the Legacy of Iraq

will come from, and live on in, a somewhat ironic sector, their military observing ours and emulating it.

Michael Yon and others have remarked on this and here's another testimony {from SmallWarsJournal which has a lot of interesting commentary on world affairs.}

There is no doubt in my mind that, in a couple of years Iraq, will have the best and most able army in the middle east {actually they already do, there's not much competition}, and more than capable of dealing with their own defense, while emulating the professionalism of the US.

Al Qaeda has already recognized this and more or less written off their effort in Iraq. The Shia thug militias will follow suit, in part to not lose face compared to their Sunni counterparts.
In fact there's evidence that the entire middle east has recognized the failure of terrorism in Iraq and started to rethink the paradigm.

 

Petty you're too bright to dismiss Iran, who boasts a very large, well-trained army that dwarfs just about every other army other than China's. Iran practices mandatory conscription at the age of 18. Conservative estimates put Iran's army around a half million active personnel, with reserves in the millions - and that's not mentioning their Air Force, which has been trying to catch up to Israel. The Iraqi army hasn't hit 200,000 enlisted yet, their training is inconsistent (provided by coalitiion at one point, private contractors, now Iraqis), and the desertion rate is unsettling. "Patchwork" is how I would describe it.

 

RE: Re: the Legacy of Iraq

You guys should read the WSJ Opinion section from yesterday. One piece chronicled some recent engagements that were taken by the Iraqi's and how well Malaki is managing security now. The insurgents seem to have been severly disrupted and have been effectively moved out of Mosul and most other areas of Iraq. You would be challenged to find any thing like this in main stream sources. Here is the link but you will probably need a subscription:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213054 ... jie/6month

 

RE: Re: the Legacy of Iraq

A well crafted article, but appropriately titled "Opinion."

The flaw in logic here is that the author assumes that Iraq is/was/will be some kind of Al Qaeda stronghold that we've thwarted... given that there was a minute Al Quaida presence in Iraq prior to the invasion/occupation, reducing (or even eliminating) that small presence does not constitute "winning." In the larger picture, the war is a complete loss because Al Qaeda has become significantly stronger worldwide as a result of the Iraq invasion/occupation. And, of course, if Iraq reverts to its previous repute in the next 5-10 years (assuming we've left by then), like Vietnam falling after the US left, and we are left fighting an emboldened Al Qaeda everywhere around the globe, then what a complete waste of time, energy, and resources this all shall be.

 

RE: Re: the Legacy of Iraq

Nicely put but also just 'Opinion'. Hence no point moving forward. You can't support how strong Al Qaeda was in Iraq because you are not there nor have any intelligence as to their numbers or whereabouts. I would say 'minute' is guess and an opinion formed by too many media sound bytes. In addition, suggesting they are stronger is also nothing but opinion, you can't support it nor can I refute it. What I do know is actual overt activity has diminished everywhere, but that doesn't of course mean anything other than activity has diminished. His article must be close to the truth because news stories in Iraq have fallen of the front page and you barely hear of insurgent activity anymore. Now that is a fact.

Keep watching CNN and you feel the same. I won't of course.

 

Just where the hell are you getting your info?!!!!!
Are you reading security/military sites, like this... or getting your info from Code Pink?
I bet the NYT, who claimed that the IA LOST in Basra, and that al Sadr declaring a ceasefire was a victory for him... and YET.. we MNF, IA, and IP, keep raiding his militia safehouses and coming up with Iranian Special Ops characters, more than 4 in just the last week.
Defections? Did you EVER stop to think that the defections in Basra might be a positive? Those guys will never work in the security forces, again... and yet there's no shortage of new recruits.

As to Iran, they cant even keep their planes all flying. And 'conscription' is a minus, not a plus. Why do you think all the lefty Dems keep pushing for the draft?
You're absolutely right that the Iraqi Army is no match for the Iran military in terms of infrastructure, hardware or even logistics at this point in time.

Where you're wrong is confusing numbers with readiness. Just as in Saddams day, most of Iran's Army is best described as cannon fodder. There are elite units comparable to the Republican Guard, but it's not clear how well they would fight toe to toe.

But it's misleading to worry about that, at any rate. One thing we can be pretty sure of is that Iraq is not going to invade Iran.

And it's probable that Iran is not going to invade Iraq.. that's my point: if they dont do it now, they never will. Iran prefers to work through surrogates, whatever the theater. Any offensive action will be strategic, through missiles and other means of bomb delivery. They will not trust ground troops except in a defensive posture.

By the way... it may be that you are too invested in this attitude. The article is an interview with a former trainer to the Iraqi's. While his anecdotes may be amusing, I'm not sorry he's no longer 'in Country' as his attitude comes across as 'superior and demeaning'. I'm pretty sure the troops he was training caught onto that and he {and his superiors} realized he could not be effective.

Naturally, he's writing a book on it.

- -- - - - - - - - - - - -


Sadr City. Hellhole for sure, so we better bring our troops outa there.