 |
 |
 February 25, 2006
TRAINING REPORT....Four months ago the Pentagon reported that the number of "level one" Iraqi battalions had dropped from three to one. On Friday they reported that although that number has now dropped to zero, 53 battalions are at level two, up from 36 in October. There's reason to be skeptical that this is good news, though. Note the definitions:
I suspect it's fairly easy to fudge the difference between level 2 and level 3, but you can't do that with level 1. A battalion can either operate on its own or it can't. The fact that not one single level 2 battalion has made it to level 1 in the past year suggests that perhaps games are being played with the level 2 designation. There's another reason to treat these figures with caution. Last November the Washington Post reported that military planners have a "rule of thumb" for gauging whether it's possible to draw down American troops in Iraq:
We've got 17 more level 2 battalions than we did in October, so why isn't anyone talking about cutting back on U.S. troops? Either "level 2" doesn't mean much, or else events on the ground have gotten so much worse that we need all the extra troops we can get. Neither of these thoughts is very comforting. And given the fact that Iraqi troops appear to be mostly private armies run by local theocrats anyway, you have to half wonder if all this training is even doing any good. Are we just guaranteeing a more efficient civil war? —Kevin Drum 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (111)Comments
NY Times should be prosecuted for divulging this information. The enemy is always reading the Times, and such disclosure only embolden him. Posted by: lib on February 25, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINKWhat? The Bush administration playing politics with battallion readiness counts? Blasphemy! How dare you speak such mistruths? Pat Robertson will soon be calling for your skin. OT, did someone notice this piece about ricin in Texas (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/25/UT.ricin/index.html). Ricin in Texas, of all the places. Who would have thunk that Texas is harboring terrorists! Posted by: bt on February 25, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKHas anybody bothered to ask Casey the question of why the levels had changed? What changes have taken place in the other training levels? Is this another case of reporters stopping asking questions once they have the answer they wanted to hear, like in the Katrina coverage? Posted by: tbrosz on September 30, 2005 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK Posted by: tbrosz (recycled) on February 25, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKUntil there is an Iraqi force in place doing this work, we can't pull out, or even pull back. There is a lot of progress in that area, but it's being thoroughly spiked by the media, which doesn't smell anything any more except Bush's blood. Posted by: tbrosz on November 17, 2005 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK Posted by: tbrosz (recycled) on February 25, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINKYou crack me up bro. Your Dear Leader made a mighty mess of Iraq and you have the balls to blame the media for the mess. Don't you have any shame? You may be a moron but don't think that the rest of the world is. Anyone can see the trend in Iraq. Three years of occupation and things continue to get worse by the month. The trend is down. And it is all because some wise guys decided to bomb a place with more targets than Afghanistan. Posted by: bt on February 25, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINKThis is the Patented Doug A. McArthur School of Combat Readiness. You never stir from your air-conditioned penthouse in Luzon - Green Zone, whatever. You sign off on the invoices which say you have x number of combat ready troops. When invaded, place urgent call to CinComPac for submarine. Wave to the bastards on Bataan as you depart. "Dugout Doug lies a tremblin' on the Rock Along similar lines, these guys actually tracked statements printed in the press by Administration officials which referred to Iraqi troop strength and the result is quite funny. From 100,000 troops one day to 80,000 a week later to 200,000 a week after that. If you don't want to read the string of press releases, they've graphed the results here. Posted by: TangoMan on February 25, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKSomething tells me tbrosz's little hands must be sore from clapping so loudly for the Dear Leader for so long.
From the CNN link"In January 2006, the mission is to continue to hand over more and more territory and more and more responsibility to Iraqi forces," Bush said. "That's progress." tbroz is a piece of work. I wonder what possible event at this put that could put him into a full-blown semiotic crisis. After all, Bush says we are WINNING and tbroz thinks there is a lot of "progress in that area" but tne media spikes the news. Of course, our troops are getting killed at the same our greater rate as ever before. And there is no denying (to a sane person) that Iraq is more disordered than at any time since we went in. Closer to civil war, more corrupt, more dangerous, more sectarian strife. Damn that media, and hooray for Bush! Posted by: Ba'al on February 25, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINKThis war in Iraq is worse than Vietnam - in Vietnam we were holding our own as long as we were there. In this war we're outright lossing. Thinks get worse and worse and worse. Posted by: Cheryl on February 25, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINKI think that even thinking these numbers have any value is silly. The Iraqi military was never a real military, not worthy of the respect offered to them, and were never anywhere near the ability of the US,UK and AU could deliver. They are now an emerging military, and as for the batallion dropping out of a level one step is odd, but I can prolly explain the level 2 units staying put at level two. I would say that only the Ex-pats who came from the US,UK and AU were ever in a real fighting force, so to stand up the new military, you had the US, UK and AU instructors training the boots, entering them into the military and now testing them in the battlefield. As individuals are recognized as having the characteristics necessary to continue the active training of deficient other units they get transfered. It happens all the time, in the military. Granted ours is the greatest in the world, but Commanders have shifting commands, units have shifting personell, and the reason is to test the individuals in all area's for the purposes of identifying those traits that might make them the leaders that are necessary to maintain control of the most terrifyingly affective fighting force the world has ever known. Either that, or these distinctions are just a bunch of crap. It's hard to identify the necessary metrics to explain effectiveness. Posted by: wickedpinto on February 25, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINKSo now that the Iraqis are standing down, does that mean that we have to stand back up? Posted by: Stefan on February 25, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINKah-oh... NRO - Lowry on Bush's only playing card - terror and that Republicans are tougher on security.
The cult realizes that Bush isn't God after all --and that Bush has no other redeeming qualities - can impeachment be far away? Next - is Bush really a conservative? (scrap the bushie gum off the conserative shoes.)
Actually, tbrosz's first question is relevant, but he won't like the answer. Why aren't the units ready to fight on their own? It's not because the men don't know how to fight, it's because that cannot be trusted to fight for the right side. Their loyalties are not to the central government, but to a particular party or chief. Iraqi police stood by as Sunni mosques were trashed because their fellow Shiite militia were doing the trashing. So that explains this from Reuters: Iraq's 232,000-strong, U.S.-trained security forces have few tanks but U.S. forces, which routinely patrol Baghdad with heavy armor, are also standing by, commanders said. The loyalties of the largely untried new police and Iraqi army could be tested in any clash with militias from which many were recruited. The Pentagon said in a report on Friday no Iraqi units were able to fight on their own but about 40,000 troops were in battalions able to take the lead in combat with support from U.S. forces, an increase of 50 percent in the past three months. [Emphasis added.]Based on Reuters, that means about five to six battalions are level 2. Am I looking at this right? Nah, the 40,000 troops probably doesn't account for all the level 2 battalions, could it? Of course, who trusts what the Pentagon says except for Tbrosz & Friends. And that brings us around to Kevin's remark: "Either 'level 2' doesn't mean much, or else events on the ground have gotten so much worse that we need all the extra troops we can get." Operation FUBAR in Iraq brought to you by BushCo. Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 25, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINKWhere do we get our "I told you so" bumper stickers? Posted by: craigie on February 25, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINKviagra [url=http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/mpower] viagra [/url] ultram [url=http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/relieve] ultram [/url] blackjack [url=http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/bonusup] blackjack [/url] poker [url=http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/bonus] poker [/url] Online Casino [url=http://www.u-blog.net/luck] Online Casino [/url] phentermine [url=http://www.netcolony.com/phentermine-slim] phentermine [/url] levitra [url=http://www.u-blog.net/megaman] levitra [/url] Fioricet [url=http://eteamz.active.com/powerman/files/nopain.html] Fioricet [/url] 8rg2sm37-301852974 Posted by: viagra on February 25, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINKWhere do we get our "I told you so" bumper stickers? http://dontblamemeivoted4kerry.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/index.html Posted by: CFShep on February 25, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINKThe issue isn't whether Iraqi battalions are at readiness level 1 (or 2 or 3), it's that the Bush administration won't, or more likely can't, level with the American people. All we hear from them is delusional happy talk like they're in the throes of some kind of psychosis episode. They're obviously dissociated from reality. They can never admit even the smallest error, let alone that they've committed the biggest foreign policy screw up in American history. What's really scary is that about 40 percent of the American people have seem to have been infected with the same psychosis. Maybe it's a new virus, or some environmental contaminant that affects higher reasoning ability. Whatever it is, for some reason Republicans seem to be disproportionally susceptible. The Centers for Disease Control needs to get on this right away before it becomes a world-wide pandemic. The fate of humanity hangs in the balance. aa Noun: psychosis - Any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. Posted by: aaron aardvark on February 25, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINKAlthough I do still have a coupla "Acadiana for Kerry" ones you can have for free. Just sayin'. "Dugout Doug lies a tremblin' on the Rock (sung to the 'Battle Hymn of the Republic' and authentic to the time - there are verses my Dad wouldn't sing to me, however.) Posted by: CFShep on February 25, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINKKevin, you are asking all the right questions and raising all the right logical doubts. It's a crying shame that the Bush administration cannot be trusted with regard to any of these numbers. Their attidude is that they truly do not owe the American people the truth. Republicans, as the Daddy party, make unilateral decisions in secret and the rest of us just have to live with it. The only choice we have is to throw the bums out. I do regret that so many Americans have given the Bush folks the benefit of the doubt for so long. I mean, what competent adult could not have looked at the situation a long time ago and asked all these same question? There is no reason whatsoever to trust the "Iraqi military". As so many of the commenters have pointed out, that military is divided amoung sects. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on February 25, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司, [url=http://www.rfhk.com/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.rfhk.org/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.rfhk.net/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.rfhk.cn/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.hkfor.com/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.hkfor.org/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.hkfor.net/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.hkfor.cn/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.cegcr.cn/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.bvicr.cn/]注册香港公司[/url], [[http://www.rfhk.com 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.rfhk.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.rfhk.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.rfhk.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkfor.com 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkfor.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkfor.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkfor.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.cegcr.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.bvicr.cn 注册香港公司]], [[http://bank.ovecr.net/ 香港银行]],[[http://www.mgzc.com 注册美国公司]],[[http://www.hksac.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hksac.net/usa/ 注册美国公司]],[[http://www.hksac.net/company/bvi.asp 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.hksaa.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hksaa.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hksaa.com.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkce.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkce.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkccr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.bviltd.org 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.bvicr.com 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.bvicr.org 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.bvicr.net 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.158hk.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.ltdcr.com 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.ltdcr.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.ltdcr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.ltdcr.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.ltdcr.cn/usa/ 注册美国公司]],[[http://www.cegcr.com 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.cegcr.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.cegcr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkrr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hktmr.net 注册商标]],[[http://www.hktmr.com 商标注册]],[[http://www.hkrr.org/usa/ 注册美国公司]],[[http://www.hkrr.org/company/bvi.asp 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.ltdcr.com/usa/ 注册美国公司]],[[http://www.ltdcr.com/company/ 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.ltdcr.org/usa/ 美国公司注册]],[[http://www.ltdcr.org/company/bvi.asp 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.com 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.com/company/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.com/company/bvi.asp 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.com/usa/ 注册美国公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.org/usa/ 注册美国公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.org/company/BVI.asp 注册BVI公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.org/company/hk-a.asp 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.oveltd.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.oveltd.com 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.oveltd.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.oveltd.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.oveltd.cn/company/hk-a.asp 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.tradeinvests.net 贸易投资]],[[http://www.tradeinvests.com 国际贸易]],[[http://www1.158hk.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www2.158hk.net 香港公司注册]],[[http://www3.158hk.net 香港注册公司]],[[http://www5.158hk.net 办理香港公司]],[[http://www.ovecr.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.ovecr.com 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.ovecr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.ovecr.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hksaa.com.cn 注册香港公司]],[[http://vip.ltdcr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://usa.ovecr.net 注册美国公司]],[[http://www.ovecr.net 注册香港公司]],[[http://google.ovecr.net GOOGLE排名|搜索排名|网站排名]],[[http://cpa.ovecr.net 香港会计师]].[[http://cpaltd.ovecr.net 注册会计师]].[[http://hk.ovecr.net 注册香港公司]].[[http://hkltd.ovecr.net 注册香港公司]].[[http://usa.ovecr.net 注册美国公司]].[[http://usaltd.ovecr.net 注册美国公司]].[[http://bvi.ovecr.net 注册BVI公司]].[[http://bviltd.ovecr.net 注册BVI公司]].[[http://offshore.ovecr.net 海外离岸公司]].[[http://offshoreltd.ovecr.net 注册海外公司]].[[http://www.hkrr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://vip.ltdcr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://cpa.ltdcr.org 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.ltdcr.org/brand/ 注册商标]],[[http://www.ltdcr.com/brand/ 注册商标]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.com/brand/ 注册商标]],[[http://www.hkrr.org/brand/ 注册商标]],[[http://www.ovecr.org/brand/ 注册商标]],[[http://www.ltdcr.org/brand/ 注册商标]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.org/company/shanghai.asp 注册上海公司]],,[[http://www.ltdcr.org/company/shanghai.asp 注册上海公司]],[[http://www.hkltdcr.com/company/shanghai.asp 注册上海公司]],,[[http://www.ltdcr.com/company/shanghai.asp 注册上海公司]],,[[http://www.hkrr.org/company/shanghai.asp 注册上海公司]],[[http://www.ovecr.com/company/shanghai.asp 注册上海公司]],[[http://fjt.infoscape.com.cn/gate/big5/www.richful.net/ 国际贸易,进出口贸易公司]],[[http://fjt.infoscape.com.cn/gate/big5/b2b.richful.net/ 进出口贸易,国际贸易]],[[http://fjt.infoscape.com.cn/gate/big5/bbs.richful.net/ 进出口贸易,贸易公司]],[[http://211.147.225.32/gate/big5/www.richful.net/English/default.asp TRADE]],[[http://211.147.225.32/gate/big5/www.hksac.org/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://211.144.146.25/gate/big5/www.richful-hk.com/ 进出口贸易,注册香港公司]],[[http://211.144.146.25/gate/big5/www.richful.hk 投资,贸易公司]], As they blow up, we'll stand accused. Posted by: foresight is 20/20 on February 25, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINKThe report can be found here, if anyone's interested. Amazing. I've apparently become a research project for somebody out there. Posted by: tbrosz on February 25, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK"The fact that not one single level 2 battalion has made it to level 1 in the past year suggests that perhaps games are being played with the level 2 designation." Ya think?! Posted by: dick tuck on February 25, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK
Numbers mean nothing if you don't have the logistics to support the troops. Got to feed them, get ammo to them, get them gas for the their vehicles. Got to have reserves to rotate into line so people can rest and restore. My guess is that the Iraqies don't have the required logistics to stand up to any fight longer than a day, maybe even an hour. Most of the Iraqie army may be tied up in just protecting what logistics capability that we have given them. ``The fact that not one single level 2 battalion has made it to level 1 in the past year suggests that perhaps games are being played with the level 2 designation.'' excellent point. you're at your best when you're working on this plane. The Mongols used an army supported by Persian Shiites to slaughter the Sunni in Baghdad -- leading to their firm control of the city for nearly 80 years. It's time to choose sides. If we're not willing to play different sects off of eachother and threaten Iraq with Hulagu-style destruction maybe we're just not capable of maintaining an empire. Posted by: tbrosz on February 25, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK``The fact that not one single level 2 battalion has made it to level 1 in the past year suggests that perhaps games are being played with the level 2 designation.'' You know (well, you probably don't) the Marines, in a best case peace time scenario, allow battalions 18 months to achieve combat readiness before rotating overseas. And that's with a significant core of seasoned professionals left over from the last rotation. But if that's Kevin's best when working the military plane ... well, then, I guess it's his best. Posted by: scouser on February 25, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINKthis is in response to earlier blogs..... I think you guys are nuts to talk of invading Pakistan. As a pretty liberal Pakistani, I am very much offended. You f-ing tarts haven't realized/ read that Pakistan Army has lost more than 500 soldiers in the war on terrorism fighting foreign and local jihadis in the NWFP province bordering Afghanistan. We have captured more al-qaeda terrorists than any other country. All of them have been handed to the US. If you tarts cannot find al-zarqawi in a country you own, how do yo expect Pakistanis to find OBL? The only reason Afghanistan is doing better than Iraq is BECAUSE OF PAKISTAN. We have a democratically elected government with an assembly and a senate. Even Musharraf had to get a vote of confidence from the people to remain in power. There are democratically elected local bodies running government at the street level. How more democratic can you get? The talk of invading pakistan is nuts - a country of 160 million people, an active army of half a million, with more than a million reserves, long-range ballistic missiles (more than 3000 km) capabale of carrying nukes, deep water submarines capable of carrying nuke-tipped missiles, long range fighter aircrafts again capable of carrying nukes.... what the hell are you guys thinking? Posted by: sherry on February 25, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINKAaron Aardvark: "All we hear from them is delusional happy talk like they're in the throes of some kind of psychosis episode. They're obviously dissociated from reality. They can never admit even the smallest error, let alone that they've committed the biggest foreign policy screw up in American history." Psychosis is a very apt term. I haven't been able to keep up with the WM and all the threads lately. Has there been any discussion about the profoundly offensive--even psychotic--ad that aired in Minnesota during the Olympics?? Paid for by the conservative Progress for America Voter Fund, it features an Iraq vet who claims that ""You'd never know it from the news reports, but our enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida, the same terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11, the same terrorists from the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, Madrid, London and many more."" Jeeze, they are still fantasizing that Iraq was involved in 9/11: We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. We are winning, but the liberal media only reports the bad news--the bombing of the mosque, the lack of trained Iraqi soldiers, the daylight curfew. Meanwhile, even the used-to-be-fringe-right William F Buckley is arguing that we have failed in Iraq. Posted by: PTate in MN on February 25, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINKthink about this. 8 billion went missing in iraq, cash money, under bremer that can buy alot of Beer and pink flamingos for the trailer lot Posted by: one eye buck tooth [X^B on February 25, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINKWoooOOoo!!! Duhh B Yew! Posted by: one eye buck tooth [X^B on February 25, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINKsherry, well said. You are, however accusing the lefties of something they don't normally do: think. They are completely reactionary and the first thoughts that usually enter those little wooden heads are how can they make the conservatives look bad on this issue, completely void of any objectivity. The second thought then turns to political posturing, again without any regard to anyone other themselves. From there then cerebral process breaks down. So keep that in mind when addressing them, type slow and try to be monosyllabic. Just trying to help out. Posted by: Jay on February 25, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINKAre we just guaranteeing a more efficient civil war? That's always been a secondary goal. Given that we've ALWAYS known that the "Iraqi Army" was just various sectarian militias with a unified designation system, the primary motive could only have been to train them to more effectively fight Americans. (Or unmatched stupidity, or treason.) That's why there's always been foot-dragging on the part of our military in supplying the Iraqi Army with the heavier-duty weapons. Those guys deserve a medal, and a raise.
Sherry, please maybe I missed something but who is talking about invading Pakistan? I will admit that I personally have wondered if there is a plan using airpower and/or special forces to secure/destroy the Pakistani nuclear devices in the event that the government of President Musharraf is violently deposed by an Islamic fundamentalist revolution. Such a plan may even have, and may even require for all I know, the aid of Musharraf and government loyalists. But no one with more than 2 working brain cells (and this excludes the Neocons by default) would want to invade Pakistan. That would be the height of insanity. And not just for the military reasons listed above, or because the US military is just not in any position to do such a mission. Pakistan right now represents our best case scenario for change in the region: an incremental development of the instutions of law and order, a court system and representative democracy based on internal forces. These cannot be created at the point of a gun by a foreign occupying power because it would lack any credibility. The idea of democracy as a form of government is that it rests on the consent of the governed. If you need a case study, just look at Iraq. Plus with the current amateurs and morons running our executive branch, who would trust them not to completely screw it up? Are we just guaranteeing a more efficient civil war? That's always been a secondary goal. Given that we've ALWAYS known that the "Iraqi Army" was just various sectarian militias with a unified designation system, the primary motive could only have been to train them to more effectively fight Americans. (Or unmatched stupidity, or treason.) That's why there's always been foot-dragging on the part of our military in supplying the Iraqi Army with the heavier-duty weapons. Those guys deserve a medal, and a raise.
Just more bull to drag it out. Sherry, What are you talking about? What earlier blogs? Who the hell is talking about invading Pakistan? And what the hell is a tart? Honey P: Don't see that we have the ability to stay for more than a few months. Iraqi Shi'a are sick of us, from what I've read, their factions vying for control through fanning the public's hatred of the Occupation. If Iraqis are uniting over anything, it's that the occupation is a problem for them, and hasn't fulfilled it's obligations under law. We're out Sept 06, and completely, at the latest. No way to stop it without genocide on our part. Posted by: jim p on February 26, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK"I suspect it's fairly easy to fudge the difference between level 2 and level 3, but you can't do that with level 1" Well, if fudging won't work how about just lying?
Once again the anti-midas touch strikes: The neocons told us that we had to "stay the course" because if we left the bad guys would say we were weak. Now we are in a loose/loose situation: if we stay all the problems will be our fault because they happened when the US was running the show, if we leave they will claim that we abandoned them after setting in motion the collapse of thier country. And the really pathetic part is they would be at least partly right. Thank you, Mr President Posted by: clyde on February 26, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINKWooooOOoo! juju Empire Camera Jr. Spy Instructions Unfeckin Believable yo kan anyone heer read? sos you can read me that book about Kameras? oranges n lemons Education and training is never a bad idea, even a military education. ANd, yes, everyone is talking about a withdrawal schedule. jim p apparently you have forgotten how See a giant list of Political Comics http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/comic_feature_links.htm Posted by: jackrocker999 on February 26, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINKBush talks to Iraqi leaders, I publish a portion of the transcript: Muqtada al-Sadr: The mahdi army stnds ready to defend Iran and repulse the infidels! Bush: Shazaaam! Muqtada al-Sadr: The army of the occupier brings terrorism to the loyal and faithful Iraqi people, we stand united. Bush: Holy cow, hey, got any oil? Muqtada al-Sadr: Faithful Shia stand in unity with our Sunni bretheren and condemn the attacks on our mosques (except when we do them ourselves) Bush: I like that towel hat, can I get one? Posted by: Matt on February 26, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINKWithout getting all sarcastic 'n everything, I note that Mr. Drum's first point essentially negates itself (it's no more difficult -- or easier to fudge level 1 to level 2, than level 2 to level 3), but the second requires actual analysis. And it would be nice to see him, or any of his critics, do the latter. But, of course, I'm too lazy to do that. I will, however, note that my dog is at least as athletic as the AFL-CIO's. If only I can get a decent picture.... Posted by: Shelby on February 26, 2006 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINKGeneral Pace has pointed out that even the US Marines would rate a 2 on this scale. But hey, if it sounds bad, and you're ignorant and you know you can rely upon your followers' ignorance, well, run with it. Posted by: am on February 26, 2006 at 6:29 AM | PERMALINKWhat a bunch of nonsense - Level 1, Level 2, blah, blah, blah... Karl Rove propaganda and nothing else. No American should believe a single word this Administration speaks or writes. This occupation is a collosal failure and Iraq is fracturing into it's pre-WWI factions. "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder..." Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 26, 2006 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK"General Pace has pointed out that even the US Marines would rate a 2 on this scale." Since the US Marines being at level 2 would mean that the US Marines require support from US troops, I'm left wondering:What's your point, am? That when the US Marines stand up, the US troops will stand down? When enough US Marines reach level 1, we can start pulling out US Troops? WTF? Moron. Posted by: Joel on February 26, 2006 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINKThe big question is this: I came over here in a fairly grim mood, so thanks for this. First smile of the day. Bush: I like that towel hat, can I get one? The Catch of the Day or quotation du jour: Intelligence is not to make no mistakes, but quickly to see how to make them good. The Mongols used an army supported by Persian Shiites to slaughter the Sunni in Baghdad -- leading to their firm control of the city for nearly 80 years. Posted by: tbrosz We covered this already. That was in 1253. Move on. Posted by: CFShep on February 26, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK"Forget the level numbers, do we now and will we ever trust them?" I think that's what the level numbers tell you. What they tell me is that we do not trust them now. Will we ever trust them? Dunno. Where do I find the crystal ball? Posted by: Joel on February 26, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINKIt seem awfully convenient not to have these Iraqi troops ready. Without them being ready we simply cant leave - and that is the position of every war monger in Congress. Did it ever occur to anyone that we aren't trying very hard to get these troops ready? - because that might thwart the plans for longer term troop placement in the area. Posted by: jman on February 26, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK"General Pace has pointed out that even the US Marines would rate a 2 on this scale." am, interesting info. But I'm not sure if this is real or maybe taken out of context. After all, who should train the iraqis if even the US elite are only at level 2? There's obviously something wrong with this picture. I googled, but couldn't find it. Pls provide a link. Posted by: Gray on February 26, 2006 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK"Forget the level numbers, do we now and will we ever trust them?" That's the main question, and it might be the reason behind the stalled progress. After all, the definition clearly states that a lvl 1 iraqi batallion would be able to fight US troops. Is it possible that the US trainers are sabotaging the process because of fear they might be creating a monster? Posted by: Gray on February 26, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK"Is it possible that the US trainers are sabotaging the process because of fear they might be creating a monster?" We are sabotaging the process because Bush has no intentions of pulling out in the near term. Why dont people face this obvious fact? This administrations has Syria and Iran in their sights not to mention oil. Posted by: jman on February 26, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINKIs it possible that Murtha and Bush are on the same track? We pull our support back to "safe" bases, providing only heavy air and armored support while the Iraqis fight it out on the streets w/AK47s, RPGs and IEDs. Why the hell are Americans still getting blown up by IEDs? Posted by: lou on February 26, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINKIf 53 battalions of Iraqis are at level 2, and our Marines are at level 2, why aren't 53 battalions of Marines on their way home? Posted by: John West on February 26, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK"theorcrat's private armies" And what is the training level for the Falwell-Robertson "Fighting Libertarian Zoaves"? But of course, no Vivandiers or Cantoniers will be allowed - Wouldn't want the Generalissimo George saying, "Private Madelaine, you're doing a heckuva job" Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 26, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINKEventually, most of the world is gonna end up looking like South Central LA. Our troops will circle overhead in fantastically expensive surveillance/interdiction machines, while down in the bitter impoverished streets, the swarthy inhabitants fight out the battles we've divide-and-ruled them into. Occasionally, we'll swoop in to kill or spirit away whoever we decide poses an unacceptable menace, which may or may not actually be the "right" guys. It'll all be really neat and clean for us. Too bad for the poor kids who have to grow up in the societies our troops are hovering over. Posted by: brooksfoe on February 26, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK"why aren't 53 battalions of [Level 2] Marines on their way home?" We don't have enough level one troops to transport them home? "Too bad for the poor kids who have to grow up in the societies our troops are hovering over." Hopefully not those airborne guys doing the sex videos. I can see it now. I am out in the garden with my three pot plants, I hear a drone, the last thing I see is the remote control airplane launching one. ----------------------------------- If we take this level stuff to the extreme, we would have to handicap various armies, like golf, you know. According to your handicap, you could request some portion of NATO forces to fill in, sort of even the battles around the world. Make an Olympic sport of it. Posted by: Matt on February 26, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINKActually, there is a pretty significant difference between level 3 and level 2. At level 2, the only support required is logistical. At level 3, we can't put them on the battlefield without U.S. troops alongside. Which does not mean that you can't fudge the numbers, of course; to determine precisely what level units are at it would be necessary to actually run through unit experience and see which Iraqi battalions have actually been committed to the battlefield without U.S. tactical support. It is a more complicated question than it might seem at first glance. Your question remains a good one. If we have 17 more Iraqi battalions at level 2 now, what does this mean for U.S. troops on the ground? Are there plans to bring them home? Are there plans to use them elsewhere? It is possible that U.S. troops are being held as a reserve in case the roof falls in, or that they are being used to try to better secure the borders. It's also possible the situation is deteriorating or stagnating and we don't dare pull the troops out yet. Whatever it is, there ought to be some answer to the question. Posted by: Andrew on February 26, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINKThat's the main question, and it might be the reason behind the stalled progress. After all, the definition clearly states that a lvl 1 iraqi batallion would be able to fight US troops. Is it possible that the US trainers are sabotaging the process because of fear they might be creating a monster? Partly, yeah. One reason we're not providing advanced weaponry and heavy armor to the Iraqi Army is the quite-reasonable fear that it may actually be used against us in a year or two. Considering that the IA is really only a collection of rival private armies, any US military planner has to consider that the tank he provides to it one day may be driven by the Mahdi Army the next, or that the Stingers may be handed right over to Zarqawi. The result, therefore, is an Iraqi "Army" without armored vehicles, tanks, artillery, attack helicopters, fighter jets, submarines, destroyers, cruisers, etc. -- in short, an army unable to operate on a modern field of battle and unable to protect itself against its neighbors, an army totally dependent on us. And worse, not only do they not have such equipment, but even if we gave it to them they have no-one trained to use it -- no real fighter or helicopter pilots or tankmen or submariners. But wait, it gets worse -- as Napoleon said, an army fights and dies on its stomach. The Iraqi "Army" as we've constructed it has no logistics to speak of, no real quartermaster corps, no transport trucks or heavy transport helicopters or transport trains. It has no working, non-corrupt, unified structure to supply its own men with food, clothes, ammunition and general supplies -- we've made it totally dependent on outsourced Western contractors such as Halliburton if it wants to feed itself. All we've managed to "train" in three years, therefore, is a few thousand riflemen -- and a few thousand riflemen isn't an army, it's a glorified street gang. Posted by: Stefan on February 26, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINKBut, Stefan, think of the increase in sales of Toyota 4X4s. Whose Republican brother-in-law has the dealership? Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 26, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKThere is little doubt that the Bush administration is responsible for the recent mosque destruction, through CIA operatives, and allowing the situation to deteriorate in Iraq. It is the only way they can continue to justify staying in Iraq and keeping Americans on edge so as to justify continued erosion of civil liberties and to further their policy of fear-mongering politics. The more instability in the world, the more it plays into their only political cards, fear, fear, fear. The GOP is losing on every front, so they will continue to destroy peace around the world in order to sell their message of "we must be kept in power to keep the peace." In fact, the GOP is responsible for virtually all of the violence worldwide - it is the result of years of irresponsible conservative foreign policy that says to people around the world: here is your choice - be our slaves or be our enemies. Posted by: Bush Bites on February 26, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKIt takes 6 weeks to train our troops I find it quite strange that everyone keeps talking about Iraq lurching "towards" Civil War. To my mind, Iraq is already deeply in the throes of a Civil War. In some ways, this is a matter of semantics, of course. But look, you're never going to see huge set-piece battles in Kirkuk between organized, uniformed Shia and Sunni troops. There ain't going to be any Picketts Charge or Siege of Petersburg in the deserts of Iraq. That's just not how modern wars look, civil or otherwise. There is also usually not a clear start to modern wars, nor a clear end: no Sumter or Appomattox. But that doesn't mean that Iraq is not already in a state of Civil War. Elsewhere in the world, there is little doubt that the level and type of violence occuring in Iraq now would already be labelled a "Civil War". If there is (as all media outlets regularly assert) currently a "Civil War" in Nepal, or Uganda, or Colombia, then there is certainly a "Civil War" in Iraq. Why keep saying that we are "lurching" towards a situation that we are in fact already in? I would really like to ask some of these reporters what they consider the threshold for "Civil War" to be in the case of Iraq. Posted by: kokblok on February 26, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKNotice Bill Buckley is calling the Iraq war a defeat, sort of reasserting control over his movement. Bill let the big government conservatives have a run, and it is time to go back to basics. http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp Posted by: Matt on February 26, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINKI find it quite strange that everyone keeps talking about Iraq lurching "towards" Civil War. To my mind, Iraq is already deeply in the throes of a Civil War. Well, some people talk about Iraq being in a low-intensity civil war at the moment, which could devolve into something much more deadly. That sounds about right. At the moment, the militias aren't actually fighting each other all-out for control of cities. If/when that starts, you're going to see thousands of civilian casualties and ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, and what's going on right now will look tame in retrospect. Posted by: brooksfoe on February 26, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINKTangent William Kristol, the face not worth saving saver, has put his Vietnam Redux in a row recently, saying that the US effort in Iraq has not been "serious". Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 26, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKThat Russian commentary on numbers of Iraqi troops available was an absolute hoot. You have to wonder why no Westerner picked up on it : no Free Press ? And there is no denying (to a sane person) that Iraq is more disordered than at any time since we went in. Closer to civil war, more corrupt, more dangerous, more sectarian strife. Probably it was worse about 1 1/2 years ago. That was when Fallujah was at its worst. As the time has passed, the insurgents have attacked targets that are increasingly less well-defended, and they have gotten progressively less support from within the areas where they receive their greatest support. The phrase "civil war" covers a lot of things; the most likely outcome, on the basis of evidence to date, is that Sunnis and Shi'ites will stop living in integrated neighborhoods: where Sunnis predominate, the few remaining Shi'ites will leave, and where Shi'ites predominate, the few remaing Sunnis will leave. It could be necessary to build barriers like the DMZ in Korea or the wall that separates Greeks from Turks in Cyprus. It is interesting that the Sunni and Shi'ite clerics have united in their calls for ends to Mulsim on Muslim violence (and Iraqi on Iraqi violence), and their moral authority counts for less than the nominal authority of the elected government. It seems to be well-appreciated by almost all Iraqis that the attacks on mosques are instigated by small numbers of people who represent no large faction in Iraq [though there are small numbers who seem to believe that the attacks are by US and Israeli agents.] The number of possible outcomes, with many historical and contemporary parallels, is vast. To me, it seems that most of the thinking on this post is narrow; everything different from the US domination and guidance of Japan post WWII is portrayed as necessarily ghastly, like the partition of India after the British left. But there are plenty of examples [like the partition of Cyprus] of less violent separations. Prior to OIF, evidence of criminality and corruption in Iraq was suppressed; criminal gangs shared their lootings with the Baath party, which had little interest in promoting the wealth of the nation as long as they retained political power. If there is a scale of thuggishness for such arrangements, Iraq was probably less thuggish than Haiti, more thuggish than the Philippines under Marcos. Now the criminality is more widely reported, but it hasn't increased in scope. According to the latest briefing on Iraq from the Brookings Institution, gdp per person in Iraq is up over 25% since the invasion, and growing at about 6% per annum. This is possible because the violence is largely confined to a small region of the nation. Baghdad, a city of about 6-7 million, has about the same murder rate as Washington, DC or New Orleans, LA. Not enviable, but not necessarily a precursor to civil war. The US in the year just prior to the Civil War was considerably more violent, with censorship of speech and press in the South enforced through lynching; and the whole "bleeding Kansas" civil war. Posted by: republicrat on February 26, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKAnd you cannot have a civil war without good lyrics! A wish I were a Shia, Allah! Allah! To Shia land I'll take my band The Mongols used an army supported by Persian Shiites to slaughter the Sunni in Baghdad -- leading to their firm control of the city for nearly 80 years. It's time to choose sides. If we're not willing to play different sects off of each other and threaten Iraq with Hulagu-style destruction maybe we're just not capable of maintaining an empire. --Posted by: tbrosz on February 25, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK Is that what you were writing on February 25, 2003, tbrosz? I bet it was something different, wasn't it? Posted by: derek on February 26, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINKkokblok: I find it quite strange that everyone keeps talking about Iraq lurching "towards" Civil War... I would really like to ask some of these reporters what they consider the threshold for "Civil War" to be in the case of Iraq." You make an excellent point. What IS the threshold for a civil war? At what point is the daily body count high enough?? How many daily incidents of violence does it take? How many kidnapped and executed corpses does it take? And how about the government--when do we declare the government a failure? George Bush. Not just the worst American president ever, he is a contender for the top 100 worst leaders in all history. Posted by: PTate in MN on February 26, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINKSistani calling for Shiia militias shows the utter failure of the American occupation. It's blowing up in Bush's face and we're the losers in this fiasco. Something tells me tbrosz's little hands must be sore from clapping so loudly for the Dear Leader for so long. Posted by: Casting Director No doubt they are chapped and calloused from working Dear Leader's mighty member Amazing. I've apparently become a research project for somebody out there.Posted by: tbrosz Becoming a laughing stock is not generally considered to be great career recognition, but then in the topsy-turvy world of Bushland where failure is success, up is down, slavery is freedom, war is peace, dark is light, and ignorance is marketable, you may stand proud. Sherry, what are you talking about?… Posted by: brent Sherry is Jay's own personal sock puppette. It could be necessary to build barriers like the DMZ in Korea or the wall that separates Greeks from Turks in Cyprus. … Posted by: republicrat Such ethnic cleansing is not a viable option in that Turkey will not accept a Kurdistan, the Sunnis will not accept being shut out of oil revenues and the Saudis probably will not accept a union between Iran and the Shia dominated oil-rich areas of Iraq. This was a failure foretold in Gulf I and by many State Department experts, but ignored by ignorant ideology driven neo-Cons and Cheney/Bush. The problem with excusing the current state of corruption in Iraq is American control. Iraq resources are being diverted to Republican supporting groups and companies. contender for the top 100 worst leaders in all history.Posted by: PTate in MN I would say he's definitely in the top 10 because his errors are errors of ignorance brought about by refusing to listen to people with actual knowledge or experience. Posted by: Mike on February 26, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK PTateinMN: I addressed this the other day: in the US civil war, with a population of 33 million, the average rate of death was 300+ per day for the duration. I'll add: The central army fell apart, and the Union and Confederate armies were made up of militias raised by the states, each with a small core of professionals. the Spanish civil war was on the whole more horrific and destructive, but the Greek civil war after WWII less so. The Russian civil war of 1918-1922, and the Chinese civil war post WWII were even more destructive, each leading to widespread starvation. The Swiss civil war of 1850, which resulted in restored unity, was less severe. The separations of "Czecho" from "Slovakia", and of Russia from Belarus, Ukraine, and the "stans" had much less violence than the contemporaneous separation of Yugoslavia into its multiple parts. there are all kinds of "civil" wars. The French Revolution resulted in civil war followed by 20 years of a military dictatorship. Not that I think such wo | |
