Good points. I in no way dismiss the importance of the security situation. Obviously it's the first goal.
But I think the last months have shown that the stable, functional, and legitimate government issue is rooted in more than a security problem. US troops have helped foster a new, more secure environment, yet much of the work done to accomplish that (CLC groups, arming the Sunnis, etc.) has actually destabilized and delegitimized the national government. With that fragmentation at the national level (important success at the local and provincial levels notwithstanding for the time being), two problems arise with the security forces:
1 - the corruption and the ethnic and regional fragmentation will continue to degrade the effectiveness of ISF; and, perhaps more importantly,
2 - If somehow the ISF do become a stable force, if they are the arm of a weak, divided state, they seem likely to be the source of a military takeover. Or, they could just fissure into US-armed and trained private militias for a general power struggle.
So, in the overall foreign-policy strategy of the United States, the stability and legitimacy of the Iraqi government is the problem. But I agree, as far as the US military can influence the situation, the security issue is the center of gravity.
Need to get my terms right.
Matt
Bookmarks