The biggest problem in Iraq is lack of basic security. Fix that and everything else will become immediately more palatable to almost all of the people involved. The problem is, we don’t have enough raw manpower (humanpower for you feminists out there).
The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.
Actually, we do have enough manpower, but only if we pulled our troops out of Europe and Japan. And why not? Were we planning on staying forever? The answer, sadly, seems to be yes. If I were in charge, and the choice was between losing military presence in Europe and Asia and losing the war in Iraq I would choose to win in Iraq. No security in Iraq means no security in the Middle East (if such a thing is possible) means no security anywhere. The U.S. should be looking for ways to speed up the achievement of stability in Iraq so we can remove ourselves from future regional interference as quickly as possible. I think this means more troops in the short run. No one has the political will or clout to make it happen though.
If we can only secure 31% of the neighborhoods in Baghdad then we are severely understaffed. Without basic security, anything good that develops in Iraq will happen at a much slower more painful pace. Of course, we’re being encourage toward that other option – throw up our hands and walk out of the room. It will be interesting to see how that one goes.