On The Ball

After my morning post, I read the following:

Headline: U.S. to triple number of military trainers in Iraq

Brigadier General Dana Pittard of Iraqi Assistance Group said of U.S. forces, now numbering 3,000, "Over the next couple of months we will augment the transition teams to double or triple their size." He dismissed concerns I've previously interpreted (plus the post illuminates how long the 'civil war' has drum has been banged) about Iraqi institutional loyalty, "They rebel against the allegation that this is anything else but a national army that they are trying to build."

Building a national army is one of the most easily achieved goals but it will still take time. The media discounts any thought of national loyalty for the vast numbers of volunteers standing in long lines and exposing themselves as targets for insurgent explosions. The media screams out of one side of its mouth when President Bush requests Billions for military funding and then out of the other about inadequate equipment for our troops and Iraqis units who are out gunned by Shi'a militiamen, such as the Al-Sadr's Mahdi.

As for the government, PM Al-Maliki's government has been enfeebled because of its razor thin majority supported by 30 votes from Al-Sadr's political movement. There has been an effort to restructure the government into a moderate coalition of the three dominate ethnic groups, politically marginalizing implacable MPs, such as Al-Sadr, while avoiding fresh elections. If this does not materialize (I think it will, though obviously not overnight), it will be characterized by the media as an American failure instead of a fresh political opportunity. This brings me back to security...

The Iraqi institutions (political, legal, economic, & military) are, because of their recent creation, in a formative stage (i.e. there is no Uniform Code of Military Justice). The numbers and capabilities of Iraqi security forces has been increasing, but completely unsupported actions will take time measured in years, not months (considerably more time with so few American consultants). The United States would be better served by reducing the total troop numbers by 20,000; sending 40,000 combat troops home and sending 20,000 more police and military trainers. Iraqis must quell terrorism internally; we can not stop the violence without them.

An Iraqi National Army as a fulcrum of power; a reshuffled unity government focused on national considerations and extinguishing threats to it's authority (i.e. the aforementioned Al-Sadr)... how would that be characterized by the media?

I thought of this about two years ago thinking it'd be a nice sign of support from the American public (as bumper-stickers or whatnot). It may be more important in today's political climate... The fall of a monolithic authoritarian threat is an easy excuse for those disregarding despotic ambition. The historically documented ebbs and flows of liberal movements are especially disconcerting to those already enjoying their God-given freedoms, but that shouldn't preclude our desire to enlarge the free world. As far as Iraq is concerned, Colin Powell told everyone about the pottery-barn rule...