1 Boring Old Man

Iraqi Army Unable To Take Over Within A Year, Report Says
Breakup of National Police Is Urged

Iraq’s army, despite measurable progress, will be unable to take over internal security from U.S. forces in the next 12 to 18 months and "cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven," according to a report on the Iraqi security forces published today.

The report, prepared by a commission of retired senior U.S. military officers, describes the 25,000-member Iraqi national police force and the Interior Ministry, which controls it, as riddled with sectarianism and corruption. The ministry, it says, is "dysfunctional" and is "a ministry in name only." The commission recommended that the national police force be disbanded.

Although citing recent "tactical success" and favorable "strategic implications" resulting from the Bush administration’s current war strategy, the commission recommends that U.S. troops in Iraq be "retasked" in early 2008 to protect critical infrastructure and guard against border threats from Iran and Syria, while gradually turning internal security over to Iraqi forces despite their deficiencies.

The assessment by the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq is one of several independent progress reports ordered by Congress for delivery before the administration presents its own scorecard next week. Members of the 20-member group, headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, traveled throughout Iraq over the summer and met with hundreds of U.S. and Iraqi officials as well as leading nongovernmental experts on the Iraqi forces. Jones will present the 152-page document, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, in testimony today before the Senate and House Armed Services committees…

Seems to me that there’s a better debate to spend our time having. We all know that the notion of a Valley Forge Democracy blooming in the desert of Iraq has long been shown to be an idea that’s ‘gone with the wind.’ Forget it. We’re there, as I find myself increasingly believing, to have a military presence in the Middle East. So, the questions about whether we should’ve gone, or should’ve planned better, or should’ve maintained Saddam’s Army, or done whatever are questions that have now faded into the background. Given Iraq’s current state of near anarchy, should we stay there for Bush’s reason – to maintain a military presence and [in Cheney’s words], protect our vital interests in the region? I guess by that he means oil and maybe national defense – though our real enemy doesn’t live in Iraq. Do we have the money [maybe we should ask, "does China have the money"] or the soldiers to spend the next decade or so occupying Iraq? While it seems kind of mean to invade a county, destroy its government, and then leave them to deal with the resulting chaos. It seems even meaner to sit over here making fun of their government and their police force when we caused the situation they’re in. And it seems like we’re really interfering with the Civil War they’re determined to have over which Islamic Sect gets control of the country. While that doesn’t seem like our business to me, more than that, I doubt we have much control over the answer.