RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

The Bad Judgment of Gen. David Petraeus

by
Brent Budowsky

Gen. David Petraeus is a good man and a great soldier with a track record of almost complete failure in his previous tours of duty in Iraq.

Let this be said up front: While the president and Petraeus maneuver for him to testify on the anniversary of Sept. 11, the Speaker and majority leader should hold firm and say that this matter is not subject to discussion and the general will not testify on this date.

The fact that Petraeus would allow himself to be used in this attempt at shameful exploitation of the one day on our calendar that should be above exploitation, speaks for itself.

My views on the futility of the surge, which in fact is not a surge but a long-term escalation, have been stated before and will be stated again. The truth is, the majority of generals and admirals in the American military do not agree with the views advocated by Petraeus, Gen. Odierno, and Gen. Lynch, who most recently violated the military protocol for active duty commanders by criticizing and debating against Sen. John Warner’s call for some troop withdrawals by Christmas.

To lay the foundation for the historic debate that will begin as Labor Day ends, the point of this note is to highlight how wrong Petraeus has been in his previous tours of duty in Iraq.

Fact: After the initial phase of fighting, in the areas under his command, sectarian warfare ultimately escalated and his efforts for political agreements, while worthy, failed.

Fact: In his tour of duty commanding the training of the Iraqi military, his training results were a dismal failure, and all subsequent training programs have been to redo his failed efforts and undo the damage done during that tour of duty.

Fact: There have been major disappearances, losses and/or misplacement of large amounts of Iraqi weapons that were grossly mismanaged (at best) under his command. Almost certainly those weapons were ultimately sold on the Iraqi black market with some landing in the hands of criminals, insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists who used them to kill Americans and Iraqis.

Fact: The Army has recently expanded a major criminal investigation of the mismanagement, misuse and probable corruption that happened during the Petraeus watch, under the Petraeus command. Petraeus is undoubtedly 100 percent personally honest, but there are people close to him under investigation for weapons and resources under his command, which were stolen or lost, and he bears a substantial command responsibility for bad management and bad judgment.

Fact: Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post obviously as a favor to the Bush campaign, in which he applauded what he called major progress by the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership.

It is bad enough that the general, a smart guy who knew what he was doing, interfered in the 2004 presidential election, in effect advocating the position of the Republican candidate, the incumbent, on the number-one issue of the campaign, only weeks before the vote.

Beyond taking a political position in a way that an active-duty general should never do, which demonstrates political tendencies that in truth trouble many of the highest ranking military officers today, his forecast and analysis turned out to be almost completely, catastrophically wrong on every level.

We now learn the “Petraeus Report” was never the Petraeus Report; it was to be a report he drafted, to be rewritten and released with the language, forecasts and recommendations not of Petraeus, but the White House that has a long history of misrepresentation on matters regarding Iraq.

Even worse, we now learn that there will be no written report from Petraeus or the White House that was to have received his original paper. The whole exercise was a political sham, designed to buy time, and now that the time has been bought, the truth comes out: The Petraeus Report will not exist, anywhere, in written form.

As Petraeus prepared to issue what is called the Petraeus Report in September 2007, I am posting here the original Petraeus Report in The Washington Post that preceded the election in September 2004.

Members of Congress should read this and judge for themselves. In my humble opinion, what follows, written three years ago almost to the day, is a compendium of misjudgment and analysis and forecasts that a reasonable person might call delusional, and even the most charitable person would call disastrously wrong, with disastrous consequences for those who served during the three years after this op-ed was written.

Here is Petraeus, in his own words, three years ago. Judge for yourself:

Battling for Iraq

By David H. Petraeus
(From The Washington Post, Sunday, Sept. 26, 2004)

BAGHDAD — Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq’s security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight — and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.

In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses — not to mention horrific terrorist attacks — there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.

Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism.

Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished.

Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight — so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country. Since Jan. 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed, and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and military have been killed as well.

Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. Two of these battalions, along with the Iraqi commando battalion, the counterterrorist force, two Iraqi National Guard battalions and thousands of policemen recently contributed to successful operations in Najaf.

Their readiness to enter and clear the Imam Ali shrine was undoubtedly a key factor in enabling Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to persuade members of the Mahdi militia to lay down their arms and leave the shrine.

In another highly successful operation several days ago, the Iraqi counterterrorist force conducted early-morning raids in Najaf that resulted in the capture of several senior lieutenants and 40 other members of that militia, and the seizure of enough weapons to fill nearly four 7 1/2-ton dump trucks.

Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of that month.

Iraqi National Guard battalions have also been active in recent months. Some 40 of the 45 existing battalions — generally all except those in the Fallujah-Ramadi area — are conducting operations on a daily basis, most alongside coalition forces, but many independently.

Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses. By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct.

Iraq’s borders are long, stretching more than 2,200 miles. Reducing the flow of extremists and their resources across the borders is critical to success in the counterinsurgency. As a result, with support from the Department of Homeland Security, specialized training for Iraq’s border enforcement elements began earlier this month in Jordan.

Regional academies in Iraq have begun training as well, and more will come online soon. In the months ahead, the 16,000-strong border force will expand to 24,000 and then 32,000. In addition, these forces will be provided with modern technology, including vehicle X-ray machines, explosive-detection devices and ground sensors.

Outfitting hundreds of thousands of new Iraqi security forces is difficult and complex, and many of the units are not yet fully equipped. But equipment has begun flowing. Since July 1, for example, more than 39,000 weapons and 22 million rounds of ammunition have been delivered to Iraqi forces, in addition to 42,000 sets of body armor, 4,400 vehicles, 16,000 radios and more than 235,000 uniforms.

Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq’s security forces. Some $1 billion in construction to support this effort has been completed or is underway, and five Iraqi bases are already occupied by entire infantry brigades.

Numbers alone cannot convey the full story. The human dimension of this effort is crucial.

The enemies of Iraq recognize how much is at stake as Iraq reestablishes its security forces.

Insurgents and foreign fighters continue to mount barbaric attacks against police stations, recruiting centers and military installations, even though the vast majority of the population deplores such attacks. Yet despite the sensational attacks, there is no shortage of qualified recruits volunteering to join Iraqi security forces.

In the past couple of months, more than 7,500 Iraqi men have signed up for the army and are preparing to report for basic training to fill out the final nine battalions of the Iraqi regular army. Some 3,500 new police recruits just reported for training in various locations. And two days after the recent bombing on a street outside a police recruiting location in Baghdad, hundreds of Iraqis were once again lined up inside the force protection walls at another location — where they were greeted by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

I meet with Iraqi security force leaders every day. Though some have given in to acts of intimidation, many are displaying courage and resilience in the face of repeated threats and attacks on them, their families and their comrades. I have seen their determination and their desire to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq.

There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq’s elections approach. Iraq’s security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition — and now NATO — support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.

The writer, an Army lieutenant general, commands the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. He previously commanded the 101st Airborne Division, which was deployed in Iraq from March 2003 until February 2004.

  • Jess Wonderin

    We talk and debate the wisdom of this military leader, yet the bottom line is he has become the latest willing wrapper for the next pile of crap from the WH. Sadly the masses will hear that this “Report coming from one of my Generals on the Ground” supports our on-going Iraqi quagmire. It is no surprise that this “Report” will be written by “politicians in Washington” and give the Party view. The goal is to keep this fuck up going and dump it on the new Democratic President/Congress to clean up and take the blame – or – escalate the madness by attacking Iran and really sealing our fate.

    An just as an added question, is Turkey justified in attacking America because the weapons WE(Patraeus) “lost” have been used by Kurdish terrorists to kill Turkish troops and civilians? jiss wonderin . . .

  • Shirin

    Gen. David Petraeus is…a great soldier with a track record of almost complete failure…

    Uhhh – huh? Almost complete failure = great soldier? Does not compute. Is there something I am missing? Irony, perhaps?

    …Kurdish terrorists [who] kill Turkish troops…

    Just for the record, killing troops is by definition not terrorism. I mention this only because the propaganda mongers misuse the term in this way all the time – not that I think that is what YOU were doing. I am sure you were not, in fact.

  • Shirin

    Sorry, I just could not get more than a few paragraphs into Petraeus’s pile of processed bull food without feeling a nearly uncontrollable urge to visit the vomitorium. The man is a disgraceful liar.

  • COLORADO BOB “Cable News Say’s he’s a Great American” !”

    Even so it emerged yesterday that the Pentagon was planning to deploy extra forces to Basra to protect Iraq’s crucial oil fields amid growing fears in Washington that Britain is preparing to withdraw its forces from southern Iraq.

    Army chief attacks US over Iraq

  • wethornet

    i got this from our friend the angry rakkasan.

    he wrote 2 posts up about petraeus and col. ted westhusing, who may have committed suicide or may have been murdered. his wife says murder. some of his west point classmates concur.

    we do know for a fact that westhusing left a scathing note about a general officer, (believed to be petraeus).

    what i want y’all to consider is for each of you to get these links/stories to your congressmen & sneators. and also, the house and senate armed services cmtees. find out who their military affairs staffers are, in dc & in the district at home, and send it them. they, these staffers, are the point of contact.

    y’all can get ‘em to your local media which may influence how he and this issue is covered.

    i was in washington 8 days ago. use phone, (this is who i am, why i’m calling, i’ll be sending you an email) then email. get others to join you. if you get a conversation going with said staffer, thank them. keep it professional. you can express your disgust in a constructive way. if you use snail mail it has to go thru special handling and be irradiated. they tell me it takes an extra week and a half or more.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/6/33625/31374
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/7/1139/20827

  • J

    Larry,

    i see petraeus as little more than a self-serving egotist who cares about himself and only himself. petraeus is a disservice to the officer corp and a sad legacy for our armed forces. if i had any say, the top priority of the day would be the removal of those stars (every one) off of petraeus’s lapels, busting him down to a butter bar, and then discharging him under several articles of the ucmj that petraeus has violated.

  • nellieh

    Petraeus will be the administration’s Lucy pulling the football away from Congress’ Charlie Brown AGAIN!

  • http://takeaction.wordpress.com/ A.Citizen

    Sorry Larry but General ‘Betrayus’ is just another American mass-murderer like his boss President Death.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

    Dittoing Shirin, I couldn’t get past the first sentence in the second paragraph without experiencing a strong urge to visit the vomitorium. Talk about politicizing the war and 9/11! I really find it objectionable that Gen. Betrayus would deliver his White House doctored Iraq progress report on 9/11. Iraq and 9/11 have nothing to do with one another!

  • PrchrLady

    Go Ahead, Shirin, be my guest, tear him a good one…

    I hesitate to say, that since we have consistently from day one been dropping DU on the citizens of Iraq, we no doubt should count in many more who have not died yet, but will, into the total. One death is too many, and yes this is a terrible subject… one that should haunt every man and woman who consider themselves a part of the human race. For this country is responsible for the horror that has been done in our name… We must continue to fight this man who would be king…

  • Shirin

    Kevin Drum has a good one on Petraeus’s P.R. blitz:

    While we’ve spent the last six months snarking about Friedman Units and complaining aimlessly about spineless Democrats, Petraeus has been slowly and methodically carrying out an extremely disciplined military campaign with a very precise goal: gaining support for David Petraeus and the surge.

    “He’s keenly aware of the value of both the media and public opinion, and he did what any counterinsurgency expert would have counseled in his circumstances: he unleashed a hearts-and-minds campaign aimed at opinion makers and politicians. For months the military transports to Baghdad have been stuffed with analysts and congress members, and every one of them has gotten a full court press of carefully planned and scripted presentations, tightly controlled visits to favored units, and assorted dollops of “classified” information designed to flatter his guests and substantiate his rosy assessments without the inconvenience of having to defend them in public.

    “And it’s worked. Even though there’s been no discernible political progress, minimal reconstruction progress, and apparently no genuine decrease in violence, he’s managed to convince an awful lot of people that the first doesn’t matter, the second is far more widespread than it really is, and the third is the opposite of reality.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/011978.php

  • Delia

    Yeah, Kevin Drum’s post on Petraeus was the best. It laid out what he’s really good at, which is long and difficult PR campaigns against the US Congress and the Washington media. Against the insurgency there he seems to have done everything Bush could have hoped for. Unfortunately, for the Iraqi and for the American people, at everything else he really sucks. It looks like he’ll indeed go down in history as General Betrayus.

  • Pingback: Blogula Rasa » Paul Krugman Reminds Us That Petraeus Was Wrong Before

  • http://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com James Craven

    Petraeus: Another “Go-To-Guy” for Bush Part 1

    Submitted by James Craven on September 2, 2007 – 8:49pm.

    Petraeus: Another “Go-To-Guy” for Bush (Part 1)

    Please read the new, Updated, Official, “U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Handbook” written by Lt. Generals David H. Petraeus U.S. Army and James F. Amos USMC(Skyhorse Publishing, 2007 or U. Chicago Press, 2007). You will see why, apparently, Petreus was really selected and given his present assignment by Bush. You will also see that his “Report” on the status/effectiveness of the “surge” in Iraq and where to go from here, expected soon this month, was really already written a long time ago.

    The whole Bush Family, in addition to being known for being control freaks and obsessed with their image in history, is also known to be big on short-term loyalty to friends and timeless vengeance against enemies. They do not like having anyone around them even capable of coming up with–let alone expressing–an opinion contrary to theirs. After all, if your position, wealth and power is a Calvinist-based and “Predestined” manifestation of God’s Will, then how could “God’s servant”–or his views on anything–be wrong? And how could any contrary opinions be right?

    It appears they got another “Go-To-Guy” in Petraeus.

    The very opening of the “Counterinsurgency (COIN) Handbook” (HB), which it says is updated and official doctrine for both the U.S. Army and USMC is quite revealing about the military, DOD and the HB authors themselves.

    “This field manual/Marine Corps warfighting publication establishes doctrine (fundamental principles) for military operations in a counterinsurgency (COIN) environment. It is based on lessons learned from previous counterinsurgencies and contemporary operations. It is also based on existing interim doctrine and doctrine recently developed.” p.xiii

    And further:

    “Counterinsurgency operations generally have been neglected in broader military doctrine and national security policies since the end of the Vietnam War over 30 years ago. This manual is designed to reverse that trend. It is also designed to merge traditional approaches to COIN with the realities of a new international arena shaped by technological advances, globalization and the spread of extremist ideologies–some of them claiming the authority of a religious faith. p. xiii

    This is amazing. U.S. COIN doctrine has not been updated for some 30 years, since the end of the Vietnam War (What about COIN doctrines of U.S. allies?), yet U.S. Forces have been sent, in the past, and are being sent as we speak, into new present insurgencies as COIN forces, not only without sufficient military forces, weapons and supporting institutions (according to this Handbook), but also without current COIN Doctrine. They are in the present, as they were in the past, “experimental subjects” to provide the lessons for a new COIN doctrine that was not developed for their benefit over a period of 30 years during which time the U.S. has been involved, and is involved in many COIN operations in many places.

    What is really amazing about this Handbook, and this really reveals the authors as “Go-To Guys” and Bush Administration apologists, is that it takes some of the basic classic COIN errors and long-known COIN “lessons” ignored by the U.S. Administrations in past and present insurgencies against the U.S. and its puppet regimes, caused partly by a lot of U.S. Imperial hubris, and lays them out not as gross and costly–in blood and treasure–errors, incompetence and even crimes, but as inevitable aspects of any insurgency:

    “One common feature of insurgencies is that the government that is being targeted generally takes awhile to recognize that an insurgency is occurring. Insurgents take advantage of that time to build strength and gather support. Thus, counterinsurgents often have to ‘come from behind’ when fighting an insurgency. Another common feature is that forces conducting COIN operations usually begin poorly. Western militaries too often neglect the study of insurgency. They falsely believe that armies trained to win large conventional wars are automatically prepared to win small, unconventional ones. In fact, some capabilities required for conventional success–for example, the ability to execute operational maneuver and employ massive firepower–may be of limited utility or even counterproductive in COIN operations. Nonetheless, conventional forces beginning COIN operations often try to use these capabilities to defeat insurgents; they almost always fail.” p. xv

    This is priceless; especially with the somber, authoritative, self-assured and bureaucratese-riddled tone (that know-it-all zealots love so much) in which it is written. So all the Bush Admin. screw-ups, incompetence and even crimes, along with previous costly–and long-well-known–lessons not having been learned and applied, are to be seen as simply inevitable or highly likely aspects of initial stages of all insurgencies. They are not to be seen as mistakes, incompetence and even crimes. Specifically, the launching and executing a pre-emptive, illegal, aggressive war (what 11 Nazis were hanged for at Nuremberg)all without:

    a) sound pretexts, objective intelligence, multilateral support and truth rather than lies;

    b) sufficient awareness of the nature, scope, depth, players and orders of battle of players in the conflict into which U.S. forces were being inserted;

    c) proper force structures, equipment, doctrines, serious planning for sustained COIN operations, measures of progress and “success” and an exit strategy;

    d) Domestic understanding of the reasons for and popular support/funding of likely necessary force structures, deployments, sacrifices, costs etc;

    e) Commanders with serious COIN experience and integrity and capable of telling Bush what he needs to hear not what he wants to hear; and capable of resigning over principle and protecting their troops and the rule of Law;

    f)authority and support in international law, institutions and multilateral political and military support;

    g) Add your own here…

    Check this out:

    “Insurgents have an additional advantage in shaping the information environment. Counterinsurgents seeking to preserve legitimacy must stick to the truth and make sure that words are backed up by deeds; insurgents on the other hand, can make exorbitant promises and point out government shortcomings, many caused or aggrivated by the insurgency. Ironically, as the insurgents achieve more success and begin to control larger portions of the populace, many of these asymmetries diminish. That may produce new vulnerabilities that adaptive counterinsurgents can exploit” p. 1-3

    So any failures of the handpicked Government of Iraq (in elections in which some Islamicist political parties and candidates were not allowed to run) are caused only by the inevitable early successes of the insurgents that occur in all insurgencies and not by the incompetence and lack of support for the Iraqi Government and U.S. forces supporting it. And even if the insurgents widen and deepen their spheres of operations and achieve more successes, this is also good news as they increasingly expose their ugly sides to the masses and will ultimately lose support. Either way, “staying the course” will eventually–and inevitably–produce light at the end of the tunnel that is not even a bigger trainwreck coming.

    Petraeus and Amos write in their Forward:

    “They [commanders] must ensure that their Soldiers and Marines are ready to be greeted with either a handshake or a hand grenade while taking on missions only infrequently practiced until recently at our combat training centers. Soldiers and Marines are expected to be nation builders as well as warriors…” p. v

    What happened to the “cakewalk”? What happend to the welcoming of the liberators with flowers like the “liberation of Paris”? Damn, if this manual had just been written before the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and if those who launched them had read and understood it, better yet if they had not conspired, planned, launched and executed an illegal war and with insufficient forces and equipment, how many innocents on all sides would be alive today?

    Further, do they not teach some international law at the War Colleges? Soldiers can never become “nation builders” as it takes long historical periods to build a nation. A nation, is a group of people who share: a) common and historically-recognized territory; b) common culture and language; c) common polity and institutions of governance; d) common economic life; e) common national identity, mechanisms for determining membership of the nation, and desire to remain as a nation. The most military forces can ever become is instruments of regime change of a given nation which, by the way, is specifically prohibited in international law (no nation, acting outside of legally recognized international institutions and mandates has legal “standing” to conduct “regime change” in/of another nation–for obvious reasons).

    End part One

  • bjobotts

    We already knew then what we know now …and we already know now what we will know then.
    Should anyone be surprised at what Betray-us or the WH is saying in their “Sept” report? Did anyone really expect anything different? Is this more of the “see, I told you so” from both sides. Only one thing matters now. In the face of what is expected let it be that the republicans in the senate cannot get enough votes to continue funding this occupation. Let it be that the response to Betray-us is yeah. yeah, yeah..sure , okay. Thanks. Why even bother to discuss it with a military CEO who is trying to sell us a surge. “We’ll get back to ya’”. Then refuse to fund the p.r. surge any longer. 6mos ago we could predict today with exact accuracy. That dog won’t hunt and we ain’t buyin’ it any longer. Do that and we spare an Iran disaster and more mass murder and chaos.. Betray-us cannot be trusted since he turned political. The WH cannot be trusted because they’ve lied about everything in the past and have demonstrable ulterior motives. They are coming prepared with a whole campaign not worth our attention. No written Betray-us report, no political reconciliation, no Iraq army or police force, total government corruption, sectarian violence has nearly completed its mission. It should be a done deal and withdrawal should now begin. The referee has left so will the teams play fair? Will the involved corporations and war profiteers allow the US forces to withdraw before securing an oil agreement? Get Betray-us on the phone and lets start air lifting more experts and congress members to Iraq. They need more convincing. America is awake now, with eyes wide open, focusing on all enemies, foreign and “domestic” and we are ever vigilant on just whom has been terrorizing whom.

  • Pingback: The Road to Surfdom » Blog Archive » I Dream I Could Fight Like David Watts Petraeus

  • Kuni

    That wasn’t the only BS Petraeus helped spread. Below are other examples of him, over the years, telling us how good it was going in Iraq. I guess it went so well, that we needed the surge..

    Let’s look at some of Petraeus earlier bullshit, where he gave us a ‘rosy picture’ implying we should stay the course. I guess all those Iraqi’s he trained turned out so well, that the surge wasn’t needed..

    And I love his Jan. 2005 comment where he let slip that: “Iraqis must provide for their own security. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish”.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3158
    September 14, 2003 . . ..

    . . . Schieffer: Let me ask you one other thing, and that is this intense criticism that seems to be boiling up on Capitol Hill. This story this morning is filled with it, and basically it comes down to that Don Rumsfeld, and I’ll just put this straight to you, is stubborn, and that’s the reason he won’t admit that he made a mistake when he said we have plenty of troops there, and that that’s one of the reasons you’re having problems on the Hill and within the Pentagon. I just want to give you a chance to respond to that..

    Rumsfeld: Sure, I’m glad to. How do you respond to whether or not you’re stubborn. I guess you respond this way, we have General [John] Abizaid who is in charge of the Central Command, [Lieutenant] General [Ricardo] Sanchez, who is in charge of Iraq, and then a series of division commanders, good ones, [Major] General [David] Petraeus, [Major] General [Raymond] Odierno, and they meet regularly, and they ask that question, do we need more U.S. troops, and they say they don’t. They do not feel that we ought to bring in more additional troops, why?.

    Rumsfeld: Just let me respond. Now, should I be stubborn and say, you’re wrong? What I do is I say, why do you or don’t you need something, and I go and discuss it. And they come back consistently and say they do not need more additional troops, you need more force protection, you need more combat support people if you’re going to have more troops. We’re managing the skill mix of the troops, because they’re not doing a lot of combat, they’re doing a lot of presence and a lot of construction, and a lot of assistance, and a lot of forming city councils, 90 percent of the people in Iraq are now living in an area that’s governed by a city council, or a village council..

    Schieffer: So you do not feel that you made a mistake‑.

    Rumsfeld: If I felt I’d made a mistake I’d change it..

    Schieffer: Misestimated, or underestimated..

    Rumsfeld: My problem is the people who are saying we need more troops are not giving any good reasons. There’s no substance to their arguments, they’re just saying we don’t have enough. Our military people say we do, and they then explain why they think they do, and why they want the effort on increasing the Iraqi capability. So I listen to the two sides of the argument. I would increase the number of troops in five minutes, if people would come to me and make a decent argument, but all I see is critics saying, you need more troops. Something has to be wrong. . ..

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26181
    June 28, 2004 – Recent adjustments made to improve Iraqi security forces are working, a senior U.S. officer in Baghdad said June 27..

    Ongoing changes “are gradually, but markedly improving the quality of Iraqi security forces,” Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, chief of the Office of Security Transition in Iraq, reported during a Pentagon Channel interview. . ..

    . . . “But, there are also areas where we see considerable success,” he pointed out. For example, he said, Iraqi security forces had months ago assumed a variety of important security tasks from coalition forces in the north and south of the country. . . .

    http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1643
    January 05, 2005. . ..

    . . . GEN. METZ: No, no. The original plan for the Iraqi army was 27. As we began to grow — a year ago, the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, which became the National Guard, that number has changed a number of times since I’ve been in command. We are focused right now on 45 battalions, but with an expansion program to about the 65-battalion level. That has a relationship to the amount of equipment we can ship in to get them to that level..

    So I just don’t have all the numbers memorized, but there is a 27-battalion army original plan; 45-battalion National Guard growing to 65 plan. The minister of interior has an ever-increasing and robust structure that he’s putting together. The army has made some decisions inside of that original plan to go with intervention forces and change some of the training for the army battalions. He’s brought on — he’s working on bringing on mechanized forces..

    And so, again, we had a plan before sovereignty and it was a baseline to work from. But the sovereign government has made decisions and is changing things, and we’re offering advice. But it’s going to be a robust enough structure, I think, in 2005 to take on the insurgent fight here in Iraq, and it will be equipped and trained to do so..

    Does that help?.

    Q Yes, sir, thank you. Just, the 65, is that by the end of this year, or what is –.

    GEN. METZ: I would say by the end of ’05 for sure. I’m sure that we can get you that data. I just — I apologize, I just don’t have it all memorized –.

    Q Sure, no problem..

    GEN. METZ: — and that’s because my good friend, Dave Petraeus, he’s supposed to put me out of business. And every time I see him I hug him and say, “Dave, you’ve got to put me out of business. I’m the Multinational Corps fighting here. You’re building the transition security capability — get on with it.” And he is. And we really are a team. We’re good friends. But I look to him to memorize all those numbers. And when he gets them trained and they become tactical control, take on to the Multinational Corps, we employ them and they are good troops. . ..

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24406
    Jan. 10, 2005 – The U.S. Army general in charge of training Iraqi forces said here today that the job is tough, but it is a mission that must be accomplished before coalition forces can leave Iraq..

    And, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, added, progress is being made. . ..

    . . . Iraqis must provide for their own security, Petraeus said. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish. . . .

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31204
    March 14, 2005 . . ..

    . . . Petraeus said the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections provided a boost to the security forces. Iraqis manned the two inner lines around more than 5,000 polling places nationwide. Insurgents launched more than 270 attacks on Jan. 30, but did not penetrate any polling place, he said. .

    Following the elections, the general continued, the Iraqi forces got a boost in morale for their fine showing, and the Iraqi people developed trust in the security apparatus. This respect has meant more recruits for the Iraqi army and police, and a greater role in the defense of their own country. .

    Iraq has 96 operational combat battalions today, Petraeus said. The battalions are out in the cities and rural areas of the country. They are going on independent operations and they are getting results, the general said. Iraqi forces are “shouldering the burden” in 12 of Iraq’s 18 provinces — the three Kurdish provinces in the north and the nine provinces in the south. .

    It’s making a big difference. You see it in Fallujah, you see it in Baghdad,” he said. “You also see it in places like Tikrit and Mosul.” . . ..

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16991
    Aug. 2, 2005 – The chief of the coalition command charged with training Iraqi security forces said “enormous progress” has been made in the effort. . ..

    . . . Petraeus said that while most of the Iraqi units rely heavily on coalition forces for support and guidance, “there are still some three dozen of them that are assessed to be in the lead.” By this he means that the Iraqi units are leading the fight against the insurgents with minimal or no help from coalition forces. . ..

    . . . Given continued progress and acceptable conditions, Petraeus said, the United States may be able to reduce troop presence in the country next year, noting this depends on political progress as well as progress in the security capabilities of Iraqi forces. . ..

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18152
    Oct. 5, 2005 – The Iraqi security forces have made enormous progress over the past 16 months, the U.S. Army general who oversaw their training for more than a year said during a Pentagon news conference today. . ..

    . . . Iraqi security force readiness has continued to grow with each passing week, the general told reporters, and will grow even more between now and the Oct. 15 national referendum on a draft constitution. “There are now over 197,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, and that should be close to 200,000 by the time of the referendum,” he said. .

    More than 115 Iraqi police and army combat battalions are in the counterinsurgency fight, he said. About 80 of the battalions are fighting alongside U.S. forces, which the general said equates to Level 3 readiness in the four-tier readiness rating system. “Over 36 (battalions) are assessed as being ‘in the lead,’” he said. In the lead is the term associated with Level 2 readiness, and means the troops are capable of leading joint patrols, as opposed to merely participating..

    Level 1 units are labeled as being “fully independent.” There is one battalion in this category, Petraeus said. .

    The general said it is a mistake to fixate on the Level 1 unit. He said Americans should to expand their understanding of the readiness levels and what each unit brings to the fight. . ..

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18157
    Bush Pleased With Progress of Iraqi Security Forces.

    Oct. 5, 2005 – President Bush said today he’s pleased with the progress Iraqis are making in developing a military capable of handling the security challenges of the future..

    Bush spoke to the press following a meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq. Rumsfeld and the generals briefed the president on the status of Iraqi forces and coalition operations in Iraq.

  • Pingback: Putting Lipstick on the Pig in Iraq : NO QUARTER

  • Matt

    Michelle Hussein Obama is a blow job queen.

  • Shirin

    No, Lotus, Iraq Body Count does not provide anything close to a comprehensive count, as they themselves admit.

    Passive methods such as that used by IBC are useful and worthwhile, but it is well established that they produce significant undercounts, for what should be obvious reasons. Far, far from all deaths, even all deaths due to violence, are reported in the media, particularly in a situation such as obtains in Iraq, where there is very strong and active “information management” by the Americans.

    The most reliable count has been provided by researchers from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University. They used methodology that is proven to provide the most accurate counts, and is considered the state of the art for mortality studies in conflict situations. Their latest study, published in October, 2006, produced an estimate of 650,000 “excess” Iraqi deaths, at least one third of those were caused by “coalition” – in other words, American – forces. The estimate of one third deaths at the hands of American forces is certainly an undercount because they did not count a death as American-caused if there was any doubt at all on the part of the reporting household. The number of deaths at the hands of American forces per unit time has increased over the four and a half years of occupation.

    The current estimate extrapolated over time gives us a probable count of more than one million “excess” deaths. Given The Surge™, and the enormous increase in U.S. air strikes since the study was done, it is certain that the U.S. is causing more civilian deaths than ever. (Air strikes are notoriously indiscriminate, and cause very high civilian casualties.)

  • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

    Debunked by who F. Kaplan? Support your claims with something!

  • Shirin

    Neither the innumerate Fred Kaplan nor anyone else has even remotely succeeded in discrediting the Hopkins/Mustanseriyya studies. All they have succeeded in doing is displaying – thoroughly and humorously – their ignorance of the methodology of mortality studies, and basic mathematics.

    For your information, the methodology they used is exactly the same as they have used in Bosnia and other conflict areas for which they were praised by some of the very same people who declared their Iraq studies invalid and criticized their methodology. Odd, isn’t it, how the critics of their Iraq studies were very pleased and satisfied when the very same people used the very same methodology in Bosnia and the Congo suddenly found the people, the methodology, and the results completely invalid when they produced uncomfortable results in Iraq.