More

--Yeah. That's it. More. That's right! I want more!
Will you ever get enough?
--Well, I never have. No, I guess I won't.
--Edward G. Robinson (as gangster Johnny Rocco), Key Largo

The U.S. Army has not pacified the resistance in Iraq in 3 1/2 years, but now the new thought is to place more U.S. advisors into Iraqi formations. Combat power, even when wielded by the dynamo that is the new Iraqi Army, will never solve the problems endemic in Iraq.

Forget the numbers, forget that U.S. troops aren't trained to be advisors, forget that the Iraqis really are in their own orbit. Forget all of these things, but please don't forget that nobody has explained how more institutional violence will solve or negate the cycle of violence in Iraq.

The Army's purpose is not to subjugate the civilians or citizens of said country. That was the function of Saddam's Army, so where's the progress after 3 1/2 years of unbridled violence and killing?

The U.S. policy as stated by Colonel D. Puster is, "As you stand up the teams, you stand down the combat units." Is there any basis in reality for this optimism? Does one concept logically issue from the other? This is simply wishful thinking. One thing is certain, and that is that U.S. combat units must stand down because their operational readiness status is depleted, to a very serious level.

You cannot strip key personnel from these units without degrading their capabilities. All articles agree that replacements are not available to replenish the U.S. units. So in effect, the new U.S. policy is to screw the U.S. units in order to beef up Iraqi capabilities. The welfare and operational capabilities of the U.S. military should be Job One of the U.S. command structure. All efforts to assist that Iraqis are a zero-sum game.

Lt. General Dempsey said, "the Iraqi Army has the opportunity to be the single institution that can...becom(e) that institution of national unity." Sounds nice, except that is a perfect formula for a military coup. I guess at this point, Washington would be thrilled by anything that would introduce stability to this goatf--k.

"Commanders say that national police units — which have been infiltrated by sectarian militias — are being pulled out of the fight unit by unit for retraining and, in some cases, the assignment of new commanders, with Iraqi Army units taking over their duties in the interim."

When did police units get commanders--isn't that a military concept? This is a police force red-staters would be proud of. I think this whole conflation of civilian with miltary occured when Paul Bremer wore those darned combat boots to work. So...the police are infiltrated by militia, but the army is sacrosanct? How and when did this miraculous parting occur? Is this wonderful democratic creation ever viewed by the chain of command as a potential hostile force?

Aren't police functions clearly and distinctly different from military missions? How can the U.S. train either the police or the Army when even we can't differentiate between the two? Armies protect societies from external threats, while police protect and serve citizens by enforcing civilian law. This seems pretty essential and clear.