The "Iraqi Army" is a misnomer. The government's military consists of Iraqi units integrated into the U.S.-commanded occupation army. These units rely on the Americans for intelligence, logistics, and -- lacking almost all heavy weaponry themselves -- artillery, tanks, and any kind of airpower. (The Iraqi "Air Force" typically consists of fewer then 10 planes with no combat capability.) The government has no real control over either personnel or strategy.
2006-08-21 08:19:34 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The Iraqi army is in an infant state. They are small compared to US forces and the insurgent forces. You have to remember that everyday these brave men are going to work, and leaving their families behind...possibly to be slaughtered for what they are doing. They aren't all spring chickens either. They are older with a stronger sense of loyalty to their country and family. If you would watch the news...and the real news not this stupid politically run bullsh*t that they have on TV....you would know that they are being targeted more then anyone over there. A couple of months ago hundreds of recruits were slaughtered waiting in line to process in. Believe it or not it didn't stop them. That hub was only closed long enough to clean up the mess and then they were back the very next day. Give them credit. Their country was taken apart and is now being rebuilt with little to no encouragement or faith. It will take a lot of time, work and faith. If you really want to make a difference then sign your name and enlist...join the brave men and women of this country in making a difference in this world.
2006-08-21 09:32:10 · answer #1 · answered by ArmyWife4Life 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your assessment is not entirely correct. While they certainly have a long way to go, there are a few provinces in the south where they have secured the peace almost single-handedly. The Kurdish north of Iraq is as secure as any American city can boast of being secure. The problem is Baghdad. Despite the gloomy picture that the media paints the fact is that the coalition forces have been so successful that the insurgency has had its influence limited mostly to the capitol (its largest, most sprawling city where it is easiest to hide in). It is there where the Iraqi and coalition forces have their hands full keeping the peace while the insurgency and the militias do their best to stir a civil war.
Cut them boys some slack. that they're fighting back at all is sufficient reason to keep our hope, faith and support continuing.
A historian noted that insurgencies take 9-10 years to extinguish. Call me a fool if you like, but I really believe Bush will do it in record time. I mean that the lion's share of the fighting will be done before he leaves office ( a lot can happen in 900 days!); and the next Republican president will ba able to bring back 2/3's of the troops home immediately and leave the rest behind to help the Iraqi forces mop up and turn the lights out on this war once and for all.
2006-08-21 08:45:39 · answer #2 · answered by caesar x 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Iraqi military is in control of 75% of their country now and the Iraqi president thinks the military will have control of 100% of Iraq at the end of the year. The fighting is limited to 3 cities in a country the size of California.
2006-08-21 08:50:54 · answer #3 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is a very simple answer to this question :
Neither the "Iraqi Army Units" nor the U.S troops,are capable to control Baghdad or Iraq in general,because the Iraqi people are known -through out the history - that they are "rebellious" people,and very violent.
The history of Iraq did proof though,that there were only 2 (TOUGH) Leaders, that have managed "Successfully" to rule Iraq,they were :
1- Hajjaj Bin Yousef
2- Saddam Hussein
I got this piece of info. from a Book I was reading, entitled : "History of Iraq" and it is very interesting !!
2006-08-21 09:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by Fadi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
properly i'm no longer very pleased that are troops are over there nonetheless. yet i assume that the Iraqi Troops are not knowledged adequate with their preparation skills to truly take complete administration and carry complete administration. So with this reported The individuals are over their besides and that they are no longer leaving any time quickly, So sure its stable. the clarification why i think of its stable is by the fact we've a small tension that we've knowledgeable and are nonetheless preparation to take our places as quickly as we go away. If we don't help the Iraqi Troops grow to be greater suitable then we heavily isn't waiting to tug our troops out of Irak via fact their would be no person to do our Jobs to maintain the persons secure. the point of backing up Iraki Troops is so we are able to construct a greater suitable ability over there inorder for us to sometime go away. we could continually save this inmind that, if we dont come to a pair style of progression over their to coach that we are triumphing and that now the Iraki people can stay secure and proceed to be secure our President wont pull troops out.
2016-11-05 07:50:45 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the United States military is mired down in this unmanageable nightmare of a campaign and is not making any progress, how might we expect an army made up of Iraqis (essentially a militia) to do any better?
I think you answered your own question, friend.
2006-08-21 09:42:30 · answer #6 · answered by ... 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simple. The Iraqi Army, and police, are easily bought out. Also, they have never had to fight for freedom before, and have never known what true freedom or Democracy are all about. Therefore, they just aren't willing to die for something they have no understanding about.
2006-08-21 10:21:41 · answer #7 · answered by AirborneKappaSigma 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are NOT
Most of the Iraqi soldiers don't even have shoes.
The used them all up hitting images of Saddam.
2006-08-21 08:27:40 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Considering the Americans have only just started to half-heartedly train the Iraqi troops, and as ever left it to our British lads to do whatever they can, their going to be bad. Besides, most are old republican guardsmen, so their used to brutality, not policing
2006-08-21 08:27:00 · answer #9 · answered by thomas p 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
hey they had 40,000 troops (national guard ,police,FBI ,secret service.Fuji blimp,etc.) just to guard the republicans at the republican national convention in n, y. c. in '03 and yet they are still running loose... and have claimed victory
2006-08-21 10:54:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋