Sorry, I may have made a mistake on rank, but I am not convinced you understand the challenge of the organization and leadership. You are probably some populist who think all you need is workers.
As a 10 year army veteran who thrilled to the organizational change that was the Reagan military and remains proud of being a part of winning the Cold War, I believe I have an acute and experiential understanding of organization and leadership. I saw the Carter army -- hollowed out, populated by marginal soldiers, going through the motions!!! led to excellence, professionalism and eagerness by leadership.
Having been a company commander (as a Captain) I believe I have significantly more understanding of that leadership which is employed when tearing a civilian down and rebuilding him as a soldier than you do.
You probably do not encounter reporting from Iraq such as this today on Townhall.....
The plan to pacify these forces is the same as that for pacifying the country as a whole and drawing down U.S. troops—continuing to turn over more responsibilities and more geographic area to the Iraqi army and police. And in Ramadi, the transfers seem to be working. The Iraqi Army 1st Brigade, 7th Division (1/7) and the Iraqi Army 1/1, the oldest Iraqi Army unit in the country and considered by many to be the best, are capable – as I've witnessed – of defending themselves and counterattacking.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelFumento/2006/11/30/ramadi_success_shows_insurgents_can_be_beaten
You avoided addressing the historical fact that the US Army went from a very small, ill equipped Army in 1941 to a MASSIVE, seasoned, WINNING fighting force by 1945.
I am not exactly sure what your allusion to populism and workers means especially in reference to warfighting. As a graduate of the US Army Command and General Staff College with modules on force development, it may be that you and I are just not on a level playing field when discussing how quickly a proficient Iraqi military force can be fielded.