Same Story, Different Point
The number of Iraqi army battalions
that can fight insurgents without
U.S. and coalition help has dropped
from three to one, top U.S. generals
told Congress yesterday, adding that
the security situation in Iraq is too
uncertain to predict large-scale
American troop withdrawals anytime
soon.
If you're like me, you read that and said "WTF?" I mean, how exactly do you go from 3 battalions down to 1? Fortunately, the Post article clears this up. To be precise they didn't clear this up by answering the question, but by pointing out that "WTF?" is a perfectly understandable response:
Officials did not say specifically
why two battalions are no longer rated
at Level 1 and thus unable to operate
on their own. They said generally
readiness ratings can change for numerous
reasons, such as if a commander
resigns, or if more training is
needed. Casey also said that the
"Iraqi armed forces will not have an
independent capability for some
time."
Here I'd like to present an alternative hypothesis. As long as we're coming up with reasons, I can conjecture as well as anybody.
So, here's my guess. Someone along the chain of command realized it would be very embarassing to say that 1 battalion was ready. So, he said 3.
Someone along the chain of command realized it would be very embarassing to say that 1 battalion was ready. So, he said 3.
Sounds as good to me.
We all know the Bush Administration has a problem with the truth. Here's Bush from the first debate:
September 30, 2005 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs - one of the problems w/ numbers is the changing definitions. As I understand it there are 3 security types--army/military (I guess these are the disappearing battalions),--border security (I guess these are the anti-smuggling, INS-like, federal types similar to those who man the US borders) and --police. The 3 types add up to the 100,000 plus they sometimes quote (this is my memory, could be wrong).
Questions I have:--Air force types? How many (Since Iraq used to have an air force makes sense that they still need one unless we have signed up to be their air force for the long term.--Navy? Since Iraq has water and they send vital supplies (oil) via water a Navy makes sense to me.--How are the private militias counted, if at all? I have seen large numbers for Kurd militias and Shiite militias.
What I don't understand is who is responsible for training each of the types-- I am guessing DOD owns the military/army types. -- Air Force, who is training? Since Patreus is army hard to believe he owns this.--Police. Bck in the beginning there was a big deal about Bernard Kerik of NYC fame and Homeland Security infamy training police, have not heard who since.The cynical part of me says that DOD is continuously shrinking their responsibilies so they can be perceived as completing their job. No one ever said Rumsfeld is stupid in the ways of Washington.
October 3, 2005 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe someone got the message that the administration doesn't want anyone thinking we could pull out of Iraq any time soon. I was a little confused as well, but I started thinking about it. A battalion is roughly 700 people. Three battalions, then, is hardly more men that the city of New Orleans had as a police department, and we are told they were woefully understaffed. That was New Orleans, a relatively peaceful American city. Iraq is slightly larger than the state of California and nearly at civil war: 700 or 2100, it ain't nearly enough people for the job at hand. But bad news now lowers expectations for the future. It was politically difficult for Bush when the general in charge of Iraq was saying we could be pulling out within a year while he's talking about staying the course; it's much easier for him to talk about staying the course when his generals are singing the same tune he is.
October 2, 2005 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink