Saturday, December 03, 2005
Minh-Duc Explains Iraqi Troop Readiness
In Iraq Minh-Duc worked on training Iraqi troops, and he still has very fond memories of them. He believes the Iraqis will establish a successful representative government, and he has some interesting predictions about the outcome of the December elections. His post about Veteran's Day is a succinct rebuttal of a million editorial pages:
I said that I am proud of what I did. I just wish I did not have to. I would rather that tyrants just drop death naturally and democracy just spring up miraculously everywhere. But since that did not happen, I am a veteran. And since that will not happen, many others will become veterans.Reading Minh-Duc is like taking a refreshing reality shower.
Minh-Duc is rather irritated right now with the Bush administration's inability to explain the real state of affairs in Iraq. He explains the status of Iraqi troop training and what a readiness state of 1 really means versus a readiness state of 2:
The sign of progress is not in the number of units with category one rating but units with category two rating. Category II units are units that can conduct operation on their own but still depend on the multi-national coalition for logistic support and artillery support. That means that they control every aspect of their operation – offensive and defensive. But they still need food, bullets, fuel and other supplies from the US to carry out their operation. And there are many Iraqi battalions in category II. That is far cry from the head lines suggestion that only one Iraqi unit is ready to fight.The logistics component will be added going forward, and QandO outline how that's going to happen and the general timetable. In a few years the Iraqi army will be an excellent, organized and combat-tested fighting force, so it's a very good thing that the process of developing a representative Iraqi government is moving along at the same pace. Those who have been involved know what is really happening. Those who are trying to make political fodder off this are beneath contempt.
The Iraqi Army, unlike the US army has a low teeth-to-tails ratio*. That means that they have a whole lot of riflemen but very few supply specialists, administrative clerks, medics, and other supported specialists. The reason is when we built the new Iraqi armed force from scratch; we started out with the basic skill and function of soldering, mainly infantry skills. This is logical because the combating element is the basic foundation of any armed force.
I am sure our national press corp really believes their quagmire/disaster rants, but then they wouldn't be caught dead actually talking to a US serviceman. After all, the top dogs (and they are dictator-foot-licking dogs) in the US press insist these are the men and women who are engaged in assassinating them. The US press has declared war on the American military and will now go down to a deeply deserved and contemptible defeat. The Democratic party is trying to figure out whether it wants to be on the side of the chattering nitwits of the press, and it had better figure the matter out quickly.
As for the Iraqis, President Bush has sworn that while he is in office they will not be abandoned. He will deliver on that promise, because of people like Minh-Duc who are telling the US voting population the truth:
If the composition of the next Iraq government changes, it is a very good thing. Not because I favor one party over the other. It is good because it illustrates democracy at work. Government must perform to stay in power. It also shows that those who were concerned about that the Islamist tendency of the Iraqi Alliance List were wrong. It does not matter. In a democracy, the ideology of a particular party in power is unimportant in the long term. They must adjust to the wish of the constituent to remain in power.I agree. This war may not have been an easy one, but it is a noble one. Iraq now has a brighter future than France. Iraq is currently making the moral and philosophical choices that France keeps avoiding - choices that form the basis for any successful nation.
Democracy also affects how foreign power deals with a country. In Iraq – both the US and Iraq neighbors must take into account Iraq domestic political atmosphere. The US will find ourselves have less influence on what the Iraqi government does – which actually is not a bad thing – in fact it is a very good thing. Trying to win influence over foreign governments at the objection of the population has not been good for the US reputation. Another benefit is that the theocracy in Iran will also find that it also has less influence over the government of Iraq. It (like the US) cannot pressure the Iraqi government to implement policies that the Iraqi population opposes. Like Mohammed, I am very sanguine about the future of Iraq.
As for the European resistance to it, the last thing they want is competition from healthy states in the ME. They want feeble client states who trade oil dollars for technology and weaponry. As for the US press, they hate the mindset of our military with a passion and love dictators with a similar passion. They are Kerry-like Europeanists who don't even understand the people of this country, much less the people of Iraq. As for the Islamic fascist Wahabis, a representative Islamic state in Iraq is their worst nightmare, and they fling their human cannon fodder against the patriots of Iraq with a desperation that cannot be imagined by most of the people in this country.
Where free governments prevail, the left's influence is lessened.
As I have noted, most people, if given the choice, will choose freedom and capitalism over leftist ideologies all day long.
I think people like truly liberal ideals. Unfortunately in practice capitalistic societies ruled by representative governments of the people are delivering better on those ideals.
Links to this post: