Flaws Cited in Effort To Train Iraqi Forces

[obie7661]

"The U.S. military's effort to train Iraqi forces has been rife with problems, from officers being sent in with poor preparation to a lack of basic necessities such as interpreters and office materials, according to internal Army documents.

The shortcomings have plagued a program that is central to the U.S. strategy in Iraq and is growing in importance. A Pentagon effort to rethink policies in Iraq is likely to suggest placing less emphasis on combat and more on training and advising, sources say..."

Here's link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100171.html

[DragonTigerNemesis]

Gee, ain't all this a surprise?

Here is an excerpt from a history of the Viet Nam war:

"Vietnamization in theory made perfect sense. Teach the South Vietnamese military to fend for themselves once the American military started the process of de-escalation. The goals of Vietnamization; technical training, establishment of a command leadership core that would be able to confidently lead ARVN, and the process of enhancing ARVN morale were admirable ideals. However, with essentially only four short years to achieve the desired results of Vietnamization, the United States found that we overestimated the ability of the ARVN to match up against the well-trained and highly motivated Vietcong and NVA. The incursion into Cambodia, and the invasion of Laos both showed cracks in ARVN that were never addressed by either army and thus never repaired. It took the Communist Easter Offensive to bring those problems out to the open. Unfortunately, by that time the U.S. military in Vietnam for the most part was inhibited by congressional limitations and could only help the South Vietnamese react, but not initiate. Eventually the political morass of the Watergate scandal would soon destroy the President who conceived and planned Vietnamization, and shut off all supplies to a country we had been directly associated with for almost thirty years. The only goal Vietnamization achieved was the removal of U.S. combat troops. However, by achieving that goal it failed the South Vietnamese Army where it needed the most assistance, providing leadership, training, and morale. Without those basic military essentials, the policy of Vietnamization doomed ARVN and South Vietnam to their ultimate fate.
- - -
Copyright © 2005 John Rincon"

Here we go again, America.:oops2:

[DragonTigerNemesis]

It amazes me that all the far right people run from a thread like this and make no comment.



See if you all can be open minded enough to watch this video to the end.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6VcDhi0hD8

[liner]

Gee, ain't all this a surprise?

Here is an excerpt from a history of the Viet Nam war:

"Vietnamization in theory made perfect sense. Teach the South Vietnamese military to fend for themselves once the American military started the process of de-escalation. The goals of Vietnamization; technical training, establishment of a command leadership core that would be able to confidently lead ARVN, and the process of enhancing ARVN morale were admirable ideals. However, with essentially only four short years to achieve the desired results of Vietnamization, the United States found that we overestimated the ability of the ARVN to match up against the well-trained and highly motivated Vietcong and NVA. The incursion into Cambodia, and the invasion of Laos both showed cracks in ARVN that were never addressed by either army and thus never repaired. It took the Communist Easter Offensive to bring those problems out to the open. Unfortunately, by that time the U.S. military in Vietnam for the most part was inhibited by congressional limitations and could only help the South Vietnamese react, but not initiate. Eventually the political morass of the Watergate scandal would soon destroy the President who conceived and planned Vietnamization, and shut off all supplies to a country we had been directly associated with for almost thirty years. The only goal Vietnamization achieved was the removal of U.S. combat troops. However, by achieving that goal it failed the South Vietnamese Army where it needed the most assistance, providing leadership, training, and morale. Without those basic military essentials, the policy of Vietnamization doomed ARVN and South Vietnam to their ultimate fate.
- - -
Copyright © 2005 John Rincon"

Here we go again, America.:oops2:
...............
........i was not in anyway a grunt in nam but because of some goofy circumstances i once helped run 5 miles of commo wire thru the bush..,,commo/telephone, same same..dumb idea because once it is done any worthy enemy will cut the line and wait on repair crew...we informed the lt. of this but he was in his own world.....we had one american ranger and 2 arvns as scouts and booby trap finders....the ranger was worth his weight in gold while these arvns would actually find a spot and play loud rock and roll on a radio...totally worthless troops and the ranger did not have time mess with them.........eventually we laid a lot of the wire just off a road and it was cut somewhere the day after the first test worked.....

.......you know how we say one team wanted it more then another?...viet cong wanted it arvns did not.... imho

[Obie Wan]

Key phrase: "the U.S. military in Vietnam for the most part was inhibited by congressional limitations."

[TigerswillbeTigers]

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying!
But why is that a "Key Phrase"?
Is it because you think so, or because you're just being a dick about everything related to Nam, Iraq and politics in general?

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU WAN