Number of Iraqi battalions: 1

#1
Hmmm...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article316179.ece

General Casey also said that the number of Iraqi army battalions rated by US officers as capable of fighting without US help had dropped from three to one. He did not explain why the number had dropped from three in June to one now. The Pentagon has built its Iraq strategy on the expectation that it can begin bringing American troops home as the Iraqis gradually take the lead in the fight against the insurgency.
 
#2
Probably other batallions are unable to fight without Americans (without enemy).
 
#3
Would this be the Battalion predominantly composed of Sunnis and ex- RG bods?
 
#4
I am more surprise that any Iraqi battalin can fight or will fight without CF support. Let stop wasting our time on them just get more British or US troop on the ground and turn that place into a free-fire zone. Much easier for everyone
 
#6
It appears that mr.Bush is very optimistic about Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050928.html

At this moment, more than a dozen Iraqi battalions have completed training and are conducting anti-terrorist operations in Ramadi and Fallujah. More than 20 battalions are operating in Baghdad. And some have taken the lead in operations in major sectors of the city.

In total, more than 100 battalions are operating throughout Iraq. Our commanders report that the Iraqi forces are operating with increasing effectiveness.
Very impressives.

The Iraqi troops know their people, they know their language
Such a valuable remark.

The growing size and increasing capability of the Iraqi security forces are helping our coalition address a challenge we have faced since the beginning of the war. And General Casey discussed this with us in the Oval Office.
Probably gen.Casey hasn't said about 1 batallion.

As part of General Casey's strategy, Iraqi forces remain in Tal Afar to ensure that the terrorists are not allowed to return and regroup.
Of course brave Iraqi troops (with American baby-sitters) are able to do it.
 
#7
More than 20 battalions are operating in Baghdad. And some have taken the lead in operations in major sectors of the city.
How many troops are there in an Iraqi battalion?
 
#9
That will be the 5 that come in to open up the pay office then.
 
#10
Greyman said:
I am more surprise that any Iraqi battalin can fight or will fight without CF support. Let stop wasting our time on them just get more British or US troop on the ground and turn that place into a free-fire zone. Much easier for everyone
Surely you're being ironic ? Aren't you ?

The simple truth is that neither the US nor the UK have enough troops to do more than we're doing at the moment. We're also only really taking on the Sunnis (approx 20% of the population) plus a few imports and are finding this a stretch , hence the Shia and the Kurds get away with as much as they do. If we escalate (read as more dead civvies) we run the very real risk of getting the Shia to kick off - supported no doubt by Iran/Syria (once they've stopped laughing).

If the Iraqis will not fight for the Iraqi state - but they will fight for their own Kurdish/Shia/Sunni grouping - then to me that's a sign that maybe we should stop pretending they're a viable nation state and plan for a partioned solution.
 
#11
People keep talking about the parallels with Vietnam but the real parallel is actually Yugoslavia post-Tito. 3 way split coming as soon as Uncle Sam decides he's bored with this game.
 
#12
I wonder exactly how much coalition support these Iraqi battalions need? - except for the one which requires none...

If it just a case of having a couple of advisors attached or maybe a section with those airborne reconnaissence drone things then that wouldn't be too bad...

Tricam.
 
#13
just split the contry into three, kurds in the north, sunnis in the middle and the shi'ts in the south, then get the un to controll the oil and split it three ways a disperse it equaly
 
#14
3 ways is a good idea except a small problems, there are more Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Saudi happen to be Sunni and Shias are connected to Iran. And there are also Turk and other minority groups in their country. Would it be just a civic war or would it be a regional war where all those surrounding it are going for a land grab (There are oil under those sand)? And what is it in for us for it to become 3 or 4 nations states? I once heard that empire prefer conflicting enthic groups, because you can play one against the other.
 
#15
The Sunnis would prefer Iraq to remain a single entity , and they have some Shi'a support in that view.
 
#16
They also perfer a pan-Arab movement where Syria, Egypt and all Arab nations to united against the western imperialist. And Shi'a would like a state closer to Iran. And the Kurds, let say they have spend an awlful long time fighting for their own state (since 1922). And other players in the region all have their plan as well.
 
#17
Can someone explain to me why the US can't provide more troops? Is it logistical or political in nature? I was under the impression that the US had the second largest military manpower in the world. Can they really not spare more than 130k troops? It's pretty obvious the Iraqi troop option isn't going to work. If the US wants to succeed in Iraq, surely they have to bite the bullet and deploy more forces.
 
#18
razorman said:
Can someone explain to me why the US can't provide more troops? Is it logistical or political in nature? I was under the impression that the US had the second largest military manpower in the world. Can they really not spare more than 130k troops? It's pretty obvious the Iraqi troop option isn't going to work. If the US wants to succeed in Iraq, surely they have to bite the bullet and deploy more forces.
More troops? Technically it is possible. But even existed troops effectively control the country from strategic point of view. To have not only strategic but full control Americans should create effective local police (they failed there) or send own one (that would be an easy target for the enemy). In this situation more troops means more killed without any improvement. What do you think would be the fate of two American policemen (or soldiers) on night streets of Baghdad walking alone?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#20
AndyPipkin said:
It's the need to rotate units and avoid undue burden on the reserves that's limiting US troop numbers.
No. It's the will from the White House to commit additional US Forces to theatre after the Commander-in-Chief has said:
" well done folks, welcome on home, its all over"

Same reason Mr Bush cannot afford to attend a single funeral or be photographed meeting a single coffin at Dover AFB.

As far as the American people are being told, they're winning : so why would you need extra boots on the ground, General ?

<sigh>

Le Chevre
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top