It's been no big secret that the police forces have been undertrained, underfunded, and often apt to corruption and bribery Dan. This is essentially the same force as under Hussein, afterall.

It would have taken extensive reducation programmes lasting many weeks - I'd say eight weeks minimum per recruit - and a partnership joint patrol program with military police and police attaches from as many countries as we could get to contribute to really fix the problem.

Then we screwed up on the whole security thing, withdrew from the cities, which became death-traps for foreigners, and then shutting down such partnership and mentorship programmes.

So you see Dan it's just not a problem here or there, these problems are compounding. One problem ruins the next which spoils the next issue which gimps yet another ... etc.

Sometimes I think optimists in Iraq are looking at little photo-op snapshots of calm oasis amidst chaos. Because foreigners don't go where it's not safe, then they only snap the pictures of the places where things are going good. And as the chaos grows, these areas shrink, until now it's hard to find any "sunshine" spots. Even if you could find them, you might get shot getting there.

And it's fluid in time as well. Kids waving friendly at you in one picture might turn out in the next to loot shot-up US vehicles. That's already been verified to happen several times.

Nope, things are pretty bad over there. Could be worse, but never fear it'll get there soon enough.

What amazes me is the incredible impatience exhibited here: We haven't solved Iraq's corruption problem in less than a year? What incompetence by the CPA!

Dan may not be aware, but corruption is a problem for police all over the globe. Including in Chicago.

I'm really tired of the continual carping in the blogosphere that this or that problem in Iraq hasn't been completely fixed yet. It's typically American to require immediate gratification, but fixing Iraq ain't gonna work that way.

So what I'd like from Dan, before he goes and criticizes the work that's being done there, is a measure of the scope of the corruption problem in Iraq and a measure of what he expects the CPA to accomplish in terms of that measure. He's a political scientist, he should understand the request for statistics, rather than basing his criticism on anecdotage.

Al, the "impatience" is due more to the contradiction between the current situation and what this Admin told us to expect.

The lack of commitment from the US-trained Iraqi Security forces is appalling, but apparently no surprise. For some, their 1st official duty was to face off against the most serious uprisings, where they were ordered to shoot into crowds of Shiites - relatives and neighbors among them - on "suspicion" of armed insurgents in the crowd. Shocked at the order, they dropped their weapons and walked.

According to Newsweek (OK, I know I know), the training cost around $1 bil. Now who's providing the training? U.S. Armed services? With a $1 bil tag, isn't it most likely private firms like Blackwater Security? My reading suggests they are hiring former Pinochet Chileans and elite South African "Scorpion" units. The States probably won't see much of that $1 bil back here, neither in "trickle down" nor in taxes.

It's typically American to require immediate gratification, but fixing Iraq ain't gonna work that way.

The American taxpayer is footing the bill though, and does not expect that gratification will require 30 years of patience, nor is he particularly willing to shell out billions in extra funds indefinitely.

Stupid? Maybe, but frothing about the shortsightedness of the average American or Iraqi will not suddenly improve their vision. Should have taken that into consideration before you applied for the job of Iraqi Liberator, buddy.

"It's typically American to require immediate gratification, but fixing Iraq ain't gonna work that way."

No, Al, it's more like the following:

You just bought a car. But the dealer can't release it to you because it's not quite in working order. You are making payments but if you ask how many more payments will be required before you actually own it, the dealer tells you that's very unpatriotic of you to ask. So you are stuck making payments indefinitely, have no idea when it will be done, nor can you be sure it will be in a condition to drive. We just bought Iraq. We don't know how much it will cost (in lives or dollars) nor can we be sure it will be in driving condition, ever.

The real cost of the media circus surrounding self-serving ass-coverers like Richard Clarke is that there has been no reporting on the REAL problems like those Diamond describes.

I don't see this administration being particularly "patient" about Iraq, either. Are they not rushing to hand things over on June 30th?

I've seen a real change in the tone of comments here over the last few months. It used to be that a post like this would attract wave after wave of wingers saying that all was well and nothing wrong with the Dear Leader. Now I see -- maybe one comment by the same troll who futilely hangs out at Atrios. We're down to the dead-enders. I really didn't expect the reality principle to take over so quickly. Is it that the chickenhawks see a draft on the horizon and their natural cowardice is asserting itself?

As for the great triumph of Iraqi law -- if you can't throw billions of dollars at a country that you occupy, with puppets you've appointed, and *not* get a shiny new works-in-theory legal system, then something is seriously wrong. Looking at it as a fantastic accomplishment just insults our intelligence.

Al, the "impatience" is due more to the contradiction between the current situation and what this Admin told us to expect.

Well, then, what DID the administration tell us to expect after a year, in terms of police corruption? And I want DIRECT QUOTATIONS from administation sources.

I expect I'll receive nothing from you, showing that your post is complete BS.

According to Newsweek (OK, I know I know), the training cost around $1 bil. Now who's providing the training? U.S. Armed services? With a $1 bil tag, isn't it most likely private firms like Blackwater Security? My reading suggests they are hiring former Pinochet Chileans and elite South African "Scorpion" units. The States probably won't see much of that $1 bil back here, neither in "trickle down" nor in taxes.

How much do you EXPECT it should take to train hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? I'd like a breakdown of the figures, please.

And this isn't a pork program where we're expecting a "trickle down" effect for US taxes. Sheez - who are you, Robert Byrd? We're trying to protect Iraq, not increase our tax base.

The American taxpayer is footing the bill though, and does not expect that gratification will require 30 years of patience, nor is he particularly willing to shell out billions in extra funds indefinitely.

Oh really? From all the polls I've seen, it looks to me as though the American taxpayer has been more than willing to put in the extra effort. It's the carpers in the anti-war movement and the blogosphere who expected Iraq to be France within a year.

You just bought a car. But the dealer can't release it to you because it's not quite in working order. You are making payments but if you ask how many more payments will be required before you actually own it, the dealer tells you that's very unpatriotic of you to ask. So you are stuck making payments indefinitely, have no idea when it will be done, nor can you be sure it will be in a condition to drive. We just bought Iraq. We don't know how much it will cost (in lives or dollars) nor can we be sure it will be in driving condition, ever.

No, it's more like we just bought a broken-down '73 Chevy Nova and the anti-war movement is complaining LOUDLY that the body shop hasn't made it into an '04 Porche yet (even though the body shop is working quite hard and nobody has ever made a '73 Nova into an '04 Porsche).

As for the great triumph of Iraqi law -- if you can't throw billions of dollars at a country that you occupy, with puppets you've appointed, and *not* get a shiny new works-in-theory legal system, then something is seriously wrong. Looking at it as a fantastic accomplishment just insults our intelligence.

Shorter Rich Pulasky: Where's my '04 Porsche? I can't believe that it might take a day-and-a-half to remake a '73 Nova into an '04 Porsche!

Rich:

I get the impression that the commenters are well above draft age, so I doubt it's "natural cowardice". I expect you know that, but why let that get in the way of a cheap shot?

I agree with your general point, and it's an interesting one. I think the posters, on average, are mostly GOP members in varying stages of disaffection, and rather high levels of sophistication. So I think a realistic appraisal of what's happening is actually pretty much what you'd expect.

But what I also do not see is a lot of folks posting saying, oh gosh oh gee, sorry about that Iraq, let's just zip on out. And that's something you should perhaps note as well. Once you begin to see a lot of that, feel free to take all the cheap shots you want.

You're a tuff cookie, Al.

But if my criticisms somehow suggest to you that I had it all figured out ahead of time, with facts & figures, then I really can't debate your somewhat contrived assertions.

Less the anger, you'll see my point that the $1 bil training costs (for approx. 100,000, not hundreds of thousands) doesn't seem to have netted us much. Nor has our use of exclusively U.S. rebuilding firms.

Anyone who can compare the PD of Chicago to Iraqi Police after decades under Hussein is completely in denial. I don't blame the Admin for the state of Iraqi police. I blame the Admin for not doing something about it.

What to do?
In three words:
Embed,
Embed,
Embed.

You train Iraqi police using US military police, and then they go on joint patrols - they work together day in and day out. This builds loyalty and expertise transfer. We also have to pay them more to break the culture of corruption. A cop with a starving family is gonna think different about bribes than one with a well fed family.

You then bring in the outside firms - not to do the main training - but to do seminars ("This is Miranda...") and special training classes like takedowns, hostage sits, forensics, etc.

But to do that would require more boots on the ground. It's only in an embedded mentoring program that we're going get this situation to take off. That's just the way it is.

For his money, Al can spend all day defending the Bush Admin's conduct but the matter of the fact is that with some 40% of Iraqi troops deserting and 10% turning on us according to the military we need a different policy to succeed. It's as simple as that.

I don't blame the Admin for the state of Iraqi police. I blame the Admin for not doing something about it.

What to do? In three words:
Embed,
Embed,
Embed.

And you don't think that's gonna take a little time?... certainly more than we've had so far?

Dear Bithead,

Bithead we never got started on it seriously, so how could more time doing the same policy - not partner with them - suddenly produce more partnering?

I think the arguments of "same course, more time" do not amount to gradual incremental progress if the individual steps were never made at all.

This is sort of like saying in time you will finish a marathon, but never taking the first step. A journey of a thousand miles may begin with a single step, but you still need each one of those individual trudging steps. That's what we don't got now. No little pitter patter of feet pushing for forward progress.

You train Iraqi police using US military police, and then they go on joint patrols - they work together day in and day out. This builds loyalty and expertise transfer.

Interesting approach. Funny that here in the US we don't follow your approach: send our raw police recruits out on the beat first, then send them to police academies. For some strange reason, we send them to police academies first. Who'da thunk it?

In fact, we are training cops for Iraq in the same way we train them for Bosnia. In fact, it's the same exact company doing the training. If you have a complaint, you should have taken up with Bill Clinton about a decade ago.

Moreover, the US government USED TO do things like police training. It was shut down in the mid-70s due to "abuses" by US-trained foreign police. So the government doesn't really do it anymore.

We also have to pay them more to break the culture of corruption. A cop with a starving family is gonna think different about bribes than one with a well fed family.

We already do. Iraqi cops were paid $30-60/month by Saddam pre-war, and are paid $200-250/month now.

Yeah, well Al - The Oldman doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about.

But, hey - nice work up here, pal, I'm going back down to the "Sobering Thread" - he's trying to peddle the same crap there. Probably 'cause he's not got a lot of bad economic news to write about of late, eh?

Ummm ... I did say to train them first and then send them out Al. Do you have a problem reading?

As for you Tommy G, Mark Buehner weighed in supporting my view that if given a shuffle we do have more troops to send overseas - that it was a political restraint and not a military one.

That's the last one you went off on about me being wrong about. Is that what you're basing the idea that I have no idea what I'm talkin about on?

"ANd as for you, my pretty..."

Oooh, watch out, Al -he's in full scold mode, now..

Mr. Oldman - that misunderstanding is being de-bunked at the "Sobering Account" thread, below

Tommy: Getting a bit silly, aren't we? Stop egging him on.

The 3 state solution in Iraq is looking better and better. The Sunnis under Saddam became so corrupt, that it would take 50 years or more to make a decent society with Iraqi Sunnis included.
Write them off, and try to save Kurdistan and South Iraq. Reserve most of the oil for the Shias and the Kurds--the Sunnis don't deserve it.

Blythe: The 3 state solution in Iraq is looking better and better.

Maybe for Iraqis, but I still don't think it's what Washington wants, since the Shia state is likely to align with Iran (and will piss off both us and a lot of Muslims who don't like Shiites) and the Kurdish state is unacceptable to Turkey (as well as Syria and Iran), and we don't really have that many Muslim countries as allies as it is.

And how to divy up the oil fields is going to be really dicey.

Why not go one step more and set up tribal fiefdoms? Atabegs ruled the Seljuk/Turk dynasties for centuries so it must be a good thing, right?

more decaf and less TV would help.

I suggest you go to the URL below and keep reading down.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM

Foreigners are well, foreign. They're not like us. Building a civil society in Iraq will take a long, long, time.

Some people will always be shocked, SHOCKED! that whatever they want at the moment (which are always good things, not bad things) doesn't happen right away. TV shows aren't reality.

The sky will always be falling for some people. It's always the same people, and they're always wrong.

I am always on this site, and enjoy it. Read your latest TNR piece, Up is Down. I am just amazed at the real possibility, that your column points out, that President Bush could have a terrible record on both the economy, and in Iraq, and still be re-elected.

Bithead we never got started on it seriously, so how could more time doing the same policy - not partner with them - suddenly produce more partnering?

And to be blunt, how would you know this? If, by 'embed' you mean install covert operatives to gather intel, would our government annouce they were doing so? IN any event, installing such ops inside of a rather tightly knit and intensely seretive society... whose natural tendencies there would be accelerated somewhat by the occupation... is going to take time, to get to where useful intel is showing up, don't you think?

I am just amazed at the real possibility, that your column points out, that President Bush could have a terrible record on both the economy, and in Iraq, and still be re-elected.

I think Dan has wrongly neglected the "tipping point" factor in his analysis.

Right now it seems more likely than not that Iraq actually will get even worse during the next six months. The recent poll snapshots portray the early situation, after roughly one month of heavier casualties than usual. The President has managed to minimize the damage by simple chestbeating rhetoric, repeating the same "we won't budge an inch in the face of terror" mantra without offering any real solutions. Kerry hasn't proposed anything specific either, mind you. He doesn't really have to at this stage of the campaign, since he is apparently counting on a strong finish in the fall and the current President is unlikely to move that far ahead in the polls due to the Iraq mess and because he has pretty much burned his bridges as far as Democratic voters are concerned. The President's strategy of preaching the same "commitment" message will be increasingly ineffective, I think -- he needs *results*. And if Iraq gets really ugly, it will most probably lower the bar for Kerry -- much as Ronald Reagan would not have seemed like a credible alternative to Carter in '80 without Iran, Afghanistan and other fiascos. Kerry will of course have to persuade voters he will continue to fight terrorism as President, which isn't a major concern as I see it. The key issue is how the resources should be allocated and the overall priorities: is it really prudent to spend tens of billions on anti-"rogue state" ICBM missile development or hundreds of billions on invading Iraq when the real threat arguably involves low-tech homeland defense against another 9/11?

My prediction is "Shrub" will be toast if Iraq *and* the economy are still sputtering six months from now. Karl Rove can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t even if he has $200 million to spend on negative attack ads and if the opponent is a stiff liberal aristocrat from Massachusetts. If the economy has made significant progress, "Shrub" will probably win by a small margin though.

MARCU$