US General Won't Predict When Iraqi Forces Will Take Lead

[Barrett808]

US General Won't Predict When Iraqi Forces Will Take Lead
By Al Pessin
Washington
03 December 2005

The U.S. general in charge of training Iraq's new security forces declined Friday to predict when those forces might be ready to take a significantly larger role in fighting the insurgency, and enable foreign troops to begin to go home. The general's statement came two days after President Bush cited the development of the Iraqi forces as a key aspect of his newly published Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey says he is not sure what the president's document means when it sets a "medium term" goal for Iraq taking "the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security." He repeated President Bush's statement that some of those forces are taking the lead in combat operations now, but he would not say when Iraq with take the overall lead on security matters. "I have not yet made sure that I completely understand the time horizons, but I'm sure that the definitions in there are consistent with the definitions we've been using over here. What you're asking me for is dates, and I'm not prepared to give you those," he said.

Speaking from Iraq via satellite with reporters at the Pentagon, General Dempsey provided more figures about the size of Iraq's new security forces. He said the goal is to have a 160,000 strong Iraqi Army, 25,000 elite police commandos who help in the fight against the insurgency, 135,000 regular police officers, six thousand highway patrol officers and 27,000 border patrol troops.

That would be a total of 353,000 security officers of all types. President Bush reported Wednesday that so far, 212,000 have been fully trained and equipped, but officials acknowledge many of them have little or no experience, a factor General Dempsey indicated is as important as the raw numbers. "My part of it is to build the force that then goes into the field and begins to perform. But there's a performance aspect as well. It's not just sticking (the Iraqi force) out there. It's got to actually be able to perform," he said.

(more)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-03-voa9.cfm

[gulfcoastliberal]

1. They will never "achieve" the "benchmarks" so long as *co is in power

Which is why we need to back Murtha and Pelosi. They understand that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc will never leave Iraq. Pols like Lieberman, Clinton, Kerry refuse to acknowledge this. Stop letting this corrupt administration use our troops to secure their war profiteering!

[VegasWolf]

2. Why should they? It's dangerous! Best to let the Americans get killed.

After all, the Americans opened this can of worms.


:sarcasm:

[Greeby]

3. Of course he won't say

One does not go against the Reichsmarshall (see sig above)

[cliss]

4. Riverboat Gamblers, that's what they are....

Bush, Cheney and RumsFailed. They bet their mortgage payment down at the dog track, and they lost.

This is now their Plan #B. This should be a constant reminder to everyone that THEY FAILED.

They are now in the "Making up for our losses" territory. Trust me, it didn't work down at the dog races. It won't work now, either.

[bemildred]

5. Right after the last Coalition military person leaves ... nt

[ckramer]

6. Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War

"What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon ¡ª and at what cost. In this respect, as in so many others, the obvious parallel to Iraq is Vietnam.

Whereas North Vietnam at least had a government with which it was possible to arrange a cease-fire, in Iraq the opponent consists of shadowy groups of terrorists with no central organization or command authority. And whereas in the early 1970s equipment was still relatively plentiful, today's armed forces are the products of a technology-driven revolution in military affairs. Whether that revolution has contributed to anything besides America's national debt is open to debate. What is beyond question, though, is that the new weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world's largest and richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them."

link

Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

[ckramer]

7. the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withd

"Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option. And even if it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.

Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military was able to carry out the operation in a single night without incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things will happen in Iraq.

Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so is the country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge ¡ª if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not. "

[ckramer]

8. Bush deserves to be impeached

"For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins."

HoHoHo, Merry Christmas!