Quagmire or not?

**Shek** · 01 Jul 05,, 18:09

Originally Posted by indianguy4u

Joking or smoking !!!

UN Resolution 1511 placed responsibilities on the United States as an occupation force.
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, and
underscores, in that context, the temporary nature of the exercise by the Coalition
Provisional Authority (Authority) of the specific responsibilities, authorities, and
obligations under applicable international law recognized and set forth in resolution
1483 (2003), which will cease when an internationally recognized, representative
government established by the people of Iraq is sworn in and assumes the
responsibilities of the Authority, inter alia through steps envisaged in paragraphs 4
through 7 and 10 below;

The transfer of those responsibilities from the CPA to the IIG (Iraqi Interim Government) on 28 June 2004 was the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. This gave the responsibility for security back to Iraq and it was no longer a US responsibility according to international law.

However, recognizing that the job isn't done, the US has remained committed to assisting Iraq in their security efforts and the Iraqi government has allowed us to stay in Iraq at their invitation.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl.../iraq_6-2.html

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari came to the U.N. Security Council this week with a mission: To win an extension of the United Nations mandate for the U.S.-led force in Iraq.

He got that on Tuesday. The Security Council acknowledged the "serious security challenges" the new Iraqi government faces, but it stressed that the coalition force of some 140,000 U.S. troops, plus 20,000 from other countries, should stay only until Iraqis can maintain security themselves.

So, please show me with international law that we are still defined as an occupation force as well as anything that demonstrates that we defied the sovereignty of the IIG or TNA (Transnational Assembly) by ignoring a demand to pull our forces out of Iraq.

**Blademaster** · 01 Jul 05,, 20:44

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

We are. I'm giving you a realistic measuring stick from argueably the best COIN force on earth.

Who are you referring to? You can't mean the USArmy as the best COIN force on earth? That takes training, experience and skill, not technology and infrastructure.

**Shek** · 01 Jul 05,, 20:50

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Who are you referring to? You can't mean the USArmy as the best COIN force on earth? That takes training, experience and skill, not technology and infrastructure.

I think he was probably referring to the Indians due to their experience. The Brits also have a lot of experience from COIN as well as they had to supress insurgency after insurgency in their empire.

**Blademaster** · 01 Jul 05,, 22:52

Originally Posted by shek

I think he was probably referring to the Indians due to their experience. The Brits also have a lot of experience from COIN as well as they had to supress insurgency after insurgency in their empire.

Hmmm strange. I thought the Brits were the best because of their long history. I give credits to the Indians but I always feel that they could do better if they reduce their logistical footprint and introduce the use of helicopters. If they have more helicopters and weapons locating radars and battlefied survelliance radars that can detect people moving from 20 miles, I am sure that Indian forces would be the best COIN right now. But the thing is that the ratio of killed solders to killed terrorists is 1:3 to 1:5. This should be higher. It should be around 1:15 to 1:20. For a time, USArmy was the best COIN force in the world and that was during the Vietnam war. They had a ratio of something like 1:50 or higher.

**Shek** · 01 Jul 05,, 23:06

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Hmmm strange. I thought the Brits were the best because of their long history. I give credits to the Indians but I always feel that they could do better if they reduce their logistical footprint and introduce the use of helicopters. If they have more helicopters and weapons locating radars and battlefied survelliance radars that can detect people moving from 20 miles, I am sure that Indian forces would be the best COIN right now. But the thing is that the ratio of killed solders to killed terrorists is 1:3 to 1:5. This should be higher. It should be around 1:15 to 1:20. For a time, USArmy was the best COIN force in the world and that was during the Vietnam war. They had a ratio of something like 1:50 or higher.

For COIN, it's really best to look at COIN strategy, not tactics. You can kill the insurgents all day long, but if you don't create the conditions to stop them from refilling their ranks, then you aren't making progress. Also, you have to remember that the Indian Army grew up as a colonial British Army, so they had a large amount of COIN experience to begin with. Also, are the 1:3 to 1:5 ratios referring to OIF? If so, then they are off. Since we don't keep body counts, I couldn't give you a good figure, but that is way too low.

**Blademaster** · 01 Jul 05,, 23:24

Originally Posted by shek

For COIN, it's really best to look at COIN strategy, not tactics. You can kill the insurgents all day long, but if you don't create the conditions to stop them from refilling their ranks, then you aren't making progress. Also, you have to remember that the Indian Army grew up as a colonial British Army, so they had a large amount of COIN experience to begin with. Also, are the 1:3 to 1:5 ratios referring to OIF? If so, then they are off. Since we don't keep body counts, I couldn't give you a good figure, but that is way too low.

I'm referring to the Kashmir region.

**Officer of Engineers** · 02 Jul 05,, 05:07

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Hmmm strange. I thought the Brits were the best because of their long history. I give credits to the Indians but I always feel that they could do better if they reduce their logistical footprint and introduce the use of helicopters.

The Brits got a better institutional experience (ie, their experiences are reflected in their training though not necessary experienced by their personnel), the Indians got a hell of alot more COIN veterans, at least living ones.

**troung** · 02 Jul 05,, 06:37

India is not the only nation to face a COIN problem in the last few years. And as for veterans the Philippines, Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Colombia and Burma have large numbers as well. I think the number of people who were assigned to the area means rather little.

I wouldn't say someone could be the "best" at COIN as really not every conflict is the same and some are totally different. The Moros and Communists in the Philippines are a different apple to bite then the OPM in Indonesia or the Kashmiris/Pakistanis in India.

Of course pulling triggers is only one part of a real COIN conflict...

**Confed999** · 02 Jul 05,, 19:43

Originally Posted by indianguy4u

How can any one use IA & its effectiveness in J&K to be barometer of success for US army in iraq.

Because terrorists are terrorists, and civilians are civilians, no matter where they are...

**~~Aryan~~** · 03 Jul 05,, 19:51

Lets not tar everyone with the same brush... If America had the same record in Iraq as the IA did in Kashmir, the media would rip it apart.

**VovaLee** · 04 Jul 05,, 15:43

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...on=opinion&col

**Shek** · 04 Jul 05,, 17:09

Originally Posted by VovaLee

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...on=opinion&col

Professor of linguistics. Wow! That really qualifies him as an expert.

This is an opinion piece with little analysis of primary sources. It doesn't analyze the regime change policy in place since 1998, doesn't quote Downing Street memo excerpts that directly challenge the "findings" that are being portrayed from the memos, which is misleading in and of itself. The facts demonstrate clearly that Iraq was targeting coalition aircraft frequently and the US and UK were wholly within their rights to destroy these active anti-aircraft defenses that were in violation of UNSCRs. It's also too bad that the author forgets to mention that Zbigniew Brzezinski was an adviser to Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter's national security advisor, none of which would fall into the neo-con category and certaintly not a member of the Bush planning team, as the article implies. Overall, a poorly written article that is misleading.