inkblot takes a long time and it is hoped that over that time, the problem will be able to be sorted out from the inside.
Jesus, are the planners sinking to "hope" as an underlying theme. "If we close our eyes real tight, everything will be alright. We just gotta hope real hard."

Either way, there really won't be much that we could do anyway.
Meaning its not much of a plan, is it.

"Shit. It's not working."
"...oh well..."

Jesus, are the planners sinking to "hope" as an underlying theme. "If we close our eyes real tight, everything will be alright. We just gotta hope real hard."

Nothing like faith-based military strategy, eh?

Meaning its not much of a plan, is it.

While I take no opinion on this plan, I must say that your logic is infantile. The strength of a plan does not depend on its likelihood of working, but rather on its chance for success as compared to the next best idea. If an asteroid were on a collision course with Earth, trying to blow it up with nuclear weapons in order to divert it from its path would probably fail; however, to say that the only hope of saving humanity was "not much of a plan" would be dumb.

*puts hand up*

Um, explain how consolidating two forces that are riddled with death squads and members of militia's they're supposed to be fighting, into one bigger force, helps the issue?

The IA is far better off than the IP in that area, interestingly enough

Nothing like faith-based military strategy, eh?

Praying to god for help may be the most appealing of current options. Divine intervention aside we're fucked.

complete a year zero policy and then we can try this liberation thing again...

...well at least its workable!

The only problem with that plan is that there is no political will from either Americans or the increasingly irrelevant Baghdad government. It almost leads me to think that the initial proconsulship needed to be tighter, albeit more pragmatic than what we got.

Oh, in the other thread you said you were not allowed to advocate withdrawing forces, because you're in the military. Were you lying then, lying about being in the military, or are you simply violating military code?

The strength of a plan does not depend on its likelihood of working, but rather on its chance for success as compared to the next best idea.

"I don't think this plan will work"
"Let's do it anyway."


Then what's the point of trying in the first place if you know it's going to fail? *clicks fingers* Oh right, sorry, sorry. Hope.

Oh, in the other thread you said you were not allowed to advocate withdrawing forces, because you're in the military. Were you lying then, lying about being in the military, or are you simply violating military code?

If you would refresh your memory, that thread was about Harry Reid saying that we had already lost the war. This thread is not even close to that.

Go for it. Should be cool.

"I don't think this plan will work"
"Let's do it anyway."


Then what's the point of trying in the first place if you know it's going to fail? *clicks fingers* Oh right, sorry, sorry. Hope.

If IA and IP can't handle this situation, how are they going to be able to handle the many situations that will arise from our withdrawal from the country? What this would mean is that even after 4 years we have not accomplished much of anything. It would then, in my estimation, not be worth attempting to secure Iraq and our interests in the region with the current level of commitment.

I thought that you were a supporter of us leaving immediately. Am I incorrect in that?

If you would refresh your memory, that thread was about Harry Reid saying that we had already lost the war. This thread is not even close to that.

Yes, but you still said you were prohibited from advocating the withdrawal of forces, and you just advocated the withdrawing of forces from some areas.

Yes, but you still said you were prohibited from advocating the withdrawal of forces, and you just advocated the withdrawing of forces from some areas.

I do not believe that I would have said that b/c I do not think that. All I said was that saying that we have lost when we haven't as such a high ranking member of the gov't was not responsible.

This plan of USMC's does make a lot of sense, and I wish I could feel confident that it would work but the New Iraqi Army and Police seem to be brimming with corruption and infiltration. I read news reports of army units rolling in to fervently attack militants of the units sect (Shia, Sunni), and then put up lackluster performances and retreats when the same unit is supposed to engage their own sects militants.

I read reports of government ministries literally mortaring each other, Iraqi and Police unit infighting, mutinies etc.

Not to mention the Old Iraqi Army is in fact now a large part of the insurgency. The New Iraqi Army is made of Greenhorns, even at officer level. Such is the ridiculous policy of De-Baathisation.

The problem with your plan is that you assume that the Iraqis will accept a government they did not consent to. Odds are, what the US military sets up will most likely be overthrown.

Meh.

This plan of USMC's does make a lot of sense, and I wish I could feel confident that it would work but the New Iraqi Army and Police seem to be brimming with corruption and infiltration. I read news reports of army units rolling in to fervently attack militants of the units sect (Shia, Sunni), and then put up lackluster performances and retreats when the same unit is supposed to engage their own sects militants.
The IP does have some corruption in it. The IA, much less. We can look to the first Samarra bombings to see how they stood up when the real sectarian problems kicked in. They performed marvelously and maintained their loyalty to the government. That's why I think that they will perform again this time and we would be able to carry out the first scenario. And all of those reports are likely from 1.5-2 years ago.
I read reports of government ministries literally mortaring each other, Iraqi and Police unit infighting, mutinies etc.
The fact that you heard about it signifies that it is a rare enough occurrence for the media to actually pick it up.
Not to mention the Old Iraqi Army is in fact now a large part of the insurgency. The New Iraqi Army is made of Greenhorns, even at officer level. Such is the ridiculous policy of De-Baathisation.
The policy of De-Baathification is no more. Low ranking Baathists are no allowed to return to the military and in gov't roles.

The problem with your plan is that you assume that the Iraqis will accept a government they did not consent to. Odds are, what the US military sets up will most likely be overthrown.

1) They did consent to it. Ever heard of election?

2) It will not be overthrown if the IA and IP are the superior force in the country.

Any form of plan is useless. Iraq is beyond saving, let's pull out and create Festung West against the inevitable onslaught of the Islamic Hordes! [/racist pessimism]

1) They did consent to it. Ever heard of election?

The elections in which 1/3 of the nation didn't vote? Those ones? The ones where voting was on sectarian lines if it happened at all? Woot. Besides, all elections are shit - at best, the dictatorship of the majority, at worst, plain old dictatorship.

2) It will not be overthrown if the IA and IP are the superior force in the country.

HAHAHAHAHAHA yes, and that will happen when, exactly? Oh yes, when the coalition fucks off and the civil war burns out and the Iranians arm and train the IA...

Hey, hey, hey. I have a plan, too!!!

1) Talk really loud about how we're training the Iraqi army we've been training for the last 4 years.

2) Ignore the fact that reports indicate that every unit in the IA has been subverted.

3) Talk about withdrawing, but mention Germany and Japan as examples of long-term occupation, just in case.

4) Pray really loud, continue ignoring explosions and the exhaustion of the army.

5) ???

6) Profit!

For some reason, that sounds familiar.

The elections in which 1/3 of the nation didn't vote? Those ones? The ones where voting was on sectarian lines if it happened at all? Woot. Besides, all elections are shit - at best, the dictatorship of the majority, at worst, plain old dictatorship.
It was 72% turnout and that is much higher than any western democracy. If the people want to vote with their group then that is their right. They still have a say in their government.



HAHAHAHAHAHA yes, and that will happen when, exactly? Oh yes, when the coalition fucks off and the civil war burns out and the Iranians arm and train the IA...

In most areas of the country, it is right now.

1) Talk really loud about how we're training the Iraqi army we've been training for the last 4 years.
300,000 personnel and counting.
2) Ignore the fact that reports indicate that every unit in the IA has been subverted.
HAHA, even you know that that's bullshit.
3) Talk about withdrawing, but mention Germany and Japan as examples of long-term occupation, just in case.
Where the fuck did I mention Germany or Japan. Fucking idiot. Talk about strawmen.

It was 72% turnout and that is much higher than any western democracy.

And lower than under Saddam. ;) Let's regime-change London! 63% turnout? Appalling! I demand the 101st Airborne attack Westminster now!

In most areas of the country, it is right now.

That's... Kurdistan, and the deserts, then. Hurrah. But where it counts, the Iraqi Army and Police are either too busy killing other groups, or are riddled with militias, OR are death squads for the government/CIA.

Excellent. Superb. Why isn't the British army like that? It'd soon put an end to all the problems in Britain caused by not having a good army that outclasses the opposition!

The US should just turn the country to glass and be done with it.

300,000 personnel and counting.

Cool. That means, what... 50,000 new members for the militias right there?

HAHA, even you know that that's bullshit.

That doesn't mean every troop, merely that there is no part of the IA or IP without militia influence. I've seen that number bandied about a lot, even in the MSM.

Where the fuck did I mention Germany or Japan. Fucking idiot. Talk about strawmen.

Wasn't directly refferencing you, was I? I may have been pointing out that your plan was practically no different than every other pro-war politician (and some anti-war politicians) in DC, but I was attacking the mainstream politician's plan (which this seems to line up just fine with).

The US should just turn the country to glass and be done with it.

This is the most sensible idea in the whole thread

This is the most sensible idea in the whole thread

Quoted for lul

This is the most sensible idea in the whole thread

Sensible... and worst!

And lower than under Saddam. ;) Let's regime-change London! 63% turnout? Appalling! I demand the 101st Airborne attack Westminster now!
1) Saddam forced people to vote and to vote for him.

2) You are the idiot saying that 72% is low, not me.


That's... Kurdistan, and the deserts, then. Hurrah. But where it counts, the Iraqi Army and Police are either too busy killing other groups, or are riddled with militias, OR are death squads for the government/CIA.
No, that's in 15 out of 18 provinces. And no, they are doing good work. You really need to stop listening to Harry Reid.

Cool. That means, what... 50,000 new members for the militias right there?
I like the use of no evidence and arbitrary numbers. You'll go far with that kind of logic.


That doesn't mean every troop, merely that there is no part of the IA or IP without militia influence. I've seen that number bandied about a lot, even in the MSM.
No, not every unit has militia influence. The fact that you think that shows your vast inexperience and lack of knowledge.



Wasn't directly refferencing you, was I? I may have been pointing out that your plan was practically no different than every other pro-war politician (and some anti-war politicians) in DC, but I was attacking the mainstream politician's plan (which this seems to line up just fine with).
It was obviously directed at me. I have us leaving completely in my plan. You are really showing a lack of reading ability.

1) Saddam forced people to vote and to vote for him.

Still higher than 72%, and more believable than some dictators ("What's that, Comrade Amin? 204% vote for you?").

2) You are the idiot saying that 72% is low, not me.

It IS low, compared to the pre-war elections.


No, that's in 15 out of 18 provinces. And no, they are doing good work. You really need to stop listening to Harry Reid.

Let's see... *gets map of Iraq* ... the South is under the Jeish al-Mehdi, which rules that one out. The North is under the Kurds, the western desert bit is empty, which just leaves... oh yes! The really populous and super-violent area known as the centre of the country and capital of Iraq! Hoo-ah! Total success! The Iraqi Army is loyal when it's Kurds in Kurdistan, or Shia in the South, or anyone in the desert, but as soon as it gets into the shithole of the centre - oh look, death squads, treason, spies, militias, the works. Good one.

Oh - Who's Harry Reid when he's at home? :confused:

Still higher than 72%, and more believable than some dictators ("What's that, Comrade Amin? 204% vote for you?").



It IS low, compared to the pre-war elections.

Are you really comparing todays Iraqi elections and Saddam's? If you are, i think we're done here.


Let's see... *gets map of Iraq* ... the South is under the Jeish al-Mehdi, which rules that one out. The North is under the Kurds, the western desert bit is empty, which just leaves... oh yes! The really populous and super-violent area known as the centre of the country and capital of Iraq! Hoo-ah! Total success! The Iraqi Army is loyal when it's Kurds in Kurdistan, or Shia in the South, or anyone in the desert, but as soon as it gets into the shithole of the centre - oh look, death squads, treason, spies, militias, the works. Good one.
Here (http://billroggio.com/maps/map-Iraqi-Progress6.php)

I like the use of no evidence and arbitrary numbers. You'll go far with that kind of logic.

Sorry. Was I supposed to use evidence or numbers? I didn't see them in the OP.

No, not every unit has militia influence. The fact that you think that shows your vast inexperience and lack of knowledge.

Go team Ad Hominem! I'm telling you what I've seen. You can bandy about your "experience" until you are blue in the face, but your bias is clear.

It was obviously directed at me. I have us leaving completely in my plan. You are really showing a lack of reading ability.

I appologize if you mistook it as being directed at you. I had no intention of specifically mocking your plan, which only depends on the false assumption that the Iraqi Army and Police can be trusted at all. Neither course of action would be done by the end of the next President's second term. I can read just fine, I just beleive in applying reality to what I read.

1) They did consent to it. Ever heard of election?

Ever heard of invasion?

2) It will not be overthrown if the IA and IP are the superior force in the country.

I think it will. Because there's no way the US will do this right because they still have this insane belief that ideas can be shot dead.

Sorry. Was I supposed to use evidence or numbers? I didn't see them in the OP.
Was I making claims or trying to prove something/


Go team Ad Hominem! I'm telling you what I've seen. You can bandy about your "experience" until you are blue in the face, but your bias is clear.
So now you are ignoring the facts, covering your ears, and screaming Ad Hominem. Cute.


I appologize if you mistook it as being directed at you. I had no intention of specifically mocking your plan, which only depends on the false assumption that the Iraqi Army and Police can be trusted at all. Neither course of action would be done by the end of the next President's second term. I can read just fine, I just beleive in applying reality to what I read.
You are wrong that they can't be trusted but I see that there will be no convincing you.

That has no relevance at all.

Yes it does. The Iraqis never asked us to get rid of Saddam.



That has no relevance at all.

Yes it does. The factions that continue to fight are motivated by means that can not be extinguished by the US military.

Are you really comparing todays Iraqi elections and Saddam's? If you are, i think we're done here.

Yes, yes I am. I am indeed comparing pre-war elections with post-war elections.

Here (http://billroggio.com/maps/map-Iraqi-Progress6.php)

What I see there confirms what I said - the Kurds continue to control Iraqi Kurdistan as they have since the early 1990s, while the Jeish al-Mehdi control the South. I am surprised that the desert is still empty, but that might be because, well, it's desert, so no-one gives a shit. As for the rest... yeh, like I said, death squads, etc etc.

Ever heard of invasion?
That has no relevance at all.


I think it will. Because there's no way the US will do this right because they still have this insane belief that ideas can be shot dead.
That has no relevance at all.

Was I making claims or trying to prove something/

Well, I assume you were attempting to claim that your solution would work. Elsewise, I'm puzzled as to why you would post it.

So now you are ignoring the facts, covering your ears, and screaming Ad Hominem. Cute.

The irony of this statement does not escape me.

You are wrong that they can't be trusted but I see that there will be no convincing you.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-13-voa21.cfm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1294397.ece

Just the tip of the iceburg from 5 minutes of research. You are wrong, sir.

Yes, yes I am. I am indeed comparing pre-war elections with post-war elections.
You are saying that fake election are better than real elections.


What I see there confirms what I said - the Kurds continue to control Iraqi Kurdistan as they have since the early 1990s, while the Jeish al-Mehdi control the South. I am surprised that the desert is still empty, but that might be because, well, it's desert, so no-one gives a shit. As for the rest... yeh, like I said, death squads, etc etc.
No, that is IA and IP. Iraqi gov't forces. Not militia. Their loyalty is to the gov't. And Anbar is picking up in the Iraqi forces department as well as in every other area.

Well, I assume you were attempting to claim that your solution would work. Elsewise, I'm puzzled as to why you would post it.
I really just wanted to debate about Iraq. It's been kind of stale around here lately.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-13-voa21.cfm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1294397.ece

Just the tip of the iceburg from 5 minutes of research. You are wrong, sir.
Gen Dempsey cited the IP, not the IA. And the solution is to simply crack down on the corruption. Start programs to gain information on corrupt people and bring them down. An example of this happening can be found in Micheal Yon's blog if you are familiar with him.

You are saying that fake election are better than real elections.

I'm saying they're exactly the same. Pointless, and shit.

No, that is IA and IP. Iraqi gov't forces. Not militia. Their loyalty is to the gov't. And Anbar is picking up in the Iraqi forces department as well as in every other area.

Lulz. The Iraqi Army is divided on ethnic lines - the Kurds garrison the North, the Jeish al-Mehdi the South. The Chief of Police in Basra is on record as saying that his men are loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and Iran, not him or Baghdad.

I really just wanted to debate about Iraq. It's been kind of stale around here lately.

For a reason. Most of us feel that we're all fucked on the issue. The Dems won't shut down the Pres, and the Republicans won't even tell the truth about it. What more is there to say? The Iraq War Moratorium is on the 21st of September, and we'll be out in force then.


Gen Dempsey cited the IP, not the IA. And the solution is to simply crack down on the corruption. Start programs to gain information on corrupt people and bring them down. An example of this happening can be found in Micheal Yon's blog if you are familiar with him.

I'm not familiar with Yon, but I will say that it is not as easy as you seem to think. When the whole social structure of Iraq is in collapse, the military and police are going to reflect that.

You are saying that fake election are better than real elections.

At least in fake elections everyone is made aware that the results are falsified.

At least in fake elections everyone is made aware that the results are falsified.

If you are suggesting that the Iraqi elections were rigged, then you are making baseless and false claims.

If you are suggesting that the Iraqi elections were rigged, then you are making baseless and false claims.

All elections are rigged, comrade.

If you are suggesting that the Iraqi elections were rigged, then you are making baseless and false claims.

I did not mean the post-war Iraqi elections, and we can all guess the fate of the pre-war ones.

I'm saying they're exactly the same. Pointless, and shit.
Sounds like you have a problem with Democracy and would rather some other form of gov't. That's a completely different issue. Stop threadjacking and go make your own.


Lulz. The Iraqi Army is divided on ethnic lines - the Kurds garrison the North, the Jeish al-Mehdi the South. The Chief of Police in Basra is on record as saying that his men are loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and Iran, not him or Baghdad.
You are under a couple false impressions

1) Geographic regions equals ethnic regions
2) That IA units only patrol their neighborhoods
3) That IA units are not loyal to the government

1) Geographic regions equals ethnic regions

Are you denying the existence of Kurdistan and the domination of the south of Iraq by the Shia?

2) That IA units only patrol their neighborhoods

You're right, they don't. They send Kurds and Shia to Sunni areas, Sunni and Kurds to Shia areas, and Shia and Sunni to Kurdish areas. Some battalions - very few - are mixed. These as far as I am aware also have high proportions of US advisors.

3) That IA units are not loyal to the government

They're loyal when it suits them, which is not the same thing as being unquestioningly loyal. They're also loyal to their commanders and tribal leaders... and to their ethnicity and religion. And to their nation. The question is which loyalty they put first.

For a reason. Most of us feel that we're all fucked on the issue. The Dems won't shut down the Pres, and the Republicans won't even tell the truth about it. What more is there to say? The Iraq War Moratorium is on the 21st of September, and we'll be out in force then.
How do you know the truth? And what is this Iraq War Moratorium that you speak of?



I'm not familiar with Yon, but I will say that it is not as easy as you seem to think. When the whole social structure of Iraq is in collapse, the military and police are going to reflect that.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ He's got some good pieces.

If anything, the military would have more structure than society. It is based on authority.

Are you denying the existence of Kurdistan and the domination of the south of Iraq by the Shia?
Nope, but you have to understand that in all areas, there is a mix of ethnicities.


You're right, they don't. They send Kurds and Shia to Sunni areas, Sunni and Kurds to Shia areas, and Shia and Sunni to Kurdish areas. Some battalions - very few - are mixed. These as far as I am aware also have high proportions of US advisors.
You are still thinking incorrectly that an area can be just Shia or just Sunni.


They're loyal when it suits them, which is not the same thing as being unquestioningly loyal. They're also loyal to their commanders and tribal leaders... and to their ethnicity and religion. And to their nation. The question is which loyalty they put first.
Judging by their handling of the first Samarra bombings, they are loyal to the central gov't first.

Let's break out the tin hats while we're at it.

Don't you know? Tin hats are a government conspiracy to make rebellious minds easier to monitor. The tin increases mind-reading ability.

All elections are rigged, comrade.

Let's break out the tin hats while we're at it.

Nope, but you have to understand that in all areas, there is a mix of ethnicities. You are still thinking incorrectly that an area can be just Shia or just Sunni.

Oh, I know that. However, in all areas, there are majorities. Ethnic cleansing has exacerbated this - Christian arabs especially have suffered as a result. Thus, the north is mostly Kurdish, the south is mostly Shia, etc. In fact, the result is much the same as if they were purely one group or another.

Judging by their handling of the first Samarra bombings, they are loyal to the central gov't first.

Depends on the circumstances. I can also point to IA units that turned on US units in mid-combat, to IA units that tortured and executed Shia/Sunni/Kurds, etc etc. Equally, I can point to units that perform superbly. Morale, training, equipment, etc, all varies wildly across the army and as a result the Iraqi Army is not a viable force for much more than supporting the US Army ... at the moment. Militias are using it as a free training ground for their men, and the Iranians have probably infiltraited it too. They'd be mad not to.

Let's break out the tin hats while we're at it.

Why not? They're good at deflecting shrapnel - a useful asset when The Day comes. :D

Oh, I know that. However, in all areas, there are majorities. Ethnic cleansing has exacerbated this - Christian arabs especially have suffered as a result. Thus, the north is mostly Kurdish, the south is mostly Shia, etc. In fact, the result is much the same as if they were purely one group or another.
The point was that Sunni soldiers are patrolling in predominantly Shiite areas due to the fact that cities are not 100% any ethnicity.


Depends on the circumstances. I can also point to IA units that turned on US units in mid-combat
That hasn't happened since fallujah.

to IA units that tortured and executed Shia/Sunni/Kurds, etc etc.
That has been a problem though not an insurmountable one.
Equally, I can point to units that perform superbly. Morale, training, equipment, etc, all varies wildly across the army and as a result the Iraqi Army is not a viable force for much more than supporting the US Army ... at the moment.
Their handling of the Samarra incident was across the board superb. Everywhere. That was the closest thing to being on their own that they have been tested with.
Militias are using it as a free training ground for their men, and the Iranians have probably infiltraited it too. They'd be mad not to.
Yeah, we need to start to give Iran a message that that is not okay.

The point was that Sunni soldiers are patrolling in predominantly Shiite areas due to the fact that cities are not 100% any ethnicity.

Sunni soldiers are patrolling in predominantly Shiite areas because the Sunnis are more likely to do their job, it's simple divide and rule policy. Duh.

That hasn't happened since fallujah.

But it has happened and could happen again. ;)

That has been a problem though not an insurmountable one.

At least you admit it's a problem...

Their handling of the Samarra incident was across the board superb. Everywhere. That was the closest thing to being on their own that they have been tested with.

And how many units were involved? Did they have US air support? etc.

Yeah, we need to start to give Iran a message that that is not okay.

Why isn't it OK? It makes perfect sense to me... and I mis-spelt 'infiltrate', d'oh!

That is why advisors must build rapport with their IA and IP units. Exactly what that guy in the video that RO brought up was doing.



Exactly what is rapporting?

Sunni soldiers are patrolling in predominantly Shiite areas because the Sunnis are more likely to do their job, it's simple divide and rule policy. Duh.
And Shiia soldiers in Sunni areas.



But it has happened and could happen again. ;)
That is why advisors must build rapport with their IA and IP units. Exactly what that guy in the video that RO brought up was not doing.


And how many units were involved? Did they have US air support? etc.
Of course they has US air support. They will have that for a very long time to come.


Why isn't it OK? It makes perfect sense to me... and I mis-spelt 'infiltrate', d'oh!
B/c we and the majority of Iraqis don't want them to. It's that simple.

I must admit that this whole shrine business has changed my mind about my country's role in Iraq. Beforehand, I wanted US troops to stay, but only because I thought we may hold things together. This time around, we can't. Our continued presence would just waste lives and taxdollars. Let's pull out, now. We can place those troops elsewhere in the region, or in rural Iraq to support the Iraqi government, but a large troop presence just gets in the way. We shouldn't even wait for an exit strategy.

And Shiia soldiers in Sunni areas.

Well yeh, I kinda thought that was a given... like I said above... use other ethnic units in areas that are predominently another one.

That is why advisors must build rapport with their IA and IP units. Exactly what that guy in the video that RO brought up was doing.

To be honest, I am not confident that the advisors would stop it, given what the US and UK have been getting up to... although I suppose we don't drill people to death, just shoot them or beat them to death.

Of course they has US air support. They will have that for a very long time to come.

Pity that, the Iraqi Air Force does have some stuff... you'd think that to declare the Iraqi Army truly independent they'd not need to rely on the USAF. Oh well.

B/c we and the majority of Iraqis don't want them to. It's that simple.

Since when did the views of the imperialist occupiers apply? I can accept that the Iraqis wouldn't want them to, but from a military-intelligence point of view, I would damn well want to infiltrate my neighbours' armed forces particularly if said neighbour had attacked me previously.

Rapporting is not a word. Building rapport is building trust and comraderie.

Thanks.

Exactly what is rapporting?

Rapporting is not a word. Building rapport is building trust and comraderie.

To be honest, I am not confident that the advisors would stop it, given what the US and UK have been getting up to... although I suppose we don't drill people to death, just shoot them or beat them to death.
Where did you hear that?


Pity that, the Iraqi Air Force does have some stuff... you'd think that to declare the Iraqi Army truly independent they'd not need to rely on the USAF. Oh well.
I heard some general talking about them needing 5 years to have capable air assets.


Since when did the views of the imperialist occupiers apply? I can accept that the Iraqis wouldn't want them to, but from a military-intelligence point of view, I would damn well want to infiltrate my neighbours' armed forces particularly if said neighbour had attacked me previously.
Imperialist implies that we want to take over the country.

Said neighbor is pretty much a new country if you look at the changes.

Thanks.

I'm here to help.;)

Where did you hear that?

Um, the newspapers? Or have you not heard about the Welch Rgt beating Baha Mousa to death... for example. Or, of course, Abu Ghraib.

I heard some general talking about them needing 5 years to have capable air assets.

So you're wrong and the Iraqi Armed Forces still fucking suck?

Imperialist implies that we want to take over the country.

You do, hence the major permanent military bases you're constructing.

Said neighbor is pretty much a new country if you look at the changes.

"Germany? A new country - just look at the changes, the Kaiser's gone and they've got a democracy..."

Um, the newspapers? Or have you not heard about the Welch Rgt beating Baha Mousa to death... for example. Or, of course, Abu Ghraib.
Abu Ghraib was against prisoners, not IA or IP. And the American media doesn't really cover UK happening very much.


So you're wrong and the Iraqi Armed Forces still fucking suck?
No, they just don't have air assets. That is why my plan had air assets staying on it it.


You do, hence the major permanent military bases you're constructing.
I'm not sure where giving them sovereignty fits in to that but I'm sure that you can figure it out.



"Germany? A new country - just look at the changes, the Kaiser's gone and they've got a democracy..."
More like the change after WWII.

Abu Ghraib was against prisoners, not IA or IP. And the American media doesn't really cover UK happening very much.

Well duh. The IA/IP torture and execute prisoners. So have - and do - the US/UK. Thus, I am not confident that advisors will prevent the IA/IP from torturing and killing...

No, they just don't have air assets. That is why my plan had air assets staying on it it.

Great; so they're free but must rely on the US to defend their nation properly. Hurrah!

I'm not sure where giving them sovereignty fits in to that but I'm sure that you can figure it out.

Never heard of puppet nations? ;)

More like the change after WWII.

Possibly. We'll see. If I was the Iranians I wouldn't be confident unless the Shia and the Jeish al-Mehdi got into power...

Well duh. The IA/IP torture and execute prisoners. So have - and do - the US/UK. Thus, I am not confident that advisors will prevent the IA/IP from torturing and killing...
Be careful, no US or UK personnel have executed anybody.


Great; so they're free but must rely on the US to defend their nation properly. Hurrah!
No, it's called air support for a reason.