Abizaid and Casey on Iraqi Troop Preparations

[Secretariat]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-01T141725Z_01_SPI151399_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-BUSH.xml


Bush 'encouraged' despite report on Iraqi troops
Sat Oct 1, 2005 10:17 AM ET

By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush sought on Saturday to dispel concerns about the readiness of U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces, declaring himself "encouraged" even though his top generals say the number of battalions that can fight insurgents without help has dropped.

…

One of the few measures the Pentagon has offered the public to judge the capabilities of Iraqi security forces has been the number of battalions that can go into combat with insurgents without the help of the U.S. military.
During congressional testimony on Thursday, Gen. George Casey, top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said the number of such battalions had dropped since July to one from three, out of the roughly 100 Iraqi battalions.

Can someone please explain to me, HOW the number of battaliions has DROPPED? Jesus, how long does it take to prepare these guys? I think I asked tihs a year ago and was told it takes them a year...Well, apparently we have 67% LESS than we did in July.

In other words out of 100 Iraqi battalions, we had ONLY 3 battaliions ready in July that "could go into combat with insurgents without the help of the US Military". NOW, we have ONLY ONE battalion!!!!

Good God. This is pathetic!

ONLY 1% of IRAQI BATTALIONS CAN FIGHT INSURGENTS WITHOUT OUR HELP!!! This is disgraceful! :mad: :ThmbDown:

[Tom]

Probably demoralized by reading lib defeatist post like this one.

Ever once consider lending some support to those out there fighting for thier freedom? Or those trying to help them?
BTW, just thought of this - you werre whinning last week about the slavery issue in Sorry Arabia. I assume (sorry, lsbets....can't help myself!) you are agains anyone sending in troops to fight slave traders, or the use of any type of force to free existing slaves. Would that be correct?
I mean, the Iraq's living under terror and repression was not a reson to help them.
Just WHEN does a lib think it is time to help others?

[JustRalph]

Just WHEN does a lib think it is time to help others?

only when they can make political hay out of it...........

[Secretariat]

Probably demoralized by reading lib defeatist post like this one.

Ever once consider lending some support to those out there fighting for thier freedom? Or those trying to help them?
BTW, just thought of this - you werre whinning last week about the slavery issue in Sorry Arabia. I assume (sorry, lsbets....can't help myself!) you are agains anyone sending in troops to fight slave traders, or the use of any type of force to free existing slaves. Would that be correct?
I mean, the Iraq's living under terror and repression was not a reson to help them.
Just WHEN does a lib think it is time to help others?

Let me first get back to the thread which you wish to deviat from.

ONLY 1% OF IRAQI BATTALIONS CAN FIGHT INSRUGENTS WITHOUT US HELP ACCORDING TO ABIZAID AND CASEY. 1% are able to fight on their own according to our hiighest commanders testimony to Congress. 1%. Down 67% from July. From 3 battalions ready to 1. We're going backwards. How is that explained?

As to the "slavery" in Sadui Arabia, it is despicable. Yet, we buddy up to them. No consistency in our foregin policy. None. Was their "slavery" in Iraq before the pre-emptive invasion? I've yet to see it. There was a dictatorship with human rights abuses as in many countries including Saudi Arabia. We obviously did not go to war based on human rights violations or we'd have gone to war with many countries. We went to war primarily based on a flawed WMD assessment according to the Bush's first speeches and Powell's testimony to the UN or as Tenet said, its a "slam dunk"

If you want to start a different thread and discuss the "slavery" issue in Saudi Arabia versus Iraq fine, but this topic is about Iraqi troops War preparedness, not the "reasons" for going to war, or personal attacks on me to divert the testimony of our highest commanders in the field.

1% OF IRAQI BATTIONS CAN FIGHT INSURGENTS ON THEIR OWN. Pathetic. How many Americans will lose their lives in the process? If it has taken years to train 1%, when the hell will we have 50% ready? this is as bad as FEMA.

[Tom]

OK, ignore direct questons yet again....

On this topic-you are not reporting the whole story once again.
You are selecting someting out of context and reporting it to be what it is not.
A jet fighter without fuel is strictly NOT READY TO GO INTO COMBAT.
Fill 'er op and she is ready. You make it sound as if we are on square one, but we are more like over 90% of the way there.


How long does it take? It takes as long as it takes.
Remeber WWII, WE didn't get into Europe for how many years?
WE didn't get clsoe to Japan for how many years?

It takes as long as it takes.

[hcap]

Start of WWII - December 7th 1941
End in Europe-May 8th 1945
End in Japan- September 2nd 1945

Europe -3 years 6 mos
Japan - 3 years 9 mos

How long have we been chasing Osama?
Do the math.

Longer than either above.
And the word from rummy is we might be Iraq till 2012.
Do the math

[betchatoo]

Probably demoralized by reading lib defeatist post like this one.
Sorry Tom, but I don't think if we all cheered for the Iraqi army they'd do any better. In my opinion they are more than content for us to lead the way while they learn nothing.

Ever once consider lending some support to those out there fighting for thier freedom? Or those trying to help them?
For the last couple of years my Christmas gifts to my clients have been to organizations give our troops supplies from the U.S. I also contribute on my own. I have no idea what I can do for the Iraqi people. They have to be in the forefront leading the way to their own freedom

Just WHEN does a lib think it is time to help others?
Thursdays generally work best for me


Just to be on the safe side...GO Iraqis

[Secretariat]

OK, ignore direct questons yet again....

On this topic-you are not reporting the whole story once again.
You are selecting someting out of context and reporting it to be what it is not.
A jet fighter without fuel is strictly NOT READY TO GO INTO COMBAT.
Fill 'er op and she is ready. You make it sound as if we are on square one, but we are more like over 90% of the way there.


How long does it take? It takes as long as it takes.
Remeber WWII, WE didn't get into Europe for how many years?
WE didn't get clsoe to Japan for how many years?

It takes as long as it takes.

Tom,

Sometimes you're right on ,but on this you're way off. This isn't some liberal group reporting this. This is General Abazaid and General Casey.

1% OF IRAQI BATTIONS CAN FIGHT INSURGENTS ON THEIR OWN.

Read it again. THis means MORE Americans putting there lives on the line for Iraqis who can't learn to fight insurgents on their own. We've already got troops well beyond their deployments, and we've got 1 of 100 Iraqi battalions who can defend themselves alone.

Wake up and smell the coffee. It ain't my story. Are you saying Abazaid and Casey are some kind of liberal spin generals?

Pleas TELL ME what is INACCURATE about this statement. Show me where in Abazaid's or Casey's testimony that they deny this. You can't because the statistic came directly from THEIR MOUTHS!

1% OF IRAQI BATTIONS CAN FIGHT INSURGENTS ON THEIR OWN.

It ain't out of context. It's fact. It's in the testimony if you'd bother to read it.

[JustRalph]

Start of WWII - December 7th 1941
End in Europe-May 8th 1945
End in Japan- September 2nd 1945

Europe -3 years 6 mos
Japan - 3 years 9 mos

How long have we been chasing Osama?
Do the math.

Longer than either above.
And the word from rummy is we might be Iraq till 2012.
Do the math

you cannot compare those wars with what goes on today. It is a different world my friend.

[Tom]

Tom,


Pleas TELL ME what is INACCURATE about this statement.

You misspelled please.

[Secretariat]

You misspelled please.

lol...some common ground

[schweitz]

Just to be on the safe side...GO Iraqis

:lol: :lol:

[hcap]

JR,

Tom asked "Remeber WWII, WE didn't get into Europe for how many years?
WE didn't get clsoe to Japan for how many years? It takes as long as it takes."And yes I agree you cannot compare. WWII was indeed a major conflict. Warfare between states. Iraq is asymetrical ala Vietnam and other guerilla entanglements. WE did not start WWII. Iraq is our broken kettle of fish. We started it.

The war on terrorism has a political side we must confront. Even If we stay in Iraq and eventually win the military battle in say 5-7 years, we may have done political and cultural damage in the region that will take longer to deal with, and will grow generations of terrorists.

I think maybe you and Tom may be right. The only way to solve the problem for let's say 10 or 15 years is to nuke 'em. Wipe out every Muslim without a shred of compassion. Sort of like what bill bennett said about cutting the crime rate. Of course he did say it would be reprehensible.

Short of total anihilation, the military as engaged in Iraq, either ours or the fledgling Iraqis may win a few battles but will lose the larger war.

No comparison with WWII.

[lsbets]

Hey Sec - do you know what the definition of without any support at all is? Do you know how the Generals define independant operations? You seem outraged about something that, frankly, I don't think you know what you're outraged about. It just sounded like a good soundbite to be outraged by without knowing what it means. Do you know how many Iraqi battalions are in the fight on a daily basis and what they are doing? Do you want to know?

[Secretariat]

As a matter of fact I do know. That is not what this thread is about. It is about how many are ready to fight on THEIR OWN without US HELP.

1% OF IRAQI BATTIONS CAN FIGHT INSURGENTS ON THEIR OWN according to Casey and Abaizaid in Congressional testimony. ONE BATTALION out of a 100 which by the way is DOWN from 3 out of 100 in July. That was not explained how that happened on a side note.

I don't care how many Iraqi troops go into combat with US troops. I'm interested "IF" they can fight WITHOUT OUR HELP because that is the measure of when the hell we can get out of this quagmire. Already Casey has stated the draw down of troops will not be as early as they hoped.

1% OF IRAQI BATTIONS CAN FIGHT INSURGENTS ON THEIR OWN they confirmed, not me.

Pitiful. This is the nation they are supposed to be fighting for, and that is all that is ready to fight a "bunch of thugs" as described by the President? If this is how long it takes to fight a "bunch of thugs" what would they do in the event of a war with Iran? I guess call the Pentagon for help.

[lsbets]

As a matter of fact I do know.

Than please tell me how we define on their own, because I really don't think you know or understand.

[Secretariat]

Than please tell me how we define on their own, because I really don't think you know or understand.

Obviously you did not read the Reuters article.

"One of the few measures the Pentagon has offered the public to judge the capabilities of Iraqi security forces has been the number of battalions that can go into combat with insurgents without the help of the U.S. military.

During congressional testimony on Thursday, Gen. George Casey, top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said the number of such battalions had dropped since July to one from three, out of the roughly 100 Iraqi battalions."

[lsbets]

Answer my question - do you know what without the help of the US military means? Do you understand what it means? If you don't know, for once be a man and say you don't know. If you do know, please answer the question. If you want to be outraged about something it would at least help you if you knew what you are outraged about. If you understand it and want to be outraged, that's fine, but I'm pretty sure you don't understand it.

[Secretariat]

Answer my question - do you know what without the help of the US military means? Do you understand what it means? If you don't know, for once be a man and say you don't know. If you do know, please answer the question. If you want to be outraged about something it would at least help you if you knew what you are outraged about. If you understand it and want to be outraged, that's fine, but I'm pretty sure you don't understand it.

I beleive it speaks for itself.

"out of 100 Iraqi battalions, we had ONLY 3 battaliions ready in July that "could go into combat with insurgents without the help of the US Military".

So now instead of supporting Republicans John McCain - "Sen. John McCain R-Ariz.,who said he was troubled that with such uneven progress in training the Iraqi army" or Republican Senator Susan Collins "That contributes to a loss of public confidence in how the war is going. It doesn't feel like progress when we hear today that there is only one Iraqi battalion fully capable." you wish to get into a semantic discussion of what does "without US military assistance" mean?

It means that Iraqi troops are not ready to go into combat ON THEIR OWN without US military assistance. WITH US miltiary assistance Casey said this:

"Casey said 75 percent of the U.S.-trained Iraqi army was at least capable of engaging in combat, albeit with U.S. troops providing support in most cases. He declined to give an exact breakdown of Iraqi combat readiness, which he said was classified as secret, but he said more than 30 battalions are judged capable of taking the lead in an offensive, with U.S. support. Only one can operate entirely on its own."

Casey could not explain why the number of battalions ready in July was 3 and it is now 1. Perhaps you can enlighten us since he couldn't.

As McCain stated,

"You're taking a very big gamble here," McCain said to Casey "I hope you're correct. I don't see the indicators yet that we are ready to plan or begin troop withdrawals, given the overall security situation."

Now, play your semantic games Isbets. WITHOUT US MILITARY ASSISTANCE says exactly what it means. They are not ready to fight ON THEIR OWN. Until they are "ready' (at least more than 1%), troop reductions will be minimal.

So let's hear your spin on how "Without US miltiary assistance" really means something different than McCain and Collins understand.

[lsbets]

SO the bottom line Sec is you have no idea what it means and once again you try to spin out of it by using soundbytes from others. I asked you if you knew, and you are not man enough to say you don't. You're pitiful.

I never said what it meant, I asked if you knew - and you don't.

[JustRalph]

I wish someone one would just say it. We are going to be there for years...just like the prez said.........

But why has nobody proposed building a damn base the size of Rhode Island, just outside Bahgdad? Nice big mother with 10k foot runways and hangers the size of area 51? come.....on .........lets do it!!!