| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. Deems Baghdad Key Obstacle To Withdrawal |
| 2006-02-04 |
| The Bush administration has quietly determined that the government in Baghdad poses a significant obstacle to any U.S. withdrawal plan. Administration officials acknowledged that nepotism, corruption and ethnic loyalties have hampered the emergence of an effective central government in Iraq. They said that despite more than two years of U.S. training, many Iraqi officials remain committed to militias and tribes rather than a post-Saddam Hussein democracy. As a result, officials said, Iraqi military and police forces remain without proper equipment and authority required to assume security responsibility from the U.S. military. They acknowledge that the choice of officers in the military and police has been based on cronyism as well as ethnic and tribal affiliations. "The soldiers in the field are doing a very good job at the tactical level," Gen. John Vines, the outgoing commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, said. "But tactical success can't be translated into operational strategic success until we have ministries and contingents sustained in the longer term." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 They said that despite more than two years of U.S. training, many Iraqi officials remain committed to militias and tribes You mean there are some that are not? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-02-04 18:00 |
| #4 The US is a long way from that point of bloody-mindedness. so far. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-02-04 09:44 |
| #3 Frame-of-mind of 1864 is more accurate. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-04 09:36 |
| #2 "nepotism, corruption and ethnic loyalties" are probably also related to the notorious "catch and release" policies of the new Baghdad government, which are constantly resupplying terrorist forces almost as fast as they are being depleted by arrests and detentions. Notice that the Baghdad government is even more lackadaisacal about enforcing the border security of Iraq than the US government is with respect to US borders. There were several times in US history when the killing of large numbers of potential male insurgents was done, (1) during the Indian wars and (2) during the Civil War 1861-1865. Even though most these of deaths were in legitimate combat, the price the US paid in both cases was horrific. Spengler's comment on the Civil War America fought the bloodiest war in its history (and a bloodier war than any in Western Europe since 1648) in order to prevent an imperialist war, that is, out of fanatical religious principle. Americans find it too painful to think about; should they by some means re-establish the frame of mind of 1860, may God help their enemies.The US is a long way from that point of bloody-mindedness. |
| Posted by: Whutch Threth6418 2006-02-04 03:24 |
| #1 One of the dirty little secrets about suppressing insurgencies is that the almost cost-free (to friendlies) way to do this is to kill large numbers of the male population from which the insurgents could possibly come. This was how the Soviets and the Chinese did not encounter significant resistance to their rule after their communist "liberations". They summarily executed millions of males who were associated with capitalist activity. The Kurds and the Arab Shiites could do this to the Arab Sunnis in Iraq. But only if Uncle Sam leaves. And this is why it may be a good idea for the US to stay a little longer - to avoid a Rwanda-type situation in the Middle East. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-02-04 02:57 |