July 03, 2008

"Why haven’t we gotten a better Iraqi Army for all the money we’ve spent?"

BillT reports from Iraq:


First, *we* didn’t get an Army -- Iraq did. Sure, we foot the bill -- just like we foot the bill for most of NATO during my growing-up years (pssst -- Marshall Plan, remember?), and for a lot of our other allies during their growing or reconstruction spurts (*waving hi to all our buddies in South Korea and Japan*) -- and Iraq is now an ally.

Second, everything else. Let’s take a look at the Army Iraq got.

You'll have to read the rest to see what kind of Amy Iraq has.

The more reports I read from the front lines, the more apparent it is that the Iraqis are stepping up to the plate. Remember Conventional Wisdom just over a year ago? That only by abandoning the Iraqis would they truly learn to step up to the plate? Then along comes Patraeus putting CW on its head.

I'll admit that I was far too optimistic about the post-invasion handling of Iraq. I'll admit that President Bush should have listened to those commanders that argued for a far larger footprint. I'll even admit, the utter dismay of most you, my friends and readers, that maybe we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

But for the love of God, why can't some of you admit that a) the surge strategy was brilliant and is working, and b) that your calls for disengagement would have been disastrous on a number of fronts?

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 11:21 AM | |