|
# of Iraqi Battalions Ready to Fight Alone Downgraded to Zero
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DaveSZ |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast...=cnn_topstories
| quote: | Pentagon: Iraqi troops downgraded
No Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support
The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.
The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.
The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/04/bush.iraq/index.html
| quote: |
Today, 125 combat battalions are fighting the enemy, and 50 of those are in the lead. That's progress." George W. Bush |
|
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: |
By Robert Burns
Associated Press
Saturday, February 25, 2006; Page A13
The number of Iraqi army battalions judged by their American trainers to be capable of fighting insurgents without U.S. help has fallen from one to none since September, Pentagon officials said yesterday.
But the number of Iraqi battalions capable of leading the battle, with U.S. troops in a support role, has grown by nearly 50 percent. And the number of battalions engaged in combat has increased by 11 percent.
The Pentagon says its short-term goal is to train more Iraqi units to a level where they can lead the fight, because that allows U.S. troops to focus on tasks besides combat and could reduce U.S. casualties.
In the longer run, however, Iraq's military will have to reach a level of full independence so it can take over the battle against the insurgency and allow the Bush administration to withdraw U.S. troops eventually.
When Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in September that the number of Iraqi battalions capable of fighting independently of U.S. troops had dropped from three to one, the news triggered an uproar among Democrats arguing for an early pullout.
The size of an Iraqi battalion varies according to its type, but it usually numbers several hundred.
In a new report to Congress assessing the Iraq situation, the Pentagon also asserted yesterday that the insurgency is losing strength, becoming less effective in its attacks, and failing to undermine the development of an Iraqi democracy.
The report was written last week, before the bombing of a Shiite shrine and a wave of deadly reprisal attacks. It is the third in a series of reports that Congress requires from the Pentagon every three months.
The U.S. report claimed important successes against the insurgency and said the term "insurgency" is not necessarily appropriate anymore because the synergy that once existed among various rebel elements "is breaking apart." The report asserted that the insurgents have alienated most ordinary Iraqis. "Terrorist attacks have failed to create and spread sectarian conflict," it said.
The report provided a detailed description of progress in training the full range of Iraqi security forces, but it did not mention how many army battalions are rated "Level 1" -- those judged to be fully independent.
It focused on those at "Level 2," which describes battalions capable of taking the lead in combat against the insurgents, with some U.S. help. Units at "Level 3" are fighting alongside U.S. forces but are not ready to take the lead in planning and execution of missions.
In a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart disclosed that the number of battalions at Level 1 had dropped from one to zero, while the number at Level 2 had grown from 36 last September to 53 now. The number at Level 3 fell from 52 to 45, in part because some were upgraded to Level 2.
Thus, the total number engaged in combat has increased from 88 in September to 98 now. |
there is always two ways to look at this. (of course, it depends on who is duing the reporting)
say what you want about my military but i will never fault them for imposing and employing standards required of a fighting force. it's sobering, yes. |
|
|
| occrider |
When the NRO starts saying that, " the American objective in Iraq has failed," you get some idea of the cluster we're in/heading towards:
http://www.nationalreview.com/scrip...ley/buckley.asp
But hey there's no pulling now. I've listened to the white house rhetoric for months, and I've learned a few things. Let's keep our boys in there in perpetutity. We've got to keep them there until the job is "done" right? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
But hey there's no pulling now. I've listened to the white house rhetoric for months, and I've learned a few things. Let's keep our boys in there in perpetutity. We've got to keep them there until the job is "done" right? |
yeah, but whats the alternative? pull out and watch a country tear itself apart? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, but whats the alternative? pull out and watch a country tear itself apart? |
Well no. It was a somewhat facetious statement that was poorly conveyed because I'm bitter. It's an attempt to ward off justification for pulling out because it's so contradictory to prevailing historical policy. I don't know about you, but I'm detecting a subtle changes in WH rhetoric. There seems to be more focus on the "choice" of Iraqis to embrace the democracy we have "brought them" as opposed the US's responsiblility to bring democracy to the region. The implicit argument being that we are not responsible for what's happening in Iraq because we've done as much as we can. An argument that's mindbogglingly retarded all things considered. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| lol wow everything in the middle east is going wrong in every way possible for Bush.:) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well no. It was a somewhat facetious statement that was poorly conveyed because I'm bitter. It's an attempt to ward off justification for pulling out because it's so contradictory to prevailing historical policy. I don't know about you, but I'm detecting a subtle changes in WH rhetoric. There seems to be more focus on the "choice" of Iraqis to embrace the democracy we have "brought them" as opposed the US's responsiblility to bring democracy to the region. The implicit argument being that we are not responsible for what's happening in Iraq because we've done as much as we can. An argument that's mindbogglingly retarded all things considered. |
i'd like to see those implications (WH rhetoric)from what you said because as far as i know we still have 135,000 troops there with all risks implied by having them in such a volatile place and all of the goals still on the table. the only difference being that we're that much closer to said goals, however closer we have been led to believe.
i'm not saying that that rhetoric is not there. i'm not saying that we're so close that troops will be flying home next week. i'm just saying that "the argument being we bear no responsibility because we've done all we can" may not be the entire debate. it may be something altogether different. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
lol wow everything in the middle east is going wrong in every way possible for Bush.:) |
after Al Queera just claimed responsibility for the attempt at blowing up Saudi Arabia's largest oil refinery (largest in the world actually) and no "nightmare scenario sectarian civil war" things are much clearer than what you want to believe.:) |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
after Al Queera just claimed responsibility for the attempt at blowing up Saudi Arabia's largest oil refinery (largest in the world actually) and no "nightmare scenario sectarian civil war" things are much clearer than what you want to believe.:) |
Is Al Queera an actual organization or is that really just al qaeda |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Is Al Queera an actual organization or is that really just al qaeda |
Its not an organisation anymore, its an idea, a beleif, a relegion now; just what Osama wanted it to be (thanks to Bush). |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i'd like to see those implications (WH rhetoric)from what you said because as far as i know we still have 135,000 troops there with all risks implied by having them in such a volatile place and all of the goals still on the table. the only difference being that we're that much closer to said goals, however closer we have been led to believe. |
Closer to what? What are these said goals? Bush has not ONCE mentioned any measurable goals - only generalizations of "democracy" have been repeated through the spin cycle(which is in of itself a bit laughable given we just installed an Islamic fundamentalist Shiite regime in leagues with Iran and holds the Koran as the text for all laws).
What are the goals? What exactly is the measurable point to which we can successfully bring up the victory flag and start bringing our troops home? Do you know something that no one else in public knows?
| quote: | | i'm not saying that that rhetoric is not there. i'm not saying that we're so close that troops will be flying home next week. i'm just saying that "the argument being we bear no responsibility because we've done all we can" may not be the entire debate. it may be something altogether different. |
Well again, if we are as you say closer to these end goals, what exacty are they? Or perhaps let's just start with something, anything measurable - what are the points of measurable progress that would ultimately lend us to the final outcome of troop withdrawal?
And let's just say for the sake of argument that things get even worse from this point and the violence between these two factions escalate out of control completely. Do you feel it would be wise for our troops to remain in the middle, or would that at the very least call for a temporary redeployment to the borders until this settles down?
Because I really don't see anything else that has truly worked at this point. I know, the lovely schools here and there have been built, and we have some purple fingers with a Constitution that gives ultimate authority to this fundamentalist Islamic regime we helped install which Iran loves very much. We've created an environment where death squads now run rampid while insurgents, the bulk of something over 90% of them are Iraqi citizens, are blowing up with stolent explosives that we failed to secure from the start. We have NO NG Iraqi battalions trained to protect their country.
And I'll save you the suspense of what I predict, because it's pretty apparent to me this will get out of control to uncontrollable proportions (just as I predicted this ing brewing chaos over a year ago after the purple finger celebration). So if this does go to that prediction of ultimate chaos, how on earth would it do our troops and our interests any good by leaving our men and women right ing in the middle of this civil war, fighting on the majority rule side, while getting picked off one by one? Damn, even O'Reilly believes such a situation calls for a temporary redeployment to settle this down. At that grave point I just don't see what else could be done. We stay in the middle, we die and further chaos ensues. We redeploy to the borders and if things get worse - at least our troops don't die off one by one. But if things get better, we can assess what to do at that point (come back in or stay at the borders).
We may not be at that boiling point yet, which I certainly concede. But we're damn close, and I fully predict it will occur. The question is, will the Republicans try to save their asses on this debacle before the elections? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i'd like to see those implications (WH rhetoric)from what you said because as far as i know we still have 135,000 troops there with all risks implied by having them in such a volatile place and all of the goals still on the table. the only difference being that we're that much closer to said goals, however closer we have been led to believe.
i'm not saying that that rhetoric is not there. i'm not saying that we're so close that troops will be flying home next week. i'm just saying that "the argument being we bear no responsibility because we've done all we can" may not be the entire debate. it may be something altogether different. |
Well clearly actions always speak louder than words, but I think some of the choice words Rice and Bush have been using have been interesting:
| quote: |
"This is a moment of choosing for the Iraqi people," said Bush, who spoke after attending a National Security Council meeting at the White House devoted to Iraq.
He said the Iraqi government was taking steps to determine how the attack happened and the necessary steps to move the political process forward.
"We can expect the coming days will be intense. Iraq remains a serious situation, but I'm optimistic, because the Iraqi people have spoken" their desire for democracy through elections, he said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/24/bush.reut/
|
To me, there's a tinge of uncertainty in those words compared to some of the previous rhetoric. Not a smoking gun in any sense of the imagination that there is going to be a pullout, but it's an interesting choice of words. One wonders what would happen if Bush's "optimism" doesn't pan out and the situation continues to deteriorate. |
|
|
|
|
