Bullshit
Published by Mike Stark February 2nd, 2007 in UncategorizedI don’t often post pure editorial comment… I don’t do insight as well all your other favorite bloggers…
But I just can’t shut up about this and I can’t get it out of my head.
Yesterday I was listening to Bill Bennett on my way into school. He mentioned something about that battle in Najaf proving that the Iraqis just aren’t ready to stand up yet - that because they required American help to win that pitched battle (you remember the one - supposedly 250 insurgents were killed), it is proven that we can’t leave.
Well, I started thinking about that because it’s been suggested that this escalation is a “final chance” that, if succesful, will lead to better days in Iraq and an honorable end to our presence there.
Well, the truth is that our assistance in that Najaf battle, at least in part, consisted of close air support in the form of attack helicopters.
So I asked around. Iraq doesn’t have an airforce. Not a single fixed wing aircraft with offensive capabilities. No attack helocoptors. No means by which they can control airspace.
I did some more asking around. They’ve got a few garbage tanks left over and a tiny bit of light armor for troop transport, etc. For the most part though, their Army is just another militia.
There is no way the central government can stand up to any of the insurgent groups and dominate them. They just don’t have the “overwhelming force” capability.
In fact, they can’t even provide reliable electricity to their barracks and bases. They have no logistical infrastructure. Everything is in shambles and it’d require years of extraordinary effort to reconstruct their government and Army under the best circumstances. But with a moderate level civil war playing out? An insurgency that undermines infrastructure at every opportunity?
Iraq is intractable. We cannot win. Every day we stay is an additional insult to the men and women we ask the impossible of.
16 Responses to “Bullshit”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Mike, clearly you having difficulty conducting research on the Iraqi Air Force or are misrepresenting the actual state of the Iraq military. To acquire information, simply put “Iraqi Air Force” into your browser and you may get the information, or speak to any member of the Air Force, Marines or Army who have been in Iraq as training officers for Iraqi pilots. It is easy to obtain.
Order of battle as of May of 2006 (see the continuing improvements later within the post)
* 2nd Squadron – A helicopter airlift squadron operating TWO UH-1H Huey helicopters donated by Jordan. The squadron is scheduled to have EIGHT UH-1H helicopters in service by the end of 2006.
* 3rd Squadron – A helicopter airlift squadron operating TWO Bell 206 helicopters donated by the UAE Air Force in a light utility role.
* 4th Squadron – A helicopter airlift squadron scheduled to receive EIGHT UH-1H helicopters in 2006.
* 23rd Squadron – An airlift squadron operating THREE ex-USAF C-130E Hercules transport aircraft.
* 70th Squadron – A reconnaissance squadron operating SIX CH-2000 & TWO SB7L-360A light reconnaissance aircraft. (TOTAL TWENTY-THREE AIRCRAFT IN MAY OF 2006 IN THOSE SQUADRONS ALONE, NOT TO MENTION THE PRIOR EXISTING AIRCRAFT IN THEIR INVENTORY:)
Inventory
* Combat Aircraft
o 80 Chengdu F-7
o 53 Mirage F1
o 5 Dassault Super Etendard
* Training Aircraft
o 20 L-29
o 59 Aero L-39
* Transport Aircraft
o 10 An-2
o 12 An-12
o 24 An-24
o 2 An-26
* Attack helicopters
o Mi-24
* Transport helicopters
o Mi-8
TOTAL ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE CRAFT IN INVENTORY NOT TO INCLUDE THE TWENTY THREE LISTED ABOVE AS OF THE SUMMER OF 2006.
Tanks (Total: 2,200)
The Iraqi tank forces consist mainly of old Soviet design. The Type-69/59 are Chinese copies of the Soviet T-55/54 tanks. (see List of Soviet tanks)
* T-72 (700)
* T-62 (500)
* T-54/55 (500)
* Type-69 (350)
* Type-59 (150)
AIFV/APCs (Total: 3,800)
* AML-60/-90 (300 )
* FV-701 (90 )
* BMP-1/BMP-2 (900)
* Vamel launcher (900)
* BRDM-2 (1300 )
* EE-9 (600 )
* EE-3 (300 )
* FV-601 (100 )
* FV-701 (90 )
* PT-76 (100)
* MT-LB (1,500 )
* YW-531 (1,000 )
Towed Artillery (Total: 1,900)
* M-56 105 mm
* D-74 122 mm
* D-30 122 mm (100 )
* M-1938 122 mm (400 )
* M-46 (130)
Multiple Rocket Launchers (Total: 200)
* BM-21 MRL 122 mm
* ASTROS II MRL 127 mm (60 )
* BM-13/-16 MRL 132 mm
* ASTROS SS-30 MRL 180 mm
* Ababeel-50 MRL 262 mm (50 )
* ASTROS SS-60 300 mm
Surface-to-Surface Missiles
* Frog-7 (50)
* Scud-B (27?)
* Al Abbas
* Al Hussein
* Al Samoud
Fighters
The J-7 is a Chinese copy of the MiG-21.
* Dassault Mirage F1
* Su-20/Su-22
* Sukhoi Su-25
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29
* J-7
Surface-to-Air Missiles
* Crotale
* Roland
* SA-2 Guideline
* SA-3 Goa
* SA-7 Grail
* SA-6 Gainful
* SA-8 Gecko
* SA-9 Gaskin
* SA-13 Goph
Not only is there an Iraqi military which have been trained and equipped there is also the Department of Border Enforcement, the local and federal law enforcement agencies and the Facilities Protection Service, to mention a few of the agencies. It isn’t easy rebuilding a nation.
Iraq’s borders are controlled by the Department of Border Enforcement (DBE) and the Deparment of Ports of Entry (POE) collectively. The DBE is manning 405 border structures. There are 14 land points of entry. As of November 2006, there were 28,300 DBE personnel trained, organized into 5 regions, 12 brigades and 38 battalions. Force generation and equipment goals are on schedule for completion by December 2006.[6]
Facilities Protection Service
There are more than 150,000 Facility Protection Service personnel who work for 26 ministries and 8 independent directorates. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some of them are unreliable and responsible for violent crimes. PM Maliki has announced a reform to consolidate all Facilities Protection Service personnel into a unified organization responsible to the MOI. As of December 2005, the Coalition no longer provides material or logisitcal support to the FPS
In July of 2005, 171,300 Iraq troops had been trained. By May of 2006, less than one year later, 263,400 troops (to include police officers, border patrols, etc.) had been trained. Six hundred of those troops were Iraqi Air Force. (Reports to Congress July 05, October 05, February 06 and May 06.)
During the four month period, January 06 and May of 06, 12,000 Iraq troops were trained and equipment, more men than our military boot camps train during the same amount of time. During that same time, another 100 pilots were trained and equipped for the Iraqi Air Force. As of May 31, 2006, the Iraqi Military (not including the law enforcement faction of borders, town police, etc.) boasted 117,900 personnel which were trained and equipped of a total population of 26,783,000. The reports to Congress indicated at that time, 65% of the total intended manpower of the forces had been trained and equipped with a total of 250,500 total law enforcement and military equipped. (Report to Congress May 06)
As of May 2006, the Iraqi Navy had 800 trained and equipped sailors and Marines, five Predator class boats, 10 rigid hull boats 24 fast assault boats. The Air Force had 600 trained and equipped personnel with airpower capability of reconnaisance, battlefield mobility and air transport. MAJOR ASSETS, at that time (eight months ago) were 2 Seabird Seekers, 2 Sama CH 2000s, 6 AeroComp Air 7sls, 4 UH-IH helicopters, 5 Bell 206 Jet Ranger Helicopters, 3 1C30-E Aircraft.
The planes available for the Iraqi Air Force at Muthana AFB in Iraq as of May 2006 were: 3 C-130s and THIRTY helicopters for transport or operations missions. Eight 10 MI 17s were delivered out of ten ordered by the end of May 2006. As of that date, the 12th Squadron operated the five Bell 206 Jet Rangers.
You may wish to read the Center for Strategic and International Studies Report for the Iraqi military capacity as of that date.
As of August 2006, 277,000 Iraqi troops had been trained and equipped, adding 14,000 more trained than the prior quarter reported above. (DOD quarterly report)
As of August 2006, one hundred more troops were trained for the Iraqi Air Force, during that quarter for a total of 700 personnel.
The Intelligence and Reconnaisance Aircraft had 5 Comp Air 7 SLS, Two Seekers and Six CH2000s and were performing routine reconnaisance. Six of 16 Huey Twos were expected back from the states which had been retrofitted by January 2007. Three C-130s rounded out their transport division. Iraq, in August, requested three more, however it is awaiting Congressional approval.
The Navy had 1100 personnel trained and equipped compared to the 800 the prior quarter.
By November of 2006, according to the DOD quarterly report, 98 percent of the authorized Iraqi force was trained and equipped. The Navy was filled with its 1100 authorized positions. It will grow to 2500 as acquisition of equipment and ships expands.
By November of 2006, the Iraqi Air Force had grown to 900 personnel, increasing from 800 the quarter before, indicating the military was maintaining their goals of training and equipping one hundred per quarter. 8 CH200s and 2 birdseekers were performing routine missions. The first ten of twenty eight MI 17s were expected any day, the first four of sixteen Huey 2s were expected by January,
with the rest scheduled for delivery in April of 2007. Flight training is continuing with the five Bell Aircraft.
Three C-130Es were in the air and the Iraqi Government has requested an additional three which needs to be approved by Congress. Twelve Brazilian Casa 212-400s are also in the process of being procured.
On January 8, 2007, there was a press announcement Iraq signed contracts for armored vehicles and other weapons and the U.S. has pledged to provide them with 4,000 armored vehicles and 1800 humvees and 16 more helicopters. The equipment was expected to arrive next month.
Each month there is incredible progress and our troops and the Iraqi troops have completed a phenomenal job, to date. The Iraqi forces will be better off than they were before the attack in 2003. Their inventory isn’t simply a couple of garbage trucks as you have grossly misrepresented.
However, you have substantiated one very important point. It would be terribly unethical to leave, until they are TOTALLY equipped and trained to protect themselves. If you feel the Iraqi government needs more support and more equipment, you should contact your local Congressional Representative or U.S. Senator to encourage them to allocate more funds to Iraq.
Geez, if you’re gonna cut and paste from Wikipedia you might at least give them credit.
The basic information was gleaned from Wikipedia.com, however much of the recent information came from DOD quarterly reports, reports by globalsecurity.org, the report to Congress regarding the progress of the Iraqi military in 2006 and other various reports and news releases. All seem to dispute Mr. Stark’s contention there is not an Air Force.
In fact, in a report written by James A. Baker, Lee Hamilton, Lawrence Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Edwin Messe, Leon Panetta, Sandra Day O’Connor, William J. Perry, Charles Robb and Alan Simpson of the Iraq Study Group, reads,
“The Iraqi government should accelerate the urgently needed national reconciliation
program to which it has already committed. And it should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. As the Iraqi Army increases in size and capability, the Iraqi government should be able to take real responsibility for governance.
While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin to move combat forces out of Iraq. The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. We should continue to maintain support forces, rapid-reaction forces, special operations forces, intelligence units, search-and-rescue units, and force protection units.”
It further continues, discussing leaving some forces in Iraq with the following recommendations:
• Provide political reassurance to the Iraqi government in order to avoid its collapse and the disintegration of the country.
• Fight al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq using special operations teams.
• Train, equip, and support the Iraqi security forces.
• Deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by Syria and Iran.
The consultants for this plan were bipartisan and experts throughout the world….
However, what is interesting is even you were able to find the basic source, so why would Mike Stark be putting false information on his website to support his own personal belief?
Before I posted, I did speak to a Marine Corps officer that works in intelligence and that attends law school with me. He’s done a tour in Iraq (in fact, he started law school, and was quite unceremoniously yanked out by the USMC to deploy. he’s since returned).
Anyway, he agreed with everything in my post.
BT, your credibility is in the gutter and has a bullshit crust. And you are a coward. My identity, occupation, locale - it’s all out in the open.
You, on the other hand, are a shadowy character, probably paid, and certainly dishonest.
I’m going to continue letting you post, simply because I think every time you do, you bring further discredit and scorn upon your cause.
Mostly, I just want you to know that your act is played out and your chickenshit methods are childish.
Whoa Mike,
What a defensive, name calling response…
Its clear your post was not factual and not researched and was, in fact, grossly wrong. As an Air America journalist, one would have expected a little more polite response to your inaccurancies, rather than personal attack.
Finally, the key rule in life is not to believe everything you hear….check it out, check out your sources…the resources are so very easy to find….with your degree in internet technology that you got at Raenssaler (spelling?) certainly you learned how to check out internet resources to get facts?
Finally, are you being a bit hypocritical, championing the anonymity of “Spocko” and demanding others give you their identity?
Just something to think about.
By the way, its clear you are online…why hasn’t my post of ten minutes ago regarding the “halfrican” issue and the difficulties of those of us who are multiracial in trying to express our cultural backgrounds with pride been posted if you are “allowing me to post?” And why was I not permitted to post last night?
Thanks.
Re: Blogicalthought
Concerning: “What a defensive, name calling response”
If you look at his post the only name or description really, was when he wrote “your a shadowy character” - but this is true you are not in the public’s eye and there would be no legal way of finding out who you are. You, like me post in anonymous security, knowing that we can say any bat shit insane thing we want and the worse that can happen is we get kicked off a forum board.
Ok, he did call you chickenshit. Well, I’m uncertain if you are actual chicken’s shit, or maybe Mike Stark was trying to say you are covered in chickenshit. Wait no he said you had a bullshit crust. This I’m pretty sure of. Why? Because deep, deep, down in my soul that is an excellent describer of part of what you are about.
Damn, he also called you a coward. Blog i cal thought you should try this shoe; see if it fits.
Mr. Stark also said your methods are childish. I would have said childlike. But hey, semantics! Whatcha going to do?
He also said you were dishonest. That’s not really name calling is it? He’s pointing out that you’re dishonest. Maybe refute the claim or you can go and do what you usually do and try to steer the topic to a personal attack on Mike Stark.
Good day, and good luck!
It is fascinating to see the “Progressive Democrat Party” response to this post. Again, not addressing the issue, but engaging in personal attack.
But isn’t that what I have been writing about, all along.
And, Mike, where is the post I wrote about a half an hour ago, while you were online about the Halfrican comment made by Jeff?
My response addressed the history of the comment, other similar words, such as Eurasian to discuss a cultural background and how those of us of multiracial backgrounds are offended by bloggers representing the Progressive Democrat Party trying to make us feel ashamed of a term coined to instill self esteem and cultural pride.
I wonder why you would hold that post back?
What is this democrat party of which you speak? You couldn’t possibly mean it as an insult based on your personal stance against such thing.
Spartan, using the term “democrat party” is a silly and sophomoric needle that neo-cons often employ in an attempt to demean the democratic party. You will find that they only do it when their arguments collapse under the weight of common sense, and they must revert to elementary school recess taunts to feel big. It’s funny that these goobers try to claim the moral high-road in a debate, yet collapse into needling so quickly….personally, I believe that it speaks volumes about their true character. Whenever I hear it, it makes me laugh at how easily led these sheep are by stooges like Limbaugh, Hannity, and the zealots at the Faux Noise Channel.
Let’s start calling the “Republican Party” the “Republic Party” and see how they like it.
No…they like to refer to themselves as “The Party of Lincoln”…I say we start calling them “The Party of Nixon” instead….that would be more appropriate to their belief structure today.
Hpw about “The Party of David Duke”
The plural form of Republican should be Republici.
blog…
we should read the “report” done by the Center for Strategic and Int’l Studies? You mean this CSIS group?
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a right-wing, neoconservative think tank which was founded in 1962. Ray S. Cline was a cofounder. (36) Until 1986, CSIS was affiliated with Georgetown University. (2) Its first fulltime staff member was Richard V. Allen, a conservative Republican who was President Reagan’s first National Security Adviser. (2) CSIS describes itself as “an independent insitution for public policy research in the field of foreign and national security affairs.” It focuses on “the issues and challenges that confront the United States in advancing its global interests and discharging its global responsibilities.”(1) It claims to be anonpartisan institution of international, interdisciplinary scholars. (1)
However, Timothy S. Healy, president of Georgetown University, examined its affiliate and decided that CSIS was academically somewhat less credible than it claimed to be. Apparently, CSIS has no library, its faculty are seen more often on television than in the classroom (over 4,000 appearances in 1985), and its publications have a reputation (by academic standards) of being superficial. (2) CSIS has been called “a parking lot for former government big shots,” and a “conservative propaganda machine,” particularly for the policies of the Reagan administration.
The formal affiliation between Georgetown and CSIS ended on July 1, 1987. (1) An article in the London Tribune quotes a Washington Post article saying that Georgetown severed the relationship because of the strong identification CSIS had with the Reagan administration on arms control, Central America, and South Africa. The University was also disturbed because large contributions to CSIS come from some of the biggest defense contractors. (2)
You also quote Wikipedia. I wonder though when you copied over the “inventory” of the so-called airforce you also failed to copy over the order of battle for the force. You see, they may have the inventory, and those obsolete planes sure are worth a lot on on paper, but if they are not operation, just what good do they do? BTW, here’s that order of battle you conveniently forgot…
2nd Squadron – A helicopter airlift squadron operating two UH-1H Huey helicopters donated by Jordan. The squadron is scheduled to have 8 UH-1H helicopters in service by the end of 2006.
3rd Squadron – A helicopter airlift squadron operating two Bell 206 helicopters donated by the UAE Air Force in a light utility role.
4th Squadron – A helicopter airlift squadron scheduled to receive 8 UH-1H helicopters in 2006.
23rd Squadron – An airlift squadron operating 3 ex-USAF C-130E Hercules transport aircraft.
70th Squadron – A reconnaissance squadron operating 6 CH-2000 & 2 SB7L-360A light reconnaissance aircraft.
As you can see, not one offensively capable aircraft in the bunch. And wasn’t that the original point of Mike’s post despite your best efforts to shape the argument in to your point of view? And even if they do have some sort of offensive capability, why is it always the US aircraft that have to come riding to the rescue? hmmmmm?
Iraq is indeed intractable. You know you are in dire straits when a definition of “victory” cannot be ascertained, when the strategy put forward by the neocons is one of ratcheting up casualty levels for the remote possibility of temporary relief. Who are we fighting for? What is the definition of “victory” in this guerilla war without end?
Are we fighting for the Shi’ites against the Sunni’s? Is it worth American blood to be spilled so Moqtada al Sadr will have free reign with his Mahdi Army someday?
Surely the “Iraqi Army” is nothing on its own and only exists as some public relations prop and group of heavily armed/disguised interpreters who shadow U.S. forces but can do nothing independantly.
We are, in a word, fucked. Anyone who thinks any chance of “Success” in this fiasco is forthcoming should immediately define it, explain how it can be perpetuated without U.S, forces, and what the ultimate benefit this new ‘government’ will bring both the Iraqi people and the Middle East. Life was better under a brutal dictatorship, surely it was safer and more sane. Balancing the evil that was Saddam against the reality on the ground today is a grim tradeoff, but the anarchy and violence is not what any Iraqi wants for their country. It’s what they have.
Most Iraqi’s not only want us gone as being occupiers in their country but they also are not objecting to attacks on American troops. Hearts and Minds? Lost a long time ago. No easy answers. No favorable outcomes. A new generation of Jihadist’s are getting better at killing U.S. troops, as the last 4 months have been the bloodiest 4 month period of the entire war.
It will get worse, much worse, for our soldiers plunged into this disaster. We must speak out to end this.
http://www.house.gov/
I’m Canadian, so who cares what I think of this, really?
But I’m so glad to see Blogicaltroll, uh sorry, Blogicalthought is still around and still not linking to anywhere meaningful. Though I notice it hasn’t said anything complimentary about ABC/Disnazi this time.
Lose our sponsor, did we?
I can’t vouch for any of the figures it quoted, but y’know, based on the fact that every other single thing it’s ever said was a damned lie, I figure I can just throw this on the pile.
It might have been possible to “stand up” Iraq following the invasion. But that would have required about 250,000 more troopies, and a political will to do something besides secure the Oil Ministry and spank Saddam’s bum.
Now, a million soldiers wouldn’t be enough, and yet Bushco continues to demand that the rotten tomato of Iraqi “democracy” be watered with more American blood.
I pity the poor Iraqis caught up in this, but Bush wasn’t there to help them in the first place.