Comments on: Disbanding the Iraqi Army … A Good Idea?

By: rehab program

rehab program — Thu, 21 May 2009 04:06:49 +0000

Excuse me. It had only one fault. It was kind of lousy.
I am from Equatorial and too bad know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Alcohol treatment information regarding alcoholism, alcohol withdrawal and alcohol detox.Guide to alcohol treatment alcohol treatment news, rehab photos, recovery articles blogs more alcohol treatment information — hard drive crash? The.“
Thank you very much :-(. Murphey.

By: dman

dman — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:26:24 +0000

Disbanding the army was not a good Idea. The proper thing to do was to go after the officers that commited crimes and take them out of the arm forces and reform the armforces. Over 100,000 iraqi soldiers most were likely just ordinary people that got sucked in for many reasons so there was not need for total disbanding when they would recruit from the same population group afterward. What was needed was a transformation/reformation and selection process where soldier of good qualities would remain. This required reviews of of their records. Recruitment of other minorities into the arm forces would also be prioritised. There were many positive ways to reform. One partial disbanding where the top officers were let go with their pensions intact. Shuffling of officers to ensure that the previouse structure is diminished and retraining. A new code of conduct implemented and ensured by american soldiers and american military police forces integrated into the Iraqi forces.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:26:51 +0000

The Iraqi army killed about 100,000 Shiites under Saddam. If it hadn’t been disbanded would we have been able to get the majority Shiite parties on board towards elections? If the Shiites had been unhappy with a US occupation that kept the Sunni army in place and had started their own insurgency would the Sunni army have been sent in to crack down? How in the world would you ever get all parties to participate in elections. With minority Sunnis still making up the majority of the army including it’s experienced officers, how would you get them to stop thinking about conducting a coup after the US draws down?
My point is that there’s a whole lot of consequences to not disbanding the army which a lot of folk are not taking into account.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:25:55 +0000

By: heath

heath — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:04:44 +0000

I absolutely believe this was the right thing to do in disbanding the Iraqi Army, there would have been more corruption then their currently is. After speaking with hundreds of Iraqi’s, they seem to agree that if Saddams forces were left in charge, there would currently be even greater casualties inside Iraq and on Coalition forces, simply due to their own resentment of “losing the war” to the people you are now standing beside trying to fight with in order to secure a country that was basically was just lost due to the Iraqi Armies inability, or lack or support to fight the incoming coalition forces.
I personally believe we did the right thing by disbanding the Army, I think a greater problem lies in not securing the vast amount of arms caches found throughout Iraq that are currently still being deployed around Iraq in order to inflict as many casualties as possible in order to keep the media spewing “another deadly blast” day in and day out.
The coalition forces could kill 300 known terrorist, but if terrorist manage to blow up a market place of 30 people, the news still reads “300 Terrorist Killed as a Deadly Blast rips through a Market Place killing 30 Innocent“
Despite the fact those 2 most likely have nothing to do with one another. But yet, thats what the media plays, and the viewers have been forced to believe no good comes out of Iraq, regardless of what happens.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:18:17 +0000

I for one think disbanding the Iraqi army was a huge mistake. However, it pales in comparison to sending in too few troops to provide security for the general population.
Lack of security means reconstruction can’t progress as it should. Lack of progress and lack of security translates into lack of confidence in both the U.S. and Iraqi security forces. It would be the same in any country.
Joint U.S./Iraqi Army patrols, under martial law, should have begun almost immediately after “major combat operations” had ceased.
A “cash for weapons” program could have put a lot of Iraqis on the prowl for weapons caches. Money spent on a program like that would have been a pittance compared to what we will pay for caring for the soldiers and Marines who were wounded by those weapons.
Police forces are not intended to provide security against heavily armed militias. The Iraqi police forces should have been pulled out, reconstituted, trained, and equipped. Then they could have been re-introduced gradually to hold areas that had been swept and cleared by the military. From that point, they could function as the eyes and ears for security forces.
All of this is just hot air now. The U.S. will not commit the troops needed to get the job done at this stage. It’s too late to revamp the police forces. It’s WAY too late for a “cash for weapons” program.
The hope now is that the Iraqi army will be able to do what the American military was not allowed to do. Place your bets, gentlemen.

By: zak822

zak822 — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:26:38 +0000

“The Iraqi Army is getting real close to were they need to be.“
All is going well in Iraq. All we need is time.
How much time are you willing to give? I ask in all seriousness. Are the war supporters here willing to give it 5 years, 7 years? How long?
And, given the problems with recruitment, real problems that were only overcome by raising the age limit twice and offering fat bonus’s, can our volunteer Army sustain a 5 year commitment in Iraq, plus Afghanistan?

By: Barry O'Connell

Barry O'Connell — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 04:07:14 +0000

At this point I think we need to embrace our Iranian brothers and jointly back the Shiite militias. The surest road to peace is through Iranian and US cooperation.
Best wishes,
Barry O’Connell

By: Dave Burkitt

Dave Burkitt — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:46:43 +0000

Disbanding the old Iraqi Army was also a way to have a GOOD insurgency. All those battle-wise officers and NCOs and veterans of the 8-year war with Iran, humiliated and jobless, were able to construct a first-rate urban gurrilla force.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:05:19 +0000

In management books, they discuss the “honeymoon period” as key to establishing your authority. People give you the benefit of the doubt for brief period after a change in leadership, and the precedents you set then while color your entire tenure, even if your initial mistakes are ultimately corrected.
The U.S. military failed to heed this lesson, by not taking the looting and disorder that took place in the early days after the invasion seriously. What mattered was not so much the actual damage done in those few days, as the precedent that it set that anarchy would be tolerated under the new regime.
Disbanding the Iraqi Army could have been a good decision, if the Coalition had sufficient forces committed in impose real law and order until it was replaced. Military planners had recommended a force in the 400,000–500,000 troop range for this very purpose.
Another decision which in hindsight was very damaging was the manner in which the Iraqi Army was disbanded. Idle hands are the Devil’s tools. A better choice would have been to disarm the Iraqi Army, to have continued to pay them and honor the Iraqi nation’s financial obligations to them, and to put them to work rebuilding the country, which would have helped the less political people in their ranks buy into the occupation.