Posted on 11/30/2006 2:43:38 PM PST by EternalHope
What will it take for the Iraqi military to be "ready"?
The big news today centers on increased operational authority for the Iraqi military. This has been the plan all along. If they are ready, then this is a good thing.
What will it take for the Iraqi military to be ready?
First, the positives:
1. They have to be trained well enough to know how to fight at least as well as the enemy they face, and preferably better. I suspect they are.
2. They have to be equipped as well as (or better) than the enemy they face. I suspect they are.
3. They have to have backup in case they get in too deep to dig themselves out. Unless we pull out, they have that in spades (the U.S. military).
The above is not enough. The UNKNOWNS are what will make or break this war.
A. Are Iraqi soldiers willing to fight and perhaps die to preserve democracy in Iraq. Some, yes. But how many?
B. Are Iraqi soldiers willing to put loyalty to the nation ahead of tribal and religious loyalty? Will a Shiite kill a fellow Shiite in order to protect a Sunni or Kurd, and vice versa?
C. Are Iraqi soldiers led by honest and competent leaders? Some, yes. How many?
D. Is the leadership at the top (especially Maliki) really committed to the success of Democracy?
Maliki, Sistani, and Sadr are all Shiites, just like their fellow believers in Iran. Are these top leaders playing a double game, with eventual domination by their religious faction their real long term goal?
The REAL intentions of the top Iraqi leadership is crucial. Are they really trying to build a successful, pluralistic democracy in Iraq?
My personal opinion: Sadr is in the pocket of Iran and should have died long ago. Given the protection Maliki and Sistani have extended to Sadr, I suspect these two are on the fence. Will Maliki and Sistani side with their fellow Shiites in Iran if they conclude Iran has the winning hand?
E. Do the people of Iraq want a unified nation? Do they want a unified nation even if their OWN faction is not in control?
If they do not understand this crucial point, then each faction will face constant temptation to try to take control. The Shiites have the best shot at this. Are they willing to resist this temptation?
Can Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds EVER trust each other enough to trust their own protection to a central government?
F. Even if the vast majority of people in Iraq really DO want the things above, are they willing to risk their own lives to achieve it?
Many were, and still are, willing to take the relatively low risk of voting. But how many Iraqis are willing to risk their lives when the risk is moderate or high?
G. As long as the U.S. military has a strong presence in Iraq the various factions are held at least somewhat in check. Does the recent election in the U.S. mean the Iraqis now think this protection is about to go away? If so, are they willing to stand in the gap?
H. The perception has been created in much of the world that the U.S. is losing in Iraq, and hence that democracy in Iraq is doomed. Do the Iraqis share this perception? If so, what steps will they take for their own self preservation?
To put it differently, are enough Iraqis willing to risk their lives in order to try to preserve the precious gift we have given them? The answer is certainly NOT if they think they would simply be throwing their lives away in a cause that is already lost. But if they think they have a decent fighting chance, how many of them are willing to fight to preserve the opportunity we have given them?
Personal Conclusion: I do not know if enough Iraqis have what it takes, and I doubt that anyone else knows the answer to that either. But they MIGHT. As long as that possibility exists, I think President Bush is right to do everything in his power to give them a decent fighting chance.
It's up to the Iraqis now. If they fail, we will move on to the next phase of a worldwide clash of civilizations. Perhaps that clash of civilizations has been inevitable all along. But even if a terrible world war has always been an inevitability, we HAD TO TRY to head it off first. Hence, even if Iraq ends in failure, I will still be glad we tried.
I was responding to the poster's suggestion that we (or the Iraqi military) run the place without elections for 20 years before allowing another set of elections.
He may be right (lots of places have needed a lot of time before they could understand and sustain a democracy), but I do not think we have the luxury of that much time.
Yep. Perhaps the idea that some things are worth trying, even if success is not guaranteed, is too complex for the liberal mind.
A LOT of things are too complex for liberal minds...
Direct invasion by a neighboring state is when an air force would be most needed. Clearly Iraq's military will not be able to protect Iraq from direct invasion by wolves like Iran and Syria for quite some time.
If the Iraqi military proves itself up to the task of maintaining internal order, support from the U.S. military, including our Air Force, will still be needed for quite some time.
(I wonder if Ms. Pelosi understands things this "complicated"?)
Those countries willingness to fund and train "insurgency"...better known as terrorism...in Iraq is the crux of the entire matter.
There's a war between the Wahabbists and the Shiite radicals...in ADDITION to a simmering cold war between the Sunni-Arab bloc and the Iran-Syria bloc. Pakistan may even be lining up with Iran.
Alas, I don't think a deal is possible. And without that deal, there'll be a BLOODY civil war.
I disagree. Authoritarian governments just breed trouble, and will only increase the problems in the region.
The only way to teach people who have lived in an autocracy how to live in a free society is to let them do it themselves and make mistakes on the way
"..support from the U.S. military, including our Air Force, will still be needed for quite some time."
No, forever.
REALLY???
That splains it...
I wuz in the military, even went to the Air Force Academy cuz I wuz too dum to get into a real colege. i wuz always told al the smart piple, like jon kery, were democrats.
Bravo--sad, funny, and true, all in a few short words!
Well thought, and well said.
Thank you! :-)
I'm thinking that might be exaclty what was going on last week with Cheney's trip into the region, and this week with Bush.
They are trying mightily to get the pieces in as beneficial arrangement as possible as quickly as possible... before the Dems pull out the funding and leave a bloodbath like Viet Nam turned in to '75.
>>>B. Are Iraqi soldiers willing to put loyalty to the nation ahead of tribal and religious loyalty? Will a Shiite kill a fellow Shiite in order to protect a Sunni or Kurd, and vice versa?>>>
This statement about brought me to tears. Would that the United States had such stalwart patriots. This election showed the dearth of such people in Washington and in state capitols. :-(
I used to see lots of bumper stickers in Ann Arbor talking about bake sales to raise money for bombers. Maybe that would work.... LOL
Sad really, but I couldn't resist going for a cheap laugh. ;-)
I don't think this is necessary. What they need to realize it that their lives are on the line for siding against the Ba'athists who want their control back.
They need to realize that they'll be herded up and killed.
They also need to realize their own self-interest. They can be the down-trodden or they can be the ones in charge.
Maliki needs to realize they will kill him if they take over again. They've got to.
Therefore, they have just one choice. They must convince the people that they are in control. The best way to do that is by actually being in control. It is not in Maliki's interest to lie in order to get the US to leave.
Of course Mesopotamia was the cradle of civiilization. When it comes to training, after 3 years you just have thousands of volunteers and not a good command structure. apparently, it takes 20 years to develop a captain. We have some here in officer training, but they will be green.
South Korean Troops Help Rebuild Iraq, By Margaret Besheer
Major General Jung Sun Hwang is the Commander for the Korean mission in Iraq. He says Korea is proud to be a part of the international coalition, and that his own country's experience with war in the 1950s is influencing its work here...He says Korea suffered a devastating war and the only reason it succeeded economically in its aftermath was because of help from the Allies, including the United States. He says Korea is forever indebted to other countries and they are trying to repay that debt in Iraq.
The South Koreans say their respect and consideration for the local people, their culture and traditions, has helped them win many hearts, and they feel their mission to foster peace and security in the region has been a success because of that.
Every Iraqi male over the age of 12 is ready to kill somebody.
Let them all kill each other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.