Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Are we losing ground in Iraq?

  1. Oct 1, 2005 #1
    According to a recent statement by general George Casey, senior military commander in Iraq, There is currently only one Battalion of Iraqi soldiers currently prepared to do "stand alone" operations.

    I find that a bit odd considering that Casey had said in June that there were three battalions ready.

    We constantly hear that U.S. involvement can only be reduced when we have trained a sufficient number of Iraqi military battalions.

    Since there are only 500 to 600 soldiers in an Iraqi battalion, this means after all of this time and money there are only 600 Iraqi soldiers capable of standing on their own. This is totally disgusting.

    Several months ago the U.S. Army announced that they had purchased $85 million worth of military equipment from China which was to be used to arm the Iraqi soldiers. WHAT SOLDIERS?? Where are they going?? Are they taking their weapons with them??

    When Rumsfeld was asked about this he replied:

    What the hell is that supposed to mean??

    When my niece returned from Iraq, minus her left arm, she told me that a lot of the Iraqi soldiers and police would sell their weapons and then claim that they had been lost. If A U.S. soldier loses a weapon in a situation other than combat, he/she pays for it!

    Attention: This has been my monthly rant, please feel free to comment on it, ignore it, or print it out and wipe your arse with it. That is all.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2005 #2
    Chasing a Rabbit? at least they know theve got the worng one, hope they don't end up chasing me.

    Looks Left, Looks Right, Runs off, centered -ZZZZoooooooooom
  4. Oct 1, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is not clear to me how you can lose ground you never held.
  5. Oct 1, 2005 #4
    Oh come one! This is Bush we're talking about. He's managed to fail in ways that didn't exist before... :smile:
  6. Oct 1, 2005 #5
    its hard to see the situation as anything other then a terribly costly mess. i don't think ground has been lost yet because american troops are still there in full force but it would be vary easy to lose a lot of ground on many fronts if american troops were withdrawn before the iraqis were prepared to pick up where the americans left off.
  7. Oct 1, 2005 #6

    Perhaps losing ground was not the best choice of words. But I do understand what you mean. Perhaps if others would read the entire post they would also.

    Yes General Casey did, just this week, say that there is only one Iraqi battalion which can operate on it's own. And in June he said that there were three. Look at this info from a defense web site:


    Someone is still promoting the big lie and a lot of Americans are still buying it.

    But then we must use the Iraqi army we have and not the one we wish we had. :grumpy:
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  8. Oct 1, 2005 #7
    Rumsfeld is in a tough situation because on one hand he has to tell the truth to the american public and on the other hand if he doesn't have good news, support for the war will fall, insurgent's spirits will rise and the whole effort could be wasted if troops leave before the job is done.

    it also looks bad for the usa if their huge war machine can be sent home packing with little more then a lot of tenacity
  9. Oct 1, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Regarding Social Security, Bush encouraged Congress to ignore their constituency with the reasoning that a policy can be right and unpopular at the same time. But this is not a dictatorship, it is a republic in which public officials are supposed to represent their constituents--even if/when it goes against their personal position. And lying to the American people can never be excused.

    I would refer to Iraq as "The Money Pit" but it is far worse than that. The truth is we have failed miserably in transferring power to Iraq. We are probably just training and arming future enemies, which would be par for the course.
  10. Oct 1, 2005 #9
    And as we train those future enemies , we are teaching them exactly what tactics we will be using against them. Stupid Stupid Stupid :mad: :mad:
  11. Oct 1, 2005 #10
    Remember who the president is.

  12. Oct 2, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Haha, this one is good ! "To Fail where no Man has Failed before" :rofl: :rofl:

    "He Failed, Jim, but not as we know it" :rofl: :rofl:
  13. Oct 2, 2005 #12
    There are 2 schools of thought regarding this issue:

    1) The people elect a politician to carry out their will. He should vote however his constituents feel on a particular issue, regardless of his personal beliefs.

    2) The people elect a politician because they believe he is a man of character and they agree with his views on the issues. He should vote what he believes best on a particular issue.

    I tend to favor 2) more than 1) myself. A lot of the issues these guys work on are just too complex for the average person to make an informed decision about. If an elected official believes, based on months of research by his staff, that a particular change to social security is bad, should he still vote for it just because the majority of his constituents, having spent 10 minutes watching a segment about it on 60 Minutes, believe it's good? I also think option 1) encourages 'voting by poll' and I think that leads to wishy-washy behavior. A representative might vote for gun control on one bill and against it on another just because of the fickle nature of his constituents.
  14. Oct 2, 2005 #13
    One small failure for a man, one giant failure for mankind.
  15. Oct 2, 2005 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Did anyone see Rummy's response to the question of Iraqi troop readiness?

    Instead of anwering the question of how we went from 3 battallion to 1, he responded by saying that no army can match the might of the US military.

    Apparently US trained Iraqi soldiers are selling their guns for cash.
  16. Oct 2, 2005 #15
    This is so depressing.

    We arn't going to get out are we? Unless we just leave our mess behind. God. I apologize, world.
  17. Oct 2, 2005 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sometimes I wonder if Bush wasn't tricked into invading Iraq - the motivation being the pottery rule: We broke it, now we own it. After all, someone had to clean up Iraq. Everyone knew that something had to be done. Why not dump it on the stupid Americans?

    But now that the cowboy rode into Baghdad on his big white horse, IMO, to pull out would likely destabilize the entire region and possibly lead to WWIII. So, for better or worse, we own it. But that may be our card to play: Hey world, either we get some help or we all suffer the consequences.
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2005
  18. Oct 2, 2005 #17
    The ground in Iraq belongs to Iraqis. Not just Iraqis that want to make huge money doing business our way, but the whole nation.

    The ruins of civilization on top of civilization attest to the difficulties of governance and peace in that area. We are liable to lose more than a place to stand in Iraq, it may happen that we will get a military trained and then a single event, or a string of what we would consider collateral incidents might occur; that will turn the whole situation in an afternoon, and we will be at war with the new Iraqi army, and their allies.

    I read an account regarding the vanishing middle class in Iraq. People have armed men trespassing in their yards to take shots of convoys on the freeways. They are afraid to make any kind of move, their neighbors watch, and no one is sure of the political alignment of the watchers.

    I would say that they have to be brave and take up arms, and remember that as property owners they have rights, and they should shoot militants that trespass. However, if that theory were taken to a much broader level, then the US might be seen as the interlopers, by all.

    Iraqis are weary, worn down, hot, hungry, terrorized and hopeful. In all of this they are trying to have normal lives. The Iraqi society is not at all homogenous, so there are many types of normal lives, and their intolerance for differences will cause the "Democracy" to stumble again and again.
  19. Oct 2, 2005 #18
    Right.... because getting the general population to start shooting random people will definitely make the situation calm down, you idiot. What the **** would you encourage that for? What on earth can you possibly hope to accomplish by creating even more violence, let alone outside of any recognizable faction. Hell while we're at it we should give everyone guns and tell them to kill anyone who disagrees with them politically! We'll have a new Rwanda by the end of the week. It's perfect.
  20. Oct 2, 2005 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No name calling please. This constitutes a personal attack which is against the forum's posting guidelines.
  21. Oct 2, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    See, there's always a solution around the corner :devil:
  22. Oct 2, 2005 #21
    All posts considered, and aiming back at the topic, how did we manage to lose two Iraqi stand alone operational battalions since June?? They definitely aren't on summer vacation.

    No one in the government or military has offered an explanation, except for Rumsfeld's rediculous comment about chasing the wrong rabbit. :confused: Why can't he point us towards the right rabbit.
  23. Oct 2, 2005 #22
    I honestly think that the best thing the USA can do right now is get out immediately. The longer they stay there the higher chance there is of being a bigger and bloodier civil war. You can only make things worse.
  24. Oct 2, 2005 #23


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    First, there was no revolutionary group within Iraq to work with. So unfortunately those who may have hoped for change via assistance from the U.S. are not part of prior, organized groups. Whereas there were already factions as the Baath Sunni and Kurds who have been more prepared to fight for their own agendas. Which is the second problem--the Bush administration's lack of understanding of the region and therefore lack of proper strategy (the lack of planning is a separate, more general problem as seen more recently with HLS).

    The belligerence certainly hasn't helped either. Bush just tried to gain international help during the UN meetings, with no result. Too bad Kerry wasn't elected for this one reason alone.


    The only hope for an exit strategy would be if Republicans push for it before the 2006 elections. Otherwise we will have to wait until a changing of the guard in 2008, or an uncontrollable escalation into civil war before we can withdraw. Either way, it will be a hard road to bring the deficit spending under control.
  25. Oct 2, 2005 #24


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Three options I can think of:

    1) Two battalions worth of Iraqi soldiers at stand alone capability have died since June.

    2) Two battalions worth of Iraqi soldiers at stand alone capability have sold their weapons for cash since June.

    3) Two battalions worth of Iraqi soldiers at stand alone capability have quit or deserted since June.

    Take your pick.
  26. Oct 2, 2005 #25
    they lied about the three battalions in the first place?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook