[EternalHope]

We have now heard President Bush's response to the Dem's victory. We will turn operational control of many things over to the Iraqis on an expedited basis.

We have heard Maliki say they will be ready within a few months.

So... Is the Iraqi military ready, or nearly so?

[Paloma_55]

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.

[TADSLOS]

What will it take for the Iraqi military to be "ready"?

Conversion to Christianity or Judaism for starters, and a resounding rejection of tribalism.

[GSlob]

"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.

[Defiant]

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.

[untrained skeptic]

So... Is the Iraqi military ready, or nearly so?

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.

[353FMG]

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.

[Mariner]

Without a deal between the Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians and Iran...the Government of Iraq doesn't stand a chance.

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.

[pinz-n-needlez]

>>>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. :-(

[xzins]

A. Are Iraqi soldiers willing to fight and perhaps die to preserve democracy in Iraq. Some, yes. But how many?

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.

[R.W.Ratikal]

The Iraqi military is the same military who collapsed at the first sight of a Humvee recon patrol. It's very doubtful if Iraqi troops will ever be "ready."

Middle Eastern troops have never done well unless they were commanded by white officers. Unless we are willing to keep a number of Americans in Iraq for that purpose, we might as well give up on Iraq.

BTW, If it's really all about oil, a simple solution suggests itself: Coalition forces should occupy the Iraqi oilfields and operate them under a U.S. protectorate or a U.N. mandate.

The Iraqi people could then be left alone to sort out the kind of government them prefer. If I remember, we did fight a few wars for the "right of self-determination."

Then America could turn its attention to more dangerous threats to our national security, like Iran, or Massachusetts.

[syriacus]

Maybe the Iraq government should take tips from South Korea.

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.

[ladyjane]

Every Iraqi male over the age of 12 is ready to kill somebody.

Let them all kill each other.

[humint]

[EXCERPT] 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.

Excellent essay. Questions like these can make what is being ignored today as intangible and immeasurable - both tangible and measurable tomorrow. The reality of it is that people like you and I have to ask these questions and only Iraqis can answer them. There is a signifigant gap between us and them but for those of us who are paying close attention - in a great number of instances accross Iraq - the United States Army has bridged the gap. The men and women who show their kindness and sense of justice has touched the hearts of many Iraqi. But how could we know that when the media both here and there strives to be nothing more than an obituary? We have to get our information from CENTCOM to approach the necessary balance required to formulate any kind of faith in the future. That's a scary thought because of how much trust one must give to an organization who answers directly to the POTUS. It's not that I do not trust the POTUS, it's that the founding fathers established freedom of the press as sacrosanct so that Americans would not have to trust the POTUS.

What a predicament we are in! In a world where our commercial culture and constant promises to each other of instant gratification, we are inadvertently spreading the disease of Attention Deficit Disorder. No one is more complicit in the crime than the "if it bleeds, it leads" MSM, but like it or not, the media is a reflection of what we want to watch which is our current culture. It takes a brave soul like yourself to seek out Iraqis who have faith in the future of their country, a country that could not have freely elected a parliament only a few years ago.

Here's an abstract analogy for you based on the book, flatland. Imagine that the popular belief in America is that the world is flat. For all practical purposed it is flat so it should be hard to believe. Now imagine that every day on the news the idea was of "flatness" affirmed over and over again. And then one day it became essential to the sustainability of the United States that we all believe the world is not flat, but instead a sphere. The argument for "sphereness" does not approach the arguments for "flatness". Believers in "sphere theory" are ridiculed as neocon idealists, but remember, this theory is not a luxury. Failure to grasp the subtle reality could cost more than Americans can afford. Now imagine that one man, an important but not particularly articulate man, demands that we all understand "the world is a sphere". In his modesty, he does not ridicule those who subscribe to "flat theory". In his modesty, he does not parade an army of lecturers out to preach "sphere theory" to Americans. So he takes the abuse, hoping that one day an epiphany will occur in the minds of his countrymen. That one day they too will see the world as he does and thereby save themselves.

The fact that what GWB has asked Americans to understand the old world threatens us all and believe in a new world that has the potential to save us all makes him a heroic figure. It is utterly tragic that this brand of leadership is almost never recognized within the same generation as the leader. Beyond the abstract, I can't fully articulate why I see it now and others can't. Maybe it's because I like to read books like flatland.

[greasepaint]

Well said.
I want US troops off the streets. Now.
The US can play a supporting role.

[RFEngineer]

" What will it take for the Iraqi military to be "ready"? "


We know a Trillion dollars and the ultimate mentors in the US military won't do it. Therefore, it is impossible in our time.

Maybe in 150 years, plus or minus.