Iraq’s 50,000 ‘ghost soldiers’ analysis: This is further proof of army corruption

[Jefferson23]

December 1, 2014

The Iraqi army includes 50,000 “ghost soldiers” who do not exist, but their officers receive their salaries fraudulently according to the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. “The Prime Minister revealed the existence of 50,000 fictitious names,” said a statement after a thorough headcount during the latest salary payments.

The Iraqi army has long been notorious for being wholly corrupt with officers invariably paying for their jobs in order to make money either through drawing the salaries of non-existent soldiers or through various other scams. One Iraqi politician told The Independent a year ago that Iraqi officers “are not soldiers, they are investors”. In the years before the defeat of the army in Mosul in June by a much smaller force from Isis, Iraqi units never conducted training exercises. At the time of Isis’s Mosul offensive, government forces in Mosul were meant to total 60,000 soldiers and federal police but the real figure was probably closer to 20,000.

“Ghost” soldiers may never have existed and just be fictitious names added to the roster, or they may once have existed but been killed or deserted without this being officially noted. In either case, the officer in a unit would keep receiving the salary, though he would have to share it with his superiors. Another scam is for soldiers to kick back part of their salary to their officer in return for staying at home or holding another job but never going near a barracks. Mr Abadi’s figure of 50,000 is probably only a modest estimate of the numbers of Iraqi soldiers who play no military role.

Asked why the Iraqi army had disintegrated at Mosul, a retired four-star general said the explanation was “corruption, corruption, corruption”. He said that this had become institutionalised when the US was building a new Iraqi army after dissolving the old one in 2003. The Pentagon insisted that supplies of food and other necessities be outsourced to private companies. The general said that as a result the Iraqi government might be paying for a battalion with a nominal strength of 600 men, but which in fact had only 200 soldiers. Profits would be shared between officers and commercial companies supposedly supplying the army.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/iraqs-50000-ghost-soldiersanalysis-this-is-further-proof-of-army-corruption-9896611.html

[Jefferson23]

1. War with Isis: Theresa May tinkers while Iraq and Syria burn

The Home Secretary's counter-terrorism Bill is unlikely to make the militants lose any sleep

November 30, 2014

There have been two interesting initiatives on "terrorism" over the month, both highly revealing in different ways about opposition to Islamic State (Isis). The first is a ludicrous document issued by the government of the United Arab Emirates that lists as "terrorist organisations" no less than 85 groups, coupling well-regarded Muslim charities with violent jihadis such as Isis. The second initiative is a carefully considered speech by Britain's Home Secretary Theresa May, explaining a new counter-terrorism and security law aimed at detecting and rendering harmless potential terrorists. What these two declarations have in common is that neither is likely to be much of an impediment to terrorism.

The list issued by the UAE cabinet on 15 November is so sloppy in composition and puerile in intent that it is easy to miss its significance. In addition to Isis, the groups characterised as "terrorist" include Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram in Nigeria. But also listed are Islamic Relief, a respected British-based aid agency and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the biggest Muslim civil rights and lobbying group in the US. By denouncing a potpourri of different groups, the UAE can satisfy the US, Britain and other Western allies that it has outlawed Isis, while in practice diluting its denunciation of the one terrorist group that is a powerful state the size of Britain.

The true policy priorities of the UAE and the Sunni monarchies of the Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia, are evident from the way Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and Shia movements are singled out as terrorists. Of course, the real objection of absolutist rulers of the Gulf to the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the movement standing for elections and winning them in countries such as Egypt (before the government was overthrown by a military coup backed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE). Almost any Shia group can be termed "terrorist" according to the UAE, since it lists the powerful Houthi movement of Yemen that holds the capital Sanaa, as well as the Badr Organisation whose senior members are part of the Iraqi government in Baghdad.

All this is good news for Isis because it shows that the Sunni monarchies of the Gulf are still focussed on their confrontation with the Shia rather than with defeating Sunni jihadis in Iraq and Syria. They may have had their arms twisted by the Americans to force them to send a few planes to bomb Isis targets, but their basic sympathies have not changed. The West may be focussing, though in an ineffective way, on how to combat the Sunni jihadis, but the Sunni monarchs are more alarmed by what they see as the Shia becoming the predominant power in four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. As one observer in Baghdad put it: "The Sunni rulers may fear the Islamic State, but they still like the idea that it causes more trouble to the Shia than it does to them."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/war-with-isis-theresa-may-tinkers-while-iraq-and-syria-burn-9893150.html

[customerserviceguy]

2. In part,

this is one of dozens of reasons why we couldn't 'fix' Iraq. You can't build a nation out of nothing but corrupt individuals.

[Igel]

3. It's hardly a new phenomenon.

Back in 2003 this was also discussed.

The old army was dissolved after a couple of weeks of trying to call it back on duty. There was the practice of soldiers taking vacations, of ghost soldiers. Some real soldiers simply refused to report because they'd been defeated or didn't want to be seen as traitors.

But all demanded their pay--those who were working their real jobs and also "soldiers", the soldiers who refused to report, and numerous ghost soldiers also demanded their pay (by proxy, of course). "Dissolving" the old army mostly meant getting rid of the command structure and otherwise was just verbal recognition of what happened. Rather like saying "The general's wife is having an affair with the butler" at a formal dinner may state what everybody knows, but somehow makes it more real. (But by no means is the cause of the affair.)