Report about the Iraqi military

[Colonâ„¢]

...written by the Marine Corps in 1990 and drawing on the lessons of the first Gulf War: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/

Not particularly relevant, but it's fun reading, especially with the benefit of hindsight. How many remember that before the 2nd Gulf War Iraq's conventional army was taken very seriously? It's also interesting how nuanced this report is. Not that it's describing Saddam as Uncle Nice mind you, but for instance, it states Saddam had the tendency to go for limited gains and to shy back from making real sacrifices (because he felt insecure about his position).

Actually, something that does seem relevant for today's Iraq:

"3. When the state of Iraq was created after World War 1, former officers of the Turkish army comprised its General Staff. The Turkish military schools attended by these officers had been set up by Prussian officers supplied to the Sultan by the German Kaiser. Hence, the roots of the Iraqi military go back to the Prussian staff system by way of the Ottoman Empire."

It also describes the Iraqi officer cadre as apolitical and solely interested in the honour of the army itself. Knowing this and assuming the military wasn't politicised after 1990, it probably was a big mistake to disband the Iraqi forces after the fall of Saddam.

[Ecthy]

You know so much more than the ones in power.

[Colonâ„¢]

You obviously not.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ecthy
You know so much more than the ones in power.

Actually he does.


Solid analysis Colon.


At the end of the German movie "Downfall," there is a couple of scenes where both the Army and the SS Generals are talking about what is going to happen next, and how the allies are going to need them to keep law and order.


In Iraq, if we were going to invade with a 150,000 strong force, we should have damn made sure we had another 500,000 strong force available to restore order. Michael the Great kept saying this over and over and over again, saying how big of a mistake it was going to be with such a small force.

That's what happens when you have *******s who don't listen to the experts (you know the MILITARY) and let them do their job. You know, they DO study this thing for a living.

What's scarey is that the Pentagon has even been cronyized to an extent.

[Ted Striker]

The original *******s who oversaw the first year of rebuilding Iraq were all given medals. I believe, it was the Medal of Freedom or something like that.

It was the equivalent of, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!"

[Ecthy]

[Dinner]

I remember individuals in the Pentigon talking up the abilities of the Iraqi military. What else can they say other then "this is a real enemy and we take them seriously"?

I also remember international news agencies interviewing Iraqi military commanders and civilians nearly all of whom admited, off of camera camera because they feared the secret police, that Iraq didn't have **** and only Baghdad itself would offer any resistance. As it turned out not even that happened. Of course that doesn't change the fact that Bush fabricated the reasons for war and that he continues to lie in order to cover it up. The Downing Street Memos made this crystal clear.

[Colonâ„¢]

The report is about Iraq's army before the 2nd Gulf War. (the first one being between Iraq and Iran, but I guess the American perspective is different)

[Colonâ„¢]

Just to make it clear (I don't expect many people to be reading that report either how): when I say "...written by the Marine Corps in 1990 and drawing on the lessons of the first Gulf War" in my first post, I do mean the Iraq-Iran war. And when I say "How many remember that before the 2nd Gulf War Iraq's conventional army was taken very seriously?", I do mean the war that took place as a result of the invasion of Kuwait.

[Drake Tungsten]

Of course that doesn't change the fact that Bush fabricated the reasons for war and that he continues to lie in order to cover it up. The Downing Street Memos made this crystal clear.

I think John McCain just called you a liar...

But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no. Now was there a colossal intelligence failure? Of course, there was. Is there still a lot of things that need to be done to improve that? Are we winning the war on terror? I think it depends on your parameters. But to assert that the president intentionally lied to the American people is just wrong.

And could I finally say, every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russian, including the French, including the Israeli, all had--reached the same conclusion, and that was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So I think open, honest disagreement, more discussion, more debate, the more facts that come out, the better off we are, but I would not accept the premise the president lied. - John McCain on Face the Nation 11/13/05

[Patroklos]

The Iraqi military prior to the 1990 smack down was very well equiped and professional.

I would say that the contention that the German General Staff influence lasted up until then is a stretch. Considering there was little to no contact with Germany from that point on, and that Iraq went through decades phases of British, French, Russian, and US dependancey as far as training and equipment procurement it is safe to say the Prussian was purged from them.