Posted 8:33 AM by steve

As someone who has long felt that we are ultimately going to fail in Iraq, if success is defined as a democratically elected government that is both friendly to the United States and capable of handling its own external and internal security without needing US troops, I admit I was pleasantly surprised to read earlier in the week that Iraqi forces were starting to move against the various militias that plague Iraq. What better way, I thought, to prove me and the other doubters wrong than to have the Iraqis take the lead in taking care of their own security issues?

Unfortunately, that faint bubble of hope was popped today upon reading that the Iraqis are pretty much taking a back seat to US forces in the fight against the militias. Despite claims that " (American) units were taking only a backup role in the offensive and that Iraqi forces were growing strong enough to shoulder the country's security needs", it appears, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that reports of Iraqi competence are greatly exaggerated, as per the words of a senior militia member, "If there were no Americans, there would be no fighting". That's not exactly stepping up and taking responsibility for one's security, is it?

This only confirms my belief that, no matter how many terrorists US forces kill in Iraq, that the Iraqis are incapable and/or unwilling to do the things they need to do in order for us to have truly 'won'. They're not taking the lead in maintaining their own security, whether it be from militias, Iran or the remnants of Al Qaeda. And a country that can't - or won't - take care of its own security isn't a country, it's a doormat.

|