Hackworth On The Performance Of Our "Allied" Troops In Iraq

[NATO AIR]

turns out the Poles and Italians are pretty much worthless.... but the Japanese, Bulgarians, El Salvadorans and Mongolians are not to be trifled with.
interesting read from one side (though hackworth is excellent), would love to hear more about this from anyone who knows anything

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/...mand=viewone&op=t&id=89&rnd=449.7793308499807

Coalition of the Chilling Out?

By David H. Hackworth

Not too long ago in Iraq, a young American officer was warned by a Polish colonel: “You can't go out there. People are getting killed. We must stay on our bases where we are safe.”

The American replied, “I didn’t come to Iraq to stay safe while American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying and you folks sit on your butts.”

“What's your view on Poland’s (2,460 troops) and Italy’s (3,000) threat to follow Spain’s pullout from Iraq?” I asked him.

“No big deal,” he replied, “because they don’t bring much to the party. We had to take An Najaf two times, once from Saddam and once from Sadr. We ended up paying in blood twice for the same real estate while the Poles and Spanish (1,300) let one of the most peaceful areas in Iraq go to hell.”

The southern sectors of Iraq – mostly Shia – are under the command of Brits (9,000) and Poles. Except for the South Koreans (1,100) and Australians (800), most of our coalition partners in Iraq come under these two commands.

”I didn’t see either the Poles or the Brits pushing subordinate units to clean up the insurgents who daily got stronger,” adds a vet recently returned from Iraq.

“Many of our coalition partners have yet to learn you can’t hunker down in mud forts and expect insurgents to kick back,” says another good soldier, who’s been working with coalition troops for almost a year. “For example, a Bulgarian (480) leader, fed up with being mortared night after night, asked his Polish commander why his unit wasn’t sending out patrols to kill the attackers. The Pole replied, ‘Well ... it’s very dangerous out there.’ By giving up the initiative, the Poles have allowed the insurgents to determine where and when they will strike.”

According to this source, the problem isn’t just with the Poles: “When Spain bugged out, sadly the Hondurans (368) and Dominicans (302) followed. These guys were fierce fighters like the El Salvadorians (361), who fortunately stayed. As for the Spanish, they left with every bullet they brought.”

During the second battle for An Najaf, the coalition compound would have been overrun if not for U.S. and Salvadorian troops. During the retaking of Najaf, both the Polish and Spanish hid on their bases, even though the operation was in their sector.

The southernmost provinces fall under the command of the Brits – which also includes the reportedly “worthless” Italian brigade.

The recently returned vet describes how a senior British officer explained his army’s philosophy: “We stay back until they become very bold and over-extend themselves. Then we jump out, counterattack and drive them back.”

“That’s how the Brits lost the American Revolution,” the vet observed. “The Iraqi insurgents avoid direct contact until they’re ready to engage on their terms at their time.”

Just before he came home, one Brit battalion was moved to the mean killing field of Baghdad – where he notes that “they better seriously change their style of doing things if they want to stay alive.”

“Right after the invasion, the Brits were able to go wherever they wished,” he explained. “But once they started vacating territory, it fell back into contention.”

Not all comments about coalition allies are negative. According to these stalwart, concerned American soldiers – all of whom asked for anonymity to protect their careers – the Japanese (240) are doing a great job. And anyone planning to shoot at a Bulgarian will find himself dead before he takes aim. Mongolians (160) have also proven their steel, and the Australians are superb, while the Ukrainians’ (1,600) performance is mixed.

They all agree that the Shia areas can be saved – but only if American senior leaders get coalition forces off their butts and out into the communities. And if the Brits, Poles and Italians would rather leave than take the initiative, the consensus is: let them pack their coolers, teapots and beach umbrellas and go home!

Overall, the coalition appears to be a costly joke – but American taxpayers, who are stuck with a big chunk of the tab, should be losing their sense of humor by now. And our politicians who are so into crowing about the effectiveness of the coalition should take time out to talk to the guys who know.

--Eilhys England contributed to this column.


Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. For information on his many books, go to his home page at Hackworth.com, where you can sign in for his free weekly Defending America. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts.” © 2004 David H. Hackworth. Please send Feedback responses to [email protected].

 

[gaffer]

hackworth supports wes clark, anyone that supports that man has little credibility with me. he's also very negative about the military and how things are run. He's very persuasive with how he rates buts he's actually a flaming liberal.

 

[NATO AIR]

hackworth supports wes clark, anyone that supports that man has little credibility with me. he's also very negative about the military and how things are run. He's very persuasive with how he rates buts he's actually a flaming liberal.

how do you support the accusation he's a liberal? the man fought a brutal style of war that most liberals would cringe at, all while fighting liberal government officials who mismanaged the vietnam war. wes clark isn't a liberal, just someone who's sadly on the wrong side of the argument about the war in iraq. john kerry, that's a liberal. david hackworth/wes clark? no

 

[freeandfun1]

good ole hack is just that..... a HACK. he is a "has been" that has nothing intelligent to add.

He was okay about a decade ago, but as he gets older, his ignorance shows through.

 

[NATO AIR]

good ole hack is just that..... a HACK. he is a "has been" that has nothing intelligent to add.

He was okay about a decade ago, but as he gets older, his ignorance shows through.

i can understand that POV at least. what do you think about the "performance of our allied partners"?

 

[freeandfun1]

i can understand that POV at least. what do you think about the "performance of our allied partners"?

Frankly, I am not surprised.

Secondly, I still wonder to this day why everybody is up in arms and bitching about our "weak" coalition. I really don't care if there are any troops assisting us or not. America is a proud country that can defend itself. WE are the ones that were attacked on 911 and WE are the ones that were most threatened by Sadaam's WMD's or the thought of him having WMD's so I really don't care if the other nations of the world want to help or not. Why should WE rely on others to help us? WE help others because that is what America does. I really don't care if anybody comes to our aid or not. WE CAN take care of ourselves as we have proven time and again.

 

[NATO AIR]

Frankly, I am not surprised.

Secondly, I still wonder to this day why everybody is up in arms and bitching about our "weak" coalition. I really don't care if there are any troops assisting us or not. America is a proud country that can defend itself. WE are the ones that were attacked on 911 and WE are the ones that were most threatened by Sadaam's WMD's or the thought of him having WMD's so I really don't care if the other nations of the world want to help or not. Why should WE rely on others to help us? WE help others because that is what America does. I really don't care if anybody comes to our aid or not. WE CAN take care of ourselves as we have proven time and again.

i can agree with that to an extent. we mostly need other nations to help pay for the interventions and wars we must fight, as well as to give us airspace and basing rights. Intelligence and special missions perhaps can be assisted by the allies, but as you say, we can handle it ourselves.

 

[freeandfun1]

i can agree with that to an extent. we mostly need other nations to help pay for the interventions and wars we must fight, as well as to give us airspace and basing rights. Intelligence and special missions perhaps can be assisted by the allies, but as you say, we can handle it ourselves.

I'm not talking about basing, airspace use, etc. I am just talking about the actual dirty work.

 

[gaffer]

how do you support the accusation he's a liberal? the man fought a brutal style of war that most liberals would cringe at, all while fighting liberal government officials who mismanaged the vietnam war. wes clark isn't a liberal, just someone who's sadly on the wrong side of the argument about the war in iraq. john kerry, that's a liberal. david hackworth/wes clark? no

I've read his articles and listen to him on the news channels. He's become an armchair quarterback whose mostly wrong. He may be right on the allies participation. You never hear anything on what they are doing if anything.
Wes Clark is an idiot. He has shown that repeatedly. Hackworths supporting and admiring him ruins his credibility as far as I'm concerned.

And to head off what I know is coming. There is a lot of politics in the military. You don't make it beyond colonel without political connections and asskissing in the right places.Clark kissed all the right ass to get his spot and managed to get himself removed from command for unspecified inappropriate behavior.

 

[Said1]

good ole hack is just that..... a HACK. he is a "has been" that has nothing intelligent to add.

He was okay about a decade ago, but as he gets older, his ignorance shows through.

I enjoyed his books a lot, but he seems to have done a complete about face with regard to his attidudes and opionions lately.

 

[NATO AIR]

I'm not talking about basing, airspace use, etc. I am just talking about the actual dirty work.

yea, we can handle it ourselves. i think we should pay attention to the soldiers who are fighting well with us and keep them in mind in the future. we don't need to use these folks to help us fight war, but in peacekeeping situations like haiti, east timor and possibly darfur in the future, it is valuable to know who can pull the weight and lead and who can't.

 

[NATO AIR]

managed to get himself removed from command for unspecified inappropriate behavior.

okay i can understand that. yea hackworth has kind of changed, mostly over iraq (but haven't a lot of good people who used to be so right and are now so wrong).

clark's removal was because he fought a war the pentagon did not want to fight, because he believed in that war and kept it going and kept the alliance alive. he didn't ask bill clinton to handcuff him with a no ground troops promise but he fought the best war any general in his spot could have. the pentagon played politics, and clark didn't like that in the end. he got so tired of guys like hugh shelton lying and decieving him and others and trying to undercut the kosovo war that he started going straight to the civlians, always a mistake in the end but something that in this case saved the war from being lost until his removal after we forced the serbs to give up.

now clark has been wrong on the iraq war and nearly everything since. a shame, but as i said, so many good people have lost their sense over Iraq.

 

[freeandfun1]

okay i can understand that. yea hackworth has kind of changed, mostly over iraq (but haven't a lot of good people who used to be so right and are now so wrong).

clark's removal was because he fought a war the pentagon did not want to fight, because he believed in that war and kept it going and kept the alliance alive. he didn't ask bill clinton to handcuff him with a no ground troops promise but he fought the best war any general in his spot could have. the pentagon played politics, and clark didn't like that in the end. he got so tired of guys like hugh shelton lying and decieving him and others and trying to undercut the kosovo war that he started going straight to the civlians, always a mistake in the end but something that in this case saved the war from being lost until his removal after we forced the serbs to give up.

now clark has been wrong on the iraq war and nearly everything since. a shame, but as i said, so many good people have lost their sense over Iraq.

Wes Clark is a politician more than a General. He went to the civilians cuz he figured it would get him promotions. When Bush was elected, he knew his chances of becoming CJCS was limited and so he decided to go after the admin, hoping that in another dem admin, he could land a seat of power.

 

[NATO AIR]

Wes Clark is a politician more than a General. He went to the civilians cuz he figured it would get him promotions. When Bush was elected, he knew his chances of becoming CJCS was limited and so he decided to go after the admin, hoping that in another dem admin, he could land a seat of power.

i won't deny that now. he wants influence now.