How come no one is interviewing the Iraqi people--ordinary individuals, on both sides, and ask them what they want for their country.  After all, it is their country and not ours and, it is what they want for themselves and not what we, the United States want for them. 
 
Cannot more reporters find out what they, the Iraqi people themselves want for their government?
 

The security situation is not getting any better in Iraq. According to a senior Canadian diplomat involved in Iraq reconstruction, the situation in 2005 is worse than in 2004 which is worse than in 2003, you get the picture. Basically the negatives now outweigh the positive aspects of the security situation.
The US administration dismantled all institutions in Iraq including police and military. This was a serious mistake because the Iraqies have to begin building security apparatus again from scratch.
The military is growing but not quickly enough to meet any deadlines proposed by the US. The most generous estimates count Iraqi ground forces at 30000, others 18000, and from an American supervisor, 3000. It is difficult to find consensus on the current size of the military. Whichever way you look at it, the Iraqi military is too small to maintain security independently. But the US can not stay forever, so who are Iraqis turning to, Americans OR Iraqis and insurgents?
Apparently, the police force is full of informants who recognize that US will have to leave eventually and they will have to fend for themselves in the power struggle which remains. Citizens faced by the same dilemma are aligning themselves with powerful domestics such as the religious movements and private militias. Among the insurgents, jihadis are a minority and are not required to maintain the insurgency, the goal of which is to expell the US and preserve the Sunni heartland. A 3rd-hand source in CSIS indicated insurgents are sending jihadis home because there are too many of them and they are not needed to maintain the resistance. Anyhow, the insurgency is comprised of domestics and foreigners who are willing and able to "dig-in" for long-term resistance (with the support of the community) and it is unthinkable for the US to use the scale of destructive force necessary to overcome such a resistance (such as was used for a while in Vietnam). What is clear is that walking away from Iraq would leave a highly volatile arrangement in place and put Iraqi citizens at risk for further atrocities.
Until the security situation is resolved (hopefully through diplomacy), the rest of the recontruction is impossible. And unless the US administration changes its thinking on multilateral involvement in solving the security situation, Iraq will remain unstable and worsen each coming year, with or without an Iraqi army. The choice for the US is between allowing outside help in reaching a tri-lateral settlement between Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis OR retreat and its potentially disastrous consequences.

Bush and Cheney have no intention of pulling out of Iraq, at least not until we attack Syria and bring down the mullahs in Iran. The neocons' goal is to remake the entire Middle East, and, along with its partner, Israel, will use nuclear weapons to achieve that plan. Hang on for a bumpy ride because the neocons don't have a clue how Russia and China will react to this bold move. Remember, the neocons thought we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people.

You know, this lack of progress can't be accidental. If we planned this poorly, American would truly be run by the public; as it stands, it is run by corporate power so, No, I don't believe this 'failure' in Iraq is accidental.
I believe it is intentional. I suspect no progress toward economic reconstruction will be made until the elected officials are sitting and if anybody dares to tell the US to stop bombing villages and pack up and go home, well, maybe there will be some dalay ala Afghanistan. The old carrot on the stick ploy; if the elected officials pass favorable legislation (i.e. favorable to capitalistic global corporations) then repairs will move ahead; electors being difficult?---money will dry up. Our version of democracy when applied to others.
Uncle Sam's Iraqui Army not trained----welll, it is the only employment for an Iraqui male between 18 and 35. If you're not in the Army, your're the enemy, it seems. This lack of training progress, well, it can be seen as reluctant enlistees but also seen as another delaying tactic. The other side of the win/win for the occupiers is that Iraq fall into a civil war.
The deal cut with the interm government and the UN involved five years before the privitizing-of-resources give away can be altered; this is supposed to be when the elected officials are neatly wrapped up in democracy's subtle power strings. If that hasn't happened then, since the resources are all now under private ownership, and a civil war will decimate the country; just imagine the bill Iraq will have to pay to indemnify the owners of their national resources, which of course will bear a much higher price tag because of the mega dollars going to rebuild the infrastructure, none of which is actually happening unless you include the air bases. Another win/win for the spread of American Democracy, the overseas version.
I feel like Rip Van Winkle and have just woken up in a different world than the one in which I fell asleep. Where has my country gone?