Iraqi Defense Ministry: "...we will need the Americans for a long time."

[sabra]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512010151dec01,1,1204856.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Iraqi forces better, but GIs to be needed for some time

<snip>

But the increasing visibility of Iraqi forces masks the many uncertainties that surround their capacity to fully take over from U.S. forces any time soon.

Because of a decision made in the immediate aftermath of the invasion not to give the new Iraqi army heavy equipment or armor, Iraqi forces will continue to rely for many more years on the U.S. military for support, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

That decision has been reversed, but it will take years to equip and train mechanized armored divisions and an air force, which currently has six planes and three helicopters.

"We don't have heavy weapons and we don't have armor, and we still need air support," said Defense Ministry spokesman Saleh Sarhan in a recent interview. "These things are expensive, and they take time to acquire. This is why we will need the Americans for a long time."

How long is, "a long time"?

[Dhalgren]

1. Do the insurgents have armor and an air force?

Just asking...

Also, if there are only a few thousand insurgents (as the Bush Gang says) and there are tens of thousands new Iraqi soldiers (again, as the BG says), why are the insurgents so much better at fighting than the Iraqi soldiers?

Again, just asking...

[sabra]

2. there air force currently has six planes and three helicopters.

this is going to take alot of money and time :-(

[BeFree]

3. Can you say...

Lifetime Welfare For Iraq? That's what it sounds like to me.

[JPZenger]

4. Good AP Article on Problems in Iraqi Security Forces

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/international-27/11332994494430.xml&storylist=international

This Associated Press article, printed Dec.1, 2005, shows how the involvement of so many US troops may actually be causing the Iraqis to slack off in their own defenses. In addition, the presence of so many US troops helps to spur violence, which then means we need more US troops and stronger measures, which then spurs more violence, in an endless cycle. Excerpts:
---


Samarra, Iraq - "...American soldiers are ... preparing ...to hand most of the security control of this city to Iraqi forces. It's their third try, and one big problem remains: Only 100 of the 700 police on the city payroll actually show up for work most days ... Twice before over the past two years, police crumbled in the face of insurgent threats.

...throughout central and northern Iraq, cities that are either Sunni Arab or ethnically or religiously mixed pose a much more difficult challenge. In the northern city of Mosul, for example, where police deserted en masse last year, U.S. commanders have laid plans for Iraqi police to retake control in 2006 — but warn that internal divisions could hamper the force.

In the volatile west, considered the gateway for foreign militants into Iraq, U.S. commanders only this summer started deploying Iraqi army battalions. Some of the just-trained Iraqi soldiers, most of them Shiites, find themselves patrolling Iraq's most violent Sunni Arab cities three months after learning how to use weapons ... at least 1,262 Iraqi soldiers and police have been killed since ... April 28...more than 550 coalition troops... have died in Iraq since April 28.

Other soldiers, who were involved with previous handovers of Tal Afar, Mosul and Husaybah that also collapsed, warned that a premature transfer of power could set the ground for failure. "I don't think they're ready or want to take over," said Staff Sgt. Richard Bogle ..."