How Are The Iraqi Forces Doing? When Can Ours Start Coming Home?

[Annie]

A clue:

http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=440

7/22/2005
Iraqi Army Capability
Filed under:


— site admin @ 10:54 am

In the latest issue of The Weekly Standard, I made a guess as to the number of fully-capable Iraqi battalions. Here’s a quote from that article, written after my recent trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, and Qatar (see Quick Update at the end of the post):

…How many Iraqi battalions work like Colonel Muhammad’s? Here’s my guess, based on what I’ve gleaned from my best military sources: As of June 2005 there were a half-dozen Iraqi Army battalions capable of running their own operations. But that’s a vast improvement over the zero that existed in July 2004. (I do not include the 36th Commando Battalion in this mix–that elite unit was a very effective force already in 2004.) …​

I made this estimate based on whatI learned about specific operations, and heard from troops working with Iraqi Army and Ministry of Interior forces. What units were judged fully “green” (as in “green and ready to go,” not green as in inexperienced) was classified. The metrics were classified as well.

Both the NY Times/IHT and Washington Post have articles on this subject.

Here’s the WPost’s take:

The Pentagon told Congress on Thursday that progress toward establishing democracy in Iraq is on track despite an adaptable and deadly insurgency, but it offered no estimate of when U.S. troops would start withdrawing.
In its most comprehensive public assessment yet of conditions in Iraq, the military released a 23-page report that described progress and problems on the political, economic and security fronts…
…The report says the key will be reaching the point when Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped at a level at which they can assume primary responsibility. The report does not estimate when that will happen…
…Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, director of strategic plans for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that specific measuring tools are useful in gauging the combat capabilities of Iraqi forces. But he said decisions about when Iraqis can take over for U.S. troops will be based in part of the judgment of U.S. commanders.
U.S. officers have developed a method of calculating the combat readiness of the approximately 76,700 Iraqi Army troops. The Pentagon said it “should not and must not” publicly disclose specific data.
“The enemy’s knowledge of such details would put both Iraqi and coalition forces at increased risk,” the report said.
That information, along with details on various possible changes in the level of U.S. forces in Iraq next year, were included in a part of the report that was classified as secret, along with the unclassified report delivered to Congress.

Here’s what the Pentagon apparently said on background:

Pentagon officials said later that only three of the approximately 100 Iraqi army battalions are taking on the insurgents by themselves. About one-third is fully capable of operating against the insurgency, but only with U.S. support.
​

I suspect this is the number that are rated “green” and fully capable. I think another three to five battalions that are approaching this status (the three that led to my “half dozen” estimate). This tells me that another block of 25 or so battalions are doing better than I thought.

Eric Schmitt writing for the NY Times, said:

About half of Iraq’s new police units are still training and cannot conduct operations, while the other half of the police units and two-thirds of the new Iraqi Army battalions are only “partially capable” of counterinsurgency missions, and then only with U.S. help, according to a declassified Pentagon assessment.

Only “a small number” of Iraqi security forces are capable of fighting the insurgency without U.S. assistance, while about one-third of the army is capable of “planning, executing and sustaining counterinsurgency operations” with allied support, the analysis said.
​

The assessment, which has not been publicly released, is the most precise analysis of the Iraqis’ readiness that the military has provided to date.

Bush administration officials have repeatedly said that the 160,000 U.S.-led allied troops could not begin to withdraw until Iraqi troops were ready to take over security duties.

The assessment was described in a brief written response that General Peter Pace, the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided last week to the Senate Armed Services Committee. At Pace’s confirmation hearing June 29, Republicans and Democrats directed him to provide an unclassified accounting of the Iraqis’ security capabilities to allow a fuller public debate. The military had already provided classified assessments to lawmakers.

“We need to know - the American people need to know - the status of readiness of the Iraqi military, which is improving, so that we cannot only understand but appreciate better the roles and missions that they are capable of carrying out,” Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, said at the hearing.​

Pace’s statement came as the Pentagon prepared to deliver to Congress a report that cited performance standards and goals on political and economic matters, as well as the training of Iraqi security forces, and a timetable for achieving those goals. The report was due July 11, but the Pentagon missed the deadline. The Defense Department is required to update the assessment every 90 days.

From a single U.S.-trained Iraqi battalion a year ago, the Pentagon says, there are now more than 100 battalions of Iraqi soldiers and paramilitary police units, totaling 171,500 troops. Of that force, about 77,700 are military troops and 93,800 are police and paramilitary police officers. The total is to rise to 270,000 by next summer, when 10 fully equipped, 14,000-man Iraqi Army divisions are to be operational.

U.S. commanders have until now resisted quantifying the abilities of Iraqi units, especially their shortcomings, to avoid giving insurgents any advantage. In Pace’s seven-sentence response, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, he stated, “The majority of Iraqi security forces are engaged in operations against the insurgency with varying degrees of cooperation and support from coalition forces.”

At a Pentagon news conference on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended this approach of describing Iraqi units in general terms.

“It’s not for us to tell the other side, the enemy, the terrorists, that this Iraqi unit has this capability, and that Iraqi unit has this capability,” Rumsfeld said. “The idea of discussing weaknesses, if you will, strengths and weaknesses of ‘this unit has a poor chain of command,’ or ‘these forces are not as effective because their morale’s down’ - I mean, that would be mindless to put that kind of information out.”​

 

[Gabriella84]

How about ... NOW

 

[Annie]

How about ... NOW

How about using the great mind you keep reminding us, is yours? I mean constructively, with some discourse? Is it all just smoke and mirrors?

 

[Semper Fi]

How about ... NOW

Why do you want them back anyway? Judging by your posts it appears that you hate the military (an everything America stands for for that matter), and all of the soldiers. Shouldnt you want them to stay there?


In the case of the troops coming home, I doubt it will be in the near future, unfortunately. The Korean war ended half a century ago yet troops still do 12 month tours there. There isnt an insurgency nor any real threatdirectly at the US garrison there, but they are still there. Now the Iraq War is a differant story and doesnt have NK on the northern border, so perhaps things will be different.

 

[Gabriella84]

I stand for saving American lives. It is only people like you that want more American soldiers to die.

 

[-Cp]

I stand for saving American lives. It is only people like you that want more American soldiers to die.

Which is worse Gabby? And I want to you to try to be intellectually honest here. It's a simple question.

What is worse?

1. For 1800 Soldiers to die in War?

2. For over 10x that amount of Civillians to keep dying becase we take a passive attitude towards terrorism and those states that harbor them?

 

[Annie]

I stand for saving American lives. It is only people like you that want more American soldiers to die.

You stand for nothing. You have lived with your parents, then to school, then to Rob! Rob! Rob! Then there are your psycho problems, while you get 'degreed' in 'saving the world.'

You are 21 and you are nothing. Enjoy your wedding. If this part of your story is true, hope Rob knows what a twit he's got.

 

[Semper Fi]

I stand for saving American lives. It is only people like you that want more American soldiers to die.

I dont think you carea bout American lives. Look at your sig, it mocks the death of 3000 civilians. And you dont know me well enough to assume that I want more Amerrican soldiers to die. My dad is a soldier, I want him to live. But I'd rather have him in Iraq than have Saddam murder millions again. Like CP said. Why dont you answer his question, please.

 

[ThomasPaine]

I stand for saving American lives. It is only people like you that want more American soldiers to die.

Why not emigrate? You so hate this nation. It pains me to call you fellow citizen. You are not.

 

[ekrem]

Rumfsfeld bad strategist...


dissolve regular iraqi army really big big mistake...

Now special forces from former Iaqi Army are paid by OSMAM bin LADEN..


big big Mistake.