Talk:New Iraqi Army

Article title change
This article should be changed to the Iraqi Regular Army because the term "new iraqi army is no longer in use".--Hypo 03:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. Any objections? Zenosparadox 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No objections, go ahead and do the change! Joakimekstrom 7 July 2006

Subject
-First this artcle should be called the Iraq Army -Second the other artyicle refrring to saddams should come under history of Iraq Army of military history of Iraq. - It should include the now new fact that former Saddam troops are now allowed in.

These are just suggestions I was going to change it unilaterally but people might object to that.


 * They sound like reasonable changes to me. Feel free to go ahead and make them. --Daniel11 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"The New Iraqi Army's adoption of American made weapons can be seen as a strategic move on the part of American foreign policy planners. It will allow the U.S. to retain significance influence over the country even after the bulk of its forces have left. Reliance on U.S. technical expertise for its sophisticated weapons systems will ensure continued American military presence in Iraq as well as handicap the New Iraqi Army from using its newly acquired technology to initiate aggression against its neighbors." About this part, what weaponry do you expect the american's to be able to give? The american's only have large amounts of american equipment. The way this paragraph is phrased makes it sound like some american plot.


 * Yep, I agree here too. If you think of better phrasing, go ahead and put it in. --Daniel11 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This entry is wrong in its entirety The vast majority of equipment does not come from the US. Refer to your own citation: http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/Iraq.pdf The Russian/Eastern equipment in fact represents the majority of equipment. -All small arms are Russian(AKs, PKMs) or Austria (GLOCK pistols) -Most of the armored vehicles are Russian or Eastern Block design (T72s, T55s, BMPs BTR80, BTR94, MTLB, DZIK3) -Most of the Helicoptors are Russian design (Mi17).

Most other equipment comes from countries other than the US (Spartans from Turkey, Panhards from UAE, Recon aircraft from Jorden, Ravas APCs from South Africa, Preditor patrol ships from Taiwan) As a matter of fact, some of the "American" equipment was actually equipment donated to Iraq by other countries (M113s and UH-1 helicoptors are from Jorden). The only equipment from the US are the HUMVEES and ASV150's.

None of this equipment is sophisticated. They are all basic designs that have been around 20-40 years. Therefore none of it represent heavy reliance on outside technical support.

So, the entire paragraph is based on an incorrect assumption and should be deleted. Or if you want to keep the paragraph, it should say "Much of the equipment is Russian design, which can be seen as a strategic move on the part of Americans to minimize the training and maintaince requirements for the Iraqi army. Much of the other equipment comes from other countries. Little seems to be coming from the US" -CJR 6/1/06


 * This part of the article is several years out of date (the original plan was to have the entire Iraqi Army using a US weapons platform similar to many latin-american countries or US allies in the Middle East). Since quality information about this subject in particular is so difficult to find I decided to leave what was already in the article rather than cut it out and not be able to put something into replace it.  But yes you are right, pretty much all the weapons the Iraqi Army uses right now are from the Eastern Bloc type family presumably because 1.) they are cheaper 2.) Most Iraqis are more familiar with them --Hypo 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've deleted that section of the article now since it probably is quite misleading.--Hypo 07:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now Defunct
According to this testimony, CMATT and the New Iraqi Army are now defunct and the whole structure has been changed to combat the insurgency. Iraqi security forces' management is now being handled by the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq.

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Sepp%20Testimony.pdf

Change to Iraqi Army
The US Military no longer uses the term "New Iraqi Army" to describe the army of Iraq. Instead it is just reffered to as simply "Iraqi Army". This article should be moved to that title.

--Hypo 11:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That term is a bit confusing, as the page of the iraqi army under Saddam Hussein is named like-wise. also, why should wikipedia be restricted to using US lingo? --User:Superknijn

It should use the US term for the army because the Iraqi Army is a US military creation. --Hypo 10:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, it should be called "Iraqi Army" because that's what it is. You don't hear it referred to as "New Iraqi Army" anywhere. Perhaps in part because it is no longer new. I believe the two should be merged, as the history of the Iraqi military includes the military both under Saddam and after his fall from power. (Else should we change Military of Serbia to "New Military of Serbia" (it is only several months old, having changed it's name due to the separation from Montenegro)? Zenosparadox 18:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"New Iraqi Army" was the initial name used by the US military to describe the army that was being created from scratch after the disbandment of the previous existing army. It was called "New" to mark the difference between Saddam's army and the army that would be created afterwards, not because it was a new army--Hypo 18:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

USA army bias
I found the phrase 'Whilst US troops have the most sophisticated and up to date equipment money can buy' under 'lack of equipment'; this isn't neccesarily so, and surely isn't NPOV, as far as I'm conserned. --User:Superknijn

Its been changed now--Hypo 03:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Citations
A lot of the citations that I have put in are directly from military or pro-military websites. These aren't really great sources for an NPOV article if you come across a fact and have a better source for the citation (such as an independant news organization i.e. Reuters), feel free to change it.--Hypo 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First-hand sources are (1) Gov't of Iraq (2) MNF-Iraq. There has been a lot of speculation out there, e.g. globalsecurity.org... -- Joakimekstrom July 10, 2006

new template
It looks terible. Someone should get rid of that new template and replace it with the old one.--Fox Mccloud 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Template for what?--Hypo 21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That big one that obstructs the reading of the first paragraph or so.--Fox Mccloud 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

September 19, 2005
The last sentence of this summary seems NPOV to me. '"The depletion of almost the entire Ministry of Defense budget due to corruption cripples the effectiveness of the Iraqi Army."' Any objections to deletion? It may have been a suggestion of The Independent, in which case it should be attributed as their suggestion, rather than a statement of fact. Zenosparadox 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be POV but in reality a huge amount of money was stolen from the coffers of the army and it would be difficult to argue that it didn't have a major impact on the effectiveness of the Iraqi army. I put that statement in and am willing to take it out if there is some evidence to show that it didn't cripple the army.  This goes back to the main problem with this article  in general in that there are just too few reliable sources for intel.--Hypo 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

10 divisions outta < 120000 men?
the iraqi army fields 10 divisions out of 116,500 men? does that number not include rear-echelon types? to compare, the israeli army has slightly more men and fields, i believe, about 6 combat divisions. Mct mht 22:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The 10 division does not include support units. These take a long time to develop. It was decided to first create infantry units to combat the insurgency and use the U.S. supply train to support the Iraqi units. http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=11


 * ok, thanks. Mct mht 08:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft
As I do not know how to update the template on the right hand side of the screen the last count of the new Iraqi AF is 3 C-130 transport aircraft we gave them. Drew1369 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source and then I will happily update the table for you if you wish--Hypo 03:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/feb2006/a020106tj1.html 67.161.220.74 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These aircraft belong to the Iraqi Air Force and as such, are not relevant to this article. Mention of the aircraft has already been added to that article--Hypo 06:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Target numbers of units rising
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/78589.htm from the article. I'm not sure exactly how this changes the 137,500 number. or 125,000 as I've heard it some places.

MOD Forces will grow from:

-- 10 Army Divisions to 13

-- 36 Army Brigades to 41

-- 112 Army Battalions to 132

-- Development of National Operations Center, National Counter-Terror Force, and National Strike Force

67.161.220.74 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do NOT delete older statistics please!
Simply use the "del" tags to show the reader that the information is obselete. In a rapidly changing and reference difficult topic such as this one, it is very difficult to find accurate and reliable statistics about anything related to the subject. If something is old, please keep it (stricken) on the page as a record so that people can compare the facts for study. If there is ever too many old statistics, they can always be moved to their own seperate page. It is always better to have more information to deal with than arbitrarily less because you think the article is too long. Thanks --Hypo 07:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

M16, M4
the iraqi army will get both m16 for soldiers and m4 for officers --Max Mayr 12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)