In the last several weeks, the United States" involvement in Iraq has been under close scrutiny in the news. After a successful invasion, the US began the process of rebuilding the nation it tore down. This United States government is making progress, but Iraq is a dangerous place. Young men and women of the Armed Forces are still in harm's way. Since May 1, the date that President Bush ordered the end of major combat operations in Iraq, 105 Americans have been killed due to hostile fire (USA Today October 23). A full-scale withdrawal of American armed forces is not possible. The United States, as an occupying force, has a responsibility to ensure order and stability in a place where it has created chaos. The war left the Iraqi infrastructure severely damaged and the country without a government. Without some type of occupying authority, Iraq will fall into anarchy. President Bush's goals for Iraq are "to restore order and bring prosperity to a brutalized society and an infrastructure suffering from decades of malign neglect" (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/). These goals remain to be met. Not withstanding these factors, American soldiers are dying every day. The American military must find a safer way to conduct operations in post-war Iraq.
There are several means to this end. The most obvious solution is what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has called the "More, Better, Faster Method," and calls for a rapid-fire training of more Iraqi police and better training of the Iraqi military. Friedman theorizes that if these key elements are put into place expediently, America will be able to safely withdraw a significant number of troops, leaving the Iraqis in charge of their own security. While this theory is workable, it carries considerable risk. Consider the danger involved with arming a large number of young Iraqis after only a few weeks of training. The Whitehouse feels that this risk may be acceptable, however, as indigenous forces may be better able to foresee oncoming attacks and other dangers.