There isn't an Iraq army YET?

Disclaimer: I have never been in the military. I would be a really bad candidate for military service. I could not hit the broad-side of a barn with a shotgun if I was inside the barn at the time. No military officer in their right mind would issue me a weapon except perhaps a slingshot. Not a real sling; the kind with rubber bands.

Here's what I don't understand. The United States has a military force, pretty much recognized as the best in the world. We take nice, normal, kids like the kind that you see standing at school-bus stops, and within three months turn them into fighting soldiers, willing to kill strangers if they're given orders. More than that, we have a military composed of human beings willing to die for their comrades, their "buddies". A few notable examples are these. Francis B. Wai, Herbert J. Thomas, Milton L. Olive. May their memories be Blessed.

What I don't understand, is that we've been in Iraq for quite a while now. Ever since "Mission Accomplished". Why hasn't the Iraqi Army gotten it's sh*t together? Okay, so our system isn't perfect, but we take white kids and black kids, with the normal racist edges that exist in American society, and get them to the point where they literally trust each other with their lives. We take kids who, at home, hate, really hate the black/white/whatever people, but who still are willing to die for the "other" because, "he's my buddy". We take poor kids and middle class kids and very, very few rich kids and form them into units willing to live and die together as one. I don't expect every Iraqi soldier to dive on a live grenade, Lord knows I wish no one had to ever decide to dive on a live grenade. But some, very few, and way too many American kids are willing to do so. Here's my question.

Where are the Iraqis that are willing to die for the common good? Are there Iraqi soldiers who have decided for themselves what is the common good? Polls say the average Iraqi says the common good is the Iraqi people, they want the US out of their country. Fine, and I agree, but what fills the void, the space after we leave? How many in the Iraqi military are willing to risk their lives, not for family or sect, but for Iraq? I submit that the number is few, and not likely to grow under present policy.  

No, this isn't a race thing, nor is it a slight on Iraqis. I have no doubt that the average Iraqi soldier is just as brave, just as moral, just as intelligent as the average American soldier. But we, as Americans, have failed the average Iraqi soldier. America hasn't properly trained, nor properly articulated the goals that the average Iraqi soldier would be willing to fight for. And the hypothetical Iraqi soldier has to be presented with a complete assessment, and allowed to make a choice..

Why haven't we taken trainees, volunteers, to Parris Island or San Diego, and, regardless of religious, secular, whatever divisions, put them through, well, boot camp? (yeah, I know some Marines. I picked the Marine training grounds because, well, I just picked the Marines.) Set up boot camp in another country; the Saudis' owe us a favor, or hell, fly 'em back to the States. Twelve weeks, isolated, teaching them that they depend on each other, that they move as fast as the least among them, that they only survive as a team, wearing the uniform. How many Iraqi "Marines" could we have made in the years that we've been a hostile occupying force? Certainly enough to secure the boarders. How many MPs could we have been making? Probably not enough to stand on every street corner, but perhaps enough to supervise the local police?

Really, if we'd wanted to, what would the Iraq military look like now? A group of people, disciplined, working together, knowing that they depend on each other, that it's in there own best interest to help the weakest among them make it, that they only survive as a group? Okay, except for the disciplined and working together parts, they'd sound like Democrats to me.

But yesterday, some high-muckity-muck in Baghdad says the US is obligated to stay in Iraq for "the foreseeable future"? F*ck that. I say, we start now. We build a training facility capable of handling 7000 recruits, total. I personally, don't care where the camp is physically located, but it should be somewhere where the climate is similar to Iraq's. Say, the flat part of Texas. Five hundred Iraqi volunteers go to boot camp this week. Five hundred next week. Fill the pipeline. Five hundred a week. Pay them well, feed them well, if they pull any sectarian/religious bullsh*t, they're fired, or in the brig, or whatever we do to turn our own children into people willing to kill, and willing to die. Make 'em soldiers, make 'em Marines. Screw the fancy computer gear US forces use, every one of them should be a rifleman. Half MPs, to take care of internal security, until the civilian police force implements a similar program. Not everyone graduates in 12 weeks, some stay for extra training. Details to be arranged by professionals, and we've got 'em.

It goes without saying, that our soldiers are withdrawn ASAP.

When I was much, much younger, I had an acquaintance, a ne'er do well, a thief, a braggart, who, upon graduating from high school, enlisted in the Marines. When I saw him next, he was no different than he had been, but he was different. Proud of achieving "Sharpshooter", more willing to acknowledge me, and trust me, even though I was a minority, (still am btw) because, well, I don't know why he was more willing to trust me, but, he was. Yes, I suppose, if he'd been ordered to shoot me, he would have, and that would have really not been okay, but...I don't know. The things that divided us before didn't seem to mean as much to him as they had before. (Okay, there were different things dividing us, but that's not my point.) He came back a soldier. It was weird.

My point, and i kind of have one, is that, right now, the Iraqis have a really messed up country. There is a model, the US military, that has been shown able to unite people of different racial and religious backgrounds to a common purpose. Not perfectly, and lately, we've had to admit lots of felons, and racists and mentally deficient people...but when the system works, it works.

Why hasn't this model been applied for the last five years? Hell, Bandar Bush owes us a favor. Can we ask for one square mile of empty Saudi Arabia to set up a camp? Can we have 500 DIs with Arabic-English dictionaries? If we start today, in 8 months we have 500+ qualified Arabic speaking DIs. Run some of the existing Iraqi officers through the camp and we have a rebuilt Iraqi Officer corp.

Am I totally wrong here? As I said, I'm the farthest thing you can find from a military man, except that I believe that a group, committed to a goal, can accomplish that goal. Candidate diaries notwithstanding.

•  Good Questions...With No Good Answers

  The simple fact of the matter is that there has not been a serious effort to openly confront and deal with the ethnic divisions in Iraq from the very beginning for a whole host of reasons. Ergo, the idea of a "national army" is not being dealt with in any comprehensive methodical fashion. I am not a soldier either, but I have been to Baghdad, since the invasion, on a project that tried to deal with those core issues head on.  The coalition was not so willing.  The new counterinsurgency strategy that has emerged with the surge is having short term gains at the very real cost of potentially burying the long term goal of a national army. Capitalizing on sectarian militias' organizational capacity and arming them is dangerous game, and there is no evidence that we have a long term strategy for how to play it.

  by bluedoglaika on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:09:53 AM PDT

•  The simple anwer is that

  There is no Iraq for the Iraqi soldiers to see a common good.  The British shoehorned three or four disseparate groups together at the end of World War I as they took over the Ottoman Empire.  The British wanted the oil and they forced a king on the groups and called it Iraq.  

  by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:10:34 AM PDT

  •  But WE were a bunch of dispirate groups

    and we made a country. Okay, the Acadians bounced around a bit, and there was that unpleasant Civil War, but still...some of the colonies were founded by religious wingnuts. We're here...

    by Jacques on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:21:34 AM PDT

    •  You are conflating us with them

      We did it because we wanted to, because of common interest and because the basic cross-colony population saw themselves as a single group after all the hassles with the British Crown.  Even so, one third of the colonial population didn't agree (the "Tories") and engaged in civil war through the War of Independence and migrated to Canada at the end of the war.

      The Iarqis have never seen them selves in that way and centuries of tribalism and religious separation.  The Sunnis see themselves as a master ethnicity, the Shia have a 1200 year history as martyrs, and everybody hates the Kurds.  If you see any will to be a united group in Iraq please let me know.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:29:26 AM PDT

      •  Well, poo...

        by Jacques on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:32:37 AM PDT

        •  Create new vs Add to

          You're comparing the job of adding a few recuits to an existing team to the job of creating an entire team from scratch.  Details aside, that is obviously a bigger, longer job.

          The better questionis why we've made so little progress so far.  Part of that is the worry about giving heavy weapons to Iraqis of dubious reliability.  Part of it is a cynical desire to leave Iraq dependent on American force.  But this biggest problem is the stuff Rolfyboy6 mentioned.  The entire region is defined by borders that just do not reflect the genuine alliegences in the area.  There is no Iraqi army because the causes "Iraqis" are willing to die for are their tribe and their faith, not for the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.

          This is what happens when you kick off a war without a valid politcal objective and absent global public support.  Bush started a war almost cerrtain to unwravel the regional border system.  The only hint of discussion on this aspect has been Sen Biden's quasi partition scheme.

          IMO American policy here should not be Bring Home The Troops so much as it is Work TO Prevent A Bigger War.

          by Quicklund on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:15:19 AM PDT

•  There will never be...

  ....an Iraqi Army.

  The plan is to keep them in disarray and addicted to the American MIC while we loot the joint.

  by jds1978 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:11:22 AM PDT