Americans Can't Neglect Signs of Progress in Iraq, Rice Says

American Force Information Service ^ | 2005 Jun 19 | Jim Garamone

[Wiz]

WASHINGTON, June 19, 2005 – Americans cannot forget the progress being made in Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said from Jerusalem today. Rice took time off from her trip to the Middle East to speak to Fox News Channel. She said Americans cannot ignore the political and military successes in Iraq.

"I would say to the American people, 'Yes, this is very hard and very difficult, but we are making a lot of progress in what will be a strategic breakthrough for the United States, which is to have a different kind of Middle East'" Rice said.

Recent polls show support for operations in Iraq is dropping among the American people. Casualty lists, car bombs and suicide bombers dominate the news, but Rice said there are clear signs of progress. Among them is the capture of "the Emir of Mosul" -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's lieutenant Abu Talha.

The Iraqi security forces are growing in numbers and sophistication, Rice said. Iraqi forces took the lead in security for the January elections, for example. Since then, Iraqi forces have taken on increasing security burdens. The 40th Brigade of the Iraqi army handles security for much of Baghdad. Marines participating in Operation Spear in Karabilah are operating with Iraqi forces.

The Iraqi security forces now consist of about 170,000 trained and equipped soldiers and police. As those forces grow and gain experience, the security responsibility for coalition forces will shrink, Rice said.

Rice repeatedly made the point that "insurgencies are defeated not just militarily, they are defeated politically."

[Wiz]

ping

[Huck]

The Iraqi security forces now consist of about 170,000 trained and equipped soldiers and police. As those forces grow and gain experience, the security responsibility for coalition forces will shrink, Rice said

I'm looking for specifics around this. Grow to what specific level? "Experience" means time. How much time? When do you expect to have accomplished these objectives? Doesn't anyone have any specifics? How is America supposed to measure progress if you don't provide a timetable with metrics? Just feel good anecdotes and generalizations?

[yobid]

Americans can't, MSM can and will.

[Big Digger]

One problem, Condi. The Americam MSM refuse to report on the progress in Iraq, even though their reporters are in Iraq, demanding access and protection, and complicating the lives and mission of our troops who are making the progress.

[Huck]

Well, I found this, but it's a little old:

Iraq had some 125,000 trained security and military personnel as of Jan. 19, according to U.S. government figures, about 46 percent of its goal of 271,000. The figures include police and the Iraqi national guard as well as the army, the navy, the air force and special operations and rapid-response units.

Six months ago, Iraqi security forces were in roughly the same place - 87,000 personnel amounted to about 45 percent of U.S. goals at a time when planners were seeking a smaller force.

U.S. government projections, posted weekly on the Internet, said the Iraqi security forces would be completely trained and equipped by spring 2005.

That is no longer the case. Security forces are now expected to be fully trained and equipped by summer 2006, said a senior U.S. military officer in Iraq who is close to the training effort but spoke on condition of anonymity. The officer did not have a final projection for when the military will be completely trained and equipped.

http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Jan/20050131News006.asp

[doc]

And the dentist said, "this isn't going to hurt abit".

[Zhangliqun]

I'm looking for specifics around this. Grow to what specific level? "Experience" means time. How much time? When do you expect to have accomplished these objectives? Doesn't anyone have any specifics? How is America supposed to measure progress if you don't provide a timetable with metrics? Just feel good anecdotes and generalizations?

Oh, I forgot about the New Think in war strategizing, which dictates that you MUST telegraph your every move to your enemies on CNN-Jazeera. What was I thinking?

[Huck]

which dictates that you MUST telegraph your every move

I found some metrics (better fill Condi in on your retarded worldview.) We have trained about 170K. We need to train about 210K. It'll take at least another year. Cat's out of the bag, genius.

[Huck]

Your kind is funny in a sad, pathetic sort of way.

[Zhangliqun]

I found some metrics (better fill Condi in on your retarded worldview.) We have trained about 170K. We need to train about 210K. It'll take at least another year. Cat's out of the bag, genius.

Well then I don't understand your complaint. You're unhappy that she isn't giving an answer that you already knew because it's already public knowledge?

Besides, your source says it will take "at least another year". Not exactly a date certain.

[Huck]

No, I've been complaining for a while now, and this little bit about the 170K and the 210K is the first I've been able to dig up.

[Huck]

I'm not asking for a date certain. I'm asking for the criteria--the metrics--by which the DoD is measuring successful completion of this mission. I'm not asking that they tell us HOW they expect to do it--the mission details. I am asking for the objectives. The war is over in Iraq. This is all about setting up a secure Iraq and getting our bodies out of harm's way. It's very frustrating to not know how much closer we are, if at all, to getting this thing done. It's annoying. I realize pom pom wavers don't care, but I do.

[Zhangliqun]

Maybe the pom-pom wavers have read a little history and know that nothing in war EVER operates on a predictable timetable. And that applies to this war more than any other because the enemy is more shadowy and amorphous and unorthodox (to say the least) than ever.

It sounds like you've already got the objectives anyway. Beyond those two numbers given I can't see how they can give the criteria on measuring successful completion beyond the numbers you already have without giving away at least some of the mission details.

It was probably pretty frustrating two and a half years after Pearl Harbor for the general public to not to know when we were finally crossing the Channel for the invasion of Europe. How many troops do we need, Mr. President? What criteria are we using to determine when we're ready to go into France? Are you sure those Airborne drops are going to be safe? How do you expect to take on those pillboxes at Omaha and Utah if the B-17's and naval guns don't attrit them enough? The 29th Division is going to be sitting ducks! Oh, so you will be using amphibious tanks? But what if the water is choppy or the weather is bad? I don't care if Rommel is listening, it's so frustrating when you don't tell me everything!

Whatever answer you get, you're not going to be happy. It sounds as if you can't wait for a number or a criterion or some other specific data so if it doesn't get met perfectly and right on time, you can say "See? Bush blew it!"

I have a brother in Afghanistan who has been in combat and almost got killed back in March, but he's not due to get out until January -- and he may be extended. Don't TELL me I'm some mindless cheerleader. I want him and all of his colleagues there and in Iraq out of there as soon as possible, BUT...not one microsecond sooner. No more Somalias, thank you very much.