Blogs > HNN > Training armies

Dec 21, 2006 1:32 pm

Training armies

Am I the only person to notice the disconnect between the requirements for training the American army and the Iraqi army?

The Pentagon says that at best it can train an additional 5 to 7,000 new troops a year over and above what it has already planned for. Thus, it would take several years to raise troop strength by 35,000, the new goal.

At the same time the Pentagon is bragging about having "trained" some 100,000 Iraqi troops in the past twelve months or so.

Something's wrong here.

If anything, it should take less time to train Americans. For one thing, American troops can be counted on to be loyal to their country. So why is it taking us longer to train our troops than Iraqis?

The obvious answer is that our training is more involved. When the Pentagon says it is "training" Iraqis it doesn't mean it is TRAINING them as we train our own troops.

What does it mean?

That is anybody's guess.

The media need to find out what training Iraqi troops involves.

Where's Baron von Steuben when you need him?

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

HNN - 12/27/2006

Thanks Oscar!

Oscar Chamberlain - 12/26/2006

I think you may find this article of interest concerning training. It is by Carl D. Grunow, who is drawing upon his own experience, and as best as I can tell, it is a balanced discussion of the challenges of training the Iraqis by someone who does think it important and doable.

Stephen Kislock - 12/24/2006

Iraq was Never a Country as the U.S..

In "Iraq" Allegiance was to the Tribe, first, then etc.

Training, as a former US Marine having went through Parris Island; the Next three years and nine months, was more Training. I do not think the U.S. Military Leadership is ever satisfied. To who's standard they are pushing, I don't Know.

But I think if it takes years to train, This may Postpone the U.S. from going to WAR, as with the "Rumsfeld Policy" "You go to War, with the Army, you Have, not what you NEED!"