Training Iraqis May Pose Risks For U.S.
Congress Told of Dangers to Troops

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 10, 2006; A19



The newest program for training Iraqi security forces, embedding 11- to 15-member U.S. transition teams in Iraqi battalions, represents a "high-risk assignment" for the American officers and men involved, according to top military training officials.

The concept is considered so dangerous that a group of potential replacements stand ready at Fort Riley, the U.S. Army base directing the program, for immediate shipment to Iraq if members of a deployed team are killed or wounded, Maj. Gen. Carter F. Ham, who runs the training program, told House members last week.

While the U.S. training of Iraqis is considered key in determining the future of the American presence in Iraq, it remains a work in progress three years after it began, according to present and former senior U.S. Army and Marine officers involved in the process.

The disbanding of Saddam Hussein's army in May 2003 and the disappearance of local police units compelled the United States and coalition allies to rebuild almost from scratch a variety of Iraqi security forces, including a national army, local national guard units, special commando teams, a national police force, border police, local police and a facilities protection service.

Complicating matters was a desire among coalition officials in 2003 and 2004 to keep the new Iraqi army lightly armed, in part so it could not threaten any democratic government established in Baghdad. As part of that approach, former senior officers from Hussein's army initially were excluded from service, and the first national police units developed were not trained or equipped to deal with either insurgency or serious security threats.

The result of the hesitant U.S. training effort, the Iraq Study Group reported Wednesday, is that Iraqi army units are of questionable loyalty to the Baghdad government, the police units cannot control crime, and some, according to the report, "routinely engage in sectarian violence." The facilities protection service is "incompetent, dysfunctional or subversive."

Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace Jr., the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel, told the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the current goal is to train 325,000 Iraqis, with 134,000 in the army and at least 180,000 as police officers.

The latest enhancement to the training task is the embedding of transition teams whose job is to "advise, coach, teach and mentor Iraqi security forces and provide direct access to coalition . . . air support, artillery, medical evacuation and intelligence-gathering," Lovelace said.

The teams, made up of highly qualified senior commissioned and noncommissioned officers, have specialties that include combat operations, intelligence, communications and logistics. Because they live with the Iraqi units, it is a "high-risk assignment," Marine Maj. Gen. George J. Flynn, commander of the Marine Corps training and education command, told the panel.

"In many ways, these individuals are out there alone and unafraid," and this speaks "to the quality of the men and women who are in uniform," Flynn added.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned the program and focused on the risk factor in opposing the idea of reducing U.S. combat troops in Iraq by early 2008.

To "withdraw the troops and then still have thousands of American soldiers embedded in Iraqi units that are of questionable value or loyalty, I think, puts at risk a large number of American military advisers," McCain said.

The training plan, however, contemplates the continued presence in Iraq of rapid-response U.S. combat units with helicopters and aircraft that could be quickly called in for support should embedded teams come under fire.

Army Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the top U.S. field commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters Friday that no decision had yet been made on how many of the new teams will be requested.

The Iraq Study Group described training of the Iraqi army as "a primary mission of U.S. military strategy," despite problems such as the sectarian nature of the Iraqi forces and the manner in which personnel were recruited. The latter has contributed, the group reported, to forces resisting deployment to other parts of the country and refusing to carry out missions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0900862_pf.html

This is confusing, just how long does it take to train an Iraqi? Are they more difficult than normal people to train? If memory serves me right, I was inducted into the Army the 1st of November, and I was in a combat zone ready to fight on the 1st of April, that’s six months. I was no exception, what is it with getting these folks trained? Seems they are training to save their country, this should provide good motivation and even help expedite their training.
Are the problems because of our inability to do the job, or are the Iraqi’s more difficult to train? Where is this plan failing? And why? Isn’t it our current goal to train these people to take over for our troops once they are ready? After four years, why don’t we have any of our troops replaced, what are we training 2 or 3 people at a time?

How much of our training efforts are going towards teaching the Iraqis how to kill each other with more sophistication?

After the initial problem of invading in the first place. The other problem started when Halliburton and Big Oil came in, and because we refuse to kick them out we have lost Iraq. We are training people merely how to kill effectively for their own groups (tribes) interests, and they take the training and then either disappear, or refuse to fight who we tell them to fight. This is because we are telling them to fight for a foreign corporation. And no matter what Bush tells them, they will not fight for him.

Good point This is a problem we may not be able to overcome.

Yes. It may be too late. I see only one slim chance for something other than total chaos. Get rid of Halliburton and Big Oil. Get them out of Iraq and revoke the PSAs. Talk to the regional powers and point out that a collapsed Iraq is not in their interest. An independent Kurdistan for instance is not in Turkey nor Iran's interest. Give all jobs to the Iraqis, and withdraw to the borders as we move out to Kuwait, Jordan, and whatever neighboring country will have us. When the foreign Jihadis attack the Iraqi run projects to destabilize Iraq, the Iraqis will kill them. They know who they are and where they are. The jihadis will run for the border where we can more easily catch them.

I don't see how else we can handle this now.

I agree with this. They need a reason to keep the country together. They will not fight for benefits that all belong to the invaders. They need a future they can hope for.

A glimpse of the future?

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/no-darker-heart.htm

Let me ask you this then Vaughn if training is such a snap. When you got to Vietnam was it just you and a bunch of other PFCs? Was no one there to give you direction or advice?

Did your company have a First Sergent? Did he fit into the six month training category like you? How about in the Mess Hall, just a bunch of PFCs slinging hash or did they have a Mess Sergent? Who was in charge of your MP unit, another PFC?

I bet you thought you could a done a better job than the lifers maybe?

I got responsibility real quick in the Marines Vaughn. After three years I made Corporal and was made the laundry NCO. I had the awesome responsibility of toting the dirty sheets, blankets, pillowcases, and fart sacks down to base laundry every Thursday morning.

Since you and I covered some of this ground with PM’s I’ll trust your memory is somewhat intact and maybe you just forgot some of the details gunny. There are quite a few of those memories I don’t openly discuss, there are after action reports that can be found, but I’m not looking for them.
I can not attest to the training in the marines, the Army could do an adequate job in what is apparently less time.
I don’t recall saying anything Army was a snap, maybe your memory will come back and you can point out where I said snap.
We were Army, we could walk talk and chew gun all at the same time, and without someone standing over us. Now I’m starting to remember why I chose Army and not some of the other service options.
I know I addressed my initiation to the war previously, I’ll say this, it didn’t go down anything like what your suggesting here gunny.
Maybe the “Granada War” was different, Vietnam was what it was.
Lifers, that’s what I was at the time gunny, at the ripe old age of 20 years and 3 months I was promoted to Sergeant E-5, looking for my E-6 upon re-enlistment, too bad I was out on a medical, good chance I’d gone for it, you know, young and foolish.
So you fought in a laundry room and I fought in a war, what’s the big deal gunny, we’re really not all that different.
Back to the point of my post, if they can train up GI’s in under six months and send them into combat, what’s up with the training going on in Iraq today?

I am not of military background, so if this post is not welcome here let me know and I will have an admin remove it... seems to this civilian that if you go into a country, kill it's men, women, and children... there would be some desire by the locals to get even... and it seems to me that if I were in their sandals, I would welcome the chance to work with my enemies to learn everything I could about them... including being trained by them... so that I could slit their throats when they weren't expecting it... seems to me we are training our enemies to be as good at killing as we are. How Stupid is that? Did we do that with the Germans and Japanese? I suspect we are the butt of many an Iraqi joke... As to just how stupid we Americans truly are...

I say... GTFO now, and try for treason all the idiot leaders that got us into this mess in the first place... starting from the top down...

Your words and thought are always welcome, your opinion as valued as any.

It’s certainly not exclusive to military types to understand the differences in right or wrong.
You make a valid point.
GTFO is a valued idea, one that is being considered by a major portion of our fellow citizens. Last poll I saw had “pro Iraq war” at about 27 to 30 percent.
Maybe not so stupid as they are gullible and wanting a leader to be right and lead properly.

Please do not misunderstand me... my reference to stupid was limited to our illustrious corporate sponsored leadership... not our military... whom I hold in the very highest regard and respect. Other references to stupid Americans was from an Iraqi perspective...

I do not think Americans are stupid... just horribly dis-informed.

You shouldn’t limit your insight, there are very few differences between a military American and a civilian American. There is no data that proves one segment is in any way superior or even significantly different than any other segment of this great America. Military or otherwise, we all share about the same abilities. Bravery comes from confronting ones inner self, something we are all capable of.
Americans have a predisposition to believe what their leaders are telling them. When leaders shame themselves by violating that trust of the people, by allowing dishonest statements to stand, it is not the fault of the people the leaders word has lost all value.

I have known over the course of my lifetime several military career persons and I must say they have consistently impressed me with their intellect, compassion, and tolerance. They are highly motivated, focused, and well organized individuals that are highly team oriented. Some have passed away and others I have lost contact with over the years but they all remain standards of personal integrity and honor that I try to emulate in my own life. Sure, they are just like civilians, after all they were civilians before joining the military... but they have been trained, and tested, and proven to themselves they are defenders of liberty and freedom... and that is a high water mark in any person's life.

That our leaders are nothing more than corporate goons serving the best interests of their greed... and that our democratic republic system of government- of, by and for the people has been hijacked and subverted is an insult and a shame upon the men and women asked to serve as our guardians against all enemies...

We, the People, have failed our military... by sending them needlessly into harms way, by wasting their lives. I had sincerely hoped that when the coup of 2000 occurred that the military would have see what it was and stopped it. As naive as that sounds, I really believed it. But I, along with my other cowed Americans sat back and watched the dismantling of our elections, our systems of checks and balances eviscerated , and our rule of law tortured out of existence... So now we are no better than any other 3rd world banana republic... with all the corruption and stupidity that goes with it. And from this rotten stench I can only hope that our military will wake up to the realization that we are all in this fight together... that we citizens are soldiers yet tested... that we love our country just as much as they do... and that we are also the sons and daughters of the American Dream... prepared to defend it - from all enemies - foreign and domestic.

Is it necessary for a person to have a military background in order to claim they are equal as defenders of liberty and freedom? I think not, patriotism comes in many colors.
When you say “our leaders” you might be a little more specific. Many of these people are not my leaders, maybe some one is following them, I couldn’t say.
I will have to disagree with your coup of 2000 scenario, I could never support an attempt by our military to manipulate any part or portion of our system, regardless how screwed up it might seem at the time. We have Constitutional issues that rightfully prevent our military from getting involved in domestic affairs.
Your right, we the people have done a good job of allowing indifference to prevail, at a time when assiduousness would have served our nation much better.
I believe we the people will prevail in the long term, unfortunately it will be too late for the many who gave their all for this president.

Our Leaders are bush, cheney, and our do nothing 109th republican controlled congress; selected, groomed, and nurtured by corporate controlled bribery.

The 2000 coup by corporate extremists is more than enough provocation for our military and citizens to rally to the defense of democracy. The fact that we did nothing is proof that we as a nation have been cowed into corporate slavery. We are very close to being a carbon copy of a larger global fascism. The Constitution does not allow the supreme court to stop presidential elections. However, the military is there to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Their failure to act has cost the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives around the world. Our presidential elections have been hijacked by right wing fascists. The failure of our enforcement to uphold the law will go down in history as one of our darkest moments... if history survives at all.

We may prevail in the long run... but not in my lifetime. Maybe not even in my kids' life times... we may be entering a period much like the dark ages... that could last hundreds of years... or worse yet, end in a series of weaponized plagues that snuff out the lives of billions of people in few months...

maybe that's what is best in the long run... God forgive us for our apathy and laziness...

I agree with much of what Wunder said here. But back to the original subject, I am very worried for those who will be embedded to train Iraqis who will surely kill them at some point. Each of their groups has been infiltrated, so how do they keep the bad guys away from our troops sent in to train? Only a fool would believe it would happen any other way. Who would like to volunteer his/her son to be among the first left to "train" the various Iraqi groups?

Will it be civil war? Yes, it already is. Might it turn into genocide? Possibly, but I don't know how much the Shias "hate" the Sunni and vice versa. It might have been smart to have killed al Sadr a long time ago back when he was a target and not a government member. He's the type who could whip up hatred.

I remember someone who used to post to this forum who left Iraq as a child, and I clearly recall many posts where he made it clear that revenge on every member of a family was right and normal, and he could never be dissuaded from that attitude. I remember it being beyond the comprehension of the rest of us.
Offering to take the children out of harm's way might be a good beginning. And then we leave.