WSJ: More Muslim Troops -- A better idea than firing Donald Rumsfeld

Wall Street Journal ^ | December 20, 2004 | Editorial

[OESY]

Amid all of the second-guessing on Iraq, one thing we haven't heard are many constructive ideas. So allow us to promote a proposal now knocking around the Pentagon that the U.S. try again to get some foreign Islamic troops to help with security before, during and after the January 30 Iraq elections.

The U.S. has attempted this in the past, and the Turks formally offered 10,000 troops before Iraqis rejected the idea in 2003. But as immediate neighbors, and rivals of the Kurds, the Turks arouse special sensitivities....

Pakistan has a force of roughly 620,000 men, Bangladesh has about 125,000 under arms, and Indonesia has more than 300,000. The Pakistan and Bangladeshi forces are predominantly Sunni, especially in the officer corps, and thus could be deployed in Fallujah and the rest of the Sunni Triangle. Indonesia's military is dominated by that country's distinctive, moderate form of Shia Islam, so its troops might monitor polling places and trouble spots in the largely Shia Iraqi south. As fellow Muslims, their presence might be more reassuring than U.S. forces, which in any event couldn't be everywhere....

All three countries have refused such U.S. requests in the past, but that was during early post-invasion days when the U.S.-led Coalition was an occupying force. The current task is to provide security for an election that will create a self-governing Iraq. The more successful the election and its aftermath are, the faster the U.S. can draw down its forces. These Muslim countries would thus be assisting in the creation of a new, democratic Iraq....

We suppose this idea won't impress those Beltway warriors who are preoccupied with forcing Donald Rumsfeld's retirement. On the other hand, it would do a lot more good where it really counts, on the ground in Iraq.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Now this is one heck of a recipe..... for disaster!!

The Pakistani & Bangladeshi armies,who could play a serious role have many senior & junior level officers who have known sympathies with Slammic groups.The Bangladeshi army is proving itself to be no different from it's separated ex-twin & the current atmosphere of Islamisation in Bangladesh is only going to make things worse.Pakistan's army has been pro-Jehadi since the Afghan-Soviet conflict of the 80s & folks like Musharraf can do very little,given that he depends on several suspect Generals(who are corp commanders) for survival.A better option would be to send troops from Indonesia,Malaysia,Morocco etc.

[Nuzcruizer]

We need more islamic fundamentalists in Iraq like we need a hole in the head. Just keep the course and train Iraqis.
Eventually they will be able to control their own country.

[kezekiel]

A better option would be to send troops from Indonesia,Malaysia,Morocco etc.

This kind of analysis just assumes that a troop is a troop is a troop. We bring in 10,000 of them, we can use 10,000 less of us. Another assumption is that because they are Muslims, somehow the population will be more tolerant of them.

Neither are true, IMHO. U.S. soldiers are light years beyond these other countries in equipment, training, and leadership, and their loyalty is not in question. Not so of the troops from *any* Muslim country. Remember the Jordanian soldier that shot his U.S. "team members" in the Balkans?

Finally, if you think that the U.S. is an occupying power and the Iraqi government is an American puppet, putting a Muslim face on the effort isn't going to change that.

This is just more misguided sensitivity chatter. What's required, more than anything else, is an absolute resolve to prevail. The more that comes through, the more the folks in the middle will choose to side with the winner.