If you're old enough you'll remember "Vietnamization" - Nixon's plan to get the US out of Vietnam by training the South Vietnamese to take over their own defense, you'll also remember it didn't work.
As someone with a fair knowledge of history - military history in particular - I always wondered about that whole concept. Weren't we IN Vietnam in the first place to train and advise the South Vietnamese to defend themselves? Wasn't the US sucked into that nation on a huge scale because they were NOT able to do so - or did not want to do so? If after years of a US military presence the South Vietnameses Army collapsed like a wet paper bag, what was the point of our involvement?
It is clear that the same concept in Iraq - making the local populace 'resonsible' for their own defense is not working but is an even MORE flawed strategy there.
continued.......
"Vietnamization" in Iraq has failed. The evidence is clear and uncompromising.
http://toledoblade.com/...
Despite years of 'training' and the support of US troops and air power, the Iraqi National Army is not 'standing up' - it's running away - often turning over its arms and equipment to 'the enemy' voluntarily.
But the whole concept of creating an Iraqi National Army in this balkanized mess of a country is an inherently flawed strategy at this point in time. After the fall of Hussein, you still had an "Iraq" - a national state where people had a national identity. Though Iraq had been held together by brute force there was a national identity and even the Shia fought for Iraq against Iran in that decade long waste of lives. The dissolution of the Iraqi Army and collapse of Iraq into lawlessness led to a revival of local factional and tribal loyalties. Humptey Dumpty got pushed off the wall and broke into many many peices. You CANNOT put Iraq 'back together' without a tyrannical application of force - something no 'outsider' will be able to successifully accomplish.
But the US seems oblivious - or is simply stalling for time. We continue to push a false 'Vietnamizatin' meme - that we will leave when the "Iraqis stand up". It's not going to happen. There are no "Iraqis" at this point - there are various - and competitive - Shia militias, Malaki's pseudo 'national' Army which represents only a part of the Shia population, Sadr's group and others... Sunni factions and Kurdish factions.... NOBODY is putting 'Iraq' first - their loyalties are to their own faction forst and foremost.
In Vietnam you had two sides - a Communist North Vietnam with Communist South Vietnamese (who were NOT always thrilled with their northern brethren running things, who wanted South Vietnam to remain indeendent) and the US supported South Vietnamese - our surrogates, usually generals or former generals committed to an 'independent' and non-Communist
Vietnam. There was a dichotomy - communist/non-communist, 'free'/not, black/white. It was more complex than that but still there were two basic 'sides'.
In Iraq we have a veritable palette of grays.
Truth be told there is not ANY 'simple' way of looking at this. There are not 'freedom loving democratic' Iraqis on one side and 'Islamofascist extremists' on the other.
This is not a Vietnam or Korea where a segment of the popluation actually WANTS a US presence for 'protection' against an 'outside' threat. At this point WE are the 'outside' threat. WE are the 'outside' occupier. At this point ALL Iraqis view the US as a THREAT to 'their' freedom, not as their 'defender'.
Iraq itself is not another Korea, Vietnam or other cold war type surrogate fight. Freed from the autocratic control of Saddam Hussein that kept Iraq's varied factions under control, we have another Yugoslavian 'perfect storm' - one that NOBODY will be able to control.
In effect the US has advanced 'ethnic cleansing' in Iraq, separating factions as much as possible, segregating various opponents. But we cannot count on ANY one faction in Iraq to exert and maintain control.
"Vietnamization" is impossible where you have Sunni, Shia and Kurd who put their own interests ahead of any 'national' interests. Indeed even withing each of THOSE factions you have individual groups vying for power and control. The recent mess in Basra was a battle among Shia factions - with the 'government' losing - despite enormous support from US air power and US troops.
The real irony in all of this is that the US has been supporting a faction that has closer links to Iran - our specified 'enemy' and rival in the region. In making a 'stronger' Iraqi government we are actually weakening our own long term position. It would be as if we were supporting a South Vietnamese government that WANTED to be more like North Vietnam. But truth is - ARAB Iraqis (Sunni or Shia) are NOT going to be happy with any attempt by PERSIAN Iran to exert any control in their territory. But then Iran has enough to worry about and their main focus is to keep the US from expanding OUR reach - withthe US gone Iran is more concerned with Iraq becoming a failed nation and unstable neighbor.
In the mean time we have been paying off Sunnis - akin to the US paying the Vietcong NOT to shoot at us in Vietnam. They really don't WANT to be taken over by North Vietnam but sure aren't happy with the US presence and the existing government.
Meanwhile the Kurds want to be completely independent and give us lip service - though little more - while strengthening their long term position. None of the Kurdish "Iraqi government troops" ever seem to be seen outside Kurdish areas - and neither the Sunnin or Shia WANT Kurds in 'their' areas.
So we end up with a thinly disguised civil war - with the US alternately supporting one faction or another - with NO LONG TERM PLAN in place for stabilizing the country or getting out.
We can train "Iraqi" Army units and police, and arm them with the best possible weapons (though we're not), but we are NOT producing any 'national' force. We are simply providing better armed factions that will put those weapons to use against us and each other as soon as they feel it is to their advantage to do so. Iraq is in a smoldering civil war that periodically erupts into open flame, there is nothing we can do to stop this now. Nothing.
The US has no credibility among the Iraqis as an 'independent' and 'neutral' peace keeping force. We take sides. Without a 'neutral' OUTSIDE force (NOT the US - or I suspect, ANY Western power), there can be NO 'peace' in Iraq - because what's needed is a DISARMING and SEPARATION of the various factions. And frankly, NOBODY is going to want to get in the middle of this mess.
so........ let's admit it.
Iraqis are NOT going to 'take control' - this century's "Vietnamization" is a failure..... it's only a matter of how long it will be before things go completely to hell.....
And the irony is that IRAN - who has no desire to let their neighbor descend into failed nation chaos - was the one to bkoker a cease-fire in the latest mess. While, yes, Iran is 'stirring the pot' in Iraq, their influence and power might actually lessen if the US left. Iraqis are Arabs - and NOT likely to let 'Persians' take a role in THEIR land. Iran might actually provide the 'unifying' catalyst that saves Iraq.