Army Secretary Harvey starts this thread with this:
One of our primary missions is to build Iraqi divisions and brigades that are capable of conducting independent counterinsurgency operations. The strategy of an Iraqi armed forces taking the lead in fighting the insurgency is well under way. To date, we have trained and equipped over 145,000 Iraqi security personnel organized into 96 battalions -- 52 army, 44 police; and another 50,000 are either in training or awaiting training. These battalions are engaged in operations across Iraq, both in concert with coalition forces and independently. As proof of their growing capability, an Iraqi brigade recently assumed responsibility for a large portion of Baghdad, a significant milestone in the history of the new Iraqi army. Equally encouraging, the Iraqi army is having no difficulty recruiting. Young Iraqis are turning out by the thousands to join the army and help defeat the insurgency.
Then the press jumps on that:
Q A moment ago, you said that there are 145,000 Iraqi security forces trained and equipped.
SEC. HARVEY: Yes.
Q A few weeks ago, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dick Myers said of that, there are only about 40,000 who are up to speed enough to go anywhere, do anything, in terms of taking on the insurgency and the terrorists. Did you get a better idea of that number, those that can operate pretty much at full capacity?
Good grief. Can the press please move on to a real issue?
Many in the press seem to believe that troops are trained only if they reach US standards. But there are different levels of training. Ask a regular Army about the Guard and the regular may have a different idea of what properly trained is. Ask a Ranger about the regulars and they might think the regulars could use a bit more training. Ask a Special Forces operator about the last two categories and they could have an even different view. Heck, from their vantage point, regulars are just a few months past being civilians!
There are 140,000+ trained Iraqis and if the press had a collective clue, they would understand the difference between what different people in the military say. Trained to go anywhere and do anything? That would be the Iraqi army guys. They are trained, equipped, and mobile. The fact that there are 40,000 of them doesn't mean the rest aren't really trained. The rest are trained and equipped but lack the mobility to move easily from the area they operate in. This doesn't make them less trained or useful. The insurgents aren't all that mobile, either, so having largely strategically immobile security forces combating equally static insurgents is just fine.
Remember, too, that we take care of their logistics so the Iraqi battalions represent the line strength of 9 division equivalents. We provide the supplies and we supply the firepower if they need it.
Most importantly, the whole training controversy ignores the most important factor: the Iraqis don't need to be trained to be US equals, the need to be trained to be better than the enemy.
Part of making sure the Iraqis are better than the Baathist insurgents is our campaign to atomize the insurgents and deprive them of sanctuaries, supplies, and outside support. If the insurgents can mass in company sized units, with ample weapons, they can overrun isolated Iraqi government outposts and keep the government on the defensive and looking weak.
We've broken up the sanctuaries, hammered the enemy and broken them down, interdicted supply lines from the outside, and pressured Iran and Syria.
The Iraqis will be able to handle the task of hunting down the declining Baathist and isolated jihadi insurgents, with our forces holding the ring and ready to intervene should the enemy mass enough force to cause problems. In time, the Iraqis won't even need that aid.
Just another plastic turkey issue that distracts from the bigger picture that we are winning and the insurgents and terrorists are losing. It may not be long before even these pretend issues can't attract any attention.
