In the last paragraph of today's (27 November) New York Times article titled "Iraq Panel Weighs Overture to Iran and Syria," there was a rather alarming quote by White House counselor Dan Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett said, "Any disarming of the militias - in large part because there is such a political element to that - is most effectively carried out by the Iraqi security forces."
In the last paragraph of today's (27 November) New York Times article titled "Iraq Panel Weighs Overture to Iran and Syria," there was a rather alarming quote by White House counselor Dan Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett said, "Any disarming of the militias - in large part because there is such a political element to that - is most effectively carried out by the Iraqi security forces."
It is worth noting that the major American newspapers are far more perspicacious in the back than in the front. I begin by reading the articles from the last paragraph to the first paragraph. This was the first paragraph that I read in the article and I was simply stunned.
With a civil war raging in Iraq (I think given the number of casualties it is fair to refer to it as a civil war in the absence of some objective definition) it would be fair to assume that the number one priority of commanders on the ground is to disarm the respective combatant forces, i.e. the militias. The question then becomes: why would the reasonable top priority in pacification efforts be identified as the responsibility of the Iraqi security forces?
There are reports on the American news programs quite often that say Iraqi security forces and police are themselves engaged in sectarian violence. In order to quell the civil war why would the White House suggest the equivalent of allowing the fox to guard the henhouse.
It seems absolutely absurd not to devote the bulk of American combat power to disarming militias if the objective is to maintain order and discipline in Iraq. But, that itself may not be in the best interests of American national defense.
American interest in Iraq, as a function of its largest prosecution of the Global War on Terror, is to stop the spread of Islamo-fascist Salafism - the radical and violent strain of Islam that seeks to build a caliphate (Islamic empire) from Spain to Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, provoking a civil war in Iraq is an accomplishment from the perpective of a very basic strategy - divide and conquer.
To pull coalition troops out now and allow the radical Islamists to destroy one another would be a very effective way to minimize the future threat of Islamo-fascist imperialism from spreading. Thus, it is a puzzling course of strategy to (1) leave coalition troops in the middle of the "kill zone" to suffer casualties and (2) to try and shift the main effort force of pacification to the far less capable Iraqi security forces which are, at best, in tow of the coalition.
The objectives of coalition forces have been less than perspicuous since the beginning of the conflict. The lack of sophistication on the part of the Bush-Blair administrations in developing a coherent vision of what and end state should look like in Iraq is embarrasingly apparent. The leadership of coalition soldiers at the highest levels of their respective governments leaves much to be desired, which is unfortunate for the poor soldiers in Iraq who are dying every day.