Carl, I haven't said a great deal about the security situation in Iraq or done much in the way of prediction because my thoughts have been unformed and not been well informed.
There's probably enough good info around now if we bother to look, that we can see how it's shaping up in general terms.
The Morahan articles sort of crystallized things for me a bit.
This one has important numbers:
cnsnews.com
Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. military commanders in Iraq are preparing to replace both combat and combat support forces.
"The next rotation will have fewer heavy units, like tanks, and more units that have humvees and lighter vehicles for mobile infantry," said Pace, who accompanied Rumsfeld.
"As you do that, not only on the combat side, that also lightens up the amount of logistic support needed and mechanics needed...to keep the heavy equipment moving," Pace said.
The coalition has trained some 85,000 Iraqi forces in just over five months, including 55,000 police; 6,400 border guards; 18,700 persons serving in the Facilities Protection Service; a 700-man battalion in the new Iraqi army, and 4,700 in the new Iraqi civil defense corps, Rumsfeld said.
An additional 10,000 Iraqis are currently in training for various Iraqi security forces. Moreover, 32 countries have 24,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, and the United States is in discussion with other countries that are considering sending troops and other types of support, Rumsfeld said.
More than 80 Iraqis in those security forces have died in the line of duty in recent months.
1. I note that the Iraqi security folk have been taking casualties in about the same proportion as US forces. They don't appear to be ducking out.
2. US intelligence is improving and the response to the insurgents is becoming more efficient. US forces are getting support from Iraqis, even in the Tikrit area.
3. As the US general on the ground, Ornieda [sp?]..., said, the insurgents are more often now attacking civilian targets because attacking the military ones is becoming too costly. Iraqis are being tasked with protecting these targets and will get to be pretty good at it, I expect.
4. I don't think the Vietnam analogy is sound (although the verdict here is not totally clear). Vietnam became really difficult for the US after Tet offensive which was an intelligence disaster for the US because as such was seen at home as a defeat, but it was a military disaster for the Viet Cong, and major fighting afterwards was done by regular N Vietnamese forces. There is no analogy here to the army of N Vietnam. The US military folk say they are prevailing over the insurgents and I'm sure they believe that on rational grounds. And, although the US people might run hot and cold over Iraq the next few months, there is no swell of opposition to the US presence in Iraq such as we saw against VietNam presence during the period after the Tet offensive.
5. It's the US army which is training the new Iraq army and security forces and if they manage to instill modern US doctrine, and I expect they will, then the Iraqi forces will be certainly the match of the insurgents. I note the US is taking its time and getting the army training right and using the first really successful trainees to train further soldiers. In six months the US could have well over a hundred thousand, maybe 125,000 or more, Iraqi army and security folk fielded.
This will allow US forces to become less obtrusive but be a guarantor of Iraqi forces' effectiveness.
6. The US has managed to get a lot of social stuff on stream, hospitals, schools, pensions and civil service salaries being paid, electrical power supply improved, water supplies and sewers improved, currency regulated.
Life is improving for Iraqis although many are desperately poor. The timing is pretty good - world economy is improving again.
7. De-Baathification goes ahead. Bremer is to be commended for sticking with this.
8. Start on new civilian government seems to be working. So far, it appears only one prominent Shiite cleric, Badr, has overtly opposed the US project. The others, I expect will not play an anti-US hand, if they ever do, until the Baathists are clearly defeated and, anyway, I doubt most of them want to take on the kinds of problems the Iranian mullahs have made for themselves. Overlooking the Komeneist heresy, the general Shiite tradition has been more in line with separation of government and mosque.
Municipal governments are operating nearly everywhere.
Discussion of new constitutional arrangements has started although it might be a while before they get the Sunnis in the tent.
.........
Things sure as hell aren't beautiful in Iraq these days but the US doesn't seem to have acquired a hopeless position, just a very difficult one.
The aspect I haven't touched on is the possibility of something like real modernity getting established in Iraq. I think it is possible. The Kurds have made a successful start on it (thanks to the US State Dept) and they're no less tribal and ornery than the rest of the country. It depends partly on how solid the US is in insisting the Iraqis give it a shot - it depends on the diplomatic skills of people like Bremer and US Army personnel.
Speculative stuff off topic.
9. It's not yet clear how far Bremer wants to go with market reform, nor how far he can get with it, given the temporary nature of his position, but it would certainly be good for Iraq if he can manage to avoid the general ME deal of below market cost food to the people in return for diminished political headroom.
The combination of vast resource income and the possibility of its appropriation by politicians and rulers in combination with government control of food supply is recipe for tyranny.
Right now Iraq is a duty free place and commodities and goods are at the prevailing price levels for the area or a bit cheaper.
There's a bunch of other stuff but I'm playing hooky from a project. |
