Posted on 05/02/2012 7:27:23 PM PDT by DJ Elliott
This Iraqi Security Force (ISF) update provides a summary of changes to the ISF during April 2012. The Iraqi Security Force Order of Battle is updated as of 30 April 2012. Highlights in this update include:
* Romanian arms blacklisted; Second Batch of BTR4s ready for delivery while rumors continue of contract cancelation; 50/14 and 53/14 Brigades upgrading to Mech/Armor; Iraqi Army Upgrade Status Chart added.
* EC120Bs for KRG Police/SAR; Contract awarded for support of 30 Bell 407s; third AN-32B delivered; F16 training at Al Asad; 24 F16s by end 2014?; Iraq to join GCC to provide Air Defense?
(Excerpt) Read more at home.comcast.net ...
Iraqi Security Force .....soon to be transferred to the IRANIAN SECURITY FORCES.
Maybe, maybe not.
Shia is not a monolithic grouping.
There is an ongoing unofficial war going on between
the Qom School which advocates rule of clergy and
the Karbala School which advocates clergy not corrupting itself by direct involvement in government. It doesn’t get much MSM reporting because it doesn’t fit their propaganda.
Then there is the tribal disputes between Arab and Persian tribal groups which goes back a couple millenia. Persians and Turks look at Arabs as “Dirty little desert thieves” and Arabs know this.
Those factor tend to argue against the MSM myth of Shia unity.
Islam is very divided and other factors play a role.
On the other hand, The ISF would last about 2 weeks against the Iranians if they choose to invade. ISF lacks Tanks, ATGWs, Artillery, AIR DEFENSE and proper logistics.
I give them 2 weeks because of Iranian weaknesses in Bridging and Logistics - not because of Iraqi abilities.
Effectively, the ISF is ROKA circa June 1950 without the terrain advantages...
lol.
I have considered it.
But the weather is getting too hot for serious Iranian combat operations.
Wait until temperatures cool down a bit in the Fall...
Not aware Iraqi Army had such exacting standards...Any idea what particular weapons they are referencing?
The last two Iraqi Religious Leaders, Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani 92 to present, and Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei 71 -92, were Iranian born and bred and of course Shiite. Iraq has stated repeatedly that they would not allow American Forces to attack Iran from Iraq.
The reason for the Iraqi Constitution mandating “NO LAW SHALL CONTRADICT ISLUM”, is Sistani. When we started allowing Sistani to dictate to US in Iraq, it was over. We were just doing the hard work for Iran.
Until we erase Bush’s stupid “Islam is a Religion of Peace” statement from our minds, our strategy will be flawed.
But I guess one can always hope.
The only Iraqi competition that I ever heard of Romania being in was for ~400 wheeled APCs.
They ended up not buying any of them.
Competion was:
M1117 APC version
Stryker
LAV25
U/I Romanian APC
The IA ended up starting the stryker buy then cancelling it during the 2008/9 budget crunch.
Instead they got used M113s via EDA...
Not sure what this latest shopping trip was for.
Read what I said and quit trying to put words in my mouth.
I do not like strawman propaganda arguments.
[E.G. Religion of Peace BS.]
All religions have political influence.
Sistani is against the DIRECT rule of clergy.
Yes, he was born in Iran - yet Iranian Gov backed elements keep targeting him and his followers.
There is an ongoing fight to replace him with another Iranian from the Qom School.
The Qom School is the base of the current Iranian Government...
All religions are used as excuses for warfare.
All religions are political in practice.
[The corruption of power: What greater power can a man claim than to be God’s spokesman?]
Almost all religions claim to be about “peace” yet people still kill in their name.
People of the same religion still fight wars with each other for power. Shia has killed more Shia than any other group. The same can be said of most religions.
Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity.
The major split in Islam is Shia/Sunni.
Within those there are further splits into a multitude of sects.
Iran is ruled by Twelver Shia - which is a minority Shia Sect in Iraq.
Iran is allied with Syrian Government which is run by a Sect that the Twelvers called heritic until they became military allies.
There is more than just religion at play here and simplistic claims hide details.
Iraq has a very long border with Iran and no effective way to defend it. Appeasement is the Iraqi current rule of the day...
Thanks for the reply.
My point is that I don’t believe Iraq will ever be one of our allies. And, I am wondering what contingency plans we have concerning Iraq if we decide to hit Iran. How do you think the U.S. will handle it?
OTOH, the situation of Turkey vs Syria vs the Iraqi Kurds is really interesting.
(I bet the Contractors in Iraq have some because they are going to be targeted for sure if we attack Iran.)
I expect that any US strikes on Iran will result in Iran invading Iraq.
1. To get to the oil.
2. To get a land route to the GCC nations.
If they can gain control of enough of the oil, they can seriously hurt US.
Did you notice the talks of Iraq joining the GCC?
Joining an alliance which considers Iran its primary enemy.
Like I said, there is more going on here than the MSM’s simplistic explanations...
PS Some of my regulars are in the contractor category.
You bet they have contingency plans...
Thanks for the reply.
My point is that I don’t believe Iraq will ever be one of our allies. And, I am wondering what contingency plans we have concerning Iraq if we decide to hit Iran. How do you think the U.S. will handle it?
OTOH, the situation of Turkey vs Syria vs the Iraqi Kurds is really interesting.
(I bet the Contractors in Iraq have some because they are going to be targeted for sure if we attack Iran.)
If Iraq joins the GCC - then they are de facto allies.
Plenty of US allies have rules about not having foreign troops stationed on their soil in peacetime.
E.G. Denmark, a long-time NATO ally has had that law for 4 decades. Which is why the F16 IPs we loaned them in late 80s/early 90s were officially AmEmb/ODC personnel despite spending all their time with the RDAF at Karup AB. Since the NATO personnel were under a Danish Flag Officer - they didn’t count as foreign troops any more than those assigned to Embassies.
Saudi is another example. Officially no foreign troops - All the US Military personnel are officially AmEmb, mostly MAAG.
This is a more common cover than most reallize for the host countries’ nationalistic political reasons - I didn’t reallize how common until I did a USDAO stint in Denmark with TAD/TDY time in Riyadh when some idiot decided he wanted a 19th province.
Look at it from their POV. Would you want large numbers of foreign personnel stationed in the US? Even with the relatively small numbers in the US for training, etc; we already have US fanatics claiming we are being occupied by NATO/UN, etc...
Don’t forget the Iranians or Iraqis vs Kurds.
All 4 of those countries really do not want an independent Kurdistan...
I get inquiries from contractor security firms about ISF periodically. In most cases, they are better dialed in as to what is going on in Iraq than the USG is. The Beltway Bandits have always lived in their own fantacy world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.