"Standing up the Iraqi army."

[Tracer]

Has the * administration neglected to read Iraqi history? (Don't answer that question!)

Here is an excerpt from the latest book on Iraq that I've been reading. ("Understanding Iraq" by William R. Polk)


America today has two options in Iraq, stay or leave. ÒStaying the course,Ó to use George BushÕs term, is the one his administration has staked out. America is continuing to try to establish security by fighting the insurgents; is continuing to control the oil industry and other major sectors of the Iraqi economy; and is ÒguidingÓ most other aspects of government through appointed Òinspector-generalsÓ. American corporations continue to dominate the economy.

Unemployment remains high because Iraqi businesses cannot compete with cheap imported goods. Then, if the government acts unacceptably, America (like Britain in the 1930s and 1940s) will probably either replace it or destabilize it so that it can be manned by ÒfriendlyÓ Iraqis.

In this flow of events, trained and equipped by the Americans, the Iraqi army will again assume a power unbalanced by other institutions. Despite or even because of its training, the office corps will again, as in the 1930s and 1950s, aspire to the lead the nation. If it follows the likely pattern, it will rebel against the Americans and their local surrogates...

...The Iraqi army in the past destroyed moved toward civil society and probably would do so again, indeed paving the way for another Saddam Husain.Ó