thedrifter
01-01-07, 08:06 AM
As U.S. deaths reach grim new threshold in Iraq, military plans major shift
Updated 12/31/2006 8:07 PM ET
BAGHDAD (AP) — With U.S. deaths at the 3,000 mark, the U.S. military is accelerating plans to turn its main mission in Iraq from fighting insurgents to training Iraqi forces and hunting al-Qaeda terrorists.
Thousands more U.S. advisers would work inside of Iraqi units to improve their skills, which in most units still fall short of what is needed to bring down the country's violence.
President Bush is also considering the "surge" option — increasing temporarily the number of U.S. combat troops from its current 134,000 by 25,000 or more in hopes of securing the capital Baghdad to boost chances for political reconciliation.
But even without that boost, the role of the embedded advisers will take on new importance in the coming months as the U.S. struggles to hand over security duties to Iraq, bring down American casualties — and pave the way for an eventual withdrawal.
The new initiative is the latest and most ambitious of several attempts to improve the effectiveness of Iraqi units, which so far have fallen short of expectations.
Even if the new effort succeeds, some military experts warn it could take years before the Iraqis are truly ready to secure the country without American help.
The U.S. command began about a year ago to draw up the plans to increase the role of Military Transition Teams, groups that serve as trainers and advisers to Iraqi units, and draw down the number of U.S. combat brigades.
But the plan was delayed by last summer's surge of violence in Baghdad, which forced U.S. generals to use their troops to increase the armed American presence in the capital.
Now, the plan has jumped back into the forefront after the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, a panel led by former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III, recommended a fivefold increase in the number of American troops embedded with Iraqi forces.
President Bush has not announced whether he will accept the recommendations.
But top U.S. commanders are keen on the program, and the U.S. military is moving ahead with plans to increase the number of troops assigned to the MiTTs from the current level of 3,000 to 4,000 to 20,000.
Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group, told the Army Times recently that training and supporting Iraqi security forces was becoming the top priority for the U.S. military here.
U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said that in northern and western Iraq, some American commanders are already shifting troops from combat operations to advisory roles within Iraqi units.
Plans call for transferring experienced U.S. officers and sergeants already in Iraq to join the MiTT teams. Other soldiers are undergoing training at Fort Riley, Kansas, where they learn techniques for dealing with Iraqi troops and how to navigate through the mysteries of Iraqi culture. The Marines run their own adviser training program at Camp Pendleton, California.
U.S. officials here acknowledge that the advisory program faces a number of hurdles, including a shortage of Arabic translators to support the enhanced teams. And ambitious, talented American officers often do not consider advising foreign militaries to be career-building assignments.
Another problem: young American soldiers well-trained for combat don't always make the best advisers and mentors, especially working with troops from a vastly different culture.
The plan would "rush in more qualified trainers and embeds that it (the military) doesn't have, and assign more existing combat forces unqualified for the mission," former Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman warned.
Military analyst Kalev Sepp, a former Special Forces officer, told the website of the Council on Foreign Relations that captains and experienced sergeants should be responsible for advising, warning that ordinary enlisted soldiers "are wholly useless" in such a role.
The plan also doesn't sit well with some Iraqi leaders.
President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd with close ties to top Iraqi army commanders, complained that the increase in American advisers threatens Iraq's control of its own security forces and violates its sovereignty.
"What would it mean for Iraqi sovereignty if the army became a tool in the hands of officers coming from outside the country?" Talabani told reporters in December.
The U.S. has had the goal of reducing the American combat role and handing over security responsibility to the Iraqis since the early months of the U.S. military presence in 2003. But the military has repeatedly been overly optimistic in its estimates of how many Iraqi troops had been trained — and how well they'd been trained.
As a result, American troops found themselves doing more — not less — of the fighting and dying.
Now, some analysts believe the adviser program offers the best chance yet to improve Iraqi forces enough to let the Americans leave. But some, like Shawn Brimley and Lt. Col. Stephen Sklenka at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, warn the process will take time.
"The American public should be under no illusions that the missions can easily or quickly result in substantial reductions in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq," they say.
Ellie
Updated 12/31/2006 8:07 PM ET
BAGHDAD (AP) — With U.S. deaths at the 3,000 mark, the U.S. military is accelerating plans to turn its main mission in Iraq from fighting insurgents to training Iraqi forces and hunting al-Qaeda terrorists.
Thousands more U.S. advisers would work inside of Iraqi units to improve their skills, which in most units still fall short of what is needed to bring down the country's violence.
President Bush is also considering the "surge" option — increasing temporarily the number of U.S. combat troops from its current 134,000 by 25,000 or more in hopes of securing the capital Baghdad to boost chances for political reconciliation.
But even without that boost, the role of the embedded advisers will take on new importance in the coming months as the U.S. struggles to hand over security duties to Iraq, bring down American casualties — and pave the way for an eventual withdrawal.
The new initiative is the latest and most ambitious of several attempts to improve the effectiveness of Iraqi units, which so far have fallen short of expectations.
Even if the new effort succeeds, some military experts warn it could take years before the Iraqis are truly ready to secure the country without American help.
The U.S. command began about a year ago to draw up the plans to increase the role of Military Transition Teams, groups that serve as trainers and advisers to Iraqi units, and draw down the number of U.S. combat brigades.
But the plan was delayed by last summer's surge of violence in Baghdad, which forced U.S. generals to use their troops to increase the armed American presence in the capital.
Now, the plan has jumped back into the forefront after the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, a panel led by former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III, recommended a fivefold increase in the number of American troops embedded with Iraqi forces.
President Bush has not announced whether he will accept the recommendations.
But top U.S. commanders are keen on the program, and the U.S. military is moving ahead with plans to increase the number of troops assigned to the MiTTs from the current level of 3,000 to 4,000 to 20,000.
Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group, told the Army Times recently that training and supporting Iraqi security forces was becoming the top priority for the U.S. military here.
U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said that in northern and western Iraq, some American commanders are already shifting troops from combat operations to advisory roles within Iraqi units.
Plans call for transferring experienced U.S. officers and sergeants already in Iraq to join the MiTT teams. Other soldiers are undergoing training at Fort Riley, Kansas, where they learn techniques for dealing with Iraqi troops and how to navigate through the mysteries of Iraqi culture. The Marines run their own adviser training program at Camp Pendleton, California.
U.S. officials here acknowledge that the advisory program faces a number of hurdles, including a shortage of Arabic translators to support the enhanced teams. And ambitious, talented American officers often do not consider advising foreign militaries to be career-building assignments.
Another problem: young American soldiers well-trained for combat don't always make the best advisers and mentors, especially working with troops from a vastly different culture.
The plan would "rush in more qualified trainers and embeds that it (the military) doesn't have, and assign more existing combat forces unqualified for the mission," former Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman warned.
Military analyst Kalev Sepp, a former Special Forces officer, told the website of the Council on Foreign Relations that captains and experienced sergeants should be responsible for advising, warning that ordinary enlisted soldiers "are wholly useless" in such a role.
The plan also doesn't sit well with some Iraqi leaders.
President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd with close ties to top Iraqi army commanders, complained that the increase in American advisers threatens Iraq's control of its own security forces and violates its sovereignty.
"What would it mean for Iraqi sovereignty if the army became a tool in the hands of officers coming from outside the country?" Talabani told reporters in December.
The U.S. has had the goal of reducing the American combat role and handing over security responsibility to the Iraqis since the early months of the U.S. military presence in 2003. But the military has repeatedly been overly optimistic in its estimates of how many Iraqi troops had been trained — and how well they'd been trained.
As a result, American troops found themselves doing more — not less — of the fighting and dying.
Now, some analysts believe the adviser program offers the best chance yet to improve Iraqi forces enough to let the Americans leave. But some, like Shawn Brimley and Lt. Col. Stephen Sklenka at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, warn the process will take time.
"The American public should be under no illusions that the missions can easily or quickly result in substantial reductions in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq," they say.
Ellie