Forums | MacLife

If I understand this correctly, Iraqi forces presently receive orders ultimately from the U.S., and al-Maliki is saying this won't be true come June 2007.

That sounds meaningless to me.  First of all, there's no guarantee of a U.S. troop withdrawal by then, which means it's probably no more likely to happen.  Second, there will still have to be coordination between U.S. and Iraqi forces, which means that there almost surely still has to be someone ultimately giving orders for everyone.  I highly, highly, highly doubt that's going to be an Iraqi.

jeremiah256 wrote:

charon wrote:

If I understand this correctly, Iraqi forces presently receive orders ultimately from the U.S., and al-Maliki is saying this won't be true come June 2007.

That sounds meaningless to me.  First of all, there's no guarantee of a U.S. troop withdrawal by then, which means it's probably no more likely to happen.  Second, there will still have to be coordination between U.S. and Iraqi forces, which means that there almost surely still has to be someone ultimately giving orders for everyone.  I highly, highly, highly doubt that's going to be an Iraqi.

And isn't the Iraqi Army still very reliant on the U.S. Military for logistics?  I don't think they can move very quickly to new areas without us and I can't find anywhere where they will have the vehicles (including aircraft) or the trained personnel to drive/fly that equipment.

Well, I guess that might change by June.  But I sure wouldn't count on even that.

gas huffer wrote:

"take over security" does not mean "no US presence."

I know.  That's partly why I say this looks meaningless.

Last edited by charon (2006-11-30 9:13 pm)