Iraq: Strategic and Diplomatic Options

[Jimbo]

Oh, I will rebut this one.

i was an OIF I Infantry companay commander. Redeployed summer of '03, went on AC/RC duty and 12 months later was on an AST (later MiTT) from Jan 2005 to Jan 2006. Spent my 12 months training e-brigades for Iraq. That being said, I will now rail against the RC/NG MiTT guys.

When the Army resourced institutional training divisions to be MiTT's they went further back than the third string. When you have guys who have not been on active duty beyond PME or AT since Nixon was President, you have a problem. Furthermore, these guys constantly chnage MOS's for promotion they really don't know any very well. Example, you are a QM/trand/OD/MSC officer, get career course qualified, then a couple years down the road take the Infantry Captains career course by correspondance and get 11A as an additional skill identifier. The guy goes to Iraq, switches out collar insignia, has his reserve unit buddies staffing MNSTC-I to put him in charge of an Infantry battalion team. damn near gets evrybody killed in Ramadi. NCO's who are 55 years old, night blind, and haven't spent any time in the field (because they are TRADOC backfills) in 15 years. He doesn't know how to work anything on the team because he couldn't retain anything taught to him in the train-up. The reservists made a mess of the intial training program. I had a battalion team chief tell me staright out of the chute that the priorities were teaching the Iraqi's key control, a PY program, and helping them develop an OER system. I poinjted out that we weren't over there teach SIDPERS, MFT, or key control. that is what those jackasses thought we should be focusing on, never mind battle drills, marksmanship, basiic maintenance and actual leadership classes. The 98th DIV was a football bat and so was the 80th DIV. The guys from MTO&E units from the NG was considerably better than the federal reservists from the IT divs. The problem with the NG guys was what they did in their states. Guys who were working in their MOS's were pretty god, especially after getting brought up to speed on equipment. The guys they got out of IG offices and such ahd some issues. There were alot of RC people badge hunting, and they were doing at the expense of the mission. I can give examples, but I will give two. Two Army Reserve LTC's got promoted to COL while over there. The reservists I worked with pointed out that these guys only got promoted because they volunteered to stay in Iraq. One of them had to be forcibly sedated by a Navy corpsman when he lost it at his camp in southern Iraq. The Army Reserve messed the ISF up and I said in 2005 when I was over there that their incompetence probably put the Iraqi's 9 to 12 months behind where they could be.

[Bill Moore]

Once again explain your realistic approach? Share more good news with the Iraqis? Our military has been infiltrated by extremely liberal political correct princes who have the gull to call themselves practical and realistic. Building schools is not good news, when you can't put your kids on a school bus because they're not safe. We failed to defeat the insurgents, stood up an Iraqi government much too quickly (should have a ver stringent martial law in place), and made numerous other mistakes. The quality of life in Iraq has been decreasing month by month, and guess what what guys? That bad news that you think the media is making up, is actually happening on the ground. I guess if we found 75 bodies that were tortured in Dallas yesterday, we would acuse the media of bias reporting if that was the headline news? The media didn't lose this fight, we did. You can build all the schools you like, but until you can provide security (the real issue, thus the real news) you haven't completed squate except wasting tax dollars on some politically correct version of counterinsurgency. This is the Iraqis' fight now, we just have to find a way to transition it to them that is more responsible than the way we got to this point. As for the MiTTs, again I hear political correct leanings, when I see postings that the NG is as good as our active component. When it comes to nation building skills our NG and RC may bring more relevant skills and life experiences, but when it comes to standing up an Army, they can't compare with a soldier who has been doing full time for several years. The Iraqis in many units have lost respect for their MiTTs, because they know more they do. Yes, the pre-mission training was a failure and a "part" of the problem, but if the MiTT is our primary effort to get out of Iraq, then we should send our best people, and of course they'll be kicking and screaming, so be it, too bad, too sad.

[Culpeper]

Once again explain your realistic approach? Share more good news with the Iraqis? Our military has been infiltrated by extremely liberal political correct princes who have the gull to call themselves practical and realistic. Building schools is not good news, when you can't put your kids on a school bus because they're not safe. We failed to defeat the insurgents, stood up an Iraqi government much too quickly (should have a ver stringent martial law in place), and made numerous other mistakes. The quality of life in Iraq has been decreasing month by month, and guess what what guys? That bad news that you think the media is making up, is actually happening on the ground. I guess if we found 75 bodies that were tortured in Dallas yesterday, we would acuse the media of bias reporting if that was the headline news? The media didn't lose this fight, we did. You can build all the schools you like, but until you can provide security (the real issue, thus the real news) you haven't completed squate except wasting tax dollars on some politically correct version of counterinsurgency. This is the Iraqis' fight now, we just have to find a way to transition it to them that is more responsible than the way we got to this point. As for the MiTTs, again I hear political correct leanings, when I see postings that the NG is as good as our active component. When it comes to nation building skills our NG and RC may bring more relevant skills and life experiences, but when it comes to standing up an Army, they can't compare with a soldier who has been doing full time for several years. The Iraqis in many units have lost respect for their MiTTs, because they know more they do. Yes, the pre-mission training was a failure and a "part" of the problem, but if the MiTT is our primary effort to get out of Iraq, then we should send our best people, and of course they'll be kicking and screaming, so be it, too bad, too sad.

Once again? I didn't even know there was a previous attempt by you to get me to define, "realistic". You've got so many silly analogies in there that I'm afraid to even attempt to answer your first question. Would you prefer I had used the word "basic" instead of "realistic"? If so, then take a couple of hours and read, "Counterinsurgency Warfare", by David Galula. Your post is a rant.

Edit:

If so, then take a couple of hours and [re]read, "Counterinsurgency Warfare", by David Galula.

[SWJED]

... let's all stay on topic and table any personal digs, etc. Thanks.