Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    « Lookout for the Lincoln Group | Main | Background on the Lincoln Group »

    November 30, 2005

    Comments

    Zathras

    Eric, I think your readers get the point by now. From what I've read elsewhere, the people actually involved with training in Iraq, from the recently-returned Gen. Petraeus on down, understand it too.

    Training is all we've got. It may well not be enough, but it's better than nothing, and if the insurgency diminishes the incentives to thuggishness and ethnic aggression may too. If it doesn't, they won't.

    Eric Umansky

    Zathras,

    I disagree, on a few levels. Now I'm obviously biased, but I don't think most people know about the sectarian make-up of the Iraqi army and certianly not the effects it's having. And I think even fewer people know about how the "Iraqi army," such as it was, conducted itself in Tal Afar.

    As for training being the only game in town: I went out of my way to emphasize that I, of course, agree we should be training as much as we can. And yes, I'm sure Petraeus and others are sensitive to the sectarian makeup of the army.

    I don't have any easy answers. Should the U.S., say, accept peshmerga units wholesale into the army, essentially just rebadge them? I would lean against it, but it's not an easy. But that's not the end of thigns: Should those units then, say, be put in the lead of assault against a city mainly populated by people (turkoman, I believe)who have historical beef with the kurds? And then when they go in and, big surprise, abuse residents and thus increase ethnic tensions, should that then be celebrated as a success of the new Iraqi army? I hope not, but apparently our president (should he know the details of the operation) disagrees.

    Zathras

    Fine, Eric, but what is your alternative? Frankly, I don't think you have one, easy or otherwise, which makes your criticisms a little too easy.

    Look, I don't mean to go off on you personally, because a number of people are making the same kinds of criticism of the way we are rebuilding the Iraqi army and police. Every one of them gives far too little weight to the fact that if you live in Iraq and you are not a Sunni Arab, you have been massively provoked, for decades by Saddam's regime and for the last two-odd years by the insurgency. Given that the insurgency continues and that there has never been any expression of shame or contrition on the part of the Sunni Arab minority, you have to expect a certain amount of hostility on the part of anyone likely to want to carry a weapon for the Iraqi government. (I do know the Tal Afar incident involved a Turkoman population, but this is a relatively small minority in Iraq that reportedly had hosted a sizable number of foreign terrorist elements in Tal Afar, making this situation both somewhat ambiguous and atypical).

    It is absolutely true that Iraq would be a rough neighborhood in the best of circumstances, and also that the bloodthirsty Shiite variant of Islamism that has run Iran for the last 25 years has probably gotten a foothold among some of the Shiite Iraqi militias. The fact remains that in the face of an insurgency like this one, our best efforts to keep the desire for revenge from finding expression are bound to face strong resistance. The longer the insurgency continues, the worse this situation will get. Looking at Iraq as a whole, we do not see a problem with "ethnic tensions." We see instead one group waging ruthless war against all the others. Frankly, it is nothing short of amazing that so much time has passed with so little retaliation from Iraq's Shiites and Kurds.

    The comments to this entry are closed.