Who really believes that training and equiping Iraqi forces makes sense?

[hansolsen]

We are now in the middle of a classic guerrilla insurgency in Iraq. What sense does it make to train random Iraqis how to be good soldiers, and equip them with arms, when we cannot know which Iraqis are with us and which are not.

In some areas of the country there is an 80% desertion rate for the new Iraqi army. In some situations Iraqi forces have refused to stand and kill fellow Iraqis. In other areas it is widely reported that Iraqi police stand aside and let the insurgents do as they will. Clearly the local population provides sanctuary for the insurgency. Surely the surrounding countries support the insurgency.

Given this reality on the ground, how in hell does it make sense to hand out guns and military training to any Iraqi who shows up asking for training?? Does anyone really believe that U.S. or Iraqi exile intelligence have reliable information about who is with us and who is against us? I don't. Am I alone?

[The Traveler]

1. Vietnamization, anyone?

Of course, we have to train and equip them ... or we have to admit the whole plan was idiotic from the start.

The problem, of course, is that it will work only to the extent that the troops we train are committed to the cause. In Vietnam, that commitment was weak. I wonder how many guerrillas we inadvertently equipped and trained in those days ...

And that, of course, presents us with the same questions we faced back in 1968 ... 1) will our client state soldiers stand or run? and 2) how many insurgents are penetrating the recruiting pool?

[asjr]

5. If and when we leave Iraq they will do it their way. And asking Iraqis to

kill their own bretheren is beyond the pale. If the Iraqi army does form they will be strong enough to fight back--not their own but ours. We took chaos to them. To them Iraq is for Iraqis. I wonder how many American deaths it will take for some people in this country to realize what the current administration has done.

[The Traveler]

13. "Asking Iraqis to kill their own ..."

Yeah. That really sucks. Civil war sucks. War of any kind sucks but civil war is the worst.

And isn't that really what's brewing up there? Thanks to our stupid attempt to impose our ways on another people through force of arms, we are giving brother cause to kill brother. Most Iraqis are in the middle ... but more come off the fence with each poorly aimed helicopter assault or rocket, or casually placed roadside bomb.

And forgive me for venting here but all this makes me feel unclean somehow. This whole scene is NOT a demonstration of the best and most noble elements of the American spirit. "By their fruits ye shall know them" ... wise words, those ... and this has born us isolation, hatred, torture, depravity, helicopter violence cutting down the innocent bystanders ... Thus are we becoming known.

[jukes]

6. beaucoup

then & now. they really don't care how many working-class kids get killed, maimed, or traumatized as long as the profits keep rolling in.

[The Traveler]

14. Our minds have met agreement on this matter. (n/t)

[hansolsen]

15. Well, I think the whole plan was idiotic from the beginning. Training and

equiping more Iraqis just so they can turn the weapons on U.S. soldiers is just more of the idiocy, IMO.

What bothers me is that Kerry is all for training more Iraqi forces too. If he thinks that is the way to "win" the war in Iraq he is just compunding the problem and handing Bush the issue.

[SidDithers]

17. Ah, yes....

Glad to see you were able to turn this back on Kerry.

Again.

Sid

[hansolsen]

23. I'm not turning this back on Kerry -- I am trying to get the campaign

Poobahs to see that this is a weak link in Kerry's armor. There have been myriad suggestions made on DU about how to run an effective campaign. I and many others have long advocated a more overt and direct attack against Bush policies in Iraq. That is finally happening and it could yet save the election. I think I and others at DU helped make that happen.

How about you -- did you contribute to bringing this course change about??

Now, where do we go from here? I personally believe that direct attacks on Bush are not as important right now as offering real alternatives for what to do in Iraq and what to do in the overall war on terror.

I will continue to offer suggestions along these lines, and I will not be dissuaded by the rose colored glasses crew who will tolerate no "criticism" of their precious candidate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. I am sure this question was put to Bush, Rumsfeld, et al

in some meeting somewhere not too long ago.
And I am also sure that person was told to leave the room.

[BootinUp]

3. At this point, its a big problem

I actually believed at one point that Iraq had the right kind of mix of industrialization and secularism to make it possible. But when you fuck up every step of the way, you get to a point where the population is so much against everything you do.

There has to be more legitimacy, politically first. I can't see things getting better with Allawi running the show over there. And we continue to be the biggest problem.

[htuttle]

4. The only Iraqis 'with' the US are the ones we brought with us...

...And the ones who've been paid enough to be an 'ally' for the time being. And a lot of them have already switched sides (such as Chalabi, etc...).

Two pieces of evidence this isn't working:

A) During the initial assault on Fallujah, the US tried to send a few thousand Iraqi forces into battle against Fallujah. Almost all refused to fight, except for the ones that just up and joined the other side.

B) In a report this week on Democracy Now, the publisher of 'Esprit d' Corps' magazine reported that during his recent trip to Tall Afar, the resistance seemed to be aware of not just US patrol patterns, but the time and place where aerial bombs were going to be dropped by US planes. It sounds like the US military has been 'rooted' in Iraq.

[BJ]

7. Rummy, Wolfie ever hear of "Sepoy Mutiny"?

In 1857 native troops in Indian revolted against their British masters. Among the atrocities committed by both sides are the infamous "Black Hole of Calcutta" and the British revenge "executions" following the cessation of hostilities.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

26. Actually...

Neo-cons hearken back to the pre-Mutiny days when the HEIC, a corporation with major government connections, was in charge of India. Yes, I mean the whole country, including what's now Pakistan.

It was the mutiny that forced the Delhi Durbar (which proclaimed Victoria empress of India) and the beginning of the Raj proper, when the British government instead of a private company controlled India (1860-1949).

[bigtree]

8. We removed their controlling authority which kept warring factions apart

and protected Iraq against invasion by Iran and others who would assume power there by force. I'm always amazed at those who profess concern for Iraq's sovereignty and disregard forces other than the U.S. who would achieve power through the intimidation of their violence. Sure, there are citizens of Iraq who have taken up arms in defense of their homeland against U.S. troops and their Iraqi collaboraters.

But there are also other outside forces who are engaging in violence and intimidation who I don't believe would stop their bloody pursuit of power even if we withdrew all of our forces and renounced all claims to Iraq's resources or control of their government. These rouge elements must be faced down by someone. We bear the ultimate responsibility for the collapse of any interim authority if these outside forces succeed in disrupting the process of transition and seize power.

So far, I haven't heard whether or not these rouge elements want to subject themselves to a vote of the Iraqi people. The installed authority will need protection from some quarter. I don't see how we can, in good conscience, leave the Iraqi people to the violent fate of these murderous elements without helping them prepare to defend themselves again.

[napi21]

9. Would it make more sense to announce to the Iraqis that we are

leaving on a specific date. We have set up police and military training schools to help prepare you to run your own country. It is up to you to get the right people, and enough of them to do so. If you are not prepared by the date we are scheduled to pull out, you will be the ones who have failed! Then stick to our commitment date.

I realize some have said we can't do that because the opposition would just lay back and wait, but that's precisely what this training would be for...to handle opposition when we're gone.

[allemand]

10. The problem is legitimacy. Nobody is willing to die for a puppet regime.

Hold real elections (not the fake elections scheduled in January) and the Iraqi people will have a stake in defending their own government.

[HFishbine]

11. And the alternative would be...?

What?

[The Traveler]

16. That's the problem

An objective of wise strategy is to maximize the range of one's own options while minimizing those of the opponent. This unwise strategy has committed us to a narrow (and worse yet, predictable) set of responses.

It is not only immoral, it is being stupidly done.

[SidDithers]

18. Exactly, HFishbine....

Was going to post exactly the same question.

Sid

[hansolsen]

19. Here are some real alternatives:

1. Pull U.S. troops back to forward bases and only send them out to stop genocide.

2. Hold elections in January as planned, but make them a referendum on whether or not the Iraqi people want the U.S. militry to stay and provide security or to leave.

3. Tell the international community that they either help us in Iraq or we will pull out, no matter what happens. State that the U.S. will no longer run a unilateral policy in Iraq.

[htuttle]

12. I have yet to hear a plan from anybody anywhere...

...that could lead to a secular republic being established again in Iraq. Even a secular sham republic like Saddam's is not going to happen.

The secular portion of Iraq never was truly in the majority -- they had just managed to take power and keep power (with a lot of help from the US over the years). There simply isn't a way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again after we destroyed all of Iraq's secular institutions.

The least harmful thing that can be done in Iraq right now is for US forces to leave. There isn't really a 'best' thing to do -- just one that will cause the least harm.

[hansolsen]

20. The problem is Bush doesn't want democracy in Iraq, which might lead to a

Shiite theocracy. That is unacceptable to Emperor Shrub. He wants a government in iraq that is friendly to the West and will move heaven and earth to get it. That makes him dictator Bush and explains why he is despised throughout Iraq and the middle east.

[Bandit]

21. We did the same thing with Bin Laden and Saddam

We armed and trained their people and now guess what. It is good for the defense industry. More guns made and more bombs. We start some wars and everything gets blown up and the defense industry makes more. What a recket...huh. War Profiteering from start to finish. then excess profits get kicked back to GOP and GOP spends money to get elected and start more wars. Media loves it because wars are big news and big ratings and campaign money is mostly spent on Media. What a Racket. The little people take it in the shorts, but vote GOP because hey they are sooo tough and besides the Media tells them so.

[LibDemAlways]

22. The American people are so uninformed.

Yesterday a caller on c-span wondered aloud why Iraqis weren't taking up arms against the "insurgents." The guest, a think tanker from RAND, acknowledged that the Iraqis "sympathize" with the insurgents against the Americans. (Wouldn't come right out and call the insurgents Iraqis, however.) I'm sure this came as a shock to the woman. The American media is still pushing the lie that the insurgents are a bunch of outsiders there to cause trouble.

I would have asked that woman what she would do if a foreign power invaded and occupied the US. Would she take up arms with or against the invaders?

[hansolsen]

24. Thanks. You confirm my point. N/T

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

25. Sure it does

Hey, no matter what happens, they are going to be firing a lot of bullets over the next thirty years or so. Let's make sure they have to buy their ammo from us by giving them all American-made guns!!