Superior Force, Submission, and Cooperation

[carebear]

It must be nice living in such a black and white world. A whole ton of innocent Iraqis died during the initial invasion; such things are unavoidable in war. Those daisy-cutters don't care whether the people in their blast radius hate freedom or not, you know. Anyone who would support a foreign invader can't (or doesn't want to) imagine the devastation and misery that even a relatively good-intentioned occupying force will cause.

Oh really. Care to name the urban locations all those-daisy cutters were dropped in? Collateral damage does occur and the innocent suffer. That's why the French were out there killing Americans after D-day... Oh wait. As for the other contention, I'm a bit of an amateur historian, military at that, and I was in the Marine Corps for 13 years. I'm familiar with the "devastation and misery" of modern war, I don't have to "imagine" it.

Conquest is exactly what the US has been doing in Iraq; the oil's being stolen and all the reconstruction contracts are given to Halliburton and other US firms instead of Iraqi companies that desperately need a boost.

Care to present some facts? The oil that isn't being stolen by insurgents and sold in Syria to finance their terror against other religious sects, or prevented by being sold to try to starve the current elected government of money by those same insurgents, is being sold on behalf of the Iraqi government, and that's where the money goes. Where it is paid out is controlled by contracts. Iraqi firms are being used where appropriate and where they have the skills and manpower to be anything but an impediment. Is there waste and inefficiency and even corruption? Yep, but as it is found and reported, it is being fixed. As far as the "Halliburton" conspiracy" idiocy... Do a search, worldwide, for contracting firms with the experience and resources to manage the rebuilding of an entire country. Take your time. Those "no bid" contracts were in place for the most part before the war began simply because there aren't that many company's in existence that could even begin to do the management. After WWII we had whole government bureaucracies dedicated to reconstruction. Today "privatization" is the name of the game across the board, no malfeasance needed to explain.

Iraq now has a puppet government no less corrupt than Saddam, theocratic militias are running rampant and electric power lasts about two hours each day. Democracy isn't in the Iraqis' political DNA, and anyone there would tell you they were much better off under Saddam.

Iraq's government was elected democratically and is certainly a bit more contentious with us than a "puppet" would be. Equally corrupt? I think there's probably less money going into Swiss Bank accounts now than under Saddam. Care to give me some quotes from Iraqis or our guys in the sandbox right now who will support that "ask any Iraqi" blatant falsehood you just stated? That's a cocky claim right there.

If the US does withdraw and leave the Iraqis to vote for a leader, they will immediately vote in theocrats who abolish democracy.

Proof? They might, but you sure are psychic with all this stuff you know... Or is it just what you read in the papers?

Germany and Japan are much different from Iraq; they initiated the war instead of having it forced on them like the Iraqis, and both of those countries had a strong national identity and some history of constitutional government before WWII.

Yep, but irrelevent. My reference to Germany and Japan was in regard to our history with them as defeated enemies. My point was that history shows we are even non-coercive to former enemies, much less folks we actually like. Any one who cares to look can see we have never been "conquerors" or "occupiers" in any meaningful definition of the word. When folks ask us to leave, we go. If they don't want us to have bases, we remove them. Usually after helping them with any problems we may have caused and even those we haven't.

The US was also genuinely interested in helping those countries become functional democracies and provided them with economic support instead of pillaging their resources as in Iraq.

Got any documentation, any documentation at all, to support your "out to pillage" claim? Keep looking.

As for this thread's original topic, the reason for the lacking support of the Vietnam and Iraq wars is that neither had any merit, and the American people know this. The former was based on the "domino theory" that history has proven to be false, while the latter has no coherent justification other than "we want to steal their oil."

Based on released documents from the time, the "domino theory" was less a factor for getting involved in Vietnam originally than was the ongoing concept of "containment" of Communism. Which had been US policy since the 40's. The domino theory was given as a reason, and given that Cambodia and Laos ended up dealing with Communism-related problems (due in part to incompetent US meddling) I would hardly call it so much "false" as "overstated".

The Iraq war had numerous justifications, only one of which, active WMD program, appears to be a mistaken assumption. (And not one we made in a vacuum, there were a lot of people and governments who believed the same thing). Again, you allege "stealing oil" and yet I have seen no documentation of that given by motivated people on both sides of the aisle (and in the world community) with much better access to info than you.

If that was a charge that could be even suggested intelligently, some anti-war type with credibility would have made it.

The Founding Fathers would never have approved of the US playing global cop.

On this we agree. But I'm not willing to make unverifiable, illogical and, in some cases, outright false statements to support it.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Anyone who would support a foreign invader can't (or doesn't want to) imagine the devastation and misery that even a relatively good-intentioned occupying force will cause.

I've been to Iraq and know what that looks like. I also know what a broken
down infrastructure looks like due to post-invasion internal public apathy. It
wasn't the "invader" who stripped all the electrical lines off the poles to sell
for the copper content, blew the freshwater main into town, etc.

The Founding Fathers would never have approved of the US playing global cop.

On this we agree. But I'm not willing to make unverifiable, illogical and, in some cases, outright false statements to support it.

Yes, most of us on THR agree on the "US shouldn't play global cop" thing,
but that is now our justification for remaining in Iraq --at least on the
surface. However, to say that our involvement there has nothing to do
with oil is ignoring global resource reality. Let's face it we're dealing with a
market vendor who has the largest single reserve of olive oil and we need
it to light our lamps and fry our nachos on our distant side of this global
village. You could say our vendor is having some "family problems" right
now and it's hard to tell who's going to be the shopkeeper at this point.
And, if we're not globocop in this case, then we're globo-dept-of-child-services
and we're deciding who gets custody of the kid who is heir to the family
olive oil business.

So let's not go through this like we're Polyanna. This is about force of arms
and what we expect to get out of it, isn't it?

 

[QuestionEverything]

Iraqi firms are being used where appropriate and where they have the skills and manpower to be anything but an impediment. Is there waste and inefficiency and even corruption? Yep, but as it is found and reported, it is being fixed. As far as the "Halliburton" conspiracy" idiocy... Do a search, worldwide, for contracting firms with the experience and resources to manage the rebuilding of an entire country. Take your time. Those "no bid" contracts were in place for the most part before the war began simply because there aren't that many company's in existence that could even begin to do the management.

According to Iraqis, local firms haven't been getting much business at all. See the blog link below for more. Many bridges were destroyed during the invasion, and while Iraq has many skilled engineers and companies that could have managed the reconstruction, Halliburton was contracted to do that at ten times what it would have cost to have Iraqis do the job. And if Halliburton really is the best-equipped company to rebuild Iraq, surely they could stomach a little competition? I thought you would object to such socialist practices as no-bid contracts.

Iraq's government was elected democratically and is certainly a bit more contentious with us than a "puppet" would be. Equally corrupt? I think there's probably less money going into Swiss Bank accounts now than under Saddam. Care to give me some quotes from Iraqis or our guys in the sandbox right now who will support that "ask any Iraqi" blatant falsehood you just stated? That's a cocky claim right there.

You can take your information straight from the horse's mouth at Riverbend's blog:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_riverbendblog_archive.html

She's an Iraqi who's been writing since shortly after the invasion and discusses at great length the deteriorating conditions in Iraq following the war. Before the war, she and many other Iraqi women would walk the streets alone in T-shirts and jeans. Now women don't dare to leave their homes without a male companion and at least a hijab. Girls are sometimes attacked with acid if theocratic militiamen don't like what they're wearing.

The evil commie libruls at the Washington Post have this article to offer, discussing the disappearance of Iraq's educated professional class:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012201112.html

The socialists at the National Intelligence Council have a grim prognosis for Iraq's future:

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf

"...even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate."

Saying Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam is just... something else. Kidnappings, ransoms and killings are an everyday thing there now. The infrastructure's been devastated and hasn't yet been restored. A hundred thousand Iraqis have died since the invasion at the very least, and the real figure is likely two or three times that.

Quote:
If the US does withdraw and leave the Iraqis to vote for a leader, they will immediately vote in theocrats who abolish democracy.
Proof? They might, but you sure are psychic with all this stuff you know... Or is it just what you read in the papers?

Islamic fundie militias have more pull in Iraqi society than anyone else by far at this time. Knowing that, my conclusion wasn't too hard to draw. Ironically, probably the only way the US could prevent a theocracy is to dig up the remaining members of the Ba'ath party and return them to power with a new dictator. The Ba'athists are the only secular group in Iraq with enough recognition and influence to keep the fundies down.

Got any documentation, any documentation at all, to support your "out to pillage" claim? Keep looking.

No contracts for Iraqis, record Halliburton profits, a country with some of the world's richest oil fields whose people now live without basic utilities...

The Iraq war had numerous justifications, only one of which, active WMD program, appears to be a mistaken assumption.

Like which ones? "Saddam supported terrorists?" Saddam was a secular leader who had Al Qaeda members shot on sight, and Bin Laden referred to him as an infidel. The Ba'ath party was one of the main forces holding back radical Islam. "Saddam was an evil dictator?" Yeah, no kidding. So why are we buddy-buddy with Uzbekistan and lots of other totalitarian countries instead of "liberating" them? Every prediction the anti-war side made before the invasion has come true--the war destabilized the region, provoked a global wave of anti-Americanism, bred many new terrorists and enriched Bush's corporate pals while Iraqis suffered. The pro-war camp was wrong about Iraq being a short conflict, wrong about the troops being showered with rose petals and wrong about a hundred other things but they're going to "stay the course" until we have another 50,000 names to put on a black wall in DC. Maybe even longer.

 

[carebear]

There's a distinction between attempting to ensure free trade, which is the only "Empire" the US has really attempted to pursue, one that ensures nations the ability to peaceably trade, and attempting to conquer countries and force them to trade only to us, or at prices we dictate.

We aren't doing that, we didn't go into Iraq to do that. We aren't now nor are we going to be "stealing" anything from Iraq. They are and will remain free to sell their oil on the world market.

That changes the motive from "all about oil for us" to "all about trade for everybody", which is in no way ignoble.

 

[Art Eatman]

The thread began with the premise that local cooperation makes the difference between sucess or failure/stalemate.

Few posts relate to that idea. Daisy cutters and Red Dawns just don't quite marry up.

"...or else."

Art

 

[carebear]

On the contracts, according to which Iraqi's? Do you have documentation they were capable of doing what they say? That they weren't investigated by the people on the ground? Remember we're dealing with a culture that uses exaggerration of ability as normal negotiating technique and can take reasonable refusals as insults.

Marine Corps Gazette Jan '07 "Twenty-Seven Articles of Lawrence of Arabia: A perspective on training Iraqi's during OIF" Maj. Dunne

I prefer to use sources from our military men on the ground, especially those writing in the professional journals, as they pull no punches and tend toward objectivity and use professional detachment.

Riverbend eh?

I also recommend before hitching your wagon to any source of info, you do a bit of research and see what other sources are saying, weigh the credibility and be aware that some folks who agree with you have ulterior motives of their own. Treat any non-documentable source as you would one of those chain emails. This took me googling "river bend blog" and flipping through a few pages of anti's citing her as gospel. About two minutes and her credibility and objectivity is challenged from a number of directions, in this case in one page.

One of many Bloggers who have serious questions about Riverbend's objectivity...

http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/03/20/riverbend-on-iraq-one-year-later/

http://crymeariverii.blogspot.com/2004/06/who-is-riverbend.html

This is from an American, but near the bottom you’ll see a quote from someone who knows Riverbend personally. The especially interesting point in that post is an analysis of Riverbends story of trying to get her old job back. It’s a good read, and I recomend it. It sheds light on why her story likely has so many inconsistencies. There’s been many times Riverbend has subtly given hints as to who and what she and her family are. I could see it before I read the above link, and it makes even more sense now. She’s likely the daughter of a Baath party ambassador, most likely to the U.S. (pre Gulf War), Canada, or England. It’s not just the American who writes the above linked blog that disputes the factuality of her posts and her story. Many Iraqis have done the same.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_09_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#109613731630697467
Gives a point by point blow of a recent post of full of Riverbend’s typical distortions.

Zeyad at “Healing Iraq” http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ has also disputed many of Riverbend’s claims, though indirectly and without mentioning her by name as he tries to remain above the infighting in the “blogsphere”. There have also been many comments in Zeyads blog by Iraqis who know, or claim to know, Riverbend and her family. Most of these are no longer available though because his comment section apparently deletes old comments to enable the storage of new ones. One of these such comments are quoted in link at the top of my post.

You don’t have to believe what other westerners and I have posted about Riverbend. However, it would be wise to look at the evidence with an open mind. I’ve seen many people believe word for word everything Riverbend says just because she is anti-occupation. All the while completely ignoring the inconsistencies of what she says compared to what most other Iraqis, pro and anti American alike are saying.

as for your last few responses...

Repeating the same claims without citation is not evidence.

Citing the Baath Party as a better choice than radical Islam is saying you'd rather be killed by tyrants for secular, tribal reasons than by tyrants for religious, tribal ones. Neither one offered freedom except for folks who toed the party line. The fledgling democracy is a third way.

Also, we did have a short, victorious war against Saddam's army, we were feted as liberators after the invasion (except for Baath Party loyalists) and have had a free election with incredible participation. I'm not defending the war as right or well-thought out but to not acknowledge objective truth is to not be a credible opponant.

And, again, I am not here to defend the Iraq war, consider this my last criticism of your partisan, unfactually documented little rants.

I was saying that I, like the French, like the Belgians and even like many Germans, would not fight a foreign liberator who happened to make the statements the US has and has a history of living up to them as far as freeing people from tyranny and then leaving and letting them keep their freedom.

 

[another okie]

I don't want to get into the main argument, but I would like to point out that even during World War II we did import oil, though it came from other Western Hemisphere countries, such as Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela. Our involvement in the Middle East after WW II was because the British were pulling back and because our planners knew we would need quantities of oil far greater than before to run the kind of economy we would have after the war. Knowing this would be the case FDR made a trip to the Middle East during the war to suck up to the King of Saudi Arabia. We were not self-sufficient in oil during the war or during the 50s or 60s. It just wasn't a big issue because it went smoothly.

 

[longeyes]

Here's a little question for the posters in this thread... if the US was invaded and taken over by a foreign military seeking to install a new government they saw as being more just, would you throw flowers and greet them as liberators? Or would you snipe and blow up the occupying troops whenever you got the chance? The insurgents in Iraq are motivated by patriotism, no more and no less.

One thing I wouldn't be doing is driving trucks filled with explosives into a marketplace to kill my own fellow citizens trying to buy food for dinner.

 

[thexrayboy]

Wars are not won or lost soley by the size and might of the combatants. They are won by being committed to victory. If you are willing to fight to the last man in a conflict you and your's will never be defeated, killed perhaps but not defeated. If you are not willing to win at any costs and your opponent know this you have lost the war before the battle has even begun.

Fundamental Islamists are willing to die for their goals. They view death as a reward and an honor. We can never really hope to defeat fundamental Islam.
The best we can hope is that they will change their belief structure to one that relinquishes the need to kill, convert or enslave nonmuslims. Till that happens we can only hold them at arms length and limit the damage they try to inflict on us. We can perhaps eliminate Islam, that is debatable, but unless their basic belief structures change we cannot defeat them, only kill them. So regretfully I vote we kill them rather than let them kill us.

The viet communists were willing to make enormous sacrifices in lives and goods to win the war in Vietnam. Just how far they would go we cannot know for certain. What we do know is our media gave them the hope needed to continue. They learned from the managed media in the US that they did not have to defeat our forces. They merely had to survive long enough for the pussy wussies to force us to leave. All subsequent opponents have taken the same tack since then. They try to bloody our noses to the point where the whiny liberals start crying about an unwinnable war and the media circus chimes in to force Washington to withdraw. With the exception of the first gulf war this strategy has worked. It worked in Somalia, it worked in Beirut and it is working now in Iraq. Once the pacifists force us to leave Iraq they will target the war in Afghanistan. Americans now have a microwave mentality, if we cannot accomplish something immediately it must be a mistake and we need to quit.

 

[strambo]

Here's a little question for the posters in this thread... if the US was invaded and taken over by a foreign military seeking to install a new government they saw as being more just, would you throw flowers and greet them as liberators?

Well, that all depends on the nature of the government now doesn't it? Now, no, I'd fight. If our govt. was like Saddams...hell yeah, I'd cheer and help.

Longeyes nailed it too...even if I was fighing an invading army...that means I'd be fighting the FOREIGN invaders. I wouldn't 1st of all be from say Pakistan fighting supposed invaders in Iraq. 2nd, I wouldn't be fighting a freely elected government of my own people...oh, and I wouldn't be blowing up the innocent civilians of said country. I read intel reports every single day when I was there. The "foreign invaders" suffered by far the least casualties, innocent Iraqi civilians and govt. workers suffered the most.

 

[Thin Black Line]

We can perhaps eliminate Islam, that is debatable....

We can not "eliminate Islam" and that is not debatable. In many parts of the
world it is the fastest growing religion and in some places in Europe has a
higher level of attendence for services than the other practiced religions,
including Christianity. What we can debate is how to support or oppose the
various branches of Islam. Americans, especially thanks to AM talk radio,
think that Islam is "one religion" when in fact it is just as diverse as Christianity
with its many Churches and belief systems, ie, from the United Church of
Christ to the Russian Orthodox Church.

When it comes to local cooperation, again it is how our actions are perceived.
If the local population believes we are against their religion (no matter what
it is), I can guarantee you that is the quickest way to lose their support and
fuel an opposition movement. You can have all the superior force you want
and never win over the people. If your goal later becomes to eliminate them
rather than thave some sort of trade with them, then it becomes a self-fulfulling
prophecy for the radical elements of the opposition.

 

[Thin Black Line]

They merely had to survive long enough for the pussy wussies to force us to leave. All subsequent opponents have taken the same tack since then. They try to bloody our noses to the point where the whiny liberals start crying about an unwinnable war and the media circus chimes in to force Washington to withdraw. With the exception of the first gulf war this strategy has worked. It worked in Somalia, it worked in Beirut and it is working now in Iraq. Once the pacifists force us to leave Iraq they will target the war in Afghanistan. Americans now have a microwave mentality, if we cannot accomplish something immediately it must be a mistake and we need to quit.

Again, this is something else that the AM talk radio tries to confuse and obfuscate.
Since I was one of the people who atually had a nose in the fight that could
get bloodied, let me address this clearly for everyone: it's one thing to get a
bloody nose for a good cause, with people at home and actually in the fight
who support you, and surrounded by people where the fight is taking place
who also support you (ie, the Cooperation element) versus a bloody nose
for who knows what, with people at home who have mixed backing for both
honorable reasons and BS politics while some of the people actually in the fight
are asked to sacrifice again and again for the fight and are now weary of it,
and all the while surrounded by people where the fight is happening who
want you to leave (even though you said it was for them in the first place).

Remember that for many of us who fight, it is not prize fighting (ie, for a purse
of money), even though the managers, sponsors, and newscasters who line
the ring are making good money and members of the crowd also have some
big bets involved. The only element that may be similar is the baying for blood.
So I would agree with you that the American microwave mentality comes into
play as the sportsbar "our team/our man must win at all costs" attitude. Bear
in mind then that neither of the fighters in the ring are making any money
off the fight. Bear in mind that one fighter's nose may get bloody but he gets
a new opponent literally every round after continuous consecutive knock-outs.

So forgive me if I forget what the point was to the fight and am tired of it.
If someone wants to maintain the superior force element for the fight, then
rotate in some hot new fighter that wants to make a name for himself. But,
he too may tire of fighting for the sake of the fight rather than some larger
sense of honor that was lost in some previous fight on some other night before
he was even in the locker room.

But, more importantly, the fight is not in his hometown and he looks up
to see no familiar faces. He looks up to see no one cheering for him --in fact
just the opposite, but he was told by his manager the people in that town
were looking forward to him being there and be cheering him on. That stopped
a long time ago. In fact, some are even leaving the building and there are
fights breaking out around the concession stand!

It's not a boxing match or a football game with bloody noses and sprained ankles,
it's War and people are going to die. So even my sportsbar analogy can't really
capture what's involved for our home team when we're on an away game.

Well, gotta go --the wife and kids are calling

 

[Gerald in Ga]

Do a search on "America under siege video" and watch some of the videos at that site. One called Iron Mountain will make you wonder what is going on around the world. And no, I am not a tin foil hat wearer. Besides, doesen't all that aluminum make it easier for the micro waves or whatever tune in like an anteannea?

 

[ilbob]

Do a search on "America under siege video" and watch some of the videos at that site. One called Iron Mountain will make you wonder what is going on around the world. And no, I am not a tin foil hat wearer. Besides, doesen't all that aluminum make it easier for the microw waves or whatever tune in like an anteannea?

aluminum does not work. you need real tin.

 

[Gerald in Ga]

Ok, Thanks. I didn't know

 

[ceetee]

So forgive me if I forget what the point was to the fight and am tired of it. If someone wants to maintain the superior force element for the fight, then rotate in some hot new fighter that wants to make a name for himself. But, he too may tire of fighting for the sake of the fight rather than some larger sense of honor that was lost in some previous fight on some other night before he was even in the locker room.

Thanks.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Cooperation:

February 05, 2007

Last bid to save Baghdad at the Alamo

Life ‘sucks’ in the first of the frontline ‘joint security’ camps, but they could be the US Army’s best chance to stop sectarian violence

First? Um, no.

Martin Fletcher in Baghdad

The 100 American soldiers who live here call it the Alamo, although their superiors hate the connotations of defeat. The camp is a cluster of ... heavily fortified houses on the front line of the vicious sectarian war being fought by Sunnis and Shias in ... Baghdad.

It has no water, no heating and only the most primitive latrines. One hot meal is brought in daily by lorry. Every window is sandbagged. The men sleep cheek by jowl, their nights interrupted by gunfire and explosions. A lone chandelier serves as a poignant reminder of happier times. “It sucks,” one private protested.

Sounds about the same as 2005 to me. We had National Guard in those
places back then around Baghdad....

But the “Alamo” also represents President Bush’s last best hope of restoring order to the Iraqi capital. It is the first of 20 joint security stations (JSS) that the US military intends to establish in the hotspots of Baghdad using some of the 21,000 extra troops that Mr Bush is deploying to Iraq. These garrisons are supposed to suppress the fighting, train their Iraqi Army colleagues and encourage local people to turn on Shia al-Mahdi Army militiamen and Sunni al-Qaeda types.

It is a big departure from keeping US troops cooped up in huge, isolated bases, but 48 hours in ... left The Times wondering whether — four years

No, actually it isn't.

after the fall of Saddam Hussein — it was not too little, too late. ... is barely five miles from the green zone, but it takes most of a day to get there: three hours waiting for a helicopter to the airport on the western edge of the city, three more waiting for a convoy of Humvees to take us to the JSS past Baghdad’s long-abandoned racecourse.

I used to visit Iraqi friends in ... after the US invasion of 2003. Then it was a pleasant suburb, with wide streets of palm-shaded villas. Now I found abandoned homes, shuttered shops and rubble-strewn streets barricaded against marauding gangs of killers. I drove past lakes of sewage and acres of rubbish. Local services have collapsed. There is an hour of electricity a day. Most schools are closed. One headmistress who defied the terrorists was beaten, raped, tied to a bed and electrocuted, then cut up.

The JSS is ringed by blast barriers, guard posts and coiled razor wire.
<snip>

The man in charge is Captain Erik Peterson, a 29-year-old from Indiana who is the American can-do spirit personified. “I am succeeding already,” he said. His men can now respond within minutes when fighting breaks out, he explained. They patrol daily in Humvees and on foot. They talk to Iraqis instead of kicking down their doors. They have brought in utility workers to repair power lines and arranged the first delivery in months of propane for cooking and heating.

Captain Peterson said that the sectarian posses had disappeared, their freedom of manoeuvre curtailed. He said that fewer families were being forced from their homes, fewer corpses being found and that local people were beginning to offer high-grade information about the “bad guys” in their midst. “We are fighting a counter-insurgency campaign and you need different tools from the old-style knockdown-doors campaign,” he said.

However, the violence remains pervasive. That first night we sped to the nearby ... mosque after Sunnis called to say that Shia were attacking it with rocket-propelled grenades.

The next day a mosque guard was brought to the JSS having been fatally shot by a sniper. A US patrol sent back to the mosque was fired on. That evening we rushed for our body armour after a mortar attack.

Preparing the Iraqi Army to take over may prove even harder than suppressing the violence. Captain Peterson insists that his Iraqi contingent has a “lot of potential”, but his men decry its sloppy habits, ill-discipline and trigger-happy ways.

“They are no way in hell ready to take over in Iraq,” said Private Peter Payan, 19, as he manned a watchtower. “They’re here for the paycheque,” Private Justin Kent said. “Right now we’re taking care of the problems so they don’t have anything to face. It’s just like having your Mom clean up your room for you.”

No comment necessary.

Captain Salwan al-Aden, Captain Peterson’s veteran Iraqi counterpart, admitted that Saddam’s army was more disciplined, better led and better equipped. He complained that the US military had promoted poor mid-level Iraqi officers and that the Iraqi Army lacked weapons and transport.

I witnessed no contact between the US and Iraqi soldiers below officer level, and no joint patrols.

The Iraqi Army must also win over a Sunni community that considers it to be an instrument of Shia oppression. “Sunnis absolutely hate the Iraqi Army,” Captain Peterson acknowledged. He reckoned that 90 per cent of his Iraqi contingent are Shias and admitted that it was happier pursuing al-Qaeda than the Mahdi militia.

Iraqi army patrols and checkpoints are attacked daily in Sunni-controlled .... When Captain Peterson invited Sunni leaders to meet his Iraqi officers to discuss the defence of the ... mosque, the Sunnis accused the Iraqi Army of failing to protect the mosque. The Iraqi Army accused the Sunnis of using it as a place from which to attack them. Captain Peterson said that the mere fact that Iraqi Army and Sunni leaders were talking was a “big step forward”.

Captain al-Aden refused to say how many of his men were Shia or Sunni, insisting that they were all Iraqis. “Every civilian who carries a weapon or plants a bomb is our enemy,” he said. But he nodded in agreement as Captain Dafar Khalif, a colleague, chafed at the restrictions placed on the Iraqi Army. “I think the US forces are soft,” he said. If anybody attacked the Goverment in Saddam’s day “we took him to jail and hanged him. Now we take him to jail and he’s released after seven months.”

File under "cultural differences"?

“I don’t think any of this s*** will change anything,” one US soldier said. Before leaving I watched an Iraqi Army-led “hearts and minds” exercise, a health clinic, which proved a fitting metaphor for the state of Iraq. Hundreds sought treatment. Sergeant David Tunison, a veteran US medic, said he had never seen such poor health — children with rickets, adults with tuberculosis — or sanitation. But of the six Iraqi medics supposed to attend the clinic, only two turned up.

sigh....