Hey y'all whats up ?

I was wondering why the hell the US disbanded the Iraqi army and af last year. In my opinion it would have been smarter to leave it where it was at and use it as a stabilizing force in the country. I mean yeah sure change the heads but why let all those weapons and men fly away thru the country and de facto losing it ? Everyone knows that when someone carries out a coup ( see Argentina, or others ), the first thing they do is actually seize the military and buy its loyalty. No surprise the Americans are stuck in a mess right now. Would like to hear what you guys think about this.

This one might be a little tricky to explain...or not. now what i am about to say is strictly opinion...it has no basis for truth except for what i have experienced in the past.

I believe that saddams main officers were negotiated with before the fighting started...and as a reward for not being as offensive as they could, the officers were let go to spend their money and live out their lives elsewhere. And, as with anything else, the majority of the controlling officers gone, the allies simply disbanded what was left, and started rebuilding.

Anybody else got anything better?

From an open source paper .....

Another serious security aspect of dissolving the army was that it opened up Iraq's vast land borders to foreign terrorists. "Iraq has now become a battleground between international terrorists and the US forces,"

The old adage, "better there, than here" come to mind?

That could be but anyway wasn't it a mistake to just disband what was left of the army? I don't think the remainder would ve been still loyal to old regime anyways-
BTW I believe generals were negotiated with, or it wouldn't have been that easy to enter Baghdad after all.

Originally Posted by ItalianGuy4US

That could be but anyway wasn't it a mistake to just disband what was left of the army? I don't think the remainder would ve been still loyal to old regime anyways-
BTW I believe generals were negotiated with, or it wouldn't have been that easy to enter Baghdad after all.

Mistake? Not unless you wanted them around to keep the bad guys out of the country.

Who says it was "that easy" to enter Baghdad? It wasn't the most difficult battle, but I wouldn't say it was easy. The Iraqi military, even with their large numbers during DS/DS was no match for the US military. For one, the majority of the members were "drafted" and had no real attachment to "Dying for their country." It was the same this time, only in less numbers and no one tried to surrender to an apache. Many of the "leaders" tucked tail and ran when the war started this go-round. Much of the republican guard disasembled and melded into the civilian population. Some complete disappeared, while others raised their heads later to play a game of hide, and fire the RPG behind the woman/child/house.

Yep Rnder Safe that's a good explanation I think.
It's just that leftist and antiamerican jerks here often come up with this: " Why did the US let those who could control the country and those who actually knew the territory run away ? that was silly ".
What should I just say to them ?
From what you've just said I should desume the army wasn't actually dissolved but someway melt away by itself making it impossible for the CPA to mantain it, uh ?

Originally Posted by ItalianGuy4US

Yep Rnder Safe that's a good explanation I think.
It's just that leftist and antiamerican jerks here often come up with this: " Why did the US let those who could control the country and those who actually knew the territory run away ? that was silly ".
What should I just say to them ?
From what you've just said I should desume the army wasn't actually dissolved but someway melt away by itself making it impossible for the CPA to mantain it, uh ?

Well, let's use another example then ... when the 2000 intifada began in Israel, members of the Palestinian security forces who had been trained and armed by Israel, turned their guns on Israeli soldiers with whom they were conducting joint patrols. Would it have been wise to keep already rag-tag soldiers with very little discipline and training (remember, the Republican Guard disbanned themselves and scattered) to serve along side coalition troops with the threat of terrorist attacks and a potential insurgency? Loyalties run very thin over there. I certainly wouldn't have wanted any on my patrols.

Well yeah RndrSafe's right when he says that. I guess there wasn't much choice left, for the US.
But then what happened to the weapons ? Was there any sort of hand-all-thy-weapons-over to the americans, something like what had happened in Kosovo 99 when the albanian guerrilla struck a deal and gave their armaments over ? Not that it was a similar situation, but i mean the principle.

weapons are to destroy and kill....so more weapons means more deaths. And most of those weapons were old and dangerous to use....especially for the users. the less weapons there will be in Iraq the more control USA will have.....and that is i guess good for now.

The Americans are nothing but Evil Imperialists, and I am angry that my stupid leader, Tony Blair, took my country to war with the Americans. Bush told Blair not to join the war, BUT Blair still went to war.