Are the Iraqi forces well trained, but just not motivated to fight for a multi-sectatian, unified Iraq?
957409
That's an interesting point. They remind me of the South Vietnamese "army" who we went in originally to help train, but they never quite got it.
1001061
Yes because until we do we will be trying to win this war by force and we should have learned by now that WE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO DO SO. No one has beaten the arabs and yrs they are VERY VERY strong and VERY well organised.\nIt's our own arrogance that will keep us fighting and dying. For what????????????An Ideal that can never be reality given that countrys political background\n We always think our way is best.\n\nThe idea that by negotiating with them we are helping them or harming ourselves is utter nonsense and and irrational.\nIts in our INTERESTS to negotiate with them Sum ppl just can't see that. What do they think will happen if we do?? More bombings?? NO!!! It will create LESS danger for us and more calm in Iraq  if we give to them LESS reason to fight.\nAnyone who says we should'nt negotiate can't have thought past the whole knee jerk reaction from this. We arent harming ourselves by negotiating. We aren't and I challenge anyone to try and prove how if they think we are.\nDid pride ever get results and end wars? No pride carries them on and yes one might say without pride we would never win anything BUT  our pride is rooted in crushing them and destroying them which, as I have already pointed out, is not the only way of getting what we want out of this. \nWhat do we want? Most ppl don't know and I suspect that is why they can't see that non-negotiation is the equivalent of refusing to be resonable and puts the US and Iraq in more danger.\nTerrorists dont want bad things, they just go about in mercenary ways to get them and they will continue to do so, are we so unbelievably arrogant and self decieved to think we can beat them in their own territory? If it was on US soil maybe we could but not over there. We have an oppoutunity to improve the situation but we seem to want it ALL your own way so carry on trying to crush them. Well as I have said before the US army and terrorists in Iraq are probably two equal forces and so will be fighting for YEARS unless we face up to the reality of the situation.
583693
The MEU is up and running strong.  They are continually training.  They make trips over to Iraq and Afghanastan right now.  But they are kind of a quick reaction force.  Since they are pretty much geared up to go at any time, they can be dispatched to a problem area more quickly than other units.  For actual invasions, I would have to beleive that more troops would be needed.
739324
Yes, the conflict has gone way too far ! Our troops should not be further exposed to the violence.Iraq is not a state or province of The United States,we are simply there to help them establish their own government.With the casualties continuing to climb; perhaps its time to rethink  our plan of action.\n\nThis "internal civil war " is both political and religious  motivated; that needs to be settled by their own people .\nGive the people the arms and training they need and allow them to emancipate their own country.\n\nThe Sunnis and Shiites have been at "war" with each other for many years.Their true religious leaders(those who actually follow the true teachings of Islam ) should call the leaders of the others and  attempt to mediate an end to the killing and violence.
597994
Insurgencies are conditions in which the population revolts against a government because the government will not, or simply cannot provide the necessary governance for life.  This population can be likened to the criminal gang and organized crime elements more then conventional war fighters or terrorists.  The insurgency in Iraq is composed of primarily men 18-38.  They tend to be decentralized in operations, are local within a small territorial range and recruit their fighters from local talent.  When the group gets too large, there may be internal violence, mass killings and rival rifts as members compete for upward mobility.   Their “Cause to Die For” is the failure of the government to meet the most basic levels of life and to provide hope.  They almost always spawn from decapitated states especially if the levels of basic services do not improve with time.  Their cause is never an ideology or idealistic dogma and therefore they will have the propensity to ebb and flow based on the need of the day and the targets of opportunity.  Because they are not driven by a single ideology, members can quickly apostatize.  This fact can be used as an important counter insurgency weapon.  \nThe insurgent is apolitical and much more primal in their motives as compared to terrorism or conventional war fighters.  Insurgency warfare is not politically or religiously motivated.  Notice how this flies in the face of the conventional war fighter’s paradigm proposed by Clausewitz, “War is the extension of politics by other means.”  If a word could describe insurgents it is self serving—power, money, lawlessness, food, freedom of oppression, survival, etc., and once spawned, their aim is protractedness; not about winning.  Insurgents don’t have a goal of winning although they would not mind seeing their enemy fail, they win if the struggle continues to gain momentum and they draw others into the fray—that breeds chaos.  Finally, insurgency battles are small scale quick engagements that are executed locally within kilometers of their homes.  \nThe insurgency in Iraq is acting locally without thinking globally whereas the terrorists operating in Iraq (although much smaller in size less than 5%) are thinking globally without thinking locally.  This is not to say that they do not get outside support, momentum and efficacy from the outside, and from each other.  They certainly gain influence and power from the outside and even funding/support may be from external sources but in the aggregate, there is not enough self-interest for large numbers of outsiders to physically risk fighting at the grass roots level.  And, those that do fight are doing so for reasons much different then the primal needs of the insurgents.  It would not be unusual to see uncoordinated terrorist elements operating in the same area as an insurgency.  The primary rebel movement is local insurgency.  The major difference is that the insurgency targets are much more tactical, whereas the terrorist are more strategic in nature.   It is important that the two be kept separate because the methods of engagement are significantly different and the momentum that is gained when one is attached to the other is synergistic.     \n\nThe terrorist in contrast is based on the terrorist’s commitment to violence as a small group (usually ranging in group size from few to less than one thousand members) in order to intimidate a population or government to cause fundamental change.  The group size is limited by command and control capabilities. Their cause is ideological and political, based on group-actualization rather than self-serving.  It is aimed at the establishment, not decapitated states; however, terrorism enjoys the freedom to operate unabated in failed states.  Finally, rarely will anyone ever develop a counter terrorist strategy to change this group’s apostasy.   Their beliefs are so deeply held that they appear to the world as radical and extreme.  The terrorist
390070
Are you asking why the insurgents are killing Iraqis?  If so, the answer is fairly simple; they cannot allow the Iraqis to form a unified government.  To do so derails their goal of throwing Iraq into a bloody civil war where Sunni and Shiite kill one another, with the US led coalition stuck in the middle.
1039703
It takes a while to build a military, police or security force of Iraqi people.   This is a country the size of California almost and there is no way to develop the necessary security aparatus in a time frame that would make Bush haters happy.  So they use the fact "its not done yet" to suggest he's failed.  Truth of the matter is we outsed the Iraqi army in record time, we moved the country to free elections in record time, and we will develop their own security details "IN RECORD TIME"
817372
Watch or listen to CSPAN now. There is a hearing on that. The General just said We need more troops, another said, We need an exit strategy. \nIn one month the Baker meet will be over and then and only then will we will know anything. \nMy opinion is that there should be 3, one Sunni, one Shiite and one Kurd. Each with their own accepted borders, and all sharing equally in any oil revenues from all 3 Countries or States. \nThe Shia and Sunni are never going to get along, and the Kurds just add an extra element of dispute. So give them all 3 equally shares of land, in relation to their original lands and with some acknowledgment as to Census Status, i.e. 3million Shia, 3million acre, 2 million Sunnis 2 million acres, 1million Kurds, 1 million acre. Or something like that. Seems fair, they all get Oil Revenues equally, and no one is or can take anothers land.
609664
I am guessing both are more than likely trained along the same lines. The US and British military seem to work together well, so that's what made me say that.
878775
That's political face saving at best trying to buy time to come up with an excuse to leave. The truth is there is no saving the situation in Iraq. This is now a tribal and religious war and will have to burn itself out we are just in the way. The govt that was elected in Iraq is so convoluted that no one has real power just the militias and they have infiltrated everything to the highest levels. Thus the Iraq army has been totally nullified along with the police forces. There is no getting it right that ship has long ago sailed. The generals hopes and dreams will not change that. It would be best to get out or move our troops to the oil facilities only and keep the crude safe from terrorist and insurgents. Any extra troops can be sent to Afghanistan that can still be saved. Once the most powerful tribes win control of Iraq we can then do like all the rest before us supply them with weapons and expertise and thus prop up another new Saddam.
895888
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-scramble9nov09,0,6350531.story\n\nThat. It's actually a very mixed bag, right now, so expecting Iraq to be able to respond as quick as we can, amidst their still incomplete reorganization would be far fetched.
516523
Loss?  Hardly.\nIs there an offical Iraqi government? Yep, it was voted in today.\nIs the Iraqi army coming along? Yep, the Iraqi military will be in charge of 75% of Iraq by the end of July.\n\nHow much "land" do the rebels hold? None, although they are fighting in five cities in the country the size of California.\n\nI think the U.S. will be out of Iraq by 2009. The Iraqi military will probably be incharge of over 90% of Iraq within 2008.\n\nTerrorist cells are being split by Afganistan, Iraq, Sudan and Somallia.  They can't reinforce any one area well (because their recuits would rather fight in an area closest to them) and their money and weapons are drying up.
534754
Actually, there are already over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers trained and operating in Iraq. The deal is, it takes time for the battalions to mature and become fully self sufficient. It's  one thing to train individuals on how to fight and become soldiers; but these soldiers need good, well-trained, officers and seargents to lead them. These leaders take time to develop.
128807
Not for years.  The governments of too many surrounding countries have far too much to loose if Iraq becomes a stable democratic state so they will continue to fund and encourage the "insurgents".  However, the violence should lessen as the new government gets organized and the USA starts pulling out.
798645
you know, i think we have got some more important things to do before we leave iraq.we should make sure that the situation will not get bad when we leave iraq.you are right, the police and iraqi forces are trained but you know, the situation is so sensitive, we should be sure about iran, syria and other goverments who support terrorists and tell them not to be involved in iraq and its affairs and then we can leave with the honor of victory.( i am an iranian citizen and i respect the US soldiers very much and i know US as a country which i have always wanted to live in)
436216
By the "Iraq War", I will -assume- you mean the fight between the Iraqi insurgency (and Al Qaeda terrorists) vs. US (and Iraqi Defense Forces). Occupation, police action, whatever you want to call it.\n\nThe reason why we cannot defeat the insurgency is because the United States has not learned much from history (I would place most of the blame on the incompetent civilian leadership, regardless of party).\n\nThe civilian leadership did not have a contigency plan that geared towards reconstruction and defeating a potential insurgency. Their love of their doctrine and dreams blinded them as to what might happen. The military leadership, trained to make Plan Bs, tried to warn the civilian leadership of their folly, but were ignored. Remember General Shinseki telling Rumsfeld that at several hundred thousand US troops would be needed to pacify Iraq? Well, he is suspected of having been sacked (officially he "retired").\n\nNext, after the invasion, Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed by "shock and awe," followed by tensions between the Iraqis and the US troops. Remember that the civilian leadership thought that when the US came in the Iraqis would celebrate us as liberators? Well, Iraqis know their history. They know the West's past involvement in the Middle East, known as colonialism. They remember what the French did in Egypt. They remember what the British did in Iraq. The Iraqis did not trust us either nor do they like us (traditional vs modern culture clash). Also, the Iraqis lost power and water and all the essentials for everyday life due to all the bombing campaigns. These factors combined created a massive backlash against the US presence.\n\nAlso, the military uses conventional strategy and tactics to deal with its enemies, the way it has been trained. Unfortunately, most of this is outdated WWI/WWII military thought, which some call "Second Generation Warfare" (the German blitzkrieg is an example of Third Generation Warfare, and the VC element in Vietnam is an example of Fourth Generation Warfare). This is in layman terms of taking ground and destroying the enemy with superior firepower. Unfortunately, such conventional strategy/tactics do not work when you are facing insurgents and terrorists. When dealing with insurgents and terrorists kinetically (means blowing things up, shooting things up, arresting everyone in sight, etc), you can cause massive damage in the civilian infrastructure and create a large amount of collateral damage. This enrages the people, who would then decide to shelter the insurgents and terrorists from the US military, because they want the Americans out. Mao's fish in water illustration. As well, a lack of cultural understanding also makes the tensions escalate. When the Americans carried out their cordon and searches, they disrespected Iraqi customs and violated individual Iraqi's honor. Such gross disrespect of another's culture (especially when you deal with traditional people) is unforgivable, and makes more enemies than allies. This can fuel the insurgency and create support for it.\n\nLastly, our grand strategy must put emphasis on political, social, and economic issues, as opposed to military issues. The goal should be to gain the moral high ground and to use more psychological warfare as opposed to physical warfare. By forcing Iraqis to create a "democracy" (which is actually a republic; democracy is the wrong term to use if you have read Madison's Federalist #10), we are ignoring that these people have a traditional culture who have not been given the time to embrace Western ideals. Remember in history, it has taken several hundred years for the West to develop and embrace Western ideals such as "democracy" and "equality" and etc. Now we expect Iraq to eat all this in one or two decades? Also, we need to focus on at least giving the Iraqis the basic necessities in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
248249
The military for the most part are indoctrinated and trained to respond that way, however a sample of 150 is not adequate . You need closer to 1000 samples for any kind of confidence in the data and by that I mean a 95% level of accuracy.\n\nI knew guys that were happy to be in Nam, ( at first ).\nAlot of Americans already believe civil war has already started.\n\nAs for all the good things happening in Iraq, they seemed to be better off before our invasion and occupation.  We did a lot of good things in South Vietnam too.  It would be too demoralizing for the US forces to even entertain the idea that we are there to secure access to Middle Eastern oil, \nbut this is what this operation is really about.\n\nFreedom, democracy, the war on terra, or...WMDs, are all handy buzzwords that can provide justification to help someone get with the program.  When I was in the military I did not\nsee a lot of critical or analytical thinking any more than I do now.\nWe had the domino theory, back then.