| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| U.S. General: Iraq Police Training a Flop |
| 2004-06-10 |
Wed Jun 9,11:08 PM ET By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer TAJI, Iraq - Misguided U.S. training of Iraqi police contributed to the country’s instability and has delayed getting enough qualified Iraqis on the streets to ease the burden on American forces, the head of armed forces training said Wednesday. "It hasn’t gone well. We’ve had almost one year of no progress," said Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who departs Iraq (news - web sites) next week after spending a year assembling and training the country’s 200,000 army, police and civil defense troops. "We’ve had the wrong training focus — on individual cops rather than their leaders," Eaton said in an interview with The Associated Press. A credible, well-equipped national security force is crucial to America’s plans to pull its 138,000 troops out of Iraq, along with the 24,000 soldiers from Britain and other coalition countries. As U.S. occupation leaders prepare to hand power to an Iraqi government in less than three weeks, Iraq’s own security forces won’t be ready to take a large role in protecting the country. A U.N. Security Council resolution approved Tuesday acknowledges Iraq’s lack of a developed security force and provides a continued multinational troop presence until 2006. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy U.S. defense secretary, wrote in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal that the Iraqi army — including the Taji-based Iraqi National Task Force, which focuses on internal strife — will begin assuming some security duties over the next few months. Iraqi forces could soon "take local control of the cities," with U.S. troops moving into a supporting role, Wolfowitz wrote. In April, Iraqi security forces failed their first big test, when about half the police and military forces deserted during rebel uprisings in Fallujah, Najaf, Karbala and elsewhere. Eaton, a plainspoken officer who didn’t shirk responsibility for his role in the problems, said soldiers of Iraq’s 2nd Brigade simply ignored U.S. orders to fight their countrymen. "They basically quit. They told us, ’We’re an army for external defense and you want us to go to Fallujah?’ That was a personal mistake on my part," Eaton said. When the uprising broke out in Fallujah, Eaton said he saw a chance to begin transferring the security mission to Iraqi forces. He agreed to allow the Iraqi army’s just-created 2nd Brigade to take on guerrillas that had seized control of the restive western city. "We were premature," said Eaton, 54, of Weatherford, Okla. "I could have stopped it. I had a bad feeling and I should have acted on it." The lesson learned was that the soldiers needed an Iraqi command hierarchy. Eaton said the soldiers may have battled Fallujah’s Sunni Muslim rebels if Iraqi leaders were spurring them on. Wolfowitz also cited the importance of Iraqi commanders and said the April desertions shouldn’t have been a surprise because of the Iraqis’ shortcomings in training, equipment and leadership. "No one had any expectation that Iraqi security forces would be ready this past April to stand up to the kind of fighting they encountered in Fallujah and in the Najaf-Karbala region," Wolfowitz wrote. One U.S. military official said Wolfowitz was partly to blame for those shortcomings. Some $257 million in spending authority was held up by Wolfowitz’s office for two months, delaying construction of Iraqi army barracks for four brigades awaiting training, the official said on condition of anonymity. The desertions could have happened in any country, said Iraqi army Brig. Gen. Khaled al-Sattar, the commander of the army brigade training at the Taji camp. "The soldiers didn’t want to fight their own countrymen. Would you?" al-Sattar said as he and Eaton lunched on stewed beef and beans in the base mess hall. "Once there are division commanders and an Iraqi defense minister, the soldiers will start obeying orders because the orders come from an Iraqi leadership." Sure, we liberating Americans aren’t to be trusted despite the fact that we didn’t just kill you all at the outset. U.S. trainers are currently instructing 550 new soldiers in the training camp in Kirkush to replace troops who deserted in April, Eaton said. U.S. leaders, too, arrived in Iraq unprepared for the type of insurgency that began to flare last summer, Eaton said. "We thought we were going to be nice and comfortable in a benign environment and rebuild this country," he said. "Not everyone wanted to get Iraqi leaders in fast. I’d have been more aggressive early." Now, the U.S. military is reconfiguring the training mission. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who commanded the 101st Airborne Division when it occupied a large part of northern Iraq, returned to the country to head the Office of Security Transition, which oversees recruiting and training of Iraq’s five security forces. Brig. Gen. James Schwitters, who has an Army special operations background, will take over the Iraqi army training mission from Eaton, who will become head of training at the U.S. Army’s Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va. British Brig. Gen. Andrew Mackay will head police training. By January, the Iraqi army is expected to count 35,000 soldiers, with the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps expected to number 40,000 by fall, according to Wolfowitz. There are now close to 90,000 Iraqi police officers and tens of thousands more Ministry of Interior forces, many have little or no modern police training, he wrote. |
| Posted by:Zenster |
| #10 I don't understand what this blathering about not wanting to fight fellow Iraqis is all about. Those "fellow Iraqis" are largely standing in the way between Iraq and a brighter future. Those "fellow Iraqis" don't give a rat's ass about what's good for the country or the general population as long as they get what they want. They are ENEMIES OF IRAQ, no ifs, ands, or buts. This needs to be drummed into the heads of recruits for Iraq's police and military forces. These guys need to be made to understand LOGIC. Sheesh, this seeming disconnect from reality and reason is maddening, to say the least. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-10 3:18:09 PM |
| #9 powerful, dot com. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-10 11:31:59 AM |
| #8 There was this post from someone who was there in Fallujah with the Iraqis... I think you'll find him credible. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-10 11:11:01 AM |
| #7 One thing that was seldom mentioned in connection with the April events was that the Iraqi army recruits had been explicitly told they would not be fighting fellow Iraqis -- their duties would relate to border and external security, what we would consider normal army duties. I believe that even given that, the performance of some army units was overlooked -- Marines have reported that some of the new army personnel did in fact enter the fray around Fallujah. Disappointing, but not all that surprising that with weak command chains, no coherent/credible political structure above them (recall the bickering and dissension in the IGC over Fallujah), and the background they have, most of the Iraqi units didn't post up. Only thing that's surprised me is that we haven't been able to better train and equip some police by this point. Lots of details in that, I'm sure, and I don't have them. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-06-10 11:00:20 AM |
| #6 chuck makes some good points, BUT - 1. Im not sure EVERY Iraqi general was one of Saddams goon squad. 2. David Petraeus(Sp?) seemed to do a pretty good job in Mosul. It certainly didnt turn into the hotbed that Fallujah did. I would tend to at least take his point of view seriously. Leadership training here isnt taking an 18 year old and starting him as a plebe. Its taking an experienced officer, vetting him, and providing sufficient training to integrate with coalition forces. And its my impression that all third world forces are more dependent on their leadership than US forces are. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-10 10:03:52 AM |
| #5 another perspective from someone who was there: http://www.thegreenside.com/story.asp?ContentID=9262 gives some hope that things may get better. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5163 2004-06-10 8:56:57 AM |
| #4 What a load of crap. All of the security forces have been through a course, one course at least. No one should expect that they will have NYPD level cops out of that, but they don't need them. They need Iraqi cops who know how to deal with Iraqis, and that they have. Anyone who expected the Iraqi police to fight Sadr's goons or the terrorists in Fallujah is just plain wrong. They were outnumbered and outgunned. A few did fight, but most, quite understandably, went home. I would suggest that NYPD or LAPD might do the same if confronted by RPG's and morters. While some, SOME, ICDC and Iraqi Army units failed to perform their duties, most did and are. The notion that we should have worked from the top down reflects the view of some who believe that most Baathists should get a bye and be integrated into the security services. General Petr... (sp) of the 101st is one leading proponent of this. It has two (at least) false premises as its base. That the ordinary Iraqi soldier or police officer is incapable of doing anything but following orders. And, that we must use the experienced (Baathist) leaders of the security services in order to preserve order. Leadership training is something that takes years in the American military. What makes these folks think they can do it any faster in Iraq? All their point of view would do is establish that we really did not come to remove Saddam's goon squad, and that we just don't care who's in charge as long as they work for us. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-06-10 8:46:12 AM |
| #3 I think the General is right - first you train the leaders then they lead the training of the grunts. Lets remember these people lived under a totalitarian despotic regime in which they made zip decisions on their own and could not act independently. This is going to take generations for them to realize the individual liberty that they now possess. In the interim, you need to boil a frog, in reverse, you might say. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2004-06-10 8:15:34 AM |
| #2 The soldiers didn’t want to fight their own countrymen. Would you?" al-Sattar said..."Once there are division commanders and an Iraqi defense minister, the soldiers will start obeying orders because the orders come from an Iraqi leadership." It's pretty funny how Iraqi commanders are such sleazebag liars with the usual twisty Arab logic. Iraqis had no problem killing hundreds of thousands of other Iraqis under Saddam, so it's interesting that they had problems fighting for a free country. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-06-10 5:57:50 AM |
| #1 The soldiers didn’t want to fight their own countrymen. Would you?" al-Sattar said..."Once there are division commanders and an Iraqi defense minister, the soldiers will start obeying orders because the orders come from an Iraqi leadership." I don't see how an Iraqi leadership giving orders will make a heck of alot difference to the gut feeling Iraqi soldiers have that it's wrong to fight against fellow countrymen. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-10 3:11:07 AM |