Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

McClatchy: Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:28 AM
Original message
McClatchy: Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy
So does this mean 'mission accomplished?' :eyes:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17104704.htm

Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy
By Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.

In a reflection of the need for more U.S. troops, the Pentagon decided earlier this month to increase the length of U.S. Army tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. The extension came amid speculation that the U.S. commander there, Army Gen. David Petraeus, will ask that the troop increase be maintained well into 2008.

U.S. officials don't say that the training formula - championed by Gen. John Abizaid when he was the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and by Gen. George Casey when he was the top U.S. general in Iraq - was doomed from the start. But they said that rising sectarian violence and the inability of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to unite the country changed the conditions. They say they now must establish security while training Iraqi forces because ultimately, "they are our ticket out of Iraq," as one senior Pentagon official put it.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Right now, it means we're trying pacification again.
Edited on Fri Apr-20-07 06:30 AM by mmonk
Vietnam Deja Vu.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. we prolly figured out that once we arm and train 'em, they turn the
guns on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. think the Dems in conress might notice this?
it sorta takes the condition out of their conditions for a timetable, eh?

Bring them The hell home Now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. k & r
Guessing it will take a while for this news to slip into the rest of the MSM - as it is such a huge indictment of the current policies and lays bare the reality that the rhetoric of bush that he has pushed for several years.

Additionally, if this is true, I can not fathom how the military planners could possibly believe that they could do this with greatly expanding the size of the military - and the number of troops on the ground. Think Draft. But they aren't going to pull a draft - ergo more futility ... to what frickin end?

I hope many recommend this so many more can read the article. It is one of those quiet items that can shake public perception if it made its way into the public psyche.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
5. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bouwob1 Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. and in reality
The only thing that is going to help bring the troops home is 2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Hi, bouwob1! Welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
8. If they go down this road, the plan they likely would have to implement would be ....
Let the insurgents and sectarian factions kill and/or drive out all the civilians, temporarily withdraw all the US troops to a safe position, and bomb everyone and everything left.

That would raise the temperature of the Middle East Region beyond boiling, and you get all out fighting against the US.

Don't put it past them. They are intent on installing a democracy, and this may be the only way. Of course the benefactors would be the oil companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. So why are we still in Iraq?
The mission changes every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. My question exactly; this was supposed to be the reason for the US
remaining in Iraq. So what's the current agenda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. So, I guess we aren't going to be standing down as the Iraqis stand up.
But we already knew that. So Bush is left with the following options:

1.Defeat the Sunni insurgents militarily, and quell the simmering civil war by dismantling the Shi'ite militias. The former ain't gonna happen with anything like the current number of troops presently available, and the latter is an invitation to all-out warfare with Iraq's large and heavily-armed Shi'a majority, who've not been targeting U.S. troops primarily so far.

2.Negotiate a political settlement between the Shi'a and the Sunnis while American troops do what they can to maintain order (which is apparently not much). This is by far the best bet, but it won't happen as long as Bushco are running the show. They've shown zero ability to negotiate anything with anyone, and are probably ideologically incapable of doing so because they regard negotiation of any kind as a display of weakness. They won't and they can't and they ain't gonna.

3.Redeploy sooner rather than later. Get U.S. troops out of harm's way as much as possible, while continuing to assist the Iraqi security forces in an advisory and training capacity. Negotiate with Syria and Iran, offering incentives for both countries to use their considerable influence to cease funding and arming the various warring factions. Work hard at diplomacy on all sides; start by cooling the "terrorist" rhetoric as you push the Iraqi government toward a political solution that grants oil-equity to all sides. Ain't gonna happen, obviously. Bush's master plan is to hang this albatross around the neck of the next poor dumb slob that gets elected President--preferably a Democrat. No way he's going to withdraw unless Congress makes him. Leaving is losing, according to Bush (plus, if we leave we lose control of the oil).

4.Continue to stammer out the usual "support the troops" propaganda. Figure it's no skin off your ass, as long as nobody can call you a quitter. Because, you know, we didn't lose in Vietnam--we quit. Meanwhile, send another couple of thousand American men and women to die for no reason. Attack the patriotism of all who dare to challenge you.

And that IS going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC