OPINION & EDITORIAL
Military advisors would bolster Iraqis
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andrew Wagner:
- Free speech should not protect bigoted Baptists (November 30, 2007)
- Immigration debate truly cultural, not economic (November 16, 2007)
- Pakistan nears extremism (November 9, 2007)
- ASM grocery store deserves chance (November 2, 2007)
- Party identifiers cloud judgment (October 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Conscription's possible necessity (October 25, 2004)
- Why George Bush will need the draft (November 2, 2004)
- Escalation ignores Iraqi demands (January 18, 2007)
- Students: study up on foreign policy (October 5, 2004)
- Blogs best choice for news from Iraq (November 9, 2006)
by Andrew Wagner
Friday, April 27, 2007
Training, equipping and deploying the Iraqi Army remains one of the most urgent tasks to be completed before American combat brigades can start withdrawing from the country. The same process is also happening in Afghanistan. Despite the efforts of the last four years to achieve these goals, the militaries of both Iraq and Afghanistan still face dizzying leadership, morale and disciplinary problems.
Over the past six months, one of the solutions to helping train up the Iraqi Army has been to increase the number of military advisors deployed with Iraqi units. These advisors are grouped into units called Military Transition Teams. Then, these teams are attached to Iraqi Army units to advise them in various roles, ranging from logistics to battle tactics.
Surprisingly, relatively little attention has been paid to the subject of how the Army has been conducting this program despite the importance of this objective. Last fall, a Washington Post story illuminated many problems with the advising program. According to the article, the problems started stateside, with new advisors receiving relatively little training and background knowledge about their role. After they were sent to Iraq, many Military Transition Teams ended up under-strength and ill-equipped to deal with the challenges of working with a foreign military.
The issue of military advisors recently came up in a congressional hearing in front of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. On April 17, Andy Krepinevich, the president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, testified that the military needs to look into the creation of an Advisor Corps, consisting of officers and noncommissioned officers. They would permanently serve as a force that can go worldwide to train foreign military units in the art of warfare. After reading through what he had to say on the subject, I think he makes a very good proposal that deserves further attention.
Dispiriting though the thought may be, it is far more likely that the United States will be involved in a war similar to Iraq than a conventional conflict. As in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the keys to victory in future conflicts will be to build up the capabilities of the indigenous military in the region to successfully confront and defeat an insurgency. At the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was no system in place for military advisors. Today, soldiers are sent to a training program at Fort Riley in Kansas. While they do receive some additional training in Iraq prior to joining Iraqi Army units, most of these soldiers have never been in an advising situation. This means that crucial time in the field is spent learning on-the-job lessons.
The solution to this problem would be the formation of a U.S. Army unit whose sole purpose would be to attach to foreign military units as advisors for training purposes. The Advisor Corps could be as small as one or two brigades. This would be somewhere around 2,000-4,000 soldiers. These advisors would be available at a moment's notice, instead of having to be trained from scratch. Plus, the advising teams in the Corps would have already worked together for an extended period of time, thus making them more efficient at their job.
An additional problem with current advising teams is that they often do not have enough personnel to most effectively help Iraqi units. With only ten advisors in a battalion of 500 Iraqi soldiers, the Americans are often tied up at the battalion level command post rather than helping individual companies or platoons within the battalion. A much better option would be to attach larger groups of 20-30 advisors that could take a more active role in the process of training the entire unit. An established Advisor Corps could be structured and trained along this model of using larger groups.
Finally, military advisors can go where combat troops cannot. In many situations, committing United States combat troops to a conflict will make matters worse or be impractical. However, advising teams that take a more indirect role in the conflict might be acceptable. The establishment of an Advisor Corps would give the United States more options in situations where the United States cannot intervene heavily.
Looking to the future, it may be too late to change things for the better in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, the creation of an Advisor Corps could save a lot of time, effort and trouble in any new conflict. Whether they train allied forces to help support American troops or are deployed separately to friendly nations, a well-trained and efficient group of advisors might be able to change the situation on the ground for less expense and less struggle than any other option.
Andrew Wagner (awagner@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 6:59am):
Dear anyone who thinks the Iraqi Army will ever "stand up": Do you not remember how easily Saddam Hussein's military folded both in the Gulf War and in Operation Iraqi Freedom? Even under a cruel dictator, the Iraqi military was eager to lay down their guns and raise their arms in surrender.
Honestly, do you really think Iraq will ever have anything ever closely resembling a cohesive military? No, that's a pipe dream.
We're not fighting a military enemy now, we're fighting people who are 1) fighting each other and 2) people who don't want us occupying their country.
Know your enemy, and only then is "victory" possible. We won the war years ago, but decided to overstay our welcome.
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 7:58am):
You know nothing about the military or the Army.
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 9:12am):
Wasn't it Leftists of Wagner's ilk who howled that military advisors "subcontracted" bin Laden's capture to unreliable Afghan tribal leaders, resulting in his escape?
Don't you just love how these peace toadies in wacademia have all this free advise for our military advisors at the Pentagon?
Go back to studying computers, Andy.
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 6:00pm):
I really miss Gabbie Wade's op-ed pieces. They are so down to earth. Please give her a regular column.
Anonymous (April 28, 2007 @ 2:10pm):
Ask Iran about the Iraqi Army.
You seem completely ignorant regarding just how powerful the US Armed Forces are - there is no army in the world that could stand against them. They may not make very good police or occupation constables, but that's not really what they are designed for.
Anonymous (April 28, 2007 @ 2:15pm):
FROM AUSTRALIA: "The US Congress' vote to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq was wrong and will bring comfort to Al-Qaeda insurgents, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Friday."
From Iraq: "I am an Iraqi. To me the possible consequences of this vote are terrifying. Just as we began to see signs of progress in my country the Democrats come and say, 'Well, it's not worth it.Time to leave'."
UPDATE: A look at the effect of timetables in Basra: "Now that the Brits and Danes have given the people of Basra a drop-dead date for their withdrawal, they have set in motion a fight for power that will only amplify as the withdrawal date approaches. Instead of throwing in with the central government, the flight of the Coalition has convinced Iraqis in that area that they have to find the strongest warlord for protection. We can expect this across the country if the US withdraws precipitately from Iraq. A pullout will embolden the violent and frighten the law-abiding, and the end result will be a completely failed state. Regardless of whether one supported the invasion or not, it is obviously not in the American interest to leave behind a collapsed Iraq where the boldest and most vicious terrorists rise to power in fiefdoms small and large."
Some people don't care, though, if it might give them a leg-up in the next election.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/004604.php
Anonymous (April 29, 2007 @ 8:34am):
2:15pm, you and Bush have still not clearly explained what happens when we leave. Is it because I won't find fuel for my SUV? I probably should have thought about that in 2001 when 15 Saudis attacked us.
Also, you site sources who are sympathetic to Bush's position, which does not win you the argument.
Tommy Thompson, the crooked former governor, recently suggested that we have an election in Iraq to decide whether we should stay or go. This sounds like a good idea, but we can't even guarantee that our own elections are legitimate.
We're fighting for a goal that keeps moving backward. Eventually, we'll be fighting in Iraq to install a clone of Saddam Hussein. We will have spent $1 trillion to get that country back to where it started.
You say we have to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here, but that's a false argument too. Where's our homeland defense if we are attacked? They're not here; in fact, the only national guard left is President Bush and I'm not sure he remembers anything from that drug-hazed period of his life.
So, my patriotic conservative friend, there is a time to hold your ground and there is a time to concede. Let the Liberal congress pull out of Iraq, and then blame them with any negative consequence. It'll keep AM radio alive for years to come.
Anonymous (April 29, 2007 @ 6:03pm):
Don't miss the video!
Damn, those Democratics sound more like hawks than Bush! At least they did before they didn't.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/004634.php
PS. If it was "all bout oil" it always and everywhen would have been cheaper and easier to just cozy up to Saddam. I actually think we should have left him in Kuwait. He would have taken Saudi Arabia within a short time and he'd be pumping both countries dry to fuel war with Iran and big new palaces for him and his sons.
My gas would be MUCH cheaper. And no 9-11 either. Always remember that OBL attacked the USA because we profaned the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, when Bush 41 was saving their sorry asses from Saddam.
Anonymous (May 2, 2007 @ 11:48am):
"Honestly, do you really think Iraq will ever have anything ever closely resembling a cohesive military? No, that's a pipe dream."
Having just spent a year advising an Iraq Army unit (IA) in combat, from my first hand observations they already have a cohesive military, you clearly have not stood in the middle of the urban streets of Iraq with a IA on conducting combat missions. The trained ones can fight, it's really a matter of "Wanting to stand up" But, hey, don't think for one second some IA units can't fight and kill the insurgents, they can, I've seen the KIA insurgents. So to answer your question, Does anyone think the Iraq Army will Stand Up? In some areas, you bet, they are standing and fighting.
If the US Army is every going to be successful in fighting a counterinsurgency (COIN) it has to change, an advisory corps is a course of action, however, where do you get those 2000-4000 soldiers? The Army will continue to some up short in COIN if they do not change, you can bet the odds are good the next war or operation is going to be a COIN.
Anonymous (May 2, 2007 @ 7:41pm):
I report for training at Ft. Riley in July and then to Iraq for 12 months (at least) as a Transition Team Member and enjoy reading the posts here, both pro and con relating to the new "advisor" positions. At least folks are paying enough attention to the subject that it creates debate, suggestion and constructive diologue. Regardless of what the outcome of the Iraq conflict is, an "Advisor Corp" is a very interesting topic worth another look. Military advisors have traditionally been made-up of SF Officers and NCOs, but due to the current OPTEMPO, this is not possible and they cannot fulfill the current requirements. I've never posted a comment on a web site before, but this is a great discussion.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
