Well, that is excellent news. The 100% goal should be reached shortly. Perhaps the occupation will be over by Christmas, and the troops will celebrate the holidays with their families and loved ones.

Horse hockey!
The Iraqi police have been completely infiltrated by insurgents, particularly militia members. The fact that we have now successfully armed and trained them is hardly "good news."
Don'r worry, we'll be hearing plenty more about these guys in the weeks and months to come.

With the MOI forces up to 92 percent -- 99 percent trained and equipped in the 9 key cities -- you would think the level of violence would be dropping proportionally -- particularly in those 9 key cities.

But it's not. Why not? Or is that disconnect just another one of the MSM lies? Then again the MSM are just quoting
Iraq Health Ministry sources and the Baghdad morgue, so it's probably not that. Actually, I think the answer is embedded in the MNF article cited in the topic:

Gen. Peterson: "We certainly believe that there is an issue with militias and militiamen that have penetrated the security forces of Iraq. Obviously, with regard to militia integration into the legitimate security forces of Iraq, by law, we attempted to get militia members to leave their militias and come as individuals and join the legitimate security forces of Iraq. It appears that there are some of these individuals who have joined the ranks of the ministry of Interior forces still have allegiances and are in fact working with their militias."

Talk about an understatement. He goes on to say...

"The minister of Interior is focused on this. He realizes this is -- it's an issue, and he is, through his leadership and the forces, trying to identify who these individuals are and arrest them if they choose to continue these actions.

"Next question, please."

Well, at least the MOI head is trying -- at least in the view of Gen. Peterson.

By the way, the head of the MOI is a guy named Jawad Bulani, who has been a member of several political parties since the fall of Saddam. Among them include the Sadrist movement of Muqtada al-Sadr (whose Mahdi Army militia is heavily implicated as the primary source of the Shiite death squads that have infiltrated the MOI), and Hezbollah (Iraq branch). Then again, just about everyone in Iraq these days has some kind of blood on their hands. Maybe by the time the blood on the floor reaches their collective hips there will be some real progress.

Salve

The statement that the police have been "completely" infiltrated by militias is likely inaccurate. To state that it is a significant problem would be correct.

Rico

You are right to point out the problems the militias have posed and continue to pose. Unfortunately we made a mistake when we commited to few troops to secure the country and we compounded it when we allowed Islamic extremists to enter the politcal process. This problem is not insurmountable. We could do it, if we would commit more troops to secure the area. This would improve security and it would give us more time to deal with this issue. If we are not going to commit more security personnel, we must hope and pray that the MOI will be up to the job. Praying is always good but I don't like policies based on hope. We should make a much larger commitment to give us a better chance to get security under control. this would give us more time to purge the militias from the security services.

CO

The occupation, as you call it, probably ended in June 2004. This was when soverignty was transferred to Iraq. Troops numbers are decided in concert with the US and the soverign elected Iraqi government. Right now we hope it will Work constructively with the West. With a greater troop commitment by America and its coalition partners we can probably get security under control. This would give us a better chance of getting an ally from this.

Poster,

CO would call it an occupation if we left even 1 observer/advisor in the country.

CO would call it an occupation if we left even 1 observer/advisor in the country.

When thousands of armed troops are in my country uninvited, yes, I would call it an occupation.

CO: The Iraqi prime minister recently thanked the Americans for liberating his country. Also, other leaders of the soverign Iraqi government have pointed out the importance of not leaving to soon. The amount of troops and where they are deployed are decided by the soverign elected Iraqi government and the Coalition. They are in the country at the pleasure of the elected government. The elected government likely would not survive without them. The term occupation is not accurate. "Security force" would be a more accurate term.

For the record, I would not have invaded Iraq in 2003 but whether we like it or not it has become one of the central fronts in the GWOT. It is imperative that we win there and in all other places that the GWOT is being fought.

Recently we were close to an agreement between the Shia and the Sunnis, however, the Iranians used their influence in the militias to undermine the process. If an agreement that includes a time table for withdrawl can be reached in conjunction with the Sunnis, Shias, and the Coaliton then it might be acceptable. To set an arbitrary time table for withdrawl without some type of agreemnt would be a mistake. Also, we will need some mechanism to ensure that the the insurgents and the militias honor their agreement. The US will honor its agreement. The international pressure on the US is always intense.

For the record, the recent cease fire between Israel and Lebanon was a mistake. We will need a consistent response to the terrorists. It would be crazy to cede Iraq to the terrorists, much as the cease fire that will give terrorists in Lebanon the chance to rearm is crazy.

B.Poster, when it comse to political matters (among others) I pray for enlightenment, not intervention. Praying for enlightenment is praying that God will work through you on the basis of your own intelligence, diligence, and especially integrity. Praying for intervention is praying that God will work for you on the basis of your own preconceived notion of "God's will". And since you can't know God's will, all that's likely to happen in the latter case is you'll get your knees dirty.

Anyway, my major point was that rhetoric must be measured against results. And the rhetoric (i.e., the Iraqi police forces are nearly up to full strength) is not consistent with the results (i.e., July was the deadliest month in Iraq since the invasion).

So then I examined the possible reasons for the disconnect. And I think Gen. Peterson layed out the most obvious proximal reason: the police forces are infiltrated with militia death squads. That IS consistent with the results.

But he also said that the head of the MOI was dedicated to eradicating them. So I looked into the history of the head of the MOI and found out that he has a history of affiliation with Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, as well as affiliation with Hezbollah's Iraq branch. And again, that history IS consistent with the results.

I didn't much go into what to do about it except to say "Maybe by the time the blood on the floor reaches their collective hips there will be some real progress." By that I meant to imply that it is ultimately up to the Iraqis to find a way out of the mess we transferred to them. You imply (short of praying for divine intervention as the only alternative, which I know you don't subscribe to because I've read your posts) that the only way out is an increase in troop strength. And I would guess that you don't mean a few thousand, but at least 100,000 more. That would be political suicide. For one thing, it would be the last nail in Rumsfeld's coffin. After all, that would put you in league with all those generals that came out against Rumsfeld a few months ago -- and who were roundly vilified for being a bunch of leftie moonbat ingrates by many here. It would put you in league with Wesley Clarke, former NATO Supreme Commander during the Clinton administration, but similarly vilified. It would put you in league with Gen Zinni, Bush's original special envoy to the Middle East, but subsequently similarly vilified. It would put you in leaque with Gen. Shinsecki, the former head of theater operations in the Middle East, who Rumsfeld personally canned, and who has been similarly vilified. And finally, it would put you in league with the originator of the "overwhelming force" policy itself, Colin Powell, who has also been roundly criticized.

But it is more than a matter of being included into a group of individuals who disagreed with the Bush administration (a high crime in itself, apparently). Obviously it also means that you disagree with a central pillar of Bush's Iraq campaign. All along he has claimed that no one of any import has asked for more troops. It just wouldn't look so good if all of a sudden he asked for 200,000 or so more. It shouldn't be about politics, but you know it is. If that happened, talk about a Dem landslide. Additionally, a dramatic increase in our fighting forces begs the question... where are we going to get them?

But if it makes you feel any better, I'll stand beside you, you loony leftie moonbat you, lol! But I should warn you that my support may be a little soft in the sense that I have ruminated on various other ideas. All I'm really sure about is that the present policy isn't working. And I do believe that dumping Rumsfeld (and perhaps a few others) would dramatically help. At any rate, I am very much in favor of demanding accountability. And IMHO if there is one thing that distinguishes Reagan's reign from Bush's, it has to do with that demand. Reagan demanded results. Bush demands loyalty. Demanding results requires those under you to expand their minds. Demanding loyalty requires those under you to restrict same. Big difference.

CO,

And if there ever are thousands of uninvited troops in your country, you can count on my full support in ejecting them...the troops in Iraq, however, are invited...

B. Poster,

Good point on the infiltration - but I'll dispute the notion that more US troops in Baghdad in 2003 would have done the trick.

You can't just whistle up troops in to position - there is a large logistical tail which has to be constructed to support troops forward deployed - given in 2003 that we were reliant upon one poor quality road to supply our forces in the Baghdad area, we probably had as many there as we possibly could.

Meanwhile, the problem we faced in Iraq in 2003 was the all-too-quick collapse of the Saddamite regime. We thought there'd be more fight in them, and thus more time for us to consolidate before we had to take over rebuilding the country.

...the troops in Iraq, however, are invited...

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 16, 2006 08:10 PM

Mark, you have a selective memory. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was never by invitation. The Iraqi people had no voice and issued no invitation to the U.S. for the 'shock & awe' attack on their country.

If you mean, however, the troops are now asked to stay until the mess they created is cleaned up, then, yes, I guess, you could say they are currently invited. Although, the majority of Iraqi citizens would be more than happy to see them leave.

Rico

Thanks for the reply to my post. You are quite right. The rhetoric that the Iraqi police are up to the task does not fit with the actual results. You are correct that we should demand results. I have always said we judge leaders by what they accomplish and not by what they intend to accomplish.

As you can probably tell from my posts, I am no fan of George W. Bush. I think some of the people who criticized the administration went about it the wrong way with personal attacks instead of trying to offer constructive criticism. Also, the left is loony and the Bush administration very cleverly worked to link legitmate criticism with the loony left. By doing this they did not have to address the issues at hand. In other words, both major political parties have played politics with this. As far as I'm concerned, they shold both be run out of Washington DC.

You discuss Don Rumsfeld. I have called for his removal long ago. Commiting more troops to Iraq would not necessarily have to be political suicide. Even Captain's Quarters, one of the most ardent pro-Iraq war and pro-Bush blogs has suggested we are at a cross roads. We either need to get out or commit more troops. If the

If the Democrats or the Republicans will explain the stakes in the Iraq war, getting the Aemrican people to commit to it should be possible.

The Democrat policy calls for withdrawl from Iraq. Right now Iran has substantial influence within the country, however, if we withdraw Iran will likely gain complete control of the country. The terrorists will likely interpret this as a victory over America. This enemy will grow exponentially stronger after they take over Iraq. The enemy along with its Communist allies already poses an existential threat to the US. The day after withdrawl from Iraq the threat of terrorism will be much greater.

The Republican plan calls for staying the course. This may or may not work. The Iraqis we are training may eventually be up to the task or they may not. The liberated Iraq may or may not ally with the US. If we commit more troops, we will have a better chance of destroying the militias and securing the country. This would give us a better chance of getting an ally from this.

In hindsight, not commiting enough ttoops was a mistake. I don't have a problem with mistakes. What I do have a problem is when people don't learn from their mistakes. The oversight was obvious sometime around June 2003. The government should have moved to correct this right then. As Senator John McCain pointed out, after 911, the Bush administration should have called for a subtantial increase in the military.

Once the stakes are explained, I think we can get the commitment of the American people. Where to get the troops? This is a tough question. Some can probably be pulled from South Korea and Japan. We can transfer nuclear weapons to Japan and South Korea. This should help to keep China, Russia, and North Korea in check and it would lessen our presence there. American troops in South Korea and Japan are creating bitterness among some of the populace. Also, I think some troops could be pulled from Western European countries like Germany. We will also need to train some more soldiers. No time like the present to get started.

The politican who will be frank enough with the American people to explain the stakes and call for the proper commitment will get my vote.

We surrendered in the Israeli/Lebanon front. Just when Israel was beginning to make progress, we along with the UN pu;;ed the plug. There was no way that 30 days would be enough time to defeat an enemy as powerful as the Iranian proxy of Lebanon/Hezbollah. We won't commit the troops to Iraq. These actions and others indicate to me this administration is fundamentally unserious about the GWOT. If we are unserious, the only option is to withdraw to our borders in fortress America.

Mark

More troops might not have worked. Much of what we know or should know has been learned in hindsight. You are correct to point out that the logisitcal issues with supporting the troops in the field is difficult. I think we could use transport planes to supply them. The problem would not be insurmountable.

The plan of hte Saddamite regime had been in place likely since the end of the first gulf war. From their perspective, the war never really ended. The plan was to blend into the population and form an insurgency. In the past, such as in the invasion of Panama, overwhelming force was used. With more troops their less room for an insurgency to breathe, so to speak. Every where potential insurgents look there is a coaltion gun in their face.

I also think had Turkey allowed us to bring an infantry division from the north, as is my understanding the intial plan called for, this probably would have made a difference.

As I said, I cannot say that I know with 100% certainty that I know more troops would work or would have worked. With a greater troop commitment this would have given us more things we could actually control and would still give us more things we can control.

As it is we never commited enough resources to actually be capable of securing the country. That is unless we won't to do a Dresden type attack, which we don't. Because of this we are left with alot of policies based on hope.

Co: This wil be up to the Iraqi government when the troops leave. The Iraqis elect their government. So ultimately if the Iraqis decided it was time for them to leave, they would leave.

You are correct to point out that it has been messy. This is mostly because not enough troops were used in the beginning and the American government still has not done a good job of explaining the stakes or commiting the proper resources. Finally, we unilaterly surrendered in the Israeli/Lebanon war. This government and the Western world are fundamentally unserious about fighting this war.

CO: The troops will ultimately leave when the mission is accomplished or the elected soverign Iraqi government wants them to. The top priorities to the Iraqis are rebuilding the infrastructure and security. This infrastructure was destroyed by the previous government.

Much of the mess that is currently there is due to not commiting enough troops either at the beginning or now. By commiting more troops, we would have a greater chance of stopping the militias and getting security under control. This will help with rebuilding infrastructure. With the militias defeated and the infrastructure built this would hasten the day that coalition troops could leave. Also, if we can stop the militias and get security under control, we would probabl get a reliable ally.

Unfortunately the US and the western world seem to be fundamentally unserious about the GWOT. We turned tail and surrendered in the Israel/Lebanon war and we have not commited the resources necessary to secure Iraq. Hopefully the Iraqis we are training will be up to the task becuase right now the government does not seem to be commited. Since the government lacks the will to win, it looks like fortress America here we come. After the withdrawl from Iraq and elsewhere in the GWOT the terrorists will be much stronger. Hopefully someone else would rise up to confront them, in the abscense of the US.

the troops in Iraq, however, are invited...

Good lord, Noonan, do you just make this stuff up as you go along or what? What "invitation" was there? (Hint: none). And as long as we're hovering around the subject:

Half of Iraqis approve of attacks on US forces...35 percent want US troop withdrawl in 6 months, additional 35 percent want withdrawl in two years

Greeted as liberators, baby! Invited guests! Staying the course! Insert GOP talking point here!

But hey, let's get an Iraqi perspective, huh? (emphases mine)

"The American policy has failed both in terms of politics and security, but the big problem is that they will not confess or admit that," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament. "They are telling the American public that the situation in Iraq will be improved, they want to encourage positive public opinion [in the U.S.], but the Iraqi citizens are seeing something different. They know the real situation." (source)

The first bold sounds a lot like you, Noonan. The second bold...well, the GOP would never, ever play politics with something so serious as the War on Terror, would it? Clutch the pearls, of course not! Never! Except for when it constantly does just that, and boy do the Iraqis love it. Don't like what the Iraqis have to say? You always prefer to listen to "the troops on the ground," don't you? Well, lookie here, that same article has some words from just such a person:

"I think that the greatest problem that we deal with [besides the insurgents and militia] is that our leadership has no real comprehension of the ground truth. I wish that I could offer a solution, but I can't. When I have briefed General Officers, I have given them my perspective and assessment of the situation. Many have been surprised at what I have to say, but I suspect that in the end nothing will or has changed."

Wanna know the real kicker to that quote? Here it is: McClatchy Newspapers is withholding the officer's name to protect him from possible retaliation by his superiors. To protect him from possible retaliation! For telling the truth! Freedom is on the march--even within our own military!

How's that victory party coming along? Plan on inviting any Iraqis, or would their constant interjections of reality be too much of a bummer for the Republican Alternate Universe Celebration?

Reality, meet Mark Noonan. I don't believe you two are acquainted.

I think the Americans and our coalition partners are probably working closely working with the MOI to provide some over sight to be sure they are actually doing what we want them to do. So far the results of the Iraqi police we are training are not there. We must hope and pray they will eventually be up to the job and that the liberated Iraq will work with America.

There's that hope thing again that I don't like but it really seems to be all we have because neither America nor its coalition partners seem willing to commit any more resources to the operation. We are rapidly reaching a cross roads. We will either need to commit more resources or we will need to withdraw to fortress America. Even withdrawing to fortress America probably will have some costs associated with it.

The post dated August 18, 2006 12:32 AM with my name on it and is not mine.

Seesthroughit

Yes the Iraqis would like to see the US troops withdraw. We would to. If the soverign Iraqi government wishes to have all coalition troops withdrawn, they could request it and it would be done immediately. The soverign elected government seems to think this is is unwise, as the Iraqi PM recently thanked the US for liberating his country. Also, the Kurds have thanked the Americans for liberating their country.

While they do want the troops to be withdrawn, polls suggest thw withdrawl of coalition troops is not the top priority. The top priorities seem to be infrastructure development and security. By commiting more troops to the operation, we could probably get the security situation under control. Getting security under control will help us to build the infrastructure. If we get security under control and get on with building the country, we should get a reliable ally from this, in the heart of the middle east.

Stay the course does not seem to be the best option. It may or may not work. I don't like policies based on hope. Right now I'm not optimistic.

The redeploy option touted by the Democrats and a few Republicasn would likely be many times more disasterous than the Lebanon cease fire. There are at least a few "Conservatives" who seem to get this and have the courage to say we need more troops.

If Republicans and Democrats are serious about this they will call for more troops. Other wise we send the message that we are unserious about this.

Btw, I'm a little skeptical of the anonymous source wether it helps "liberals" or "conservatives." I expect the officer who spoke to the McClatcthy Newspaper to go public with his concern. The only execption might be if it would divulge national secrets. By going public his concerns can be properly evaluated. This is what good leaders do. They express their concerns and they work on constructive solutions.

We need more troops and a greater commitment from the American people. It takes good leadership to point this out and to admit prior errors and to correct them.

Finally it must be understood the primary enemy is not Islamic extremists but it is Russia and China who happen to be allied with Islamic extremists.

Rico

I was scrolling through this thread again. The post that you refer that is not yours was actually mine. It was meant to be an additional response to some of the thoughts you had listed earlier but I put your name in the 'name' portion' instead of the actual body of the post. My deepest apologies for this over sight. I will be more careful in the future.