Why won't the US arm the Iraqi army?

The Iraqi army has one important component to fight a war...manpower!

They do not have the field equipment, training, general officer corps with strategic planning ability, or the heart to fight the war. Yes, they have the troops in numbers individually equipped by the US government.

The US is willing to provide individual and personal equipment to wage battle; uniforms, ammunition, guns, helmets, but, even flack jackets for the Iraqis are questionable. They do not have the support equipment needed to sustain a battle. If ole George gets his way, they aren't going to get it for a long time.

This Iraqi army has had difficulty after their five year struggle to "stand up." Even now, in 2008 they have difficult time of mustering troops for battle and standing up without the US involvement in support. The fighting in Basra against al-Sadr's Mahdi army has shown they need the US support.

No, this is not a standing army poised to win a war with tanks, long range artillery, heavy duty mortar, or armored carriers for troops. This is a barely trained army going into the breach of battle with a gun and bullets. There is not even a good sustaining medical system for the wounded.

The Iraqi Air Force is almost non-existent, except for a few prop driven fighter aircraft, light aircraft, a dismal amount of helicopters and transport planes. So, officers cannot call for any of their own air support, only what the Americans are willing to provide. There is no navy to consider. Is this how we spend a huge amount of treasure, five precious years and over 4,000 lives of our sons and daughters to equip and sustain an army supposed to be on our side? Is this how the surge is working, and we are preparing Iraq to stand alone? The Bush administration is tied to the Iraqi government like an dead Albatross around Bush's neck.

What is missing in this equation?

An idea for consideration, and may not be far fetched to the open mind. Maybe, ole George does not want to win the war in Iraq. Perhaps, just perhaps, Bush/McCain wants the Iraqis dependent on us. Then we can control their oil. and contain flair-ups in the region? Are we fearful to arm the Iraqi troops into a well trained fighting force with equipment that would make a difference in battle? It appears so! Does McCain's statement about a hundred years ring a bell?

Think abstractly now. Do we want to give force like al-Sadr the possibility of obtaining serious equipment that can be used against us and may make a difference in the battles. Are so joined with Israel at the hip that when the say"crap" we ask them to tell us what color they would like. Suppose the Iraqi army was well trained with a decent officer corps, well equipped to do battle on a winning basis and decided to support Palestine with a preemptive strike against the Israelis?

Tell me, what do the Israelis bring to the American table, that we should have to be in lockstep in every move with them? Well, perhaps because they do our dirty work in the Middle East.

No, the possibilities are too great, old George will not successfully train and arm the Iraqi army, he cannot afford it. they will just have to struggle along being fifth class army. But inquiring minds may ask, what happens if there is a political revolt in Iraq and al-Sadr (who is very popular religious cleric) over-throws Maliki and becomes the Prime Minister of Iraq. Iran's influence and arms will be and has been no different than ours with Israel.

Why are we arming the Sunnis in a foreign sovereign nation, and complain when Iran does it with the Shiites?