dr. freeze said:
from on the scene reporters....rather than the armchair anchors who have been proclaiming gloom and doom from the start
Yep, sounds like the looting and such isn't much of a problem. Let's just leave it like it is.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military said on Friday it would not serve as a police force in Iraq (news - web sites), but some analysts said that was the role American troops must assume to stabilize the chaotic country for months and perhaps years.
The swift collapse of President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s rule after the U.S.-led invasion has left the impoverished country ravaged by looting and lawlessness.
Analysts said although U.S. soldiers and Marines were not trained to serve as a police force to keep order in a foreign land, by necessity they must do just that to provide security in the face of anarchy.
They said the continuing presence of paramilitary fighters still loyal to Saddam Hussein further complicated an already tough chore.
"As much as U.S. military forces hate to be drawn into policing and providing for public order, absent an international peacekeeping force that is ready to be deployed, we're it," said Michele Flournoy, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"The question is whether we're smart enough to step into the breach," added Flournoy, a former Pentagon (news - web sites) official.
Looting erupted in shops, government buildings and hospitals in Baghdad and other cities as Saddam's government lost control of power. A prominent cleric hacked to death by a mob in a Shiite shrine in Najaf. U.S. troops have been the target of suicide bombings.
"Iraq had lived under a repressive dictatorship for so long that many of the stabilizing mechanisms of a civil society are gone. That means that peace will have to be kept at the tip of a gun barrel for some time," said analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
Flournoy said U.S. troops would have to serve in a police role until the United States could reorganize and redeploy Iraqi police and armed forces manned by people not tainted by Saddam's government. Flournoy said local police forces could be put in place in weeks or months in some parts of southern and northern Iraq less aligned with Saddam.
"But the bulk of the security task will stay in U.S. hands until those institutions can be rebuilt, and that's a three- to five-year process," Flournoy said.
Retired U.S. Army Gen. William Nash, an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, estimated that the development of new local police forces would take six months to a year.
'CONDITIONS OF STABILITY'
During a U.S. Central Command briefing in Qatar, Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said on Friday American troops would take some steps but would not become the police on the beat. Some looting has taken place as U.S. troops stood idly by.
"At no point do we see really becoming a police force," Brooks said. "We seek to create conditions of stability where people can walk the streets safely without looting, without violence, without exploding vehicles. ... In some cases it may require shooting machine guns in downtown."
The U.S. military declined to play the role of police after the Taliban rulers were toppled in Afghanistan (news - web sites), and the United States has refused to provide peacekeepers for the military stabilization force there.
U.S. officers in Baghdad on Friday discussed how to impose a curfew and extend daylight patrols to night hours. Marine Lt. Col. Jim Chartier, who commands a tank battalion in Baghdad, admitted that "we are a little bit out of our comfort zone."
That discomfort may be for a good reason, analysts said.
"The U.S. military is decidedly not a police force. That is not what we train our soldiers to do. We train them to fight and win wars. That's what they're good at," said Charles Pena, an analyst at the Cato Institute.
Pena said the policing task was made even more difficult by the fact U.S. troops may not speak the language or understand local culture and customs.
British troops may be better suited for the job, he added.
"The British have a ton of experience dealing with Northern Ireland and having to deal with the IRA constantly harassing them but having to police Belfast and protect the citizenry. So if you had to pick inside the coalition who is better for police activity, it would be the British," Pena said.
Some commentators said the United States had too few troops on the ground in Iraq to provide comprehensive policing immediately, but noted that thousands more were due to enter from Kuwait.
The issue of how many troops are required to stabilize postwar Iraq has been touchy. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki said several hundred thousand troops may be needed, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called too high.
The task of bringing order to postwar Iraq is complicated by the lingering presence of paramilitary fighters such as those in the Fedayeen Saddam forces, Thompson said.
"The challenge that is posed by paramilitaries is really the same as that posed by terrorists or guerrillas. They are indistinguishable from noncombatants. And in fact they count on that quality to protect themselves," Thompson said.
