Originally posted by Ramo

Hello! We are still very havily involved in training Iraqi forces as is NATO.

Hello! I was talking about the emphasis of our policy. And it's on getting a political compromise, not training a viable army. That emphasis, as I apparantly have to keep saying, switched several months ago. Wrong again! Just as you were the first time!

The training of the Iraq army remains one of the principle functions of US policy in Iraq. The surge is an addition not a replacement

But I do appreciate the vigor you are pushing your incorrect facts with. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

Originally posted by PLATO
The real problem in Iraq is the artificial timeline that the libs keep insisting on. I think teh real problem is that hundreds of people are being killed every month http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/frown.gif

Originally posted by PLATO
I am really amazed at your lack of understanding. The inability of the US forces to raise a force capable of providing enough stability for the goverment to function is the reason for the surge. Patroklos is right. The surge was undertaken so as to buy time for Iraqis to make compromises.

The U.S. military can never bring about stablity. That can only be done by Iraqis. To do that, the Iraqi leadership needs to make political compromises.

As CIA Director Gates said on last Sunday's Meet the Press, the U.S. is spending its blood in order to buy Iraqis time they need to make the compromises. The Iraqi leadership taking the month of August off is a sure sign that Iraqis are not anxious to provide the unity necessary to win the peace.

Originally posted by Patroklos
Well, I think you may have misunderstood me. I said the surge is to provide security so the political process can continue, but that fact in and of itself proves security is the primary goal of the surge. One follows the other.

Or maybe you said that too and we do agree? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo.../dizzyanim.gif I meant to agree. http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

I don't think anyone has said that. What has been said is their capabilities and size are increasing at a steady rate on track with any real expectation.

And that is happening regardless of the political goals.

Real expectation for what, and when? And the army's capabilities were steadily increasing before the surge, nothing fundamentally has changed here. My argument is that without the necessary political compromises, it's hard to see the army and police consistently acting for a national, rather than sectarian, interest.

There is no difference Ramo. The central effort in protecting civilians is the training (which means using) and arming the Iraqi army and police forces.

That's some convuluted logic. Yes, Iraqi forces are used to secure the Iraqi people, but that certainly doesn't mean that the primary goal in our strategy is to build up the Iraqi army. I repeat, the primary roadblock is and always has been the lack of compromise between sectarian factions.

Its the smell of Naplam in the morning

Well, an army capable of suppressing open violence in Iraq I can imagine.

A politically neutral army I cannot.