Everyone simply parrots without evidence that the disbanding of the Baathist army was a mistake? I don't think we can say yet whether it was or not. It may be better for Iraq in the long run that a completely new army was built from the ground up (with a lot of soldiers from the former army by the way).
Disbanding was absolutely the right thing to do. The internal loyalties of any army could be hidden for years until a revolution day when simple nostalgia would motivate an unstoppable old-school revolt.
Remember this is the Arab News,I've seen bigger hit pieces on Bremer in the msm here.
I think it made things a lot harder in the short run.
In the long run, it was the best decision. Eliminate the old army, break ALL the traditions. (well, they'll probably re-establish a 'Hammurabi' division... that's a part of their lore that predates modern times)
I agree, I think not only will it be a little easier to know who's really in it for the right reasons, but Iraqis in general see the need for a different type of military. I think it would have been too difficult to effectly "morph" the old military.
Yeah, but how much of it was Baathist? Weren't most just normal soldiers w/o a political agenda, who mostly surrendered rather than die for the Baathist regime?
It seems if even a quarter or third could have been redeployed under Coalition supervision w/in a few months of the regime's fall then things might be much better in Iraq, which in turn may have meant that the only question we'd be asking now is how much Bush is going to win by, instead of if he is going to win at all.