| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| New Iraq army hit by resignations |
| 2003-12-12 |
| US plans to create a new Iraqi army have suffered a setback after hundreds of recruits resigned. The army’s first 700-man battalion lost 300 troops who were within weeks of being deployed, Pentagon officials say. The battalion is the only one trained so far for what is eventually hopted to be a 40,000-strong force. The US-led coalition in Iraq has played down the incident, saying it was just a dispute over pay and many more men were ready to join up. "They used to be paid two dollars a month and now the recruits are being paid $60 a month, but they feel they ought to be paid more than that," he told the BBc World Service’s Newshour programme. "That’s fine, if that’s what they want, then they can go find another job. There are plenty of people queuing up to join the new Iraqi army." |
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |
| #13 "...now the recruits are being paid $60 a month..." Not enough, maybe? What's /capita income in Iraq? The Marines paid me about $106 a month to start. |
| Posted by: Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-12 2:26:21 PM |
| #12 When I went through OCS in Quantico, after week 7 of the 10 week program, Officer candidates had fulfilled their legal obligation of officer training and could DOR (drop on request) if desired. There are always some that do that. Good I say. Leaves the ones who want to still play. Resignation is much different then desertion - just ask the Russians. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-12-12 10:18:28 AM |
| #11 400 is 1% of the standing 40,000 desired, and Chicken Stevey sez the sky is falling. Please, stevey, find a paper bag and take some deep breaths. Better yet, stick your head in a plastic bag and seal it. This isn't great news, but it's not the end of the world either. Even if 100% stayed in, 700 soldiers is but a drop in the bucket. At least with the 400 remaining we know who is serious and willing to commit, and they will be invaluable in using their training to instruct still more troops. Note, too, that these are paid volunteers, not conscripts. At least now they have the freedom to resign without being tortured and shot--immediately after their families have been tortured and shot. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-12-12 9:24:07 AM |
| #10 There's also the possibility that veterans of Saddam's "army" expected the new army to be another cushy job, but found that Western training methods require brains and hard work. We are talking about a part of the world known for being piss-poor with maintenance, training, etc. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-12 9:16:11 AM |
| #9 The prime issue was that they were being paid as much as the cops and the civil defense folks, and, of course, the army has more prestige! I'm afraid the secondary issue was that they wanted the training and insight into operations. That's a bad thing and I hope we have good info on the home addresses of these guys. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2003-12-12 8:38:50 AM |
| #8 Finding the right level of pay for a volunteer army isn't always easy, especially when an economy is immature and hasn't stabilized around price levels for other goods and services yet. Saddam's economy was extremely distorted; for the last decade+ it really was barely an economy at all and certainly not a market economy where prices reflect value. The trick to paying volunteer soldiers is to ensure a sufficiently decent lifestyle so that you attract good people, without feathering the nest so much that you attract those who aren't dedicated to serving. Yup, when my husband was a junior officer we did need dedication, because nobody gets rich as a 1LT or a Captain. I don't know what the right salary is for enlistees in Iraq, but I'm pretty sure this is the line of thinking behind the pay rate we've established. Of course, one could build the kind of unionized army that several European countries have, but we probably want an effective fighting force in Iraq ... |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-12-12 6:28:52 AM |
| #7 Stevestrdamus, your an idiot. Thank you for letting me share. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-12-12 5:14:48 AM |
| #6 Things are improving in Iraq. A year ago these recruits would have lost an ear or worse. |
| Posted by: Gasse Katze 2003-12-12 3:36:17 AM |
| #5 If you want to argue Rafael's point, it would do well to actually argue the point he made. Which is a good one, that this resignation is basically of people who are not committed to the defense of their own country. The ones that stayed, are the ones we want and the Iraqi people need. Instead of creating straw men, and simply laughing at the point, you might want to engage your brain. Amazing how well it will improve your percieved credibility. |
| Posted by: Ben 2003-12-12 3:28:28 AM |
| #4 Desertions? Oh geez, I'm sorry. I thought the story was about resignations. I stand corrected. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-12-12 3:27:56 AM |
| #3 mmm the republican mind ahaha...everything that happens in IRAQ IS PROGRESS..if terrorist blow up cops it is a good thing and a sign of desparation..now desertion is a good thing...werent they(new Iraqi Army) supposed to be free and proud of their country and ready to die for it ..is this the future of the IRAQI aRMY...40% desertion within a fortnight. So If perennially under-paid American soldiers go Awol it will be sign thAT Bush's tax cuts are working ahaah |
| Posted by: stevestradamus 2003-12-12 3:10:49 AM |
| #2 So they figured out that life in the private sector might be more profitable. Good for them. This says that the economy in Iraq is expected to pick up in the near future, if it's not already doing better. Secondly, the ones that stay are the ones that we want. The only bad thing about this that I can think of is if they left to join the other side. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-12-12 2:42:20 AM |
| #1 Yup--ya gotta pay us more if we're gonna get blown up by the Fedayeen remnants |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2003-12-12 12:52:34 AM |