Iraq forces not ready to fight rebels

#1
Just what I had suspected.

The Pentagon has given a stark assessment of the state of Iraq's fledgling security forces, concluding that only a "small number" of units are capable of fighting the insurgency without American military support.

In the first detailed official insight into Iraq's police and army, a Pentagon report said half of the new police units are still being established and two thirds of the army are only "partially capable" of carrying out counter-insurgency missions.


The assessment will come as no surprise in Iraq where, amid a wave of suicide bombings, it is all too clear that the vast majority of the new forces rely on US backing.

But the report flies in the face of more optimistic assessments by senior officials of President George W Bush's administration who are pinning their hopes of a withdrawal of US forces on the ability of the Iraqi units to maintain security.

The sober analysis was made by Gen Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was leaked to The New York Times as Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, insisted on keeping secret the Pentagon's views on the Iraqi security forces, contained in a separate report due to be delivered to Congress last night.

While most of this report will be made public, sections on the capabilities of the Iraqi forces will remain classified...
[c]Telegraph
 
#3
PartTimePongo said:
Sorry A_S

Wasn't it you cheerleading the "Great strides being made in Iraq turning the jundies into suntanned heroes of democracy? :D
Yes, great strides are being made, but they are no where near being ready to leave them to fight alone, hence why i have never once stated that we should pull out immediately and hence why i completely object to the socialist view that we should all upsticks and leave them to get on with it.

The back ground to this story is interesting. It involves the recent defence review paper by John Reids dept that discussed early withdrawl of UK troops in case the spams decide to bug out. That paper was a response to increasing noises being made by centcom and the pentagon about getting out as early as possible, in strark contrast to the the commanders on the ground who have a completely different view (ie just what has been concluded in this report)
 
#4
Not neccessarily a socialist view to pull out and leave them to it A_S

But the moral view is,we helped break it, we'd better fix it.

As regards civil wars , all great nations are born in civil war. We did it, the Americans had 2, Spain had one, France sort of had one, the Germans had several etc etc.

Like it or not, the electorate won't remain stupified by rah-rah rhetoric for long, no matter how hard Murdoch and his ilk try. Have you ever thought the reason that the jundies aren't really trying, is we're there, with guaranteed firepower and support?

Once upon a time Saddam had an Army that crossed the Shatt-al-Arab and fought damned well. They also gave the Kuwaits a hiding. Some of these same people are now in the insurgency against us. Damn you Bremner.

Maybe if we did pull out, or threaten to , reality would bite?
 
#5
The Politico's will talk their way out as and when it suits their conwiniance.
The poor Tom, GI Joe or Achemed will have to fight his way out, if he last that long.
john
 
#6
Jon , have you ever wondered why we went from "There is a timetable for withdrawl" in the early days , to "We will not withdraw until the locals are ready and we have had several elections etc etc ?"
 

Latest Threads

New Posts