Replies

This is probably a model for the rest of Iraq. It has become apparent that the occupation was the main source of the attacks on American troops. By withdrawing and turning security over to the locals, the Iraqis get their country back and the United States gets to leave. Both sides lose but it averts bigger losses. The Iraqis wind up with a war torn country to rebuild and the United States winds up two hundred billion deeper in debt with nothing solved.

This mini-army in Iraq sets the stage for a possible future coup d'etat and junta rule in Iraq. Which BTW could be the best possible outcome for us so long as they remain pro-American.

Actually that would not be a good thing. Remember there was a time, up until the late 70s, when Iran used to be one of our biggest allies (the biggest in the M-E after Israel). Goodness, we even went as far as to sell/give them F-14 TomCats. Anyways, the Shah of Iran was nothing more than a despot, and we supported him and ensured he kept power (and all the while he was crushing his people).

It was so easy for the Ayatollahs to spur the rabble to action, paint the US as the 'evil puppeteer' behind the scenes, and after the revolution Iran went from friend to public enemy.

The thing about Iraq is this .....any government that takes over after June 30th must be better than what was there under Saddam. If it isn't it will be all too easy for the clerics to paint a picture that depicts the US as nothing more than people who came to disrupt their country (the old better the devil you know ...). That might be why GW is emphasising that the government should be democratic.

I personally feel the whole 'hearts and minds' thing is a difficult thing to do in the ME, but when it comes to Iraq we really have to ensure it is as much a success as possible. Coupe de tats, especially those that happen to be taken over by bad people who at the same time happen to be pro-American, would be a veritable poison-pill to anything we are trying to do in Iraq.

"This mini-army in Iraq sets the stage for a possible future coup d'etat and junta rule in Iraq."

Not really. Juntas are a function of the weakness of political instutions. Now, in Iraq they may be weak, goodness knows what will happen with UN setting up elections and all, BUT, all this is, is the use of a former military man to do a military job. We were always going to create an Iraqi army anyway, and frankly that was one thing we've done poorly, because for whatever reason the hiring and training has gone slowly.

News reports suggest this Genl saleh was a baathist party member and long-time army man but neither a political baathist nor a 'thug'. he'll be vetted. Eventually his command will be part of the new army.

If it cant be trusted to not violate command, well, again that's a vetting issue, and they shouldnt take him in if he cant be trusted. The comparisons with the former German generals we used in Germany's post WWII armed forces are apt.