Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


NYT: U.S. troops in Iraq quietly shifting to training roles?

posted at 4:22 pm on November 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

WaPo’s latest story on the fragile quiet in Baghdad ends with this ominous line from an Iraqi refugee recently returned to his neighborhood: “Of course, if the political process is still the same, and the Americans withdraw from Dora, in a couple of days everything will collapse again.” Hence Petraeus’s conundrum: How do you keep the peace while also reducing the American presence? Baker-Hamilton called for withdrawing most combat troops and leaving behind trainers to assist the Iraqi Army. If the Times is right, Petraeus will try to capitalize on the security gains by shifting to that strategy — but in two steps. First comes the training, achieved by transitioning some combat troops to a support role; then, if all goes well, withdrawal can presumably begin.

Under the approach, some American combat brigades due to stay behind would slim down their fighting forces and enlarge the teams mentoring Iraqis. Within a 3,000-member brigade, for example, one or two battalions might help train the Iraqis while the rest would be retained as quick-reaction forces to back up the Iraqis if they ran into stiff resistance.

The precise arrangements would vary depending on the threats and the quality of Iraqi forces in specific regions, and brigade commanders would have considerable leeway in deciding how many soldiers to commit to mentoring. But the shift toward training would be gradual, reflecting what commanders say have been lessons learned from the failure of earlier, overhasty efforts to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis.

Even after President Bush’s “surge” of troops is over in mid-July and the number of brigades shrinks to 15 from the current level of 20, American units in some of the more highly contested areas would continue their combat roles…

The type of training could vary. General Mixon, for example, said that a brigade might concentrate on collective training: teaching Iraq platoons and companies to fight effectively as units. The brigade commanders, officials say, are in the best position to evaluate the threats in their areas, the abilities of the Iraqi forces they work with and the local political situation. Previous efforts to shift responsibility to the Iraqis faltered in part because the efforts were influenced by American officials too removed from the battlefield, officials say.

There were hints of this strategy over the summer, although that incarnation seemed to imagine U.S. troops mainly in a combat role until summer 2008. The “phenomenal” burst of security gains appears to have caught the brass off guard, though, making an earlier transition possible. Note the emphasis, too, on letting brigade commanders decide what kind and how much training their IA charges need. Decentralized security has been the name of the game since the surge began, from the stationing of U.S. troops in neighborhood outposts to the arming of Sunni tribesmen to fight AQ. No surprise that Petraeus wants to build off that knowledge base by letting people on the ground set the pace for training, too. The strategy’s also shrewd politically given the fact that he’s set to testify again before Congress next spring. If the training program goes well, he can point to it as a transitional stage for U.S. troops on their way out of the country.

In the meantime, though, here’s a gruesome reminder that Al Qaeda’s still operating in Diyala. Please do note the suspects’ gender; if they’re foreigners, odds are they’re Saudis or Libyans. Also, via Gateway Pundit, Reuters is reporting that 300,000 Shiites have signed a petition blaming Iran for the militia infighting in southern Iraq. It was organized by the same Shiite sheikhs who told Reuters last month that they’re tired of the fundamentalist presence in the region. There’s probably an economic motive to it too: Just as AQ pissed off the Sunni tribal elders in Anbar by muscling in on their graft, the militias must be carving out chunks of the sheikhs’ rackets in the south to fund their activities. Demagoging Iran and playing to Iraqis’ nationalist sentiments is a shrewd way of undercutting the militias’ influence among the public. Exit question: Would 300,000 Shiites really be willing to lend their names publicly to anti-Iranian sentiment given how uncertain things are in the south? If SCIRI and/or the Sadrists crush the sheikhs and Iran asserts itself, that petition becomes a hit list.

Update: At Roggio’s site, D.J. Elliott reports on the real surge.

Over the last year the Iraqi Army has grown to 12 divisions, 41 brigades, 123 battalions, and four ISOF battalions. This is a 20 percent increase in units and a doubling of the ISOF. This does not include the three former strategic infrastructure brigades (17 battalions) that have been transferred to the Iraqi Army and are currently being retrained. While the Iraqi Army officer and NCO ranks remain undermanned, the overall unit manning has grown to 108 percent during that time. This does not mention the steadily increasing Iraqi Army competence that can only come from combat and counterinsurgency experience…

This is the real surge — a surge in training and building of the Iraqi Army. Security in Iraq improves with an increased long-term security presence; a security presence that will increasingly be shouldered by Iraqi troops. The five US surge brigades were not only brought in to buy the Iraqi government time to sort out the political situation, they were brought in to buy the Iraqi Army time to expand. The five US surge brigades are doing some much needed housecleaning in Iraq’s problem areas, freeing up Iraqi Army formations to provide cadre for new forming units, and providing additional training partners for the new Iraqi Army formations thus facilitating the accelerated expansion. The Iraqi Army is replacing the US forces departing Iraqi by the end of 2008 at rate of two Iraqi brigades for one US brigade.

The Times says they’re on their way up from just under 200,000 to 255,000 troops, and that’s presumably not including the 70,000 Sunnis currently on the U.S. payroll whom the Shiite government has thus far resisted integrating into the security forces as promised.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Damn Rove. Damn war will probably be over by Nov. ‘08.

JiangxiDad on November 23, 2007 at 4:28 PM

How quietly? Are they using suppressors? Better mufflers on the Humvees?

(sorry, don’t mean to be facetious)

Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM

In the Middle East, It’s the Tribes, Stupid! – Robert Kaplan, The Atlantic

Please do note the suspects’ gender; if they’re foreigners, odds are they’re Saudis or Libyans

or Yemens or more likely: Yemenese Saudis

bnelson44 on November 23, 2007 at 4:40 PM

and that’s presumably not including the 70,000 Sunnis currently on the U.S. payroll whom the Shiite government has thus far resisted integrating into the security forces as promised.

This was reported a little bit ago, was there any followup?

bnelson44 on November 23, 2007 at 4:47 PM

This is good news. The big question now is how much progress can be made before Hillary pulls the plug in 2009.

SoulGlo on November 23, 2007 at 4:54 PM

The Iraqis aren’t trained yet? It’s been almost 5 years. What are they being trained to be? MD’s? Astronauts?

Hello! It’s their loyalty, not their training.

MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 6:14 PM

and that’s presumably not including the 70,000 Sunnis currently on the U.S. payroll whom the Shiite government has thus far resisted integrating into the security forces as promised.

If you were Grant in 1864 would you want Lee’s troops integrated into your forces?

MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 6:16 PM

The Iraqis aren’t trained yet? It’s been almost 5 years. What are they being trained to be? MD’s? Astronauts?

Hello! It’s their loyalty, not their training.

This characterization is wrong, specifically as relates to the article which focuses on the Iraqi Army.

The Iraqi Police, the national force and regional variants in the south and Baghdad, have had problems with “loyalty,” in terms of militia infiltration, etc., while regional police in Anbar (for example) don’t at this point.

The Iraqi Army, on the other hand, has always been progressing as a viable, successful national institution. Partially this is because a. the army has always been a higher status force in Iraq than the police and b. individuals are stationed away from home all over the country, thus diminishing any conflicting loyalties.

Many Iraqi Army units are fairly proficient in everything except logistics, which is a consistent problem area (it is being addressed, though it’s a frustrating road).

BillINDC on November 23, 2007 at 8:11 PM

MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 6:14 PM

You try training an army that lived under 35 years of Saddam plus a decade or two of corruption prior to that, which doesn’t have a West Point, and is right now this minute and every minute embroiled in 3 or 4 distinct yet overlapping conflicts. They don’t have remote bases in peaceful areas to train in. They’re training in the middle of the war. And add to that that the army you’re training is Arab and carries everything that that entails in terms of culture and military traditions. Arab armies just don’t tend to be very capable without serious assistance from outside sources.

These guys aren’t a bunch of boys from Kansas who already ascribe to constitutional norms, Western notions of human rights, our definitions of corruption and clean government and our notions even of right and wrong on a personal level. These guys come to the table with tribal loyalties that you and I really don’t understand all to well and they don’t have the luxury that you have had of living in a peaceful and free country for all of our lives minus time spent in foreign war zones. The war is in their neighborhoods and threatens their families every day.

Try training an army with all of that in the background and see how long it takes.

Bryan on November 23, 2007 at 8:12 PM

When I reference “the article,” I meant the one by DJ Elliot, apologies. The police are important and a problem in certain regions (even after retraining and purge of militias), but not a problem in other areas, and the Iraqi Army is a very viable institution overall.

BillINDC on November 23, 2007 at 8:14 PM

The Times says they’re on their way up from just under 200,000 to 255,000 troops, and that’s presumably not including the 70,000 Sunnis currently on the U.S. payroll whom the Shiite government has thus far resisted integrating into the security forces as promised.

Some of the 70,000 number are integrated into the official security forces already as “Provincial Security Forces” (PSF) paid under the Iraqi Police by the federal Iraqi government. Others in the Concerned Local Citizens (CLCs) are not.

The popular narrative, which is partially correct, is that the Iraqi government is dragging its feet because of sectarian interest. While this is probably true to an extent, other reasons are the glacial speed of Iraqi bureacracy and a resistance to moving what are basically former insurgents into the security apparatus wholesale.

BillINDC on November 23, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Bryan is also quite right about the cultural and inherited institutional challenges when training up a professional army to our standard.

BillINDC on November 23, 2007 at 8:19 PM

Many Iraqi Army units are fairly proficient in everything except logistics, which is a consistent problem area (it is being addressed, though it’s a frustrating road).

No worries, Bill. I’m on it! Well, when my RSU finally makes it over to Iraq this winter, I’ll be on it…

MB4 – the rest have corrected you so far, but I would ask you, how long does it take to make a top notch NCO? Now, have we been working with the Iraqis that long yet? I won’t even go into logisticians and good field grade officers…spinning dross into gold takes time, experience and materiel.

P.S. Big A, why don’t you e-mail me before this type of articel? Quitely changing?! Dude, we’ve been banging on about this for years. Just what do you think I am going over to Iraq to do anyways? Heh.

major john on November 23, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Oh, and like the choice of pessimistic quote providers the WaPo gives us, including:

Hashimi, who was an intelligence officer during the government of Saddam Hussein

A Saddam regime intel officer?! WTF?! Couldn’t find Harry Reid for a quote…?

major john on November 23, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Once again a populace given a real chance to make money instead of war leaps at the opportunity.

jeanie on November 24, 2007 at 9:07 AM

“Would 300,000 Shiites really be willing to lend their names publicly to anti-Iranian sentiment given how uncertain things are in the south?”

Yes. Iran is not that popular even in Shia Iraq. People forget not that long ago Shia Arabs were fighting in a war against Iranians, albeit mostly as conscripts. They are religiously similar but ethnically separate.

“If SCIRI and/or the Sadrists crush the sheikhs and Iran asserts itself, that petition becomes a hit list.”

Unlikely, SCIRI has changed their name and started cutting ties with Iran, while Sadr publicly denies Iranian influence because he knows it hurts his popularity among Iraqis. Iran was an ally of convenience for both, an alliance that’s no longer convenient in the new Iraq.

Iran’s influence can be overstated. Iraq has comparable oil revenues. Power in Iraq will flow from Iraq’s oil.

2009 is going to be a watershed year in Iraq. The elections should bring moderates firmly into control.

TallDave on November 24, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.