October 27, 2004

A Puppet in Revolt?

Why, how dare the "puppet" use the 'N' word (even appending an unflattering adjective to it)? Quick, someone call Joe Lockhart and ask him whether the "hand underneath the shirt...[is] moving the lips" today too? Or was this all just a coup de theatre to show that big boy Allawi marches to his own drummer?

N.B. I am not opining on the merits of various parties' culpability in this sad affair. As with the explosives story, let's take a couple days to see how this sorry episode plays out. But, that said, note mention (in the NYT article) that up to 5% of nascent Iraqi forces may have been infiltrated by insurgents. This doesn't surprise me at all--and, of course, might have been a (if not the) major contributing factor in allowing this brutish slaughter of guardsmen to happen.

I remember the Iranians trying to infiltrate the Bosnian Federation Army when we were assisting that 'train and equip' effort. Doubtless Iraqi insurgents (and even some Iranian agents) are trying the same with this latest U.S. led 'train and equip' effort. Folks, we cannot rush this effort (the training of Iraqi forces), falsely declare them combat ready, and cut bait with a major drawdown in our presence there. We need a good 3-5 years to judiciously recruit, adequately screen, effectively train/equip; coordinate into our force presence, ensure professionalism, etc.--if we are serious about creating a viable Iraqi Army that is professional and capable enough to really assist in stabilization and democratization of that country. Yes, that means likely beyond the term of whoever wins next week (and Kerry says he will draw our troops out by the end of his first term? What a recipe for disaster! I thought he was the candidate so keen to 'train and equip' better? Hard to do without enough trainers on the ground and some insurance (read: lotsa U.S. boots around too) in case the nascent army gets overly compromised...) This is just one critical area of many where any irresolute signals emitting from Washington will further encourage troublemaking on the ground. Sullivan and Co. haven't focused enough, in my view, on the fact that Kerry has all but confirmed our troops are to get out of Iraq by the end of his first term--a major signal of weakness to the enemy in my book.

Thankfully they are stupid infils. Think about the PR blunder it will be in 3 months when instead of murdering the recruits, they wait and commit, instigate the brutish slaughter of hundreds of civs. somewhere in Iraq. Wait for it.

Posted by: Bullshark at October 27, 2004 02:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

"all but confirmed" is not the same as "promised." He's stated that he would like to get them home by the end of his first term. Even by your estimate, 3-5 years, this could be possible.

Look, complain about real problems with Kerry's stated strategies... no need to exaggerate a claim to make your point unless your interest is in being partisan.

Posted by: just me at October 27, 2004 03:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

Suppose fair elections were run in January. And suppose, as surely MIGHT happen, they put in office a regime that wanted American troops to stay for a much shorter time than you prefer and think necessary. Suppose this regime requested the troops to depart. What then?

Posted by: Curious at October 27, 2004 05:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

If Bush is President, they'll leave on schedule.

Posted by: Richard Heddleson at October 27, 2004 10:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

I should have said as requested, not on schedule.

Posted by: Richard Heddleson at October 27, 2004 10:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

Every time Kerry makes some remark that totals up to a statement of his intention to make it known to the world at large that the U. S. can be trusted not to defend its interests on this planet, that constitutes a significant reinforcement of the country's enemies' will to continue their fight against it. It's called providing aid or comfort to the enemy, and citizens of the United States of America have agreed in the social contract called the Constitution that such action warrants indictment and trial for treason. And yup, what I just said means that the people who are going to vote for Kerry for president are intending to vote to put someone indictable for treason in the White House.

Somebody can continue this discussion, but I'm not going to. Kerry at the very least has flirted with treason before in his life, and I see no reason not to expect him to do so again.

Posted by: Michael McCanles at October 27, 2004 10:49 PM | Permalink to this comment