From DefenseLINK:
The highest-ranking military officer in Iraq said over the past year his country’s armed forces have accomplished “almost a miracle.”
Speaking through a translator, Army Gen. Babakir Shawkat Zebari said only one battalion was capable of operating with coalition forces when he became the Iraqi military’s chief of staff. Now dozens are taking the lead in the counterinsurgency fight, and many more are operating with coalition forces.
In the west, he said, Iraqi forces now allow the coalition to hold areas. In the past, coalition forces would move into an area, clear out the terrorists and then leave—hoping local institutions were strong enough to keep the terrorists at arm’s length. That did not happen, he said.
Coalition military officials explained that at the time there weren’t enough coalition troops to move into an area and leave them there.
But, Babakir said, the added Iraqi battalions now available allow commanders to do that. For example, Iraqi soldiers and police are integral to the strategy in Ramadi and Fallujah and along the Syrian border.
The Iraqi military will be at its full strength of 160,000 at the end of 2006, Babakir said. “So my assumption is that at the end of 2006, we could send half of the coalition soldiers home,” he said. “Some people may not agree, but that is my opinion.”
Babakir downplayed the danger of a civil war in the country. He said there certainly will not be a civil war “if the Americans stay.” The mere existence of the Iraqi military, which is fair to all and contains soldiers from all over the country, is a unifying force.
[…]
The Iraqi military has had success in training and recruiting. The training establishment is self-sustaining. There are plenty of volunteers for the military, and Iraqi instructors are training them.
The Iraqi military is challenged, however, because officials must build a force with coalition help while fighting the war on terrorism.
The general said the combat arm of the military is established. The Iraqi military has more than 100 battalions; a number of brigades are running operations in various areas of the country; and the Iraqi 6th Division is responsible for an operational area in Baghdad.
While the general said he believes the coalition will be able to cut the number of troops in Iraq in the coming year, Babakir said he does not favor a quick withdrawal of coalition troops. Any coalition troop withdrawal should be gradual, he said, because coalition forces are integral to the success of democracy in Iraq.
If coalition forces leave Iraq, he said, terrorist groups would be free to plan and train for more attacks like Sept. 11, and other attacks in Madrid, Spain; London; and Bali, Indonesia.
Iraq is the main theater in the global war on terrorism, he said. “If tomorrow (the United States) decides to leave, then you will see al Qaeda in your streets,” he said. “They will claim that they have defeated you and that they are the ones who won.
Babakir thanked the American people for driving Saddam Hussein from power. “And we feel every American death,” he said. “But in fighting terrorism you cannot close your eyes or turn your back to it. Do you think they will leave you alone if you leave Iraq? I think not.”
“It would be better for the Americans to fight terrorism in this country than in their own,” Babakir said. “And the people of this country are ready to support and assist in this war.”
The Iraqi general also said the United States should think about establishing long-term bases in Iraq.
“This is a strategic area, and for your own self-interest you should have bases here,” Babakir said. “You would help promote stability. Look at Germany and Japan and South Korea. Look at the turnaround in those countries, and it is all because of America’s help and support.
“It would be a great success for America if it can help Iraq be a role model to the region,” he said. “We have the capabilities to succeed. We need the time to do it.”
Babakir said the people of Iraq are resilient, noting the people of Baghdad lived through eight years of bombing and missile attacks during the Iran-Iraq War. They also persevered in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and during the sanctions that followed.
“We have been through a lot, yet the daily routine of the people continues,” he said. “And all the towns of this country are just like that.”
He said he sees a gradual improvement in the situation in the country and that all aspects are linked together. As the military provides better security and the number of terrorist attacks drop, people will invest more in their communities, Babakir said.
That investment creates jobs and a sense in the population that they have a stake in the success of the country, the general noted. Then, more Iraqis will cooperate with Iraqi and coalition forces and give tips on terrorists. This allows the military to capture or kill more terrorists and to reinforce security. This is already the model in much of the country, he said.
Would somebody shut this guy up? Christ—where are the progressive Iraqis willing to throw Oreos at this Uncle Tom? Or, y’know—Yodels.
DOESN’T ANYBODY IN IRAQ CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THEIR COUNTRY TO SURRENDER?
(h/t Tom W)
Ack Ack! Ack ack aaack!
ACK ACK AAAAACK!
POP!
Jesus, where has this guy been the last 2 years?
O’reilly, I’ve got someone you should meet.
He could do more good for his country making the TV rounds here than even commanding the Iraqi military.
Jeff – good catch.
If this guy keeps talking, maybe some of the dumbasses in this country will get with the “program”.
Mr. Martian – That’s funny!
Winning in Iraq is not the end of all this.This is The Battle for Iraq, part of the War Against Islamist Fascism.
That’s why we have to keep going. People need to keep an eye on the big picture.
Friggin’ hilarious. An actual ‘lol’…
$20 bucks says the batshit crazy left claims this guy is a CIA plant or a fictional character made of paper mache and advanced circuitry planted by the Pentagon to “make the US-supported Iraqi puppet government” look good…
rickinstl —
Tom W actually caught this and posted it in the last thread. I just thought it was worth giving it’s own post. He deserves the thanks—though I’ll take credit for the snark, if only because I don’t think fucking DILBERT woulda come up with it.
Can we gewt Terry MacAuliffe to come out of retirement and call him Bush’s puppet?
That Dilbert sure is funny.
I bet he can keep his glasses happy, too.
I cannot wait to see what special types on inanity that piator and Jake are able to come up with on this topic.
Reminds me–
Anybody catch the lead in this peice-of-shit scandal rag co-founded by Ralph Waldo Emerson?
And the motherfuckers don’t even print fiction anymore.
I got a free trial subscription so I could go in and download all the Steyn eulogies in the archives, and when they sent me the trial copy I looked at two articles and threw it away, literally in physical disgust. One was about how the the Iraqis have no army WHATSOEVER, and the other was about how people who believe in God are gibbering chattle of mere Darwinist necessity.
(And just when I was (occasionally) going to keep it on the coffee table to make writer friends (like Jeff) feel a bit more comfortable…)
Now, I have always been a supporter…but didn’t Rummy keep telling us we had enough troops?
Or perhaps we have enough US troops but need Iraqi troops to do that part?
mmmm, i think it took some trial and error to find the right balance. rummy sometimes would talk about “footprints” people complain we’re occupying the place, so we try not to have too many troops. probably erred on that count. though rto would add that he didn’t ever see a high ranking military person say they requested more troops, but didn’t get them.
I’m obviously not a military expert, and it is difficult to second guess a guy with his credentials – but I don’t see how 160,000 Iraqi troops are going to replace 160,000 coallition troops. There’s potential to be both a continued low-level Sunni insurgency, and also problems with the religious militias and fanatics in the South. Indeed, there’s good evidence that many of the institutions in the South are already infiltrated. I think that number’s going to need to be kicked up a good bit, which means more time. Course, I’m just a guy on the net…
Uh, Cutler, last I heard they were figuring on about 200,000 Iraqi troops and police to replace maybe 60,000 Coalition troops. This guy says:
.â€Â
As for troop numbers, I’ve actually always agreed in a way with the critics. We are stretched to the limit…but there are no extra troops to commit. The size of the military should have been jacked up after 9-11, but it wasn’t done, because Rumsfeld’s committed to transformation.
Course, it is near impossible to take the Democrats seriously. Kerry suggested upping the number, and then said, no, they wouldn’t be sent to Iraq.
Only person imo that’s been consistent and made sense on this issue is McCain, but it is hard to admit mistakes in this environment. Furthermore, the war’s going to be decided by Iraqs, not a huge military increase, the effects of which won’t be seen until long after this war will have been won or lost politically.
Aaron:
Re: Troop levels in Iraq
Allow me to bloviate…
Rumsfeld studied the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962) to see how to occupy a Muslim country with a modern western army. The French sent half a million troops to Algeria, a country that had a population of 9 million at the time, compared to present-day Iraq’s 25 million. To recreate the same troop-to-population ratio, that would mean 1.4 million Coalition troops in Iraq or ten times the number we have now.
The French military was also given orders by Paris to crush the Muslim insurgency by any means necessary. Primarily, the French used the principle of “collective responsibilityâ€Â: If a village harbored or supported the FLN guerillas, it was bombed from the air, hit with artillery, or assaulted by infantry and burned. The French also put millions of Algerians in concentration camps, tortured prisoners to death, and instituted a policy of mass summary execution.
The end result of this counterinsurgency waged without any restrictions was that the French lost 18,000 soldiers dead and 65,000 wounded. About 3000 French civilians were killed, and between 350,000 and 1.5 million Algerians died.
The French fought the Algerians with everything they had, and they still lost the war. Their brutality and their large numbers inspired people to fanatically oppose them as “infidel occupiers.”
Rumsfeld decided that our “footprint” in Iraq would be deliberately kept small in order to minimize the impression of occupation among fence-sitters. Although this meant that we would likely take relatively higher casualties in the short run, our combat death rate is less than a third of what the French suffered, and civilian deaths are only a fraction.
Rumsfeld always said we had enough troops to do the job, and the most important part of that job was to prevent Iraq from becoming the blood-soaked killing fields of Algeria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War_of_Independence
And thanks for the hat tip, Jeff! I wuv this blog!
I’d heard that 200,000 number too, I was a bit surprised to see the 160,000.
Still with both the Sunnis, Sadr types down south, and the Iranians themselves, 200,000 seems small – especially when you’re counting police in there. That’s a lot of potential security problems, and I don’t think we’re going to be allowed to have such a high-profile there forever.
Still, you’re probably right, they obviously are in a better position to know than I.
Actually, excuse me, brain fart and late at night.
I see 200,000 is police+army, 160,000 is army.
Rumsfeld decided that our “footprint†in Iraq would be deliberately kept small in order to minimize the impression of occupation among fence-sitters.
When the Democrat/moonbat howls for withdrawal get to me, I think of the bright side—average Iraqis (i.e., “fence-sitters”) read about that too, and it must strike them as evidence that Americans do not want to permanently occupy their country. Gives me a chuckle to think Pelosi and Murtha may indirectly be contributing to stability and success in Iraq.
“Another plastic general moment.”
UNPOPULIST: The trick is to pick up The Atlantic at a book store, flip to anything by P.J. O’Rourke, read that, and place the magazine neatly back on the news stand. Then go buy a copy of Reason or something.
With a generally supportive population in Iraq, I expect that 200,000 Iraqi troops and police will do a better job than without popular support. Add in the remaining Coalition troops, and I think that we’ll have enough troops on the ground. Unless Iran or Syria decide to openly attack, that is.
Rummy took the right approach by avoiding the Algerian model.
Jeff,
Well of course you are way funnier than Dilbert,but at least you can take comfort in that it is a nationally well known comic strip.
Unlike me, who is getting beaten by a freakin teenage homeschooled blog.
Regarding this post. This is being picked up by the NYT, right? AP is on it I’m sure. right? right????
QUAGMIRE!!!!!!!!
Cutler  You do not just “jack up” the size of an army. It takes two to three years to produce one combat-trained but green division, assuming you have the enlistees to train and the goods to equip them with.
We actually had to buy small arms ammunition from Israel because we’ve let our dread “military industrial complex” degrade to the point that we could not manufacture enough cartridges for operations. It will take years simply to restore our production capacity to produce the arms and vehicles for a larger army.
“A substantial and continuing reduction of America’s military presence throughout 2006 is in order,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in response to Bush’s speech. “If America wants a new Iraqi government to succeed, we need to let Iraqis take responsibility for their own future.“
The clouds parted, and the Heavens were in view and a voice as pure as crystal bade all to hear a new and wonderous idea.
GOD DAMN TED! A new angle! For God’s sake, lie down before you soil yourself and those around you.
Too late.
I think they need a few generations of comfort and affluence to get their really vibrant self-hating thing on.
Small footprint in Iraq?
What’s Rumsfeld’s idea of a large footprint?
Using Vietnam as an analogy, peak deployment there was about 500,000. I’d say that was a large enough footprint.
We’ve reached nearly a third that number now.
Where does it end; when does it end?
Answer: If the Neocons have their way, never.
It probably involves the words “glowing in the dark.”
And frankly, that definition would work for me too.
Gawd, but you’re an idiot.
Uh Carl?
If you’re going to be picking your nose while you’re reading previous comments, try using an underhanded style to prevent your picking-hand from blocking out any important text. eg. troop to population ratio, concentration camps, mass summary executions, etc.
Re-read Tom W. and pick a winner!
Carl Goss, I realize that your head is quite comfortable in its current subterranean location, but perhaps you should consider removing it just long enough to actually READ what the General said. We are succeeding in Iraq. The Iraqi people are being well served by the US and Iraqi forces. Freedom, education, healthcare, public utilities; all are spreading like fire in a California summer.
The Bush plan is working.
Amateurs talk strategy.
Professionals talk logistics.
REALLY amateur amateurs talk ‘troop levels’.
Hmmm.
Really professional professionals talk “go-go bars”.
ed:
I’m sure that’s a funny line to someone,somewhere!
Ed’s comment to you, Jon, is funny to at least one professional.
TW: brown, as in the brown professional
Hey Jon,
Are ‘troop levels’ a function of strategy or logistics?
Where does it end; when does it end?
Answer: If the Neocons have their way, never.
We’re going to Syria, we’re going to Jordan, we’re going to Egypt, to Libya, to Tunisia… YEEEEEARRRRGH!
don’t forget, we’re already in the sinai peninsula.
tw: with, with egypt and some others.
Hey, Carl! I found your shirt behind that last dumpster…