Iraqi Security Forces

Kaiser_Sma

The MNSTC-I and many generous neighbours have been steadily expediating the rearming process of formarliy the single most aggressive nation in the middle east. The reasons why are most likely because of the desire to put back everything but the government as they found it and esentially forming a police force capable of cornering the arms and orginisational race against the average joe-insurgent (who have profited from the mass looting of old iraqs largely unused military equipment). Also it creates fast jobs for a job starving market and job related support and consideration for the occupiing forces.

But what are the likley long term ramifications of rearming iraq. It's largely fueled on the usual 3rd world favorite of old russian hardware, this removes the dependance on the US and Isreal for parts and ammo (no chance of a resurgence of black economies as in the iran-contra scenario then) and opens them up on to the always happy salesmen in the RF, the PRoC, north korea and the rest of their military dependents. It will fill a power vacuum left by irreverant saddam, so that no local nation will claim its resources as it's own. But can a reorginised and rebuilt army with the full range of combined arms (and god knows what amount of hard ware they burried around the place) really be trusted to a country which all though under rather tame leadership at the moment, is politically unstable and possibly receptive to a knew extremist or fundementalist leadership?

stop me if this has been done before

The MNSTC-I and many generous neighbours have been steadily expediating the rearming process of formarliy the single most aggressive nation in the middle east.

I don't know why but this strikes a cord in me. Iraq had two wars of its own control. Iran and later Kuwait. 8 year war with Iran which lead nowhere, and an invasion that led to UN/US intervention. Since that intervention I hadn't really heard a peep from Iraq in regards to aggressiveness. Am I missing a war somewhere?

The rest of the question is interesting though. I do believe you're on the right track, considering the level of instability in the region.

Kaiser_Sma

I was refering to the primarily to as you say, the 8 year war and the invasion of kuwait. But compared to other recent regimes in the middle that is pretty aggressive. The 8 year war didn't give them much but it is a symbol of their aggression, a very long war based very much on gaining resource rich territories and showed that they were with out quams about using chemical weapons. The invasion of kuwait was a similar sentiment with questionable reasoning other than resource control. In between wars it has tested the patience of the 'international communtiy' on many occasions, with missle strikes on saudi arabia and isreal at least during the gulf war, breaches of no fly zones inbetween wars etc. Possibly even the bath parties insistant claims that iraq was the leader of the arab world.

While other countries in the area have proven volatile they are more reactionary then first strike. To my knowledge anyways.

Most of the infractions can be said to be as a direct result of saddams various vices, but he may well have lead by example and powerful men of his volatility can't possibly be that far from recieving his kind of power in iraq.

I'm not saying that mild leaders like maliki won't become the norm, but if americas going to ship out and leave the country to it's own devices before it's proven, then is leaving them as a power in the middle east really a good idea?

Victor

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what Iraq was in the 1980s compared to what it is now.

In the 1980s it was centrally controlled and nominally homogenous, except for noises made by the Kurds, which sometimes got out of control. It could attack everywhere from Tel Aviv to Tehran. It had a vast army. It had a nuclear program financed from their own funds and Saudi Arabia. It was running a war financed by the Americans and the Gulf Arab states and supplied by the surpluses from the Arab-Israeli wars and communist exports. Even when they attacked the American navy they were forgiven.

Now the country is split in three, 100 people are dying every day and the government controls 1 out of 19 provinces. 8 million guns (many of them AK-47s or similar) are in private hands. The air force consists of a handful of light obsevation planes for border partol and the navy is a bunch of pilot launches.

uberpixie

Biggest threat the country faces is civil war.

The armed groups in Iraq are more a threat to the Iraqi population than anyone else.

With civil war on the cards for the next few years I doubt they will be invading anyone.

As regards he US leaving Iraq, as far as I can see with so many dying everyday with them there, they don't exactly have control of the country to begin with.

Iraq is a big mess with them in it or not.

Leaving only expands the scale of the civil war a bit quicker than it would have if they stay.

Kaiser_Sma

Not a basic misunderstanding, more fractional. I know about the nuclear program, i know about the financial backing and i know that the army was much bigger.
Selling warring nations weapons and equipment is nothing unusual. America (only contributed about 200 million dollars worth of helicopters)and Isreal weren't the only countries who were selling and there are many alternatives, even today. In light of the continued donations by other countries and, the possibility of nationaising their oil supplies, the fact that much of the original airforce is buried and un accounted for and the redundency of an iraqi navy save for a few strategic area that were fought over in the iran iraq war.

It may be unlikly that iraq will regain it's 2000 tanks and 70 army divisions but fielding the 500 odd vehicles they now have, the posibiltiy of american training and orginisation, and the billions of dollars being pumped into the new iraqi army, may pose a genuine threat of falling into the hands of insurgents, a new extreme regime or fighters in an iraqi civil war.

What i'm trying to get at it is maybe an alternative is necisary. Forming a dependent protectorate to the UN with iraq, giving them the minimum of combined arms and the only weapons introduced should be standardised and produced by members of the coalition or an acceptable third party.
This means that they will have a continued dependance on a country that can be reasonably trusted to regulate their parts and munitions in the case of a war or a political breakdown. It also means insurgents will only be able to steal weapons that they can't as easily get munitions for etc.

uberpixie

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

It may be unlikly that iraq will regain it's 2000 tanks and 70 army divisions but fielding the 500 odd vehicles they now have, the posibiltiy of american training and orginisation, and the billions of dollars being pumped into the new iraqi army, may pose a genuine threat of falling into the hands of insurgents, a new extreme regime or fighters in an iraqi civil war.

Read an article somewhere, (twas a newspaper I think), interviewed a US officer who was envolved in the training on the iraqi police force.

He stated that a lot of the guys he was training were def colluding with the local insurgents:

i.e. if US forces were going on patrol in the area, they usually dragged some of the police with them, who usually managed to remember just before they were going on patrol some 'anyomomous tip' about a road side bomb somwhere.

He also said they kept the Iraqi police in the dark about patrols and only told them at the last minute where they would be patrolling to cut down on ambushes.

So really all in all the defence forces in Iraq are all ready comprimised.

Top that off with religious divisions and you have a stable mix.

Civil war is the big issue in Iraq, it's already started and really it's only going to get worse.

They won't be invading anyone anytime soon : 500 tanks with sod all air cover Vs Israle/US airforce in an open dessert is not a good idea.

Plus to invade they would have to stop killing each other.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

What i'm trying to get at it is maybe an alternative is necisary. Forming a dependent protectorate to the UN with iraq, giving them the minimum of combined arms and the only weapons introduced should be standardised and produced by members of the coalition or an acceptable third party.
This means that they will have a continued dependance on a country that can be reasonably trusted to regulate their parts and munitions in the case of a war or a political breakdown. It also means insurgents will only be able to steal weapons that they can't as easily get munitions for etc.

Iraq wants to govern it's self without any outside influence.

An outside force in the country is at best seen as oppression from the west.

Ditto the idea of arms depedance.
(Last I checked there were very little problems with "insurgents" getting weapons and ammo, equip the police with different weapons just means the "insurgents" get different guns of dead bodies)

There are also far too many armed groups from many different camps: far too many to please at any one time to make a peace keeping force a viable solution.

Peace keepers would be stuck in a Vietnam all over again.

Really it all comes down to the different factions calling a cease fire and settling things their own way with an Iraqi solution to an Iraqi problem.

Kaiser_Sma

I'm not proposing a constant presensce just the ability to react to hostillity from its neighbours.
Give them shiny Western hardware and spend lots training them to use them and they'll be well equiped to deal with maritime problems that an army is used for but western vehicles from planes to apcs are full of solid state circuits and other expensive parts and expendables, plus they require alot of maintenance. Former soviet hardware, can be buried and mistreated and still come out in working order, it's all valves and cheap materials, the parts can be manufactured locally or aquired easily from any tom dick and harry.
A realisation of this will make them wary of impressing their custodians and even without this realisation they can be cut off if they act up.
Also it means if we do see their weapons in the hands of insurgents then we'll know exactly we're they come from.
it's also easier to train people to use soviet hardware but not so much american and europena high end equipment. This means the power remains in the hands of the trained government controlled army.

Since the americans will buy out their usual intrest bases and they already have many in nearby countries, wence they move out they can still keep a watchfull eye, and have instant means to retaliate, also since iraq won't be the threat it once was and they won't need to spend as much fielding large forces in surounding countries as a containment measure.

This is taking it for granted that they will move out early, but i don't particularly think they should. Thats another argument that i'll be happy to discuss on another thread.

A couple of clarifications:
That 500 vehicles i mentioned, the only tanks in this are 22 T55s and 77 T72s (donated by hungry). But i've just found out that they have a deal with the US army TACOM to produce somewere between 15 and 35 tank battalions and the US government says they will give them superior fire power also when they can make sure it won't be handed over to insurgents.

It's very unlike the vietnam war and more like the american aquisition of the philipines or prehaps more acuratly the british occupation of mesopotamia. What do you think?

bonkey

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

What i'm trying to get at it is maybe an alternative is necisary.

The poor Iraqi people...we need to save them...lets make them run their country our way (if we can't run it ourselves).

Where have I heard that before....

Kaiser_Sma

Thats not what i implied.

I'm just saying that the we shouldn't add to certain anomolous bodies ability to hurt themselves and fuel their own instability untill stability has been regained, if ever.

But on further examination it seems things will be going that way anyway, eventually.

Victor

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

America (only contributed about 200 million dollars worth of helicopters)

The Americans gave free American-made tanks to Egypt. Egypt then passed on their Soviet-made tanks to Iraq.

Oh, I've never seen a reference to the helicopters, got a link?

In light of the continued donations by other countries

Its piecemeal, light aircraft & helicopters, light armoured vehicles, some other stuff. No ballistic missiles, no super gun, no anthrax.

and, the possibility of nationaising their oil supplies

Thats a matter for Iraq.

the fact that much of the original airforce is buried and un accounted for

The original air force is screwed. No spare parts in 16 years. Airframes left in the open, only to be covered by sandstorms. I've seen photos of lots of very dead looking MiG23/27 types, I think at Balad.

and the redundency of an iraqi navy save for a few strategic area that were fought over in the iran iraq war.

Until the Assad Class Corvettes are delivered and operational, the navy can't protect territorial waters against fishing boats, never mind anything greater.

It may be unlikly that iraq will regain it's 2000 tanks and 70 army divisions but fielding the 500 odd vehicles they now have, the posibiltiy of american training and orginisation, and the billions of dollars being pumped into the new iraqi army, may pose a genuine threat of falling into the hands of insurgents, a new extreme regime or fighters in an iraqi civil war.

What will fall into whose hands?

What i'm trying to get at it is maybe an alternative is necisary. Forming a dependent protectorate to the UN with iraq, giving them the minimum of combined arms and

You mean an impotent army in a volatile region. What happens when Iraq drops of the 'important' list? Maybe it gets carved up by its neighbours?

the only weapons introduced should be standardised and produced by members of the coalition or an acceptable third party. This means that they will have a continued dependance on a country that can be reasonably trusted to regulate their parts and munitions in the case of a war or a political breakdown.

And who would you suggest this supplier would be? Realise that the UK was selling military aircraft parts to Iraq during the mid-1990s

It also means insurgents will only be able to steal weapons that they can't as easily get munitions for etc.

Do you realise how easy it is to get NATO-standard or Russian-standard ammunition?

During the Iranian Revolution, 50,000 American contractors and the core of the Iranian armed forces did their best to destroy every piece of technology that the Iranian armed forces had (it took the Iranians two years to crack the database passwords so they could find spare parts), yet Iran went on to stalemate an unimpeded Iraq in a long-drawn out war.

To suggest insurgents won't find other sources is, I contend, naive.

fly_agaric

Kaiser Sma wrote:

It may be unlikly that iraq will regain it's 2000 tanks and 70 army divisions but fielding the 500 odd vehicles they now have, the posibiltiy of american training and orginisation, and the billions of dollars being pumped into the new iraqi army, may pose a genuine threat of falling into the hands of insurgents, a new extreme regime or fighters in an iraqi civil war.

What i'm trying to get at it is maybe an alternative is necisary. Forming a dependent protectorate to the UN with iraq, giving them the minimum of combined arms and the only weapons introduced should be standardised and produced by members of the coalition or an acceptable third party.
This means that they will have a continued dependance on a country that can be reasonably trusted to regulate their parts and munitions in the case of a war or a political breakdown. It also means insurgents will only be able to steal weapons that they can't as easily get munitions for etc.

Look, America has royally fúcked up Iraq, indeed the entire ME, as far as the eye-can-see, almost irrevocably.
Mission accomplished (LOL).

I don't know why you would be so concerned about any weapons the US/allies might give to the Iraqi govt.

For starters, "Iraq" (if it even exists in a few years) obviously won't be threatening AmerIsrael with conventional weapons on the battlefield for quite some time.

However, the world is awash with small arms/explosives thanks to the efforts of the arms industries of the permanent members of the UN sec. council and you don't need lots of high-tech weapons to attack the govt./have a civil war.

Terrorism/jihadism may be Iraq's big export to Europe and its neighbours in the future and you don't need alot of expensive military equipment for those either.

These problems cannot be helped/hindered too much by the weapons supplied/not supplied to any US-puppet Iraqi govt's.

Surely you don't need to delve into aload of pie-in-the-sky crap about about how to further defang Iraq's pretty toothless govt. so it won't become an "enemy of freedom"TM again under some dictator/junta in the future when there is so much to be worried about right now?

Kaiser_Sma

Victor wrote:

The Americans gave free American-made tanks to Egypt. Egypt then passed on their Soviet-made tanks to Iraq.

Very indirect, maybe they were just selling them to Eygpt?

Its piecemeal, light aircraft & helicopters, light armoured vehicles, some other stuff. No ballistic missiles, no super gun, no anthrax.

These are initial donations, and Iraq may soon gain purchesing power of their own. Main battle tanks have been donated. Those three weapons are terror weapons for civilian targets with almost no strategic value.

Thats a matter for Iraq.

It surely is

The original air force is screwed. No spare parts in 16 years. Airframes left in the open, only to be covered by sandstorms. I've seen photos of lots of very dead looking MiG23/27 types, I think at Balad.

Alot of the air force is unaccounted for, but your right alot of the ones they found are screwed.

What will fall into whose hands?

Anything into anybodies, weapons can go through one semistable legitimate source to one less legitimate

You mean an impotent army in a volatile region. What happens when Iraq drops of the 'important' list? Maybe it gets carved up by its neighbours?

What makes you think it ever will. The countries chock-a-block full of oil and oppertunity still, and former coalition will hardly watch their possible success story fall to pieces by anyother hands then their own.

And who would you suggest this supplier would be? Realise that the UK was selling military aircraft parts to Iraq during the mid-1990s

Doesn't really matter who, hopefully a european nation as american equipment is a bit easier to come by. It also makes it more traceble

Do you realise how easy it is to get NATO-standard or Russian-standard ammunition?

I didn't mean for small arms, i mean higher end expendables.

During the Iranian Revolution, 50,000 American contractors and the core of the Iranian armed forces did their best to destroy every piece of technology that the Iranian armed forces had (it took the Iranians two years to crack the database passwords so they could find spare parts), yet Iran went on to stalemate an unimpeded Iraq in a long-drawn out war.

To suggest insurgents won't find other sources is, I contend, naive.

Of course they will, thats not the point. If we know were the weapons came from we can regulate the supply and track down sources. It also means the insurgents may become dependent on their other wise enemies (all though that may be more far fetched)

Kaiser_Sma

fly_agaric wrote:

Look, America has royally fúcked up Iraq, indeed the entire ME, as far as the eye-can-see, almost irrevocably.
Mission accomplished (LOL).

I don't know why you would be so concerned about any weapons the US/allies might give to the Iraqi govt.

For starters, "Iraq" (if it even exists in a few years) obviously won't be threatening AmerIsrael with conventional weapons on the battlefield for quite some time.

However, the world is awash with small arms/explosives thanks to the efforts of the arms industries of the permanent members of the UN sec. council and you don't need lots of high-tech weapons to attack the govt./have a civil war.

Terrorism/jihadism may be Iraq's big export to Europe and its neighbours in the future and you don't need alot of expensive military equipment for those either.

These problems cannot be helped/hindered too much by the weapons supplied/not supplied to any US-puppet Iraqi govt's.

Surely you don't need to delve into aload of pie-in-the-sky crap about about how to further defang Iraq's pretty toothless govt. so it won't become an "enemy of freedom"TM again under some dictator/junta in the future when there is so much to be worried about right now?

Just beacuse it won't irradicate something altogether doesn't mean it's not a necisary step. All these things have to be taken into account in the long term (not that this discussion will have any effect on that).

A method like this wouldn't just 'defang' a regressionist iraq but also help the toothless government defend itself against insurgents and civil wars by keeping power in the control of the petty toothless govt.

Terrorisim doesn't even factor here, it's not intended at all to keep main battle tanks off the streets of manhatten, terrorists can operate with a box cutting knife.

bonkey

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Thats not what i implied.

Unfortunately, it is.

You're saying we can't just leave them with their tanks and their guns or they'll do something bad with them. So instead, we should make the decisions about their future for them - what they're allowed to have, who can and can't sell them what, and so on...to make sure they don't become a threat to anyone again.

you're not suggesting the outside forces must stay, agreed, you merely suggest it as an option (UN protectorate). But even outside of that, what right do we have to say "sorry lads - we need to take your guns off you before we leave"? What right would the US have to tell China, for example, that it can't sell weapons because we don't like who its selling them to, when the same dictate from China would never be accepted by the US.

Ultimately...what makes you think that any of this imposition of restrictions will improve anything, since every effort we've made thus far to improve things has backfired as various Iraqi factions take offence to foreigners in their country telling them what to do.

I'm just saying that the we shouldn't add to certain anomolous bodies ability to hurt themselves and fuel their own instability untill stability has been regained, if ever.

And I'm saying that you can't avoid doing that when you choose to interfere and make decisions for them. How would you feel if your nation was being told what it could and couldn't do by some other power who was enforcing those dictates down the barrel of a gun? Would you just smile and nod and agree that it was in everyone's best interests for you to not have the freedom yoru oppressor was supposedly protecting for itself?

But on further examination it seems things will be going that way anyway, eventually.

Thats exactly my point. Every "we must intervene" argument thats been swallowed thus far has led to disaster....despite being based on an argument that we must intervene to prevent disaster.

Up to now, this has all-too-often been based on the "but we have to try" line of reasoning. I don't swallow that line. Who says we have to try? The medical oath is not, for example, first and foremost do something...anything. It is, rather, first and foremost do no harm. There's a reason that the medical profession doesn't buy into the "we have to try" logic - it gets people killed. Its not the least worst option by default.

Just beacuse it won't irradicate something altogether doesn't mean it's not a necisary step.

But what shows that it is a necessary step - thats the real question. Do we just assume everything is necessary until someone can prove it isn't?

fly_agaric

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Just beacuse it won't irradicate something altogether doesn't mean it's not a necisary step.

Okay.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

All these things have to be taken into account in the long term...

But with the state of Iraq right now, worrying about the weapons of the Iraqi military and what they might be used for in future seems to be putting the cart before the horse a bit, does it not? The US won't let them have any serious firepower/capabilities anyway.

I think the US will effectively pull out of Iraq soon [basing the timing on the US electoral cycle] apart from a few very well appointed US bases in good positions for guarding the oil and perhaps an aircraft carrier or two on standby to bomb the country when needed.

bonkey wrote:

What right would the US have to tell China, for example, that it can't sell weapons because we don't like who its selling them to, when the same dictate from China would never be accepted by the US.

Because the US are the "good guys". They'd never ever supply extremely advanced weapons to bellicose countries that destabilise the regions they are in (*cough Israel cough*).

Manic Moran

Former soviet hardware, can be buried and mistreated and still come out in working order, it's all valves and cheap materials

What he said. Russian stuff is nothing if not nearly unbreakable, and there is also the advantage that a fair few of the new Iraqi Army tankers and mechanics were tankers and mechanics on the exact same systems in the old Iraqi army, so they know what they're doing.

I've seen photos of lots of very dead looking MiG23/27 types, I think at Balad.

After having seen them at close range, they don't look like they had turned a wheel since the 1991 war. Indeed, the whole Balad air base was pretty much inop since 1991, the anti-aircraft guns scattered around to protect it were equally decripit.



This MiG-23 had been out in the open for a little too long. It took me a while to figure out what I was looking at, there were a couple scattered around outside the base. (They had been towed out in an attempt to avoid damage if the airbase was attacked)

NTM

Kaiser_Sma

First of all for bonkey:
Interventionalisim is an inevitability, it's beyond despute, it's a rather short sighted policy to cut off your eyes and ears to the crimes preformed by rougue states, the occupiing powers are giving iraq a clean slate. They are training and orginising their army with billions of there own money, giving them the guns, the barrels of which they will dictate with. How do you think this act of mass charity is in anyway breaching their civil libreties? No please, let the iraqi people pay their limited funds into out of date weapons and not on reparations. These interventions have failed in the past becasue america has wanted to distance themselves from the people and leave as soon as possible, it's exactly whats happening here but it can't be helped becasue they will not be labeled an imperial power, no matter how many nations it hurts. This isn't the problem i'm discussing at all and i don't want to get into this debate.


To Fly_agaric:
You're probably right about the americans not letting them become over powered. I'd say what i was suggesting in the first place will probably happen in some degree anyway, theres probably very little reason to worry about it.

As for pulling out, the current police forces and the army aren't trained and even basically equiped enough to deal with the crime and terrorism in the country yet. The americans need to stay untill they make sure with out a doubht that they can cope. They need a number of additional years. It'll be a big mistake if they do move out, but you're right they probably will anyway.

tallus

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

First of all for bonkey:
Interventionalisim is an inevitability, it's beyond despute, it's a rather short sighted policy to cut off your eyes and ears to the crimes preformed by rougue states, the occupiing powers are giving iraq a clean slate. They are training and orginising their army with billions of there own money, giving them the guns, the barrels of which they will dictate with. How do you think this act of mass charity is in anyway breaching their civil libreties? No please, let the iraqi people pay their limited funds into out of date weapons and not on reparations. These interventions have failed in the past becasue america has wanted to distance themselves from the people and leave as soon as possible, it's exactly whats happening here but it can't be helped becasue they will not be labeled an imperial power, no matter how many nations it hurts. This isn't the problem i'm discussing at all and i don't want to get into this debate.

How are the occupying powers giving Iraq a clean slate? In my opinion the country is in a FAR worse state than it ever was and the only group suffering en masse is the Iraqui population, with some estimates going as high as 100,000 civillian deaths.
You can be 100% sure that if Iraq was not the second largest oil producing country on earth there wouldn't be an occupying force there now. I Think it's naive to think that they are there for anything other than to serve their their own fossil fuel needs.
I thought your original post smacked of Imperialism and was slightly condescending considering you think that they can't be trusted run their own country. They were no threat to the US before the invasion, but you can be sure there will be plenty of people there now more than willing to do what they can to harm the occupying forces and the countries they come from.
The US was perfectly willing to overlook the crimes of saddam and his cohorts in the past, they even blocked UN condemnations of Iraq's use of mustard gas on Iranian soldiers.
http://www.rupe-india.org/34/iran.html
Some very interesting reading there.

tallus

tallus wrote:

They were no threat to the US before the invasion, but you can be sure there will be plenty of people there now more than willing to do what they can to harm the occupying forces and the countries they come from.

Ditto.

Kaiser_Sma

tallus wrote:

How are the occupying powers giving Iraq a clean slate? In my opinion the country is in a FAR worse state than it ever was and the only group suffering en masse is the Iraqui population, with some estimates going as high as 100,000 civillian deaths.

I mean that they have been forgiven for their past infractions, essentially. The occupying powers are not in the wrong, the only remaining criminals are those insurgents that wish to further damage their country in the name of fueling anger against the west. The americans bumbeling as they are, have done alot for the country. Those civilian deaths, are terrible things but the people who casue them are the enemy, not the americans.

You can be 100% sure that if Iraq was not the second largest oil producing country on earth there wouldn't be an occupying force there now. I Think it's naive to think that they are there for anything other than to serve their their own fossil fuel needs.

Thats tabloid sentiment and little else, the oil produced by iraq in the future, even if there was a 100% profit margin, will only just cover reparations and won't come near the cost of the war (not that america will have any claims to any of that money), the chance of a bit of price modification was not worth the effort and america is far less reliant on middle eastern oil then europe.
If you want to label the entire representative government of america as a purely economic entity then a more intelligent reason would be the huge costs required to contain iraq by posting large amounts of troopsall around it. When they leave america will save more money then they will ever make by price fixing.

Americas been intervening with many useless rougue governments with no resources since the year dot.

I thought your original post smacked of Imperialism and was slightly condescending considering you think that they can't be trusted run their own country. They were no threat to the US before the invasion, but you can be sure there will be plenty of people there now more than willing to do what they can to harm the occupying forces and the countries they come from.
The US was perfectly willing to overlook the crimes of saddam and his cohorts in the past, they even blocked UN condemnations of Iraq's use of mustard gas on Iranian soldiers.
http://www.rupe-india.org/34/iran.html
Some very interesting reading there.

I'll try and read that tomorrow.
Admitadly it was a stupid thing to do, leaving saddam in power after the gulf war. In reality they should have done it then rather then piecing together flimsy excuses about mythical weapons programs later. But regardless of when they did it, there were more than enough reasons to invade the hell out of that country ever since the invasion of kuwait.

I'm not afraid of the word 'imperialism', but pulling out and leaving iraq as is would be a great mistake. If they leave do you honestly believe that life will elasticate back to normal? nah, the country will become something very messy and many more will die, and a few decades down the road, whoever the worlds favorite mega power is will have to invade them again. The alternative is iraq becoming something more like a postwar japan or germany (not quite the same obviously) a thriving economic power, even a shining example of perfection in the middle east.

Victor

Victor wrote:

The Americans gave free American-made tanks to Egypt. Egypt then passed on their Soviet-made tanks to Iraq.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Very indirect, maybe they were just selling them to Eygpt?

No. Egypt has received vast amounts of equipment free or grant aided from the Americans - the price (paid by the Americans) of peace with Israel and moving out of the Soviet camp

Look up the Arab Organization for Industrialization.

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/egypt.htm

Country Profile

From the Camp David peace accords in 1978 until 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available), the United States has subsidized Egypt's armed forces with over $38 billion worth of aid. Egypt receives about $2 billion annually--$1.3 billion in foreign military financing and about $815 million in economic support fund assistance --making it the second largest regular recipient of conventional U.S. military and economic aid, after Israel. In 1990, the United States also forgave $7.1 billion in past Egyptian military debt in return for Egypt's support of Operation Desert Shield. In addition, Egypt receives excess defense articles worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the Pentagon. The announcement that 23,000 U.S. troops will be based in Egypt to conduct biannual military training exercises (Operation Bright Star) may have longer term implications for U.S. aid to the region, as might Egypt's willingness to support U.S. efforts against the Taliban.

Though the 1990s have brought economic improvements, Egypt is still poor, with an estimated 2000 annual GDP-per-capita of $3,600. In 1999, Egypt spent 2.7 percent of its gross national product and $2.508 billion in constant 1998 U.S. dollars on its military.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4178.html

The main purchaser of Egyptian defense products had been Iraq. In the early 1980s, Iraq was desperate to replace Soviet military equipment lost during the early stages of the war with Iran. Iraq blunted Iranian attacks with the Saqr 18, the Egyptian version of the Soviet BM-21 122mm multiple rocket launcher.

Egypt sold a smaller volume of weapons to Kuwait and other Persian Gulf states. In 1988 Kuwait was reported to have ordered about 100 Fahd armored personnel carriers; Oman and Sudan ordered smaller quantities of these carriers. Because Egypt considered the value of its military exports confidential, it omitted this information from its published trade statistics. According to ACDA, Egypt exported US$340 million worth of military equipment in 1982, declining to an average of US$70 million annually in the years from 1985 to 1987. The ACDA data was considered conservative. Other estimates have placed Egyptian defense exports as high as US$1 billion in 1982 and US$500 million annually in 1983 and 1984, when deliveries to Iraq were at their peak.

uberpixie

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

I mean that they have been forgiven for their past infractions, essentially. The occupying powers are not in the wrong, the only remaining criminals are those insurgents that wish to further damage their country in the name of fueling anger against the west. The americans bumbeling as they are, have done alot for the country. Those civilian deaths, are terrible things but the people who casue them are the enemy, not the americans.

Tbh, America has a very bad name in Iraq.

What exactly has the US done for Iraq that actually benefits the average joe soap?

Most people there have no electricity, no drinking water.
(The US bombed a lot of infrastructure and never fixed it)

Hospital care is virtually nil because of the looting.
(Afterall the only things the US protected were the ministry for oil's buildings, ironic because now fuel prices are sky high and most people can't buy petrol in an oil producing nation!)

Really as far as the average person in Iaq can see the US has done sod all for them and the only thing US soldiers do is be abusive towards them, search their homes and shoot them.

Really the vast majority of Iraqis had better living condtions off under Sadam and that is a pretty sad statement to make.
(especially considering how bad things were then with economic sanctions, piss poor health care and a brutal police state)

Long term things may get better, but for most people in Iraq, the US has done nothing for them as far as they can see.

But really over 100 people die a day in Iraq. More people died in the month of June there this year than all off the people that died in the North over the last 30 years.

The country is already f u c k e d and the US has virtually no control except over a small scrap of land in the captial, just like in Afghanistan.

It's a ****e situation and they will no doubt have to leave at some situation due to political pressure back at home.

They don't protect the Iraqi people, they messed their country up and then they will leave.

Do you blame Iraq for hating the West?

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Thats tabloid sentiment and little else, the oil produced by iraq in the future, even if there was a 100% profit margin, will only just cover reparations and won't come near the cost of the war (not that america will have any claims to any of that money), the chance of a bit of price modification was not worth the effort and america is far less reliant on middle eastern oil then europe.
If you want to label the entire representative government of america as a purely economic entity then a more intelligent reason would be the huge costs required to contain iraq by posting large amounts of troopsall around it. When they leave america will save more money then they will ever make by price fixing.

Americas been intervening with many useless rougue governments with no resources since the year dot.

It has always been about control. Yeah America went into poor countries so they wouldn't go red.

The political and industrial elite in the US will make money out of this war: people who run the defense comapines and supply arms, oil compaines and logistic companies and all the big share holders. Plus all the other US compaines that supply services to Iraq.

Be a safe bet that most of the admin in the US have healthy shares in some of these comapnies and get lots of donations from the lobby groups that support those industries.

Individuals always profit from wars not the country it's self: i.e. joe soap fights in the war and then has to foot the bill through tax, the rich and powerful get richer.

The only thing the US care about in installing a regime that is US friendly, anything else is of no importance.

Manic Moran

uberpixie wrote:

Tbh, America has a very bad name in Iraq.

What exactly has the US done for Iraq that actually benefits the average joe soap?

Most people there have no electricity, no drinking water.
(The US bombed a lot of infrastructure and never fixed it)

Hospital care is virtually nil because of the looting.
(Afterall the only things the US protected were the ministry for oil's buildings, ironic because now fuel prices are sky high and most people can't buy petrol in an oil producing nation!)

Really as far as the average person in Iaq can see the US has done sod all for them and the only thing US soldiers do is be abusive towards them, search their homes and shoot them.

And how many days have you spent in Iraq seeing what life is like for them? I've seen two slices of the country over the period of a year, and whatever you're reading is hopelessy out of date. The only thing right now that is worse than it was before is the security situation. The US (And others) have poured billions into the economy.

Do people in Baghdad say that electricity used to be better? Yes. Then again, back in Saddam's day, what power Iraq was generating went almost exclusively to Baghdad. The new administrations decided to make things a little fairer and spread around a bit, all the while repairing old power stations, and building new ones. (And in truth, the locals rarely went without electricity wherever they were, pretty much every town has a community-owned generator). The pre-war power output levels were surpassed over two years ago. Other parts of the infrastructure have been impoved. Saddam appears not to have liked Basra much. For some reason, Highway 1 which is a motorway or dual carriageway for most of the country suddenly turned into a dirt road for about 50 miles. And by the way, the train service hadn't worked in ages either. Both these have been fixed, Basrans are no longer as cut off from the rest of the country as they used to be. Towns in my patrol area were drinking water straight from canals when we got there. They're drinking clean water now. Heck, even their cars have gotten better. Over the course of my year, battered and beaten up Toyotas and whatnot were replaced by much newer German cars (Opels are particularly popular), wherever the money was coming from.

The place isn't a paradise, but I suggest you get updated information.

NTM

fly_agaric

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

To Fly_agaric:
As for pulling out, the current police forces and the army aren't trained and even basically equiped enough to deal with the crime and terrorism in the country yet. The americans need to stay untill they make sure with out a doubht that they can cope. They need a number of additional years. It'll be a big mistake if they do move out, but you're right they probably will anyway.

I also think it would be bad if the US were to pull out prematurely. I think it will happen but I hope I'm wrong [very possible!].
Seems like it would mean all the death and destruction has been for absolutely nothing of any value. Just for some companies to make alot of money really when it comes down to it, while everyone else not connected to their gravy-train gets to lose.

uberpixie

Manic Moran wrote:

And how many days have you spent in Iraq seeing what life is like for them? I've seen two slices of the country over the period of a year, and whatever you're reading is hopelessy out of date. The only thing right now that is worse than it was before is the security situation. The US (And others) have poured billions into the economy.

Do people in Baghdad say that electricity used to be better? Yes. Then again, back in Saddam's day, what power Iraq was generating went almost exclusively to Baghdad. The new administrations decided to make things a little fairer and spread around a bit, all the while repairing old power stations, and building new ones. (And in truth, the locals rarely went without electricity wherever they were, pretty much every town has a community-owned generator). The pre-war power output levels were surpassed over two years ago. Other parts of the infrastructure have been impoved. Saddam appears not to have liked Basra much. For some reason, Highway 1 which is a motorway or dual carriageway for most of the country suddenly turned into a dirt road for about 50 miles. And by the way, the train service hadn't worked in ages either. Both these have been fixed, Basrans are no longer as cut off from the rest of the country as they used to be. Towns in my patrol area were drinking water straight from canals when we got there. They're drinking clean water now. Heck, even their cars have gotten better. Over the course of my year, battered and beaten up Toyotas and whatnot were replaced by much newer German cars (Opels are particularly popular), wherever the money was coming from.

The place isn't a paradise, but I suggest you get updated information.

NTM

If you could also provide with with a few links for a different slant from what I have read with up to date info please do.

All I have read so far has been very negative on the situation and it's nice to hear a postive report on the actions of the US army out there.

How do you feel yourself about the situation and the likelihood of a withdrawl due to political pressure?

What are your personal opinions on the Iraq war and it's sucesses/failures?

I would be very interested in hearing your opinions as someone who is in the army and who has been there.

Kaiser_Sma

Manic morgan said it better then i could have.

The only way the US can create a US friendly nation is to give them reason to be friendly, oil prices are only sky high because the share prices have plummited due to the war. They protect oil authorities becasue it is the only thing that could possibly assure that iraq won't be forever leaching the american tax payer for reperations, iraq is quite lucky that it has an instant method of generating money, especially in these kind of situations.

Foreign investment has increased in iraq despite the dangers, and as it gets safer it will increase again. There is no better insurance then a stable government and that will benefit iraq more then anything. 'The international community' has much more to benefit from a stable iraq then a simply oil rich or pathetically subserviant one.

Victor

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

oil prices are only sky high because the share prices have plummited due to the war.

Huh?

tallus

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Manic morgan said it better then i could have.

The only way the US can create a US friendly nation is to give them reason to be friendly, oil prices are only sky high because the share prices have plummited due to the war. They protect oil authorities becasue it is the only thing that could possibly assure that iraq won't be forever leaching the american tax payer for reperations, iraq is quite lucky that it has an instant method of generating money, especially in these kind of situations.

Foreign investment has increased in iraq despite the dangers, and as it gets safer it will increase again. There is no better insurance then a stable government and that will benefit iraq more then anything. 'The international community' has much more to benefit from a stable iraq then a simply oil rich or pathetically subserviant one.

Why did the US have to create a US friendly nation in the first place. Iraq was no threat to the US, by that logic they ought to be invading north Korea too. If the countries surrounding Iraq weren't threatened by her how could a country thousands of miles away be...
They protect oil because it's the only reason they went there in the first place, and you can call it tabloid sentiment if you want to but it's still true in my opinion.

RedPlanet

Here's an update about the iraq situation:
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/15272800.htm

"When L. Paul Bremer, then the top U.S. representative in Iraq, appointed an Iraqi Governing Council in July 2003, insurgent attacks averaged 16 daily. When Saddam Hussein was captured that December, the average was 19. When Bremer signed the hand-over of sovereignty in June 2004, it was 45 attacks daily. When Iraq held its elections for a transitional government in January 2005, it was 61. When Iraqis voted last December for a permanent government, it was 75. When U.S. forces killed terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al Zarqawi in June, it was up to 90."

I know that is too simplistic a way to view the Iraq situation but insofar as Iraqi security forces quelling the violence, it looks fairly bleak.

"The American policy has failed both in terms of politics and security, but the big problem is that they will not confess or admit that," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of parliament. "They are telling the American public that the situation in Iraq will be improved, they want to encourage positive public opinion (in the U.S.), but the Iraqi citizens are seeing something different. They know the real situation."

Othman charges that top American officials spend most of their time in the heavily guarded Green Zone in Baghdad and at large military bases across the country, and don't know what's happening in the neighborhoods and provinces beyond.

Shiite Muslim parliament member Jalaladin al Saghir had a similar view.

"All the American policies have failed because the American analysis of the situation is wrong; it is not related to reality," Saghir said. "The slaughtered Iraqi man on the street conveys the best explanation" for what's happening in Iraq."

Checkout the US army intelligence offficer's assessment. Paints a poorer picture then you get by some other posters here at boards.ie. Although in fairness the article didn't really talk about the state of the economy nor public services.

Summary of the artcle is spot-on:

"One of the key problems all along of the U.S. approach to nation-building in Iraq has been that it was ... not (guided) by the situation on the ground. This is how certain benchmarks were set, and then celebrated when achieved, without any regard for developments taking place that undermined these very successes," Hiltermann said. "This was always more about generating an American success story at home than about doing the right thing in Iraq."