I read this report from the notoriously anti-War media outlet McClatchy Company three times before I realized that the scare headline – “Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy” – and false lede had little to do with the guts of the dispatch.
First, the misleading lede to the story:
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.
Have military planners “abandoned” the idea that training Iraqis will allow Americans to come home? This is farther down in the article:
Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who’s in charge of training Iraqi troops, said in February that he hoped that Iraqi troops would be able to lead by December. “At the tactical level, I do believe by the end of the year, the conditions should be set that they are increasingly taking responsibility for the combat operations,” Dempsey told NBC News.Maj. Gen. Doug Lute, the director of operations at U.S. Central Command, which oversees military activities in the Middle East, said that during the troop increase, U.S. officers will be trying to determine how ready Iraqi forces are to assume control.
“We are looking for indicators where we can assess the extent to which we are fighting alongside Iraqi security forces, not as a replacement to them,” he said. Those signs will include “things like the number of U.S.-only missions, the number of combined U.S.-Iraqi missions, the number where Iraqis are in the lead, the number of Joint Security Stations set up,” he said.
That’s a far cry from the optimistic assessments U.S. commanders offered throughout 2006 about the impact of training Iraqis.
Does it sound like we are abandoning any training programs? Do you read anything in what those commanders are saying that justify the lede ” U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces…?”
There has been no change in policy with regards to training Iraqi troops. But there has been a shift in focus:
Casey’s “mandate was transition. General Petraeus’ mandate is security. It is a change based on conditions. Certain conditions have to be met for the transition to be successful. Security is part of that. And General Petraeus recognizes that,” said Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group in charge of supporting trained Iraqi forces.“I think it is too much to expect that we were going to start from scratch … in an environment that featured a rising sectarian struggle and lack of progress with the government,” said a senior Pentagon official. “The conditions had sufficiently changed that the Abizaid/Casey approach alone wasn’t going to be sufficient.”
Hence, the need for the surge. And as far as this being “a far cry from the optimistic assessments U.S. commanders offered throughout 2006 about the impact of training Iraqis” that may be true to a point. But those “optimistic assessments” were always tempered with statements that much would depend on the situation on the ground – something our intrepid McClatchy reporter fails to note.
Then there are questions about the reporter’s sources. What makes me suspect that these sources are not being entirely forthcoming is that such a monumental change in policy initiated by the Pentagon would be extremely hard to keep secret which means that at the very least, Gates should have mentioned it by now.
Besides, reading the fourth graf carefully, one sees that the headline may, in fact, be very misleading. The source reveals that “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.” It doesn’t say those training resources will be abandoned or even reduced. It makes one wonder why the reporter went with that lede in the first place, doesn’t it?
Much more likely is that the leaker(s) have an ax to grind (probably Abizaid loyalists) and that they’re simply throwing the worst possible light on things to stir the pot.
From the guts of this article, we can deduce the following:
1. We are not abandoning the training of the Iraqi army in any way, shape or form.
2. There is no evidence that the Iraqis are going to sit on the sidelines while we fight the insurgency as the reporter intimates in the first graf.
3. We are making progress in training the Iraqi troops at a tactical level and that the takeover of many combat operations by them by December is still on track.
4. McClatchy is a biased news source.
That last should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of discernment. This article is a textbook example of bias and should be widely criticized for its patently false and gimmicky headline and lede.
10:21 am
[...] in U.S. policy†– and false lede had little to do with the guts of the dispatch. [Permalink]postCountTB(‘708’); [...]
11:21 am
Gates Visits Iraq to Show Support for U.S. Military Commitment…
Defense Secretary Robert Gates makes an unannounced visit to Iraq on Thursday to tell Iraqi leaders …
1:51 pm
Well that explains why I’ve seen lefties repeatedly quote McClatchy articles during debates. Traitors of a feather…
1:57 pm
Umm…I’m just wondering. When are those Iraqis going to stand up so we can stand down?
Is it happening yet? After all, we are in year five here and it seems like a few of them should be ready to stand up. American soldiers would have been trained, served three tours in Iraq and been discharged in five years. Like I said, I’m just wondering.
3:07 pm
Training them to do what?
Answer: Protect a Shia dominated government made up of criminals and terrorists whose only goal is to kill as many Sunnis as possible and whose chief ally is Iran.
Look, anyone who knows a damm thing about Iraq knows that Maliki is a thug and a terrorist. He doesn’t give a damm about creating a representative government. His governing coalition is made up of thugs and terrorists and extremists? SCIRI? It is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Why in the hell are we dying for Islamic revolutionaries? And Sadr? Yes, his people have a seat in the government too. Why are we dying for him? He is a terrorist, and yet our troops are supposed to be protecting the very government in which his people have a voice.
I call that treason. My tax dollars are protecting Sadr. That is nuts.
Why are protecting a government made up of terrorists and Islamic revolutionaries? That’s insane!
Wingnuts, a day of reckoning is coming for you. And that day cometh soon.
3:37 pm
mkultra. Any you know this how? Facts: The “shia” have less than 50% of the seats in the legislature. All were elected at the threat of death. Al-Sadar put his name up but was not supported all that much. He is the “thug and terrorist”.
We are there at the request of the legitimate Iraqi government. Same as in Bosnia and about 20 other locations.
4:58 pm
“SCIRI? It is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Why in the hell are we dying for Islamic revolutionaries?”
I’m glad it isn’t just me saying that anymore…
6:05 pm
1. We are not abandoning the training of the Iraqi army in any way, shape or form.
...
3. We are making progress in training the Iraqi troops at a tactical level and that the takeover of many combat operations by them by December is still on track.
Yeah. Too bad large swaths of the rising Iraqi Army are more loyal to sectarian and tribal factions that their federal government, let alone American interests. Some of them are even soldiers by day and insurgents by night.
2. There is no evidence that the Iraqis are going to sit on the sidelines while we fight the insurgency as the reporter intimates in the first graf.
1. Your statement implies a completely false dichotomy between “Iraqis” and “the Insurgency”. The Insurgency is primarily made up of Iraqis. The Foreign Fighters are a minority comprising only about 15% of the total strength of the insurgency and, although primarily responsible for majority of despicable attacks on Iraqi civilians, is NOT the main source of attacks on US forces.
6:34 pm
“mkultra. Any you know this how? Facts: The “shia†have less than 50% of the seats in the legislature. All were elected at the threat of death. Al-Sadar put his name up but was not supported all that much. He is the “thug and terroristâ€.”
You are spewing Iranian propaganda. What is so fascinating about the war in Iraq is the converging agenda of the right wing nuts in this country and the power brokers in Tehran. Look, I know wingnuts love the Iranians, after all they sold the Iranians millions of dollars of arms in the 80’s. Ollie North’s “neat idea” and all that. (North should have been strung up for the traitor that he was.)
But the Iraq war had laid bare the extent to which wingnuts are willing to use US military might to further Iranian interests in Iraq.
SCIRI is the dominant player in the governing coalition. More importantly, it dominates the Iraqi interior ministry, and domestic secutiry forces, which are responsible for extra-judicial killings (read murders) of thousands of Sunni Arabs in Iraq.
Now, what is SCIRI? It is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. That’s right: the dominant player in the governing coalition of the government we are defending has a standing call for an ISLAMIC REVOLUTION in Iraq. In other words, American soldiers must die to further the cause of the Islamic Revolution.
So just who are the members of SCIRI? Well, take Jamal Jafaar Mohammed, for example. He was elected to parliament on the SCIRI ticket. This same man has been sentenced to death in Kuwait for his role in the 1983 bombings of the French and US embassies.
So you would think we would snatch him and send him to Kuwait, right? Well, we can’t – as a member of parliament, he has immunity. So he continues to be a member of parliament. And American boys continue to die to protect this Islamic terrorist.
It’s wingnuts such as yourself Chief RZ that want to American troops to die so that terrorists like this piece of sh*t can continue to sit in the Iraqi parliament.
More recently, when US troops aprehended Iranian agents in Iraq for their terrorist activities, it was SCIRI that lobbied for their release – even though Bush himself has said Iranians are trying to kill Americans.
SCIRI was founded in Iran, financed by Iran, and members of SCIRI’s militia, the Badr Brigade, are trained by Iranians.
And so what if SCIRI was elected? Hitler was elected. SCIRI is a terrorist organization doing Iran’s bidding in Iraq and we are fighting and dying to protect them.
Those who advocate that US troops should remain in Iraq are doing so precisely to further Iran’s interests in the country. After all, we intend the consequences of our actions, don’t we.
11:40 pm
“300” Reasons to Watch the NBA Playoffs…
Sixteen victories to glory. Sixteen wins will be necessary to win what, in recent years, has truly become a World Championship. by Rick Moran…...
10:25 am
“Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who’s in charge of training Iraqi troops, said in February that he hoped that Iraqi troops would be able to lead by December…”
Well, at least he didn’t say which December!
1:55 pm
“Pug Said:
1:57 pm
Umm…I’m just wondering. When are those Iraqis going to stand up so we can stand down?
Is it happening yet? After all, we are in year five here and it seems like a few of them should be ready to stand up. American soldiers would have been trained, served three tours in Iraq and been discharged in five years. Like I said, I’m just wondering.”
Yes, they have been standing up, but it will be a while longer before they are the primary force for security. Many missions have been either run by or lead by IA forces. IP’s are further behind, but are improving (especially in Anbar).
If you only read McClatchy and the MSM, you’ll never know about any of this. Get around more, read people actually on the ground (outside the wire) in Iraq like Yon, Roggio, Michael J. Totten, and get the roundup from milbloggers like Blackfive, and you’ll start seeing what’s really going on there.
The propganda from the MSM will only leave you believing that we lost Tet, when in fact we won.
10:12 am
Web Reconnaissance for 04/23/2007…
A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention….
10:16 am
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 04/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
4:16 pm
mulkara, Negative. I do not “want” ANYONE to die in Iraq or anywhere else, but we were attacked here since the early 1990s. Clinton did nothing. He hid under his desk whilst being “serviced” by a teenager. I have absolutely no connection with anyone in Iran. The same way I have no connection with 3% of the people who owned slaves.
I have been there, seen what was going on and was there on 28 June 2004 when the new government was sworn in two days ahead of schedule. The first thing said was that they wanted the United States military to remain in their country and help stabilize it.
and yes, we won TET. No thanks to the other Walter.