Perhaps, but the Iraqi army still seems to be cursed with corruption, poor leadership, and a force poorly trained and unqualified to fight.
Seems to me alot of officers and Generals in the Iraqi Army come from a well versed military background. As for corruption and poorly trained, what do you expect from decades of military training by the Soviets? When an army lacks NCO’s and emphasised an expanded officer corps in order to maintain loyalty, this is bound to have repercussions. At least Coalition efforts have been trying to remedy that.
I don’t recall Iraq ever having been a Soviet ally.
But it did get a lot of arms from the USSR and other places. I beleive the air force was trained in soviet military doctrine. None of this is relevant to the beleif that somehow, magically, an Iraq army built around factions, sects and nationalities doesn’t have a primary loyalty to them and not the government in Greenzonia.
The end result will at best be a miltary coup and another murderous strongman we support because he’ll be anti-iranian.
To believe that we can wave a magic wand and create a neutral, professional army is just wishful thinking. Note how the iraqi troops for the baghdad surge are
And it’s not going swimmingly
Defence reluctant to share data on Iraq army readiness
Of course we can’t quite rule out the possibility that things are just going so darned well Bush and Defence would just be so gosh embarrassed at all praise good news entails. It would probably be greeted with flowers.
It was in the 1970’s but not in the sense of being a satellite, hence why it had a large officer corps and Soviet trained officers to keep the Iraqi army loyal.
Same thing happened in Vietnam, units were most loyal to the areas around them, which were called the ‘Ruff/Puffs’ not to the central government, but ironically were more dedicated than the national army, the ARVN. I’d say the Iraqi Army is primarily not effective enough because it’s not done enough to strengthen it’s logistics and ‘beef up’ it’s military capability, it’s still a work in progres, remember it’s only been 3 years or so since we removed the last government.
And who would support this strongman, once removed the instant Iraqis realised he is supported by their ‘former occupier?’ Why would any strongman put him in the position to be used by the US again?
That’s strange, considering those ‘Kurds’ are actually still considered to be part of Iraq, they’re still ‘Iraqi Kurds’ hence the ‘imported’ is a nice spin.
Look, armies, especially ones which are being rebuilt, take time to become effective. Taking into consideration that we destroyed the last one, and we’re rebuilding one which is multi ethnic and confessional, is a long job. I’m happy in the least the Army isn’t conscripted, because it would be a hell of an even longer job of getting them into the field.
The ‘Iraqi Kurds’ have not really been part of Iraq since 1992 - after that the USA roped them off from Saddam.
Getting them into Baghdad is a bit like importing French troops into London.
I know one of those guys, he cut my hair yesterday, he has been in the UK for five years and is just about to get a British passport. He would quite like to go ‘home’ but says that it is still very dangerous out there - which I found interesting - I assume that he has good contact. Possibly the Kurds have internal problems, or maybe he comes from a border area.
No - nice spin in pretending anyone has a primary loyalty to Iraq and not their factions. I’ve presented evidence but as usual all you respond with is vague hand-waving and specious logic. You may think it clever to play word games but it really isn’t.
Why does any strongman get support? Because he controls rewards and punishments. It worked for the USA with Saddam and it would work even easier with a Shia strongman let loose on the Sunni’s while we turn a practised blind eye as usual, while shovelling dollars and guns in his direction. This isn’t rocket science to figure out you know, not if you have a passing acquaintance with recent history and/or the principles of power and international relations.
And as this is GD and I’ve provided you with copious cites in this and related threads please support your contentions with cites or don’t reply.
But those ‘factions’ are Iraq. Just as much as the UK is ‘English Scottish Welsh and Northern Irish’ you can’t make them go away. The situation in Iraq is difficult because those ethnic/sectarian passions are enflamed at the moment, a lot of history, wars, massacres in the absense of actual political progress between any of them is bound to produce such a situation. The fact that there are groups willing to listen to other sides is a mark of improvement from ‘my way or the highway’ Politics from the last butcher of Baghdad. There will never be stability, never be peace until the rule of the gun is put back in the box.
What specious logic? You immediately equate withdrawing of UK forces as a ‘defeat’ because Patrick Cockburn says so, yet you fail to realise is that if we never give up control of Basra to the Iraqis, then what the hell is the point of the venture in the first place? We can’t hold it for an unspecified amount of time, nor do we want too, and I said to you in the beginning, that the eventual strategy was to build an Iraqi government and security force able to take over security, no matter how badly they handle it. Even if they fail a few times, we’re still their to provide advice, equipment and logistical support to carry them through difficult times.
So it’s a circular argument, the British Army withdraws to bases further away, whilst allowing indigenous forces to remain and build up security on it’s own, because in the end, it’s going to be them doing it. That’s what nation building and counter insurgency is. But somehow this is all equated with defeat. Tell me, how are we supposed too, in your mind, to withdraw from Iraq without actually leaving the place, because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying on here.
Then what would be the point of trying to accommodate the Sunnis into the political process if we were just willing to allow the Shias to butcher the lot of them? And why would numerous Anbar Sunni Arab tribes pledge their alleigence to the Government to get rid of Al Queda in Iraq? And why would various Sunnis join the local police forces in that area if it were not in their best interest? And why if we’re so concerned about ‘shovelling dollars and guns in their direction’ concerned about stopping the flow of arms to Shia militias from Iran? And why have numerous Shia leaders tried to make policies on accomodating the Sunnis and countering the militias?
Let’s just say I know alot more about Middle Eastern politics, culture and Iraq in general than yourself. ‘Might makes right’ politics in the Middle East will always be the substitute for stability, never the guarantor.
Who says I have to reply with an equal amount of cites to justify my position? Again, this is the whole premise of your argument.
That’s ridiculous arguement as to saying Scots are not part of the UK, because they happen to have their own parliament and football team. Kurds served in the Iraqi Army, served in the administerial part of the Government (yes of Saddam and previous leaders) lived in Baghdad and surrounding areas and even in some cases intermarried with Arabs. But since the Kurds aren’t part of Iraq, then they’re not part of
Syria
Iran
Turkey
Right? Can’t have one rule for one and another for the others. Until they eventually declare independence, they’re still officially part of Iraq. And it’s political leaders have been wise enough to fall short of actually wanting it, knowing it would completely isolate them.
Even though the Northern part is undergoing an economic boom, not to mention is the safest part of the country. He’s probably talking about the border areas, and even then it’s stretching it.
Look at the pretty pictures.