Battle of the Palm Grove -- US advised Iraqi Army routed by Insurgents

There has been an alleged withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq, and the reason I say alleged, is that US forces seem to be more of a combat force than strictly observers and advisers. We are all aware of the new designation for the conflict by the Obama Administration and new role of some 50,000 troops as advisers to the Iraqi military moving forward. However, that seems to be the furthest from the truth. I say that because I have come across quite a few instances of US forces taking the lead over Iraqi military forces in assaults and sieges against insurgents in Iraq. One such instance of the US taking the lead from Iraqi military forces took place within days of the combat withdrawal date of Sept. 1st 2010.

American soldiers on Sunday were drawn into a major attack in Baghdad when a group of suicide bombers on a bus tried to storm one of the main Iraqi military headquarters in central Baghdad.

At least two of the six detonated suicide vests before being shot dead by American soldiers and their Iraqi counterparts stationed inside the building. At least 12 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the attack – the second within two weeks on the same compound.

www.csmonitor.com...

That is just one example of an attack involving US forces since the withdrawal of combat forces, however, there was another far more serious affront to their mission which took place after the incident above. The attack is known as The Battle of the Palm Grove in the Iraqi Province of Diyala which appears to be an abysmal failure in terms of Iraqi forces taking the lead as US advisers observed. Moreover, Iraqi military forces seemed have walked into what some would refer to as a turkey shoot.

Battle Raises Questions On Iraq Security Readiness

Lt. Col. Bob Molinari of the 25th Infantry Division based in Hawaii says the fight in the eastern Iraqi province of Diyala, now being called the Battle of the Palm Grove, involved hundreds of Iraqi soldiers, U.S. ground troops and American fighter planes dropping two 500-pound bombs — all to combat just a handful of insurgents. And in the end, the enemy got away.

After reading the article above, it seems the Iraqi military walked into an ambushed and got caught off guard in the melee that followed while enduring a lapse in command and control among their officers. Instead of holding their ground and calling in support from their reserve units, they gave up their position and requested US military support at the very onset of difficulties. This brings up questions for me about the true mission in Iraq going forward, and if this withdrawal of combat forces is nothing more than a political notch on the President's belt?

Moreover, if one reads the entire article, they will see that the Iraqi Army is in no ways shape or form able to conduct combat operations on their own if only a handful of insurgents routed them in this recent firefight. It has been said that all military forces are to be out of Iraq by next year, and after learning of this article and other incidents of failure by the Iraqi Armed Forces; it seems they are in for a bleak future after the full withdrawal is complete in 2011. It is quite troubling that the media is not holding the President and the Pentagon accountable for what is going on over there. There is more than meets the eye over there.

reply to post by Jakes51


There is no doubting what a well oiled machine the U.S military is..... practice makes perfect .

All kidding aside, the task ahead of the Iraqi forces is monumental .

The training wheels are off .... away into the distance wobbles the Iraqi troops, lurching from side to side .

Time will tell ... I guess.

reply to post by UmbraSumus


You are correct that the Iraqi Armed Forces are facing monumental challenges. They have a government that has yet to convene a normal session of parliament following the March elections.

In Iraq, political negotiation is a blood sport

The last seven tortuous months of bickering and bartering to form Iraq's government? It was a garden party compared to the political endgame playing out today, in which the players are like gladiators unleashed in an amphitheater.

Terrorists pouring out of Iraqi run prisons.
4 Iraqis escape from U.S. custody in Baghdad prison

Four prisoners with links to al-Qaeda being guarded by American troops escaped from a maximum-security prison in Baghdad and are still at large, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

The breakout from Karkh Prison, formerly called Camp Cropper, is an embarrassment for the U.S. military, which has handed over control of all of the detention facilities it used to run to the Iraqi government. But at the request of the Iraqis, the U.S. has retained custody over some of the most dangerous prisoners, including those with ties to terrorist groups or Saddam Hussein's former regime.

Then, the miserable conditions facing the people who practically go all day with out electricity in some of the hottest weather on the planet, and other social misfortunes associated with living in a country still reeling from war.

A Benchmark of Progress, Electrical Grid Fails Iraqis

The chronic power shortages are the result of myriad factors, including war, drought and corruption, but ultimately they reflect a dysfunctional government that remains deadlocked and unresponsive to popular will. That has generated disillusionment and dissent, including protests this summer that, while violent in two cases, were a different measure of Iraq’s new freedoms.

. . . the streets are littered with trash, drinking water is polluted, hospitals are bleak and often unsafe, and buildings bombed by the Americans in 2003 or by insurgents since remain ruined shells.

There is a military and security service that appears to be fledgling at best in addressing the political instabilities, pressure from their neighbor nations, rampant crime, sectarian violence, and homegrown terrorism. In the article cited below, we have two sides of the coin regarding Iraq's military and security service's ability to counter current and future threats facing the country. One is from a US Army adviser and the other from an Iraqi sergeant in the Federal Police.

Iraqi police still struggling as U.S. departs

"They are more than ready," said U.S. Army Capt. Rory McGovern of Haverhill, Mass., a company commander with the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, which has trained and advised Iraqi federal police at this joint military outpost in eastern Baghdad since January. "They're making great operational and tactical strides. It's great to see."

. . . 1st Sgt. Haitham Ghanem of the 1st Iraqi federal police division launched into a list of complaints.

"We need more experience, more staff. We need new equipment, training and better weapons," Ghanem said through a U.S. military translator, whose expression slowly grew pained. "We have a big war ahead against the militias. How can you fight this with old machines and an old system?" . . .

With situation listed above, the Iraqi security services are in for a rude awakening and are going to get clobbered with US military support for the foreseeable future. As it stands now, complete military withdrawal is scheduled to take place next week and if it goes as planned the 50,000 troops in country will be gone. I think the Iraqi military knows they are in for a perilous journey once the US leaves as planned. However, with article cited in the OP and other instances mentioned, the future does not look very promising. The Iraqi government has just inked a 13 billion dollar military equipment package with the US last month, but will it be of any use that is the question?

Iraq to spend $13B on U.S. arms, equipment

Iraq is preparing to buy as much as $13 billion in American arms and military equipment, a huge order of tanks, ships and hardware that U.S. officials say shows Iraqi-U.S. military ties will be tight for years to come.

. . . In addition to the $13 billion purchase, the Iraqis have requested 18 F-16 Falcon fighter jets as part of a $3 billion program that also includes aircraft training and maintenance. If approved by Congress, the first aircraft could arrive in spring 2013. Under the plan, the first 10 pilots would be trained in the U.S.

So, apparently, the conventional threat from Iraq's neighbors is being addressed, but if they can't engage a rag tag bunch of insurgents in a palm grove without US support, it raises a lot of questions about the official shape of the Iraqi military. It seems we are getting another bill-of-goods by the politicians. We are told by the US military that things are on the up and up about Iraq military future, but on the flip side we have members in the Iraqi military telling a completely different story about the force capabilities. One thing is for certain, the Iraqi military is sitting atop a hornets nest that is bound to explode, and will they be capable of combating it without being stung?

Of course the american troops still in iraq are going to take part in combat situations. The iraq army is'nt anywhere near strong, or capable enough to do half the operations that they'll have to face. Think of it as leading by example.

All this advisory role bull# is just spin. To take the eyes of the media away from the situation.

reply to post by KrypticCriminal


Yes, this certainly seems like a case of spin and a notch for President Obama going into the 2012 elections if he is able to make the people believe that he has accomplished all bench marks in the alleged withdrawal of US forces from Iraq by 2011. I am fairly certain with all the focus on Afghanistan, the US could do many things in Iraq that would go unnoticed by the MSM. I think the whole withdrawal story is a political shell game by the White House to earn political capital. Plus, it will be used as a legacy defining moment for the President in the years to follow his presidency. That being said, even if it is the furthest thing from the truth and Iraq descends into chaos. He will walk around with his chest out as all politicians do and tell everyone that he followed through on his promise. Just another game of smoking mirrors by another politician with a forked tongue.

However, it seems the normal everyday Iraqis are braving the storm and have shown an insistence to let democracy take its course. they turned out in droves to vote last March amid threats and intimidation. That counts for something, and the armed forces are addressing the threat even if they don't have the equipment or the training capable of countering it. There is an insistence there by the people. I just hope that insistence is not wasted by the bumbling politicians in both Iraq and the US as they bicker back and forth about power moves and petty semantics. There is a chance of a viable progressive democracy in the center of the Middle East if ample support and encouragement by the US and others in the international community is pursued going forward. Or we may have another failed state, terrorist playground, or dictatorship to contend with years from now.

reply to post by Jakes51


I could'nt have said it better myself. Personaly i think they should have kept more troops there for a few more years anyway, unpopular as it may have been. Part of me still thinks that they'll cut and run. While the other half hopes it all works out for the iraqi people. After all this they deserve some kind of peaceful life.

Only time will tell i suppose. Lets hope polotics does'nt kill the dream.

reply to post by KrypticCriminal


Yeah, I am beginning to think a few more years would suffice at the very least. Those people over there are living in hell and are making strides in the right direction. However, their own politicians are playing games amongst themselves as they form the government, and there is perceived lack of interest by the White House. It would be a shame to see the country fall apart as a result of apathy by the United States and the international community. As politically unpopular as the war was and still is, the world has a real shot at a vibrant tolerant democracy in the center of the Middle East. We shall see how things shake out, but it is quickly reaching make or break time for Iraq.

I just hope that we dont end up with another afghanistan situation. Where the very people we train and arm start turning against those who are there to help. If a situation like that occurs then they'll have no choice but to leave, or risk having the entire iraqi nation on there list of foes.

I think whatever government is formed it will without doubt be corrupt. As long as it gives a lasting peace and the chance to get some stronger infrastructer in place, water, power and things like that. I think we are going to have to accept it in the short term. Wait untill theres stability, and then hopefuly the Iraqi's themselves will route out the corruption and deal with it. Afghanistan is at this stage right now. Theres no doubt what the people want, i pray we can help them achieve it.

Originally posted by KrypticCriminal
I just hope that we dont end up with another afghanistan situation. Where the very people we train and arm start turning against those who are there to help.

It has already happened and as recent as last month.

2 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq

Two American soldiers were killed and nine were injured Tuesday when a man wearing an Iraqi army uniform opened fire on them in an Iraqi commando compound in the province of Salahuddin, an attack that highlighted the danger U.S. troops continue to face in Iraq despite the formal end of combat operations announced by President Obama last week.

Hopefully, the situation mentioned above was an isolated incident? It would be bad if those trained turn their weapons on their mentors. Your concern is one I hold. The US military are now essentially guests of the Iraqi government and even so far as been billeted among Iraqis on their bases. That is concerning to me as well, however, trust has to be established.

Originally posted by KrypticCriminal
If a situation like that occurs then they'll have no choice but to leave, or risk having the entire iraqi nation on there list of foes.

Yes, it would be bad news if the Iraqi military rose up against their mentors. However, I don't see that happening. The people and the military want to see a viable and healthy nation. It is the leadership I am concerned about and where their loyalties lie. The political situation and gridlock is concerning. If anything, I see the Iraqi military forming a coup if the elected leadership don't follow through with their responsibilities. Then we may very well have another dictator on our hands like before.

Originally posted by KrypticCriminal
I think whatever government is formed it will without doubt be corrupt. As long as it gives a lasting peace and the chance to get some stronger infrastructer in place, water, power and things like that. I think we are going to have to accept it in the short term. Wait untill theres stability, and then hopefuly the Iraqi's themselves will route out the corruption and deal with it. Afghanistan is at this stage right now. Theres no doubt what the people want, i pray we can help them achieve it.

It is already corrupt, we have a Prime Minister who does not want to step down in accordance with the elections results. His party lost the majority an, and in effort to retain the premiership he is making back room deals with other parties for support in contrast to the will of the Iraqi voters. The largely Sunni backed and secular Iraqiya Party won more seats in parliament over Al Maliki's party and as such should be given the authority to appoint the next Prime Minister. That has not happened, and Al Maliki has been dragging his feet for the last 7 months making deals with other parties and strengthening his hold on power. That is bold and blatant corruption at the highest levels of government, and in stark disregard for the election results.

You are correct they have to settle on a government even if it is tainted ,as it very well may be? Parliament has got to convene and give foreign investors confidence that a stable and somewhat viable government is in place. Therefore, more building and industry can take foot. Investors are terrified at doing business over there because of the security and political situation. When people are working and money is being brought in, hopefully the violence dies down, and as you say, the Iraqis root out corruption.

As for Afghanistan, it is a mystery to me. It is largely a tribal culture and the melting pot of central Asia with bitter ethnic groups living side by side. A western style democracy may be to much for the Afghans at this point. However, in the case of Iraq ,it may be more viable because even under Saddam living conditions were on par with the west to a certain extent before the first Gulf War, they were largely progressive, and it has a largely western educated class to rely upon. They got a taste of some of the luxuries we take for granted in the West and it seems majority want some of that back? The Iraqis have a concept of Western style living, but in the case of Afghanistan they are slowly creeping out of the Dark Ages. Democracy is not conducive to their way of life at this present juncture in their progress as a civilization. As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." That is the case for Afghanistan at present, but I see Iraq differently.

reply to post by Jakes51


You make some great points. I agree, Iraq definately has more of a chance at democracy than Afghanistan. The more i think about it, the more i wonder why we are still in Afghanistan. What are we hoping to achieve. We went in to take the taliban out and stop them training. So far we've achieved neither. If we "the international community" cant stop them, then what ever fledgling army we leave in place will have no chance. The Russians tried and failed aswell.

I definately think we have our prioritys wrong. Full focus should be on Iraq. If the taliban is determined to attack us. They'd do it regardless of whether we occupy Afghanistan or not. Its unwinable really. Were just fueling there hatred and justifying there cause.

If we put those resources in to Iraq it would only strengthen our possition, and it would prove to the Iraqi people and the rest of the world, that we are serious about our goals. I just wish i could tell Obahma and Cameron in person. Though i doubt they would take any notice anyway.

reply to post by KrypticCriminal


I ask my self the same question as to why we are putting so much stock and resources in the Afghanistan, and why Iraq is left on the brink of disaster. That massive policy shift that took place a year ago seems very odd to me when Afghanistan has largely been on the back burner by the previous administration with limited military involvement and funding which in turn kept casualty levels down and US exposure to minimum. Then the new administration takes over with verifiable improvements in Iraq and it does a stark role reversal for Afghanistan?

I wish I had an idea what is up the sleeve of the US and UK government at this time since you mentioned Prime Minister David Cameron? It seems the more western forces and personnel sent to Afghanistan the situation deteriorates even more. Yet, the prevailing wisdom says to increase funding and send more to Afghanistan? Karzai is on the ropes amid corruption allegations and a suspicious election. Bandits are roaming freely taking hostages and rattling the local villages, doped up Afghan soldiers are offing UK and US advisers, and the Taliban has virtually seized eastern Afghanistan. If anything, the Afghan people would be pleased with modest security among their ethnic groups, access to food, and clean water, and other attributes conducive to a tribal lifestyle which has been the norm in Afghanistan for 1000's of years. In their minds, they are probably thinking what the heck is democracy? We have had tribal elders making all the decisions before and it seemed to have worked. Afghanistan must be weened off of their old lifestyles slowly and gradually. You can't knock them over the head with a concept that is alien to them and expect them to take it.

The sole mission was to route Al Qaeda which happened to a large extent and dislodge the Taliban. That happened, because they went to the other Stans in hiding. However, with an increase of Western exposure the local populace most likely believes they are enduring occupation. Therefore, they have become more militant and have shown a tendency to side with the Taliban who are themselves Afghans. History shows the Afghans are not very welcoming to occupations going back to Alexander the Great and more recently the Soviet Union during the 80's. To cut a long story short, I would put my money on Iraq over Afghanistan in the democracy department.

reply to post by Jakes51


Once again im in complete agreement. You obviously have a lot of knowledge about the situation and discussing it with you has been a absolute pleasure.

We both know what should happen, lets hope it pans out that way. I long for the day that i can go on holiday to Iraq. They have a great culture and lots of amazing artifacts from the birth of civilisation itself. Just hope some of it survives.

Peace!

reply to post by KrypticCriminal


It has been a pleasure talking to your about this topic. I have followed it quite closely lately, since it has gone off everyone's radar with the policy shift toward Afghanistan in recent years. The future looks promising for Iraq if they can get past all the violence and sectarian strife that is festering over there. When they came out to vote last year amid threats and intimidation among those that don't want to see them succeed, and even with less US patrols, I came away with the idea that the people of Iraq are tired of the violence, want representative government, and willing to put sectarian differences aside for the overall health and well being of their country. Now, if there politicians can it see that way, I see a prosperous future ahead of them, and a potential ally in the center of the Middle East to counter extremism and tyrannical rule in neighboring countries. Lets hope things play out for the better and something positive can come out of such an unpopular and rather costly war.

I get this from a bootcamp mate of mine who just got home..

Iraqi 'troops' are largely considered traitors, hated & disrespected for siding with infidel occupiers. Many are not dedicated soldiers, but rag-tag unemployed dudes looking for a paycheck who would turn on occupation troops in a second. Their heart isn't in it, they don't want to kill or be killed by fellow Iraqis..they only want a paycheck. Add to that they can, and do, walk away at any time.. the #1 reason: they don't trust US policies and resent living under a foreign puppet, #2 reason.. more $$ offered by freedom from America fighters, AKA "insurgents".

The impression my lifer buddy got was all the training & "advising" US money can buy will never result in Iraqis trusting US motivations in mass.. they'll do it for a paycheck for now until something better comes along... until then, they're more than happy to sit back & watch US troops do the heavy lifting.

From my POV.. an army of rats & traitors will never rise to the occasion, they're motivated by money not the GOP & DNC cause or vision for Iraq. They're also very aware of what will happen to puppet troops after the puppet master gives up: they'll get summarily slaughtered and "fed to the dogs", or become as they say apparently, dog food.

How many of you would join a "New US Army" supervised by Chinese troops?.. if you did, you'd be a traitor.