Wrapper

In article <tOd2h.45561$Zn1.4299@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"Tom in Macon" <TomMacon@member.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:12kifn6eaepgsc9@corp.supernews.com...[color=green]
> > So, what's the problem? Are these folks slow learners? Have we been
> > teaching them in English, which they don't understand? Have no members
> > of Saddam's former army been recruited into the "new" army?
> > I'd really like to understand the holdup here, and would appreciate some
> > serious answers, because as far as I can tell, this is another boondoggle
> > without an end to it.[/color][/color]
As has already been said the Iraq army were mostly Saddam's minority
Sunni population, who have no oil under their traditional lands and are
now fighting for their survival.
The Kurds who were sadly suppressed by Saddam for years have most of the
oil and just want to get on with life.
The majority Shia to the south have the balance of the oil and also want
to get their lives together after Saddam. Also they are of a different
Muslim sect than the Sunni so they don't get along.

* One feeling is shared by these very independent people is they wanted
* the western forces to be gone very soon after Saddam was removed.
(Learning English or American isn't one of their priorities and they
certainly aren't about to convert to the Christian religious club.)

They are very smart people, why waste your own on protection when the
USA and British are willing to waste their lives attempting to maintain
peace.
In the opinion of many what they need is a civil war to resolve their
internal problem, but as the USA found many years that's a brutal way
to resolve a political problem.
It may be late to separate the Sunni and Shia into two countries,
although the Kurds could probably be split off.
Of course the Shia could join their Iranian cousins, but the USA
couldn't stand for that.