jorgelito

Well, I'm not an expert, but IMO, I think that the US should:

1. Security - Commit more troops, up to at least 250,000 - 500,000 to secure the area: roads, towns etc. Perhaps adopting the UK model of "softly,softly" where appropriate will help. Simultaneously, train the Iraqi troop, a civilian police force, and an Iraqi Officer Corps (this is especially important - Iraq needs good leadership and management, preferably home grown).

There are a few ways they could do it:
"Walking the beat" - Joint US-Iraqi patrols, engaging the community. Establish civilian "watch" or patrols too. Key is, you have to involve the locals and show them how to do it, train etc.

Criticisms: The US doesn't have enough troops, overextended. Costs too much.

True, but we spilled the milk, we got to clean up. We'll have to bite the bullet and reduce in other areas. NATO can supply troops in Afghanistan, we could pull troops from there and they have experience. Up recruitment: Show them the money. Up the bonuses, yeah the cost will hurt but that's the price we gotta pay to wipe our asses. Otherwise, "bribe" our "allies", mend fences. Offer consessions if they agree to deploy their troops. Example, France gets to build roads in exchange for supplying 25,000 troops etc. Germany gets to rebuild the airport if they supply 25,000 troops, barracks, and a medical corps. Japan gets the telecom contract if they supply 10,000 engineers/support units whatever, I don't know.

Draft is NOT a good idea (IMO).

2. Reconstruction - Open bidding for rebuilding/reconstruction efforts to more companies and involve more Iraqis in the effort. For example, why are we paying some kid from Iowa $100,000 (hypothetical, not empirical) to drive a truck? Wouldn't it be better to hire an Iraqi for considerably less and he is gainfully employed.

The sooner the Iraqis are involved in their own rebuilding, the sooner they will have a stake. With a stake, they will be less tolerant of "rotten apples" trying to ruin it for the rest of them. Example, Iraqi shopkeeper who got sick and tired of insurgents disrupting their business, in a moment to make the NRA proud, grabbed their own guns and fought back.

Regarding the issue of funding and open bidding: Perhaps a system of priority or percentage to go to Coalition allies as a "reward" (the lion's share etc.).

Or if you want to go international, then fine, but everyone has to pony up for the bill then too.

So perhaps a compromise: France, Germany, et al: You want contracts? YOu want bids? Ok, then please also contribute to the bill and/or troops to either help train Iraqis, or patrol. Or debt relief too if you want, but you gotta pay if you want to play. I think it's only fair (insofar as it's possible or reasonable) to the American taxpayer.

Criticisms: The US did all the hard work, therefore the US and coalition allies should reap the rewards (as in fat contracts and bids). True, but we're not really in a good position here are we. We need to be more pragmatic and stop playing games. We need to use our good ol fashioned Yankee ingenuity and outside-of-the-box thinking. We can all come out winners (in theory) if we make a concerted effort at cooperation, compromise and good will. Spreading the wealth around and open bidding should help keep prices under control, give allies and potential allies more incentive to cooperate, gives everyone a stake in the success of Iraq instead of waiting around to watch the US get egg on its face. "What's in it for me" can be utilized here. Give and take. At least I hope so...

3. Administration - Either have the Iraqis take over all affairs themselves with the US providing security and create an "advisory panel" with no executive powers, consulting only. Or have some sort of "neutral" entity oversee the state-building process. Martinguerre and Roachboy are correct about the US "planners" not having an exit strategy nor a governance plan either. The US armed forces is very good at what it's supposed to do. Break and destroy stuff, fight bad guys. But it's not good at doing stuff it's not intended for. Occupation, civil administration. So, let the "office geeks" do their jobs and govern.

Criticisms: How can the US ensure its interests if it cedes controls to others? Well, that's a good concern. We have to start somewhere right? We said we were there to liberate them so let's do that. IMO, no one in their right mind would try and "screw" the US. Everyone already knows we have military might. I suppose the cynical view is, if our interest aren't being considered, we could always steamroll back in there. So, we just have to let them run their own country. They know we're watching (this sounds bad I know, but I'm running out of ideas, LOL!)

Sh*t, I have to get back to studying. I hope y'all enjoyed "my two cents". Agree or disagree, maybe you got a good laugh too. Well, guys how about it?

The bell may have already been rung, but we can make music, Will!

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter