Hey! There *is* a Strategy on Iraq!

Well, Ray, the problemm is that Iraq as a whole has been lacking a civil society where the law of the land treats every person as equal before the law. It has also lacked "good society" where people have the reasonable expectation of not being harmed by their fellow citizens, where every citizen can expect not to be targeted unduly by their government for words or actions beyond those that actually break "civil" law and disrupt "good soceity". What the Iraqis have experienced is arbitrary arrest, prosecution, creation of laws for the benefit of the powerful, to maintain power and even execution. So, it is not "ok" that the change in power has created the previously powerless into the same force, but it does explain why it exists. In order to combat this, more than disciplined security forces have to be created (some of these forces aren't necessarily created by the US or allies but are in fact products of local governments taken over by specific parties who put their militia members on the security forces). Iraq's society, civil and otherwise, has a long way to go, but is in definite need of an extreme make over. There are some entities in Iraq that are working towards this, but these entities have not yet gained the trust of constituents because people who are suffering in chaos (and who were previously persecuted), have a tendency to turn to the "evil they know" which unfortunatley includes the few organized parties that were, in some way, in place during Saddam's reign and were organized in such a manner that allowed them to provide some help and give the illusion of leadership, before and after the collapse of Saddam. So, for this to go away, we need more than to work on security forces. A real concept of checks and balances has to be created and put in place. Concepts of equal justice and a judiciary that is independent and ready to apply these concepts has to be built through out Iraq, not just at the epicenter of central government though that central government will be the role model. This means that judges have to be ready and able to prosecute even government, police and military personnel for corruption and crime. These judges have to have reasonable expectation of their safety. It's much more complicated than simply building a security force or waving a magic wand to create the exoskeleton of a government. The thing that is missing, which we take for granted, is the concept of adherence to these ideas above all other relationships. Security forces, government workers, politicians and civilians must learn to be faithful to these ideas first, to have allegiance to the idea above and beyond political, tribal, religious or self interested affiliations. We have over 230 years of this concept and even then we struggle. It will not be born over night. As one blogger recently noted, what we will be doing in Iraq is staying in some form or other until the first generation of children have been raised up and indoctrinated into this concept of freedom, civil and "good" society.

Here Here! Very well stated, Kat!

We *will* be polite to Ray. He's learning the ropes around here, and we tolerate, and sometimes even encourage, well constructed, affirmative dissenting views. Otherwise, it's just an echo chamber, and we have enough problems with echoes as it is. We do not like moonbattery, but Ray is *not* being a Moonbat, however much anyone may disagree. Remember the Castle Rule: Attack the message, not the messenger. Unless it's a party thread. This isn't.

Echo?

Them thar old artillery dudes have *echoes* imprinted on the cerebral cortex...

In 1998 (three years after the Dayton Accords), Bosnia-Herzegovina was still severely factionalized, but there was reluctant official cooperation between the Serbs, the Bosniaks (Muslims), the Croats, the Bosnian Serbs, the Serbian Muslims and the Bosnian Croats. The various ethnic groups still hated each other's guts (and made no excuses for it), but everyone was pretty much sick of the killing. By 2001, the cooperation was well-established and the various factions were at least working together actively, albeit not happily. The various ethnic groups drifted from active hatred into grudging acceptance of each other's right not to be summarily shot. These days, the politicians in BiH are still squabbling, but at least they're doing it within the framework of a constitution. The various ethnic groups are now only mildly annoyed with each other and are willing to settle differences with a ballot rather than a bullet. I'd say Iraq, three years after the war, is midway between Boz's 1998-2001 progress, and the Army's even further up the road. Extrapolate from the Balkan timeline above and apply it to SWA and that should yield a fairly accurate timetable for a US withdrawal, Mr. Congressman. Ummmm, what's that? You say we've still got troops in the Balkans? Heh. Yeah, I know... *wadding timeline and tossing a 3-point sinker*

I appreciate your opinion Kat, and JOn I also agree with your opinion. I am sure many in here have a lot closer and better understanding of what is going on in Iraq. It seems though that here in America the debate over the war, and now the authorization of going to war, has trickled down into a he said she said nasty debate. Regardless of who said this, and who agreed to that, we are in the position we are in. This debate is supposed to be about establishing a purpose for our continued presence in Iraq and establishing a sound criterion for our victory\exit strategy. However, it now appears that some politicians have turned this into a votes grab by trying to state their opinion, and stance, on the merits of the war, and their pretense for agreeing to go to war.I know many may disagree with my opinions but I feel the open and honest discussion of this is the best way to address it. Raymond B www.voteswagon.com