Jesse, guest-blogging at Loaded Mouth, was wondering just yesterday, after news of the Iraqi Army's poor training surfaced,
How is an Iraqi Police Force of 200,000 men with AK-47s going to defend against an invasion by another country?
I mean, even if Iraq had 500,000 policemen armed with guns and they were all standing at the gates of Baghdad to repel an invasion, a pack of Iranian jets coupled with heavy armor could easily smash through and plant their victory flag on the highest pole.
And I see his point, after all, the Iraqi Army has about four old T-55 tanks and not much else in the way of heavy equipment. Remember those nasty neighbours? Iran...Syria...
Today, Jesse got his answer. Right at the bottom of a BBC story about how Rummie doesn't know how strong the Iraqi insurgency is, I see this:
In separate testimony to the Senate, Mr Rumsfeld said the US could bring its troops home in less than 18 months.
"It depends on... how much force it takes to subdue the insurgency. I don't think we need to hang around in Iraq until they have a military capable of defending against their neighbours," he said.
"That's the kind of thing that would take a good deal of time."
So now you know, Jesse.
6 comments:
"How is an Iraqi Police Force of 200,000 men with AK-47s going to defend against an invasion by another country?"
er... by making sure its enemies know the US will defend it... the strategy worked for Western Europe for about 50 years...
Hi Hark,
Umm..how exactly are Iraq's enemies going to know that when Rummie has said the US won't be sticking around to defend Iraq against it's enemies? Read the post again - with your "BushCo can do no wrong" filter switched off this time.
As for "the strategy worked for Western Europe for about 50 years", is that another of those conservative memes that just hangs out there without historical validation? Coz it just isn't true. Have a look at the balance of conventional forces stationed in W. Germany during the Cold War sometime...or read the old Soviet Union's own military planning documents which are now available. They thought the Germans, backed by the US and UK, wanted to invade to re-unite Germany and never thought they could successfully invade W. Europe. That one has been known since the early 80's(at least it has in Europe).
regards, C
C- we don't need to be stationed in Iraq to guarantee Iraq's security. if the U.S. says we are attacked when Iraq is attacked, or for that matter, if the Brits do- then all the countries in that area will know Iraq is lose lose
as far as NATO goes yeah, I guess that whole NATO thing was just paranoia. USSR would NEVER have attacked W.Europe. the entire cold war was just a neo-con lie perpetrated to help increase the power of the Hitler/Bush dynasty-
c'mon C, yer losing perspective.
Once again Harkonnendog has jumped to an indefensible position that is incredibly ridiculous.
Why does everything have to be your way or wrong? Black or White?
The standard theory is that it is easier for simple minds to understand which explains why Fox News is so popular. However, I don't think you have a simple mind.
Why can't you see things in shades of gray? Very few things are either right or wrong. Everything has to be put into context. Everything is relative.
In one paragraph you say we can defend Iraq with our promise. We don't have to be physically present. (Sounds a lot like NATO) Then you turn around and dismiss that theory of alliance.
Put into context NATO was a response to real and perceived threats from the Soviet Union at a time when Western Europe had just been wiped out by 6 years of war. There was no infrastructure ready to repel an attack. The cold war started in a similar fashion.
Neither all good nor all bad, but they were. You should not dismiss them out of hand.
Kirkrrt
Oh guys, what do they teach in US schools and colleges? The simplistic "NATO was formed to counter the Soviet threat" story is kindergarten history. Heres some stuff to help:
History Guide - the Origins of Nato which shows the commonly held view that NATO was not chiefly about the Soviets at all, but had the purpose of underpinning credible commitments between the US and its allies. The US had an incentive to create a post-war order that would lock in its interests, but had to persuade a fractious bunch of allies, which were fearful of US power, to sign up. The best way to do this was to create institutions such as NATO, which would credibly commit the US to pay some attention to its allies’ wants and needs, rather than riding roughshod over them. And NATO worked - it provided a basic security guarantee that underpinned the transatlantic relationship for half a century.
Next try The Formation of the Warsaw Pact which gives access to Soviet thinking of the time and shows that they had no intention of invasion, but instead were afraid that the US was trying to marginalise them and to re-arm their traditional enemies against them.
Regards, C
KKK let me refer u to C's post, which, as I said, argues that NATO was NOT in response to a threat from the Soviets. In fact those Soviets were acting defensively.
As for the black and white thing, I like to use this argument: (ad uhb-SUR-duhm) An argument whereby one seeks to prove one’s position by pointing out the absurdity or foolishness of an opponent’s position. Also, an argument carried to such lengths that it becomes silly or ridiculous. From Latin, meaning “to absurdity.”
anyway I meant to us absurdum but C has shown one cannot parody a socialist ;)
Cheers!
Hark
Post a Comment