Replies

"Where the f*** does Zbig get the idea that Iraq is a failure?"

I've been thinking for a while that GWB needs to make the point (maybe in a speech, maybe in a town hall meeting, maybe some other way) that it simply takes time for an individual to learn the skills needed to defend his country. It's taking two years to train Iraqis to go after the terrorists because it takes two years to learn how to do it.

I'm dying for GWB to straight-out ask a reporter or ordinary person the following question:

"If we were to drop you into an Army base in, say, Fort Dix, train you for six months on marksmanship, combat tactics, and anything else you can absorb, how comfortable would you be if, once the six months was up, we drove you down to Dover, stuck you on a military airlift flight to Iraq, and left you there, completely on your own, with all of the other people in this room, who we also trained alongside you? Would you be comfortable with that?"

I'd bet that no one would answer "yes", and anyone who tried would hedge such that the lie would be obvious.

It's taking two years to get the Iraqis up to speed because, whether you're training Joe from Missouri, Nigel from Manchester, or Hakim from Basra, it simply takes a couple of years for an individual to learn the intuitive knowledge required to do his job and stay alive without any handholding. It's more than just marksmanship, how to approach a suspected hideout, or how to deploy a squad: they also require policing and patrolling skills, like gaining trust from the local populace and gathering information about any insurgents.

I'd like to see the President flat-out ask someone:

"How much training do you think you would need before you felt comfortable gathering information on your own from the local populace in an Iraqi town? If the terrorists were trying to gather information about you to set up an ambush twenty-four hours from now, how long do you think it would take for you to develop the skills to determine who was selling you out to them?"

As a follow-up he should ask:

"Do you think that training alone could give you those skills, or would you need to go on actual missions and raids? How long do you think that would take before you felt comfortable going out with your unit on your own without any U.S. assistance?"

At this point reporters should be stammering in a search for a way to make the 6-month argument seem remotely credible, assuming that they don't have that deer-caught-in-the-headlights stare. It would take them at a minimum two years, though we of course know that there is no way they'd even volunteer for the job, like so many Iraqis are doing. Of course, however, the point is that the point be made to ordinary citizens, not reporters. It's taking two years because that's how long it takes to learn, not to teach. We can add more resources to train more people simultaneously, but it simply means that we'll have more trained people once the two years are up. We won't get them any sooner.

Another example that could be of benefit to ordinary citizens would be to ask the simple question:

"If we double the number of teachers and school hours per day in every public high school, does it make sense that students should finish high school in two years instead of four?"

The question is so absurd as to be laughable. There is an inherent limit to how quickly we can learn, and that is what is making training in Iraq take so long. The Iraqis we are training aren't concerned with SAT scores -- the stakes are much higher: their lives. As such you don't skimp on or rush the training.