Why didn't we see this on tv? Bias perhaps?

Didn't Patton get in trouble for employing Nazi officers in eastern europe after the fall of Berlin?

It should help transform Iraqi's tribal allegiances to a more national one - a little, anyhow.

It's the stakeholder argument. Letting in the members of the old regime and making their future success dependent on the success of the new regime reduces the incentives to start trouble/undermine the new system. It's what the old comparative politics literature called "pacted" democracy.

Didn't Patton get in trouble for employing Nazi officers in eastern europe after the fall of Berlin?

Yes he knew the Germans hated the Commies more than anyone else, this is a good thing these guys dislike the Iranians and should help offset there influence, lets just hope they don't get to nostalgic and revert to thier old ways.

Comparing the Iraqi army to nazis is too general. I would say comparing the Baathist leadership of the Republican Guard to the SS is fairly accurate, but no-one is talking about bringing them back.
I dont like the tone of this article at all.
-Both armies carry the same rifles and ride in the same tanks. Er ok but AK-47s and T-72s are used by more than half the armies in the world. Does that mean the new Iraqi army is looking distubingly like Bulgaria's as well?
-Disbanding the old army was bad, which is proved by the fact that the hastilly put together Bremer army ran at the first sign of trouble. Ok, but the old Iraqi army ran at the first sign of trouble as well, so thats not much of an argument. The old army basically disbanded itself in the first place. And even with hindsight, lets not forget the danger that maintaining the old army would have created in alienating the Shiia and Kurds. Every decision being attacked do to its problems with the Sunni must be regarded in the light of how well things have gone with the Shiia. Trading a Sunni uprising for a Shiia nightmare is a sucker bet.

There is a powerful argument to be made that the old army was so disfunctional it needed to be rebuilt from the ground up. That doesnt mean you dont use some of the same bricks, when they are good bricks. While we might train infantry NCOs and junior officers in a few months, tank platoons dont work that way. We needed Iraqis who at least knew how to drive and maintain tanks, and unsurprisingly the only ones that do worked for the old army, and equally unsurprisingly the best of those were in the Republcan Guard. We're talking about NCOs and junior officers here. Not big-wig baathists that could be a threat to The Republic (that feels good to say).

If we were talking about putting high ranking Baathist generals with their loyalists back in charge, that would be something completely different, but that is basically what this journalists is trying to insinuate. So yeh, the new army bears skin level resemblence to the old (I bet they wore army boots back then too, and complained about the chow), that does not make them a danger to bring back the bad ol days.

Remarks like this do't suggest to me that this will be a formidable force:

"rolled past the reviewing stand without breakdown or excessive smoke."

Hmm, now we apparently accept as news events that dont happen but the journalist presupposes are likely: "Today George Bush failed to slap the opposition party in chains for a 2190th consecutive day. But the danger remains palpable here on Capital Hill."

SUCCESSFUL REVOLUTIONS/OCCUPATIONS THAT RELIED ON THE COOPERATION OF THE PRIOR REGIME'S TECHNOCRATS:

-Japan (MacArthur)
-Republic of Korea (rough start, though)

And - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania in 1989, Soviet Union (eventually in the 1930s; Tsarist officers in the Red Army, for example), Germany in 1945, (does the name 'Reinhard Gehlen' ring any bells?)...

My feeling about the old Iraq army is that it needed to be destroyed by American force of arms, and then rebuilt. I think part of the problem we are having now is that the army was basically allowed to disband on its own, and then the most dedicated parts to regroup later. If we had defeated the army on the field of battle, the parts that were left would be more likely to be people who were not the most dedicated to the old regime and could be more easily re-trained for the new army. Overall the old army had to go, I just think we should have destroyed it instead of letting it disband.

BCN

It's been a while since I've perused the comparative politics literature on this, but if memory serves there has never been a successful occupation or revolution that did not rely on the cooperation of the prior regime's technocrats. It's just a fact of life.

So if this is such an obvious point, why did it not occur to the decision-makers in the White House?

Willful recklessness for the consequences of their actions. If I could sue Bush for this war, the punitives would be staggering. McDonald's is held to a higher standard than the people running our country.

"Willful recklessness for the consequences of their actions. If I could sue Bush for this war, the punitives would be staggering. McDonald's is held to a higher standard than the people running our country."

Perhaps the Shiia, Kurds, Lebanese, and Libyans should pick up the tab.

vigrx pill

semenax vigrx

cheap vigrx

business card consolidation credit credit debt debt finances from homehome insurance work