Over There - Why U.S. troops won't be coming home from Iraq anytime soon

[Larkspur]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2118392/

Now that an Iraqi government is taking form, however haltingly, how much longer will American troops have to stay? Judging from the data in two recent official U.S. reports, they probably won't be coming home soon.

Read together, the two documents—the latest quarterly report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, just released today, and the State Department's "Iraq Weekly Status Report" dated May 4—suggest that the Iraqi leaders have a long way to go (by some measures, as long as they've ever had) before they can rebuild their country, secure order, stabilize their regime, and protect their borders without a large American military presence.

The paradox that stumped the U.S. occupation forces two years ago, shortly after the fall of Baghdad, continues to stump them today. On the one hand, their efforts to provide security won't succeed until they restore essential services. On the other hand, they can't restore essential services until the country's key assets—especially its roads, oil pipelines, and electrical generators—are secure.
<SNIP>

For these and many other reasons, the Iraqi leaders themselves want, however grudgingly, the American military to stay, at least until the insurgents are weakened much further. Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor whose blog is generally critical of U.S. policy, estimates that only about one-fifth of Iraq's parliamentarians want the Americans to leave; that most of them endorse a timetable for withdrawal rather than an immediate pullout; and that, in any case, they form no bloc, they're scattered among several parties, and tend to play no prominent role.

As recently as last winter, some analysts and politicians—here and in Iraq—argued that the insurgents' main targets were American soldiers; hence, end the occupation and the insurgency would dry up. This was always a dubious notion, in both the premise and the logic, but now it's plainly wrong. In recent months, the Americans have cut back on large-scale offensives, yet the insurgents have stepped up attacks against Iraqis. Since the start of this year, 266 American soldiers have been killed in action in Iraq—compared with 724 Iraqi soldiers and police. (Until now, Americans had taken the brunt of casualties.) If the United States pulled out now, the Baathists, Zarqawists, and other insurgents would run wild. The country, rough and ragged as is, would fall apart.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

1. Here's what I thin is the most important part of the article;

estimates that only about one-fifth of Iraq's parliamentarians want the Americans to leave; that most of them endorse a timetable for withdrawal rather than an immediate pullout; and that, in any case, they form no bloc, they're scattered among several parties, and tend to play no prominent role.

This is a key to whatever happens because the societal makeup in Iraw is still very clannish/tribal/fuedal almost. I've said it before, anyone wishing to understand in even the smallest degree the political climate of the Middle East needs to rent "Lawrence of Arabia"..........................

[CTLawGuy]

2. I can think of a few who should read this article

but let me say I know almost 100% of the Iraqi parliamentarians wish they could just get rid of us right now, but they know the reality dictates differently.

They know if we leave right now, they are dead. Some partisan
group(s) will target and destroy the government if it has no Army or legitimacy to protect it.

Their next task is to restore the infrstructure and build an Army that can keep order.

[CWebster]

3. More

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1776076

[CTLawGuy]

4. bump

NT