Thursday, 08 April 2004

Small world. (Southern Cross) Words is another blog by an American expat in Sydney; the author discovered my blog earlier today, and is apparently browsing my archives right now to find out more about me.

Reading his blog, though, I've realized that he's in for a surprise: We've met. We both attended the Democrats Abroad caucus in February, where I spoke on Howard Dean's behalf; I think we even spoke to each other briefly, just after the caucus.

What are the odds?

And yes, to answer Greg's question, I do attend non-Dean Meetups here in Sydney. :-)

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 12:55 pm. comments.

Thursday, 08 April 2004

Plan of attack. I think I've figured out George W. Bush's strategy for promoting peace and stability in Iraq — his plan is elegant in its simplicity, and if we stay the course long enough our success is almost certain.

1. Kill everyone who doesn't want peace.
2. Repeat.

No further planning is necessary. All we need now is a bold leader with the will and the vision to see us through the difficult first step; we're not cutting and running this time, no matter what the liberal pansies say.

Thank goodness we have a strong leader like George W. Bush protecting America and defending our freedoms in this time of crisismmmmghggHAAAAAAAGGHH! What in the name of all that's good and

Sorry. Better now. Let me try again:

We're twelve weeks away from June 30th, and the Bush Administration's plan for transferring sovereignty to Iraq has only two small problems: Our efforts to impose law and order are falling short, and no one on the Iraqi side is ready to pick up the ball. Bush's slap-dash approach to nation-building has always been the Achilles' heel of this project; there was never any doubt about the military outcome, but there were plenty of questions on our ability to transform post-war Iraq into a peaceful democratic state.

Iraq has a population of 24.7 million, half of whom are under the age of 19. The U.S. has about 130,000 soldiers and 26,000 Marines in Iraq, plus 26,500 troops from the coalition of the bullied willing. That makes a grand total of about 182,500 personnel, or about one soldier for every 135 Iraqi civilians.

Successful peacekeeping operations require about one soldier for every 50 civilians. In order to secure Iraq effectively, we would need 500,000 troops on the ground; in order to sustain that level of commitement over time, we'd need 2.5 million people rotating in and out. Just for Iraq.

American plans to create a new Iraqi army envisioned a troop strength of 40,000; by the end of last year we had recruited 700, of whom 300 resigned over low pay. Under Saddam, Iraq's army numbered about 300,000 to 400,000 troops. Paul Bremer disbanded that army in late May, possibly under orders from above.

Iraq's national police force should grow to 50,000 policemen by 2006; Baghdad, a city of 6 million, currently has 8,000. It takes 13,705 officers to maintain law and order in Chicago (population 2.9 million); New York City has 39,110 officers for a population of 8 million.

Iraq's Governing Council has all the credibility of a hand-picked collection of toadying exiles, in part because it is a collection of hand-picked toadying exiles, but also because it's done nothing in the past year to dispel that perception or to win the trust and support of the Iraqi people. The presidency of the IGC rotates every month, making it impossible for a political leader to emerge on the national or international stage; in the absence of a political figurehead, religious leaders like Ali Sistani have stepped into the gap where Iraq's Hamid Karzai should be.

In short, we have less than half the number of bodies required to maintain even the illusion that the rule of law is in effect; George W. Bush's June 30th date is based solely on domestic political considerations; the Iraqi Governing Council is hopelessly unable to assume sovereignty; and our efforts to establish a government of the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people, and for the Iraqi people, are so woefully inadequate that we are in danger of turning Iraq into the next Lebanon.

My support for the war in Iraq was based on humanitarian grounds (i.e., that Saddam was a genocidal tyrant), and on the assumption that our government would at least be minimally competent to administer post-war Iraq. The Bush Administration has succeded at removing Saddam and his sons, but failed at almost everything else: When you look at all that we could have gained by reforming the government in Iraq, we've accomplished only the bare minimum that followed directly from deposing Saddam.

Yesterday John Kerry called the situation in Iraq "one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgement that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life." I think he understates the case.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 12:39 pm. comments.