James Fallows’ article in the December issue of Harper’s is entitled, "Why Iraq Has No Army".
Putting aside ther wisdom of the US attack on Iraq, it sets out to retrace the history of the attack and occupation of Iraq, focusing on the insurgency and the American effort to establish Iraqi military units to put it down.
Fallows’ method is to talk to US civilian and military experts, some on the record. He does so factually and unemotionally.
He reports on the thinking and the practical efforts to rebuild an Iraqi military in four stages up to the present. His conclusion is that American hopes for "an orderly exit" depend entirely on building an Iraqi security force and that "there is no indication that such a force is about to emerge."
That, he thinks, leaves two options: Making serious changes in policy including staying in Iraq for "many years" or recognizing the US "has no orderly way out…".
Sobering?
However, his narrative and analysis lead me to two other conclusions.
One is journalistic – so huge is the gap between the simplicity of daily newspaper reporting and even daily interpretative pieces on one hand and Fallows’ complex analysis on the other, that the average newspaper reader (or TV viewer) cannot hope to grasp the reality.
The second is political. Based only on their conduct of the war, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are guilty of malfeasance in office. My conclusion, not Fallows’.
If you read the article, let me know if you reach any other.