Petraeus war plan is doubted. Data show Iraqi units unprepared

[Swede]

WASHINGTON - Despite his conclusion that Iraqi units can replace US combat troops who will return home by the end of the year, statistics produced by General David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, indicate that there are now fewer Iraqi units that can operate independently than there were at the beginning of the year.

As a result, some US and Iraqi officials are skeptical that Petraeus's plan, which gives the Iraqis more responsibility as US troops leave, can actually work.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/16/petraeus_war_plan_is_doubted/

[Double T]

1. Military propaganda to perpetuate funding for the 'war'.

MORE bushology: It's working......but it's NOT

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. I'm curious to see what kind of story they will conjure up to explain

why this didn't work out & what they are going to try next.

[Igel]

3. That depends on what's not said in the article.

There are fewer units prepared for deployment. Is that because they've been deployed, suffered losses, are are off-line until they're 'repaired', rested, and re-equipped? That is, are they unprepared for the same reason that there are increased numbers of US units that aren't prepared? Then the question is, When will they be deployable? Or have they just fallen into such disarray with such poor discipline that they've never been deployed, or so partisan that it's dangerous to deploy them, and so can't be deployed? The difference is important.

And the big increase in unprepared units is a bit of a wonder. I'm assuming there are only two kinds of units--prepared and unprepared. If this is the case, it seems that there's a jump in units overall. How unprepared are they? In complete disarray, or 2 months away from being deployable? Again, it matters.

The manner in which they're deployed is also important. If they're deployed not to fully replace American units, but American units are diluted so as to accompany the newbie Iraqi units, the problem that the article seems to imply is inevitable suddenly becomes exactly what's recommended. But the reporter doesn't actually *say* which kind of deployment is planned, so we're left with the conversational implicature--not a logical implication--that it's the former.