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.
We have heard Maliki say they will be ready within a few months.
So... Is the Iraqi military ready, or nearly so?
The number one thing they have to do is unify their forces whether shia, sunni or kurd into a force that will deal with ANY insurgency harshly, rapidly, and completely.
If the sunni members of their armed forces attack shia more vigorously, or vice versa, they have a huge problem.
Conversion to Christianity or Judaism for starters, and a resounding rejection of tribalism.
They definitely need to do this.
"Ready"?- ready to do what? Ready to turn on the sadrists and to whack them, the harder the better? - doubt it; to whack the sunni triangle? - probably not, either.
That would do it, but I won't be holding my breath...
I don't know when they will be ready, but as soon as they are, they need to take over, kick ass and run the place for about 20 years before even thinking about allowing elections. The Iraqis are not ready. Nothing against them, it took the Filipinos, South Korea, Taiwan and even Greece a long time before they were ready for civil government. Autocratic pro-western governments were necessary while economic, educational and societal conditions were created that allowed for democracy.
I'd say "ready" means "ready, willing, and able" to restore and maintain civilized order in Iraq. In my opinion that will have to include putting ALL of the militias out of business.
Preferably, Sadr will die in the process...
You may very well be right, but we do not have the luxury of that much time.
We won't really know until we give them a chance to prove themselves or fail.
It's very important that we continue to allow them to stand more and more on their own. We need to remain to give the Iraqi's something to fall back on when they stumble, but I think we are doing the right thing by not flooding the countryside with troops and seeking to restore order by force of arms on our own.
The Iraqi people have a difficult task ahead of themselves.
Despite all the setbacks and the difficult times I believe we've done the right thing.
We've heard armchair quarterbacks say how we should have had far more troops and crushed the insurgencies.
Insurgencies don't take vast numbers of organized people, especially when there is a long history of tribal violence.
Even if the insurgencies had been completely crushed. That doesn't keep Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia from stirring things back up.
Iraq needs to build a stable government and a stable society, and us going in and crushing insurgencies doesn't do that.
It's a difficult task, it will continue to be a difficult task to some extent for years if not generations even if they succeed.
All we can really do is try and keep pointing them in the right direction as best we can, and provide enough stability to protect the democratic government from a violent coup as long as they want us there.
The rest is up to them.
I think we should remain as long as the democratically elected government wants us to remain.
I think we should continue to turn over more and more control and responsibility to the Iraqis.
I think we need to remain, but we should interfere as little as we can, because they are the ones that ultimately must solve these problems, not us. We can't step in every time they stumble, but we should stick around and make sure they don't completely fall.
I don't understand what you mean.
Well said!
You have no idea how right you are.
Well, "to restore and maintain civilized order" the army [and the population it is drawn from] needs to be civilized first. As a thought experiment, imagine trying to do it with an army of barbarians. Thus, they will be ready when transcivilized [i.e. when they overcome their sectarianism ant tribalism, for starters], and not a millisecond sooner.
Nowhere have I read anything about an Air Force. How can you possibly protect yourself in the 21st century without air power especially when you have neighbors like Syria and Iran and I am not talking about the other neighbors near and far.
Hate to say this: Rots a rock Iraq.
I take it you don't think they're quite ready...
Trust me, I'm not.
You have no idea how right you are.
Trained them. Trained with them. Islam reigns at the peril of military effectiveness and tribal factionalism will always trump unit cohesion.
That would do it, but I won't be holding my breath...
Trust me, I'm not.
You have no idea how right you are.
Trained them. Trained with them. Islam reigns at the peril of military effectiveness and tribal factionalism will always trump unit cohesion
I meant I don't think we/they have the option of running the place without another set of elections for 20 years, even though you may be right about that being literally the best option.
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.