>>If there is no likelihood of combat, foreign soldiers are not
>>necessary in Iraq. After all, the job of soldiers is to combat.
>
>Not really. The most effective and professional armies (1)
>avoid/prevent conflict wherever possible, and (2) deal with threats
>when they emerge.
It's possible for professional armies to do something to try to avoid conflict. Generals may express their objections to civilian political leaders before the latter give the former an order to go to war. Once a war begins, soldiers and low- to mid-rank officers who are not enthusiastic about it may still engage in combat avoidance, doing as little as possible without getting charged with mutiny, dereliction of duty, etc.
Professional armies are, however, not trained to prevent conflict.
>That is to say, things would probably be quite different in Iraq had
>two events not occurred in April 2003: US forces' massacre of
>demonstrators in Fallujah, and their failure to arrest Muqtada el
>Sadr in relation to the killing of Abd al-Majid Khoi.
The massacre of demonstrators in Fallujah is hardly the only case of US forces killing demonstrators and other civilians. And if it is not al-Sadr, some other political leaders will emerge to lead uprisings of Iraqis, again and again.
>>If there is any likelihood of combat at all, foreign soldiers
>>unprepared to fight are useless:
>
>There is a big difference between soldiers who are unprepared to
>fight and soldiers who have been ordered not to fight by their
>governments.
Most governments in the world -- even the ones who have sent troops to Iraq, expressing symbolic solidarity with Washington -- do not think that this is "their war." They correctly believe that they do not have as much stake as Washington does in making the occupation "successful" and setting up a pro-American Iraqi government.
>>> >And if such a handover were to occur
>>
>>Will never happen.
>
>Probably not. Neither will the withdrawal of US forces, until some
>kind of empire-friendly government of Iraqis appears to have been
>successfully installed.
Washington is not establishing a settler colony in Iraq, so it will withdraw US troops sooner or later. Given the bipartisan consensus to send more troops, however, it will be later rather than sooner. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>