Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?




 
--
Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?
 
June 9th, 2006  
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 

Topic: Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?


Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?
I have little indication that the US government honestly wants the Iraqi government to handle its own security. The material the Iraqi Army seems to get is limited to PASGT helmets and body armor, Humvees, light trucks and M113 APCs. If they really meant business they'd give them modern NVGs, M1A2 Abrams, M2 Bradleys, up-to date anti-armor rocket launchers, F-15s and F/A-18s, recon/attack Predator UAVs, Gladiator and Talon Drones. Hell, they could use the Iraqi Army as guinea pigs for the Land Warrior System.
Perhaps they could also buy the Merkava Mk 4 from Israel and donate it to Iraq.
June 10th, 2006  
Maytime
 
 
You better believe we're serious; their self reliance is our exit strategy.
June 10th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Why would the US want to give them all the uber stuff if they could and possibly would fall into the wrong hands? The past few years have shown that the insurgency has rooted itself within the Iraqi military and are sitting there ready to strike at the prime moment. Besides, why do they need the crazy weapons and planes? They aren't exactly a global power ready to commit their forces to foreign lands in peacekeeping missions. They're not going to war with anyone anytime soon. The only enemy they face are within their own ranks which even with the nuttiest of weapons and equipment can't solve overnight. It's something they have to resolve internally.

To think that the US is not serious about bringing their troops home is blatant ignorance. I don't know if they show American news (biased or unbiased) where you live but it's a pretty strong issue here in the States. Bush's approval rating have dropped to 35% (lowest presidential approval rating since WWI) all because of the war in Iraq. I think bringing home the troops with a stable Iraq in place is his #1 cocnern right now to appease the people and to make sure the next Republican presidential candidate in 2008 stands a chance to win.
--
Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?
June 10th, 2006  
Maytime
 
 
Also, the way he leaves Iraq will dictate his "legacy." If he leaves it as a beacon of democracy in an opressed region, the history books might mention a line or two about it. If he leaves it as a cess pool of sectarian violence and a haven for insurgency, every child in America in the next 10 years will look upon GW as the worst president in US history.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being partisan here, I'm just calling it as I see it, which is that the ones who control the publication of historical texts (or the ones who are history majors now) are predominately liberal, according to a poll conducted by NPR (an albeit liberal yet fair media outlet IMO). My point being, is that no matter how Bush leaves Iraq and consequently the White House, he will not get a fair shake, so I would prepare accordingly if you want to teach your kids the truth if the history books' version is not to your liking.
June 10th, 2006  
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maytime
You better believe we're serious; their self reliance is our exit strategy.
I believe stuff when I see a lot of evidence to support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
Why would the US want to give them all the uber stuff if they could and possibly would fall into the wrong hands? The past few years have shown that the insurgency has rooted itself within the Iraqi military and are sitting there ready to strike at the prime moment.
This emphasizes how the US government seems to distrust Iraqis and that the coalition force is in fact an occupation force, rather than an assistance force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
Besides, why do they need the crazy weapons and planes?
The US seems to need the crazy weapons against the insurgency. Logically, if the Iraqi Army is supposed to take care of that, they will need the same crazy weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
The only enemy they face are within their own ranks which even with the nuttiest of weapons and equipment can't solve overnight. It's something they have to resolve internally.
Then why are the US still using thee nuttiest of weapons and equipment in Iraq?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
To think that the US is not serious about bringing their troops home is blatant ignorance. I don't know if they show American news (biased or unbiased) where you live but it's a pretty strong issue here in the States. Bush's approval rating have dropped to 35% (lowest presidential approval rating since WWI) all because of the war in Iraq. I think bringing home the troops with a stable Iraq in place is his #1 cocnern right now to appease the people and to make sure the next Republican presidential candidate in 2008 stands a chance to win.
Politicians always say one thing but do another. The exit strategy is a big deal among European lapdogs that have troops in Iraq as well. If they are serious about it, they are plain incompetent.
June 10th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
This emphasizes how the US government seems to distrust Iraqis and that the coalition force is in fact an occupation force, rather than an assistance force.
The US seems to need the crazy weapons against the insurgency. Logically, if the Iraqi Army is supposed to take care of that, they will need the same crazy weapons. Then why are the US still using thee nuttiest of weapons and equipment in Iraq?
You're totally missing my point. My point is that the Iraqi Army itself does not need any super advanced tech hardware; all they need is good intelligence and a unifying will to form a stable government/country. This isn't happening over there right now because there are those who have great hate for the US and Israel and see any incursion into any of their lands (Palestine... Afghanistan... Israel...) as an act of defiance against their religion. Having radical clerics fanning the flames doesn't help either. As for the US using advanced tech over there, heh if they were truly using advanced tech, you'd see SEALS and about 4 carrier battle groups parked out on the Persian Gulf. The only advanced tech I see are Predator Drones doing recon (but the US uses that everywhere...) and neat robots disabling ieds (SWAT bomb squad here has been using it for years). Example, the American Revolution. The colonists did have any of the guns and supplies the British had, but they had a strong will and cooperation among other colonists. The French did support them, but mainly by ships to block out any British reinforcements coming across the Atlantic. It's not helping in Iraq right now not because of who has what crazy technology and why, it's why won't the freakin Shiites and Sunnis just get along and stop bombing each other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
Politicians always say one thing but do another. The exit strategy is a big deal among European lapdogs that have troops in Iraq as well. If they are serious about it, they are plain incompetent.
It never tires me to see the term "lapdog." It's like, you support your allies and their cause and you're automatically branded a lapdog. Does that mean the EU are now lapdogs to the US because they support a non-nuclear armed Iran?
June 11th, 2006  
Maytime
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maytime
You better believe we're serious; their self reliance is our exit strategy.

I believe stuff when I see a lot of evidence to support it.
It's logic, chieftain; would we purposefully leave Iraq if the Host Nation forces couldn't hande it? The ramifications are more than logical though, and if you read my previous post you will see the political aspects of such a move.

No worries bud
June 11th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Mohamar get off your ass and go to Iraq if you need proof, you never believe anything except what agrees with your pre-conceived notions anyhow so quit peeing in the pool and go se with your own two eyes since you don't believe anything we say.
June 11th, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
Mohmar

Everybody here knows my opinion of the war and of George Bush, but I think you are coming from left field on this one. Its in the US interest to have the Iraqis provide their own security, this war has completed destroyed the Bush Administration. The only reason we are still in Iraq is because leaving would be an admission of defeat and error, both things Bush has problems acknowledging. If someone were to present to Bush a plan for Iraqi withdrawl that gaurenteed his honor intact I think Bush would take it in a heartbeat.
June 12th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
The only enemy they face are within their own ranks which even with the nuttiest of weapons and equipment can't solve overnight. It's something they have to resolve internally.
Here here, I think they should toughen up their police capabilities and better surveillance. Then they should get harder punishment for the ones caught doing criminal things. Tight control and things will turn out better eventually......... eh, wait a minute.... sounds like the days of Iraq under Saddam..... funny business, don't you think?
 


Similar Topics
New Rules In Iraq May Make It Tougher To Keep Insurgents
Rising security costs curtail Iraq reconstruction
Iraq rebuilding slows as U.S. money for projects dries up
Shaking hands with Sadam Hussein
PM to send more troops to Iraq