This Los Angeles Times story would seem to indicate that without a deadline the Iraqis are not going to stand up for quite some time.
4000 troops were requested by the US Baghdad command and 1000 showed up. One of the reasons given was that many of those requested had to travel too far.
Will this “whenever you get around to it” Iraqi stand-up process ever be adequate to the task at hand? It is argued that a deadline just means the insurgents will sit back and wait for us to leave and then all hell will break loose. It seems to me that all hell is breaking loose right now.
I think we should tell them we will be gone in one year and will start withdrawing in six months.
My plan for doing that? Elect a new Congress that will get on the executives ass to show some results for all of the costs, in death and money, he has saddled us with.
That’s good David, because things aren’t bad enough yet: Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat
It’ll take at least a couple more years before everyone hates us enough to make popping mushroom clouds over American cities more likely than not. Til that actually happens, we’ve got to stay the course.
The “we stand down when they stand up” strategy makes even less sense when you look at who is standing up.
The Iraqi police are dominated by Shia militias. When a shia militia went on a rampage in the Baghdad neighborhood of Dora a couple of months ago, pulling Sunni’s out of their homes and killing them with power drills, my staff report that the police sealed the streets and monitored their radios for the approach of US troops. When the Americans were on the way, the police warned the militias who then fled. When my Iraqi colleague’s mother called the police during the rampage, the police said “you deserve it Sunni scum.”
When members of the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce were kidnapped , the abductors were dressed in police uniforms and had passed through several government checkpoints, persumably because they had the proper identifications.
While large parts of the Iraqi army are comprised of Kurdish troops, the ministry itself and the officer corps has a large Sunni presence. The Kurdish troops seem largely concerned with Kurdistan, while the rest of the military is seen as belonging to the Sunnis.
So, I think a valid question is: who is standing up and what is their motivation?
I can’t imagine a scenario where this ends well. I wonder if it still gets attention in the states.
As I’ve posted before, I’m an aid worker in Iraq. A colleague of mine was home in the DC area recently and talking to a neighbor and he told the neighbor that he was heading back to Iraq. The neighbor said “is that still going on? I guess so, huh?”
I thought he was pulling my leg, but he swears it’s true.
At this point, I think civil war is inevitable, and really already taking place. Ramadan is going to be ugly, each year it is bloodier and bloodier.
As for Iraqi troops and police, there isn’t really any sense of loyalty to an Iraqi state. Loyalties are to sects, factions and individual power brokers, but not the nation as a whole. Increasingly, the prime minister is seen as the mayor of the Green Zone, with no real power.
Another valid question is what is the motivation of those in power who keep claiming unreported “progess in iraq’s democracy?”
Confronted with your post I can hear Tony Snow now saying, "That’s a very low level and therefore limited view of the of the situration. In the big picture and looking at Iraq overall, progess is being made.
You know, I first came to Iraq in the summer of 2003 in the back of an American cargo plane. I have travelled from Basra in the south to Dohuk in the north. I have driven by myself from Kuwait to Baghdad. I have known people who have been blown up, shot and beheaded (some a combination of more than one of these things).
For what it is worth: In the entire time I have been here, I have never once had my observed reality, or the observed reality of anyone I know here, gibe with the pronouncements of the current administration in Washington.
I’m not a bit surprised. Having watched them quibble their way through charges about their exaggerations, evasions and misstatements if any of them states that it is 2006, I check with other sources.
Even interviewers who don’t agree with GW say things like, He has such a way about him that I couldn’t help but like him personally. They never go on to mention that the main and sometimes the only skill of a con man is to be likeable. Saying things in a sincere and believable manner is just not enough when actions contratict that.
Plagiarist! Well, you left off the advisors/trainers part, but pretty much the same thing.
Alas, I don’t think that will work. Not that the Republicans in Congress don’t deserve to be booted out, but Bush will still be The Decider until 2009.
The thing is, John, the job of the President is to execute the will of COngress as expressed by legislation and resolutions. The oath or affirmations taken by the President is to support, protect and defend the Constitution and that requires the laws to be faithfully executed. Failure to do so is a violation of the oath and that is at least a high misdemeanor which can result in removal from office. The Congress has abdicated its responsibility through cowardice.
I agree with you, David, I just don’t think Congress is going to be able to bring the troops home even under the most optimistic scenario for the Dems. Firstly, I doubt that they will win back the Senate, and even if they do, they wouldn’t be able to beat a Republican filibuster. I wish that Congress could do something about this, but I just don’t see that they will be able to do so.
Possibly so. It seems to me, though, that if Congress would start calling executive department folks, like contracting officers, and start demanding an accounting of the results of all the money that is being spent on contractors something would happen. If they would start calling military officers and demanding to know why we have to rob Peter to pay Paul when we want to increase our troop strength in Baghdad, and demanding a realistic timetable for when this supposed Iraq stand up can occur there might be some truth come out of the Generals. I know that high ranking military officers can be so afraid of Congress, which must approve their promotions, that they will begin to stop kowtowing to the executive on every occasion.
I was in Baghdad Dec 05-Apr 06, and I would agree with this.
I also was told by a close associate, a member of General Casey’s staff, that he had heard no one express an opinion about Rumsfeld that wasn’t scathingly negative.
One way to play the game is to have your staff contact the staff of a friendly member of congress. The outline of a presentation by the principal will be made. That member can then hold a hearing, with the press in attendance, The principal will be called to the hearing, put under oath and asked a bunch of prearranged questions. He or she is required respond to congressional inquiries and to tell the truth. With a great show of reluctance, his or her views on whetever is the subject can finally be dragged out into the open.
This method is often used by executive departments who think they are being slighted in the budget process. I don’t think that high ranking members of the executive department really have to suffer in silence.
Well, you left off the advisors/trainers part, but pretty much the same thing.