Early Hints of Iraq RETREAT?

From the NYT International:

U.S. and the Iraqis Discuss Creating Big Militia Force

...American and Iraqi officials said today that they were discussing the possibility of forming a large Iraqi paramilitary force to help improve security in the country.

Iraqis involved in the talks said the force could consist of thousands of Iraqis already screened by the various political parties for prior affiliations with Saddam Hussein's government. Iraqi officials said such a militia could ultimately take control of Iraqi cities from American soldiers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/31/international/worldspecial/31IRAQ.html?ex=1062907200&en=021353e1dfe3e323&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE">LINK

I might be a bit cynical calling this a retreat...but it sure would be a nice way to disguise one.

Drudge is spinning this as "IRAQIS THREATEN TO DEPLOY PARTISAN MILITIAS..." I didn't read it that way.

Hexola, great observation about the Drudge article...I think you're right. They've got to get out of there, and still save face. Perhaps Halliburton has decided they've made enough money already.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

They can inform their masters of which of their neighbors may be harboring anti-Coalition sentiment, as well as perform a lot of the dangerous but repetitive tasks like routine executions of individuals who might be planning to oppose the bush regime gunmen.

It will definetly create a civil war, it will not bring any kind of order to iraq. nly difference will be that the iraqui "army" will die instead of our troops

that we ring up Saddam and give him his country back. He was the only one it seems who could keep his country in one piece. Now we are finding out why he was such a bastard, you have to be to keep this bunch under control.

for some time.

Many here in Baghdad feel that among Bremer's more egregious follies was disbanding the army. The security situation is truly dreadful and only Iraqis can ultimately staff the country's city police, infrastructure police, border police, etc.

A retreat -- not really. Georgie never planned to stay here forever. He knows it's politically unsupportable, and besides, he doesn't need an army here to steal the oil. Just diplomats and lawyers.

We are always open to getting reports first hand...

...after the US finished training its own people in one of the eastern Europe countries to do the job. Now that has been pushed up to next month and the training idea has went out of the window. Something has changed in Iraq recently. We have not seen reports of the US doing sweeps while looking for Saddam anymore and taking casualties in the process. Why is that do you think? It is because it has become too dangerous for our military to leave their well fortified compounds. And without our military there to protect the diplomats and lawyers who is going to keep them alive after we are gone? It is becoming obvious that we must leave now before it is too late. That is the truth of this matter. And welcome to DU.

Don

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/25/1061663742067.html

Crash course to build Iraqi police

Eager to have more Iraqis take responsibility for their country's security, American officials in Iraq are planning to ferry as many as 28,000 Iraqis to Eastern Europe for an intensive police training course.

Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner in charge of the Iraqi Interior Ministry, said in an interview that United States officials had secured permission from the Hungarian Government to set up a police academy inside an old Soviet military base. snip

He said the prospective Iraqi officers would receive eight weeks of intensive training in Hungary and then return to Iraq. After they returned, they would be given four to six months of on-the-job instruction, similar to the training that prospective officers undergo in the US.

Mr Kerik said he hoped to begin training the first group of 1500 officers in four months, with 28,000 officers being ready to start working in Iraq over the next 18 months. That would bring the total number of Iraqi police officers to 65,000 - the number that US officials believe is required to police the country effectively.

more

-- and that something is that we're losing the peace. Rumsfarts and his cronies seem to have actually believed that blowing away Saddam & Sons was all that was required to pacify the place and then democracy would bloom like a bee-yoo-ti-ful flower.

Yeah, well.

However, it's a reasonable response to change your plans when the ones you've got aren't working. Regardless of the madness of the mission, the military folks on the ground here really are the best and the brightest, and they are deeply committed to a positive outcome -- after all, they've invested their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor (is that the right quote?). So they're trying things a little differently than they might have a month ago. We can expect a lot of changes as the military and civilian sides of this debacle try to make it work.

From my point of view (hiding under my bed at night and wearing body armor by day) I'm not optimistic. But these guys are gonna get it right or -- tragically -- die trying.

Thanks for the muck, Georgie.

(And actually they did a big sweep about 3-4 days ago. Chasing common criminals this time, but it's all part of the same foetid stew.)

I sure hope you stick around here at DU. And please stay safe. We all want you and all of our brave soldiers to come home in one piece as quickly as possible.

Don

I don't envy your situation in Iraq...hope you can make it back soon. I agree with Don...while our best intents (nationally, not this administration) might have been to depose SH and install democracy, the bleak reality suggests our ideals run counter to real politik in the ME.

Personally, I think the future is a Balkanization of Iraq. George Will mentioned fracturing Iraq today, so I'm sure that this may be the ultimate fallback position for this administration.

I can see the country of Halliburtonistan forming quite soon.

By proposing the giving up of control before achieving its "goals" of democracy, elections, a constitution, etc., the U.S. is, IMO, in retreat.

For a while it looked like they might give up control to the U.N. Then the U.N. got bombed and they hightailed it out of there.

Now they propose giving up control to a newly formed Iraqi army. But that's going to be brutal instrument of control, I think, what with the lack of laws or functioning court system to back them up.

"Retreat."

The folks I talk to (CPA people and military) acknowledge that many things are not working, but at the same time, they'll quickly point out the many that are.

There has been progress on infrastructure restoration and will continue to be. The people know for a dead certainty that they don't want the bad guys back. The domination of the country by the Baghdadis has been turned back and the rest of the country is finding a voice. Regular folks ARE joining the police, turning in caches of weapons, helping rebuild schools.

Balance this with the death and destruction, islamofascists pouring in from Syria and Iran, the very real possibility of civil war, and the fact that America is trying to imposed democracy at the point of a gun, and there's certainly room for despair.

I'm not taking pollyanna's side here. I'm just saying that the recruiting of a paramilitary force is very much in line with the plans the Coalition had on paper before they engaged in this foolish and wicked act, and you shouldn't think that a little juggling of plans is a sign The End Is Near.

Nope, there's lots more blood and treasure to be spilled before we hightail it out of here -- and it's far from certain that failure is inevitable. It won't be whistleass who wins the peace (it's going to take years if it works at all), but don't let yourself think that there is no support from the Iraqi people for what America is trying to do here.

It's a very, very, VERY messy situation here, and any number of outcomes are possible.

PS. To those who've welcomed me to DU: Thanks! I'll try to get here as often as possible, but it's hard to say how often that'll be. I've been a lurker for over a year, but only recently signed up to post. And yes, I do keep my head down.

Historically whenever a country has ben invaded there have always been those who have collaborated with the occupiers. The problem that I see here is that even if only 1% of Iraqi's don't want us there, that number would be around 250,000 people who do not want us there. That is worrisome to me even as a civilian. Because as a patriotic American, if this country were ever to be invaded the first people on my list scheduled for a quick demise would be the collaboraters to discourage such behavior in the future. Then I would concentrate on the foreign invaders. And yes, I too would welcome outside fighters from other countries who fought along side of me to rid America from any foreign occupying force, just as people from other countries assisted the French resistance during WW II. That is the problem I see in Iraq.

Don

. . . this ain't France in 1941. Most Iraqis hated/feared their government. The French did not (given the sheer ineffectuality of the 4th Republic -- it was the 4th, wasn't it? -- one can question their judgment, but it was their government and they loved it). The Germans ripped away the legitimate leadership the people had and installed their toadies, qusilings, collaborators. The invaders came to stay and the purpose of the occupation was to assimilate France as a province of the Reich.

I suppose in some wolfowitzian wet dream, the neocon-fidence men might think they can turn Iraq into some sort of "America Lite" in the Middle East, but frankly I think such a fantasy is beyond even the most rabid New American Century bowser.

Their goal is more like "Iran Lite" -- a Shahless shahdom that'll sell oil to us at a nice low price, never threaten to beat us with the oil stick, let our corporations stake out postions in their markets and give us nice secure bases from which we can threaten anyone else in the Middle East we've got a mind to. Aside from that, we'll be happy to let them govern themselves.

It's the sort of relationship (with or without the oil) that we have with a lot of countries that still proudly call themselves sovereign.

So, to round back a bit closer to my point. If someone successfully invaded America and imposed collaborators on us, you bet there'd be permanent civil war. Despite my contempt for the traitor-fraud GW Bush, I'd feel compelled to resist if his government were overthrown by a foreign power because (thank the fates) America is much bigger and much more important than one puny twirp who's going to go down in history as the second-worst president ever (next to Buchanan, that is -- now THERE was a lousy president).

But the Iraqis most definitely (except what the CPA coyly calles "FRLs," for Former Regime Loyalists) DO NOT want to restore their previous government -- they hated it; it killed them viciously and treated them unfairly in a million ways large and small. What they want (what a lot of them want; what the ones I've spoken to want) is the criminals who terrorize their neighborhoods to be rounded up; for the monster-Baathists to be captured and brought to justice; to be able to express their religion without fear; for the power to come on again; for the water to be drinkable; to get a job.

The term "collaborators" for people who cooperate in trying to build country that can offer these things doesn't seem apt -- and isn't likely to attract the animosity in your example.

Sorry for the long windedness -- I couldn't stop myself.

K-C,
Interesing.
Last October, two homeless jerks armed with one assault rifle terrorized the entire DC metropolitan area. Hid the shooter in the trunk of an old car, shot one person, then drove calmly away. They had absolutely zero support in the population, but might never have been caught if they had not started writing letters to the police.

The point? Just a very few lunatics can completely disrupt normal economic and social life. A few thousand with military weapons could probably make life unlivable.

Perle doesn't give a rat's *ss about political expediency (for Bush).

Ask the question folks... ask.

My hypothesis ... They still want Iran, Syria and NKorea.

Can't do it (troops are spread too thin)... thus they have to install something to keep US dominance in Iraq (current discussion, I believe, is let a UN force in but ONLY if it is commanded by a US commander (think... US CONTROL, US Military COntractors already dominate the rebuilding$$$$$ and access to oil.... and US could wreak havoc on a new Iraqi government if they didn't comply to US interests). THus troops freed up for next adventure... er... preemptive strike in the war on terror... and while US may not fully control the future of Iraq - it would Dominate.

This is not about retreat folks - think like Perle/Wolfie/Rumsfeld. They only change directions if it can help them forward their next steps. To view it elsewise is to not be able to be unprepared to counter their next moves.

they pissed on a spark plug and it's burning every one of them personally.