Not the violence. The corruption in the Iraqi government and military.

I've made this point before, but corruption isn't nearly as exciting in headlines as bombings are.

I've collected a couple of articles that help make this point:

This one is titled "Ghost soldiers."

Roggio is reporting from Iraq, imbedded with a group working with a fairly good Iraqi military group. This article shows the successes and shortcomings of the Iraqi military. Notice how many of the shortcomings are related to corruption: supplies and money being "siphoned" off at upper levels.

I have heard people like Jerry Pournelle say that if we should be a Republic, not an Empire (he didn't think we should have invaded Iraq), but if we are going to act like an Empire, we should at least do it right. Maybe the biggest mistake we make in Iraq was not occupying the country. I mean REALLY occupying it. Running the show. Running the government. Removing the command and logistics structure of the Iraqi military and replacing it with our own people and systems. Auxiliaries, I think they used to be called.

Somehow, I don't think that would have gone over well domestically.

But the Allies ran Japan and Germany for years before they were turned over completely to their people. Just speculating now, but maybe the starry-eyed thinking that shoved an independent government on a culture that wasn't ready for it was a mistake. This isn't racism--the same thing applies, in my opinion, to the Soviet Union, which was mostly replaced by systems rank with similar corruption.

I think the issue is totalitarianism, which requires some level of disdain for law to simply survive. Corruption (black markets, bribery, theft from the State) in Saddam's Iraq meant survival. Same for the Soviets. Hard to change your spots that fast.