What's "REALLY" Going on in Iraq

It's time to delve in to politics and world affairs. But first, a weather update: it's raining a the range! We had a full day of rain yesterday and it is wet and mucky. The water doesn't have any place to go and the ground becomes like clay when it's wet. But it's still better than 120 degrees.

And now, back to "The World According to Dave".

I've read the President's speech. I've given this subject a great deal of thought and I'm inclined to agree with his approach. I only see a small piece of this puzzle so please take my comments in that context. The equation is simple: provide security in Baghdad, restore and expand essential services, (get the water and power flowing, pick up the trash and open the schools and hospitals), and spend money to create jobs and rebuild infrastructure. Every thing flows from security. Like I said, simple.

However the good stuff will only flow from a secure environment if the government makes an honest attempt to treat everyone the same. That hasn't happened so far. Maliki hasn't shown the will or desire to stop the Shia death squads or to reign in Muqtada (the "radical" Shia cleric we should have arrested in 2003). I've heard a number of stories, albeit anecdotal, of US troops being limited in what they can do. It's also a well known fact that the police force is riddled with Shia militia. The Army, while better, also has it's unsavory characters.

This army has only been together for less than three years, and it's very unlike our army. Most all of the officers and many of the NCO's (mid level enlisted leaders) came from the old Iraqi army. The NCO corps is poorly trained and not given much responsibility. Many soldiers are good people. Some are lazy, shiftless, stupid, corrupt, or all of the above. If a soldier joins the Army and after 6 months decides he wants to go home, he just tells his boss and leaves. There's no punishment or recourse. They also work an odd schedule which works out to 20 days on and 10 days off. It makes scheduling a real challenge because at any given time a third of the force is on vacation. The army is still not well equipped and is not yet in a position to support itself logistically. Just getting fuel for vehicles and generators is a real challenge. It continues to amaze me that a country awash in oil can have a fuel shortage, but it's the result of a lack of refining capacity, which is a result of Saddam not spending any money on infrastructure, and the bad guys blowing up stuff. But I digress.

I work with a number of Iraqi civilians. Many of them live in Baghdad and it's not a pretty picture they paint. The one constant is this: when the American Army arrives, everyone breaths a sigh of relief. We're the honest brokers in town. When our guys and girls are there, the rats go back in their holes and life returns to a semblance of normalcy, at least for awhile. The strategy of clear and hold makes good sense. It's definitely something we can do.

This is, however, a political problem. The Maliki government must be committed to a democratic Iraq where everyone is treated fairly under the law. We'll have to wait and see if that happens.

Earlier in the year I advocated a very large troop increase, on the order of 150,000. Upon further review, I'm modifying my position. A troop increase that large would be tantamount to a re-invasion of the country, not necessarily a good idea at this point. This does beg the question of the execution of this campaign. I have, from the beginning, felt that we had way too few troops and that we've rushed the turn over of control. It seems that as a country, we're not comfortable with being a superpower and using that strength for the greater good. If we had proceeded more slowly to rebuild the military, police and government, would they have been more functional organizations? Methinks they would have. I also think the President underestimated the willingness of the American people, of you, to understand and support what needed to be done here. He failed to explain what was needed and to ask you for your support. We should have maintained control longer and turned over the government more slowly, when security was more assured.

As I've spoken to the Iraqis who work here, they've consistently indicated that their country was not quite ready for democracy on the time table we had. They are fans of a democratic government for sure, but felt that the citizens were not ready for the complexity and confusion of democracy. We've had a long history with democracy and still don't always get it right. Keep in mind that many of the people here have only known a life with Saddam Hussein. Even the older folks don't have any real experience with a democratic system. Saddam also kept many of the Shia illiterate so a large part of the population can't read. Makes it hard to understand the political process and ballots!

Regardless of the size of the troop deployment, one thing is certain: the Army and Marine Corps must increase in size. We don't have enough people in uniform to protect our vital interests as we engage in World War IV, the long war against the stateless nation of radical Islam.

I'd love to hear your comments. Please let me know what you think.



David