Hilarious! Iraqis to assume full control of security in 12-18 months.

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Iraqis may control security in 12-18 mos
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN, Associated Press Writer

U.S. officials said Tuesday Iraq's government has agreed to develop a timeline for progress by the end of the year, and Iraqi forces should be able to take full control of security in the country in the next 12 to 18 months with "some level" of American support.



In three years the amount of land the Iraqis can control is ZERO (exluding the Kurds). There is not one square inch of Iraq that they could defend (or are WILLING) to defend on their own.
The Iraqi army is full of officers and men who are fighting AGAINST the current government of Iraq.
The Iraqi army just dismissed hundreds of officers for links to death squads.

Who here believes the Iraqis could take full control of security with "some level" of American support in 12-18 months? What idiocy.
It is unlikely they could do so in 5-10 YEARS.
Things have been getting worse, not better.

 

[ayabe]

I think there are some very loyal, well trained and capable units in the Iraqi army but they are the minority by far. The numbers being fed to the press are not accurate by any stretch. A big problem they have is little to no logitics support which they continue to rely on the US for.

I watch a couple minutes of that press conference this morning and apparently Al-Sadr has agreed to disarm his militias. Well that's great news, it was also great news the last four times he said the exact same thing. I don't believe him, he's a liar and and a scumbag.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I think there are some very loyal, well trained and capable units in the Iraqi army but they are the minority by far.

At this point I don't think training is an issue. I think they've had enough time to train them up. Heck, American soldiers were trained and marching on the Rhine in the time the Iraqis have had.
Loyalty is the question. The only question. Not only can't most be trusted, no one knows who the ones who CAN be trusted are. And a loyal soldier today may hear his brother got killed by Americans or one of the militias and may change his loyalties overnight.
The problem is it is not determining who is disloyal, its determing the few who ARE loyal.
And the longer the US is there, the longer the situation for Iraqis doesn't improve (and its gotten WORSE) since the invasion, the more impossible the task is.

 

[TravisT]

And the longer the US is there, the longer the situation for Iraqis doesn't improve (and its gotten WORSE) since the invasion, the more impossible the task is.

So the solution is to leave everything the way it is and pull the troops out? I will agree, the thing we're doing now isn't working. I'm not sure I agree with you that that would be the solution to the problem though.

 

[Zebo]

Bloodbath then all will settle down after they get tired of killin and dying. This plan should have been done Dec 03 saved lots of our boys and limited the sectarian hostilty built up these past three years under american protection.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: TravisT

And the longer the US is there, the longer the situation for Iraqis doesn't improve (and its gotten WORSE) since the invasion, the more impossible the task is.

So the solution is to leave everything the way it is and pull the troops out? I will agree, the thing we're doing now isn't working. I'm not sure I agree with you that that would be the solution to the problem though.

I was only commenting on the hilarious and sad notion that:

1)Anyone would be stupid enought to think that the Iraqis taking over security in 12-18 months is completely out of touch.

2)Showing the desperation of the Republicans in trying the same claim that better days are just around the corner in Iraq, which they have used time and time and time and time and time again. (Last throes my *ss)

 

[dmcowen674]

Saw the headline this morning as well and said of course, just before the 2008 Election all will be perfect for the Republicans. Bush is a hero and got the job done.

Mission Accomplished :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, Bush knows he lost. Now it's save the little face he can. Sec of Defence will go after the election, I think.

 

[1EZduzit]

I agree, I think Rumsfield is history no matter who comes out on top of the elections.

 

[DealMonkey]

What?! "Stay the Course" is over with already? Damn, too bad, given how popular that option is around here.

 

[Aisengard]

No, DealMonkey, the policy never was "Stay the Course", don't you listen? Just like it never was about WMD, or about Regime Change, or about Terror, or about the inifinite number of things Bush said it was about at one point then FLIP FLOPPED (highlighted for Bush zealots/idiots) and said it wasn't about that at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What?! "Stay the Course" is over with already? Damn, too bad, given how popular that option is around here.

Fortunately you can't fool all the people all the time. The days of the Bush Fool are over. No American, Republican or Democrat, can allow Presidential delusions to ruin the country. The Iraq War has caused enormous damage to our country and we have to find a way to save what is left. We have a huge national emergency.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I agree, I think Rumsfield is history no matter who comes out on top of the elections.

I don't think so, if he was going to pull the trigger on that it would have been done a while ago.

With only 2 years left there isn't enough time to correct what Rummy has done at the Pentagon, so it's almost a moot point now.

 

[mc00]

I'm all for a pull out but little by little instead of let stay there forever and keep dumping truck load of money.. I have my doubt this country is going stay democracy after we leave, religion probably take over again..

 

[blackangst1]

LOL @ you guys

First you complain there is no plan to leave, then you criticize when a plan is made? LOL Youre filled with so much hate and contempt you dont even know the words bi-partisanship or compromise....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
LOL @ you guys

First you complain there is no plan to leave, then you criticize when a plan is made? LOL Youre filled with so much hate and contempt you dont even know the words bi-partisanship or compromise....

Feel the :heart:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
LOL @ you guys

First you complain there is no plan to leave, then you criticize when a plan is made? LOL Youre filled with so much hate and contempt you dont even know the words bi-partisanship or compromise....

Typical liberals.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
LOL @ you guys

First you complain there is no plan to leave, then you criticize when a plan is made? LOL Youre filled with so much hate and contempt you dont even know the words bi-partisanship or compromise....

its called having a grasp on reality. before bush stepped into this steaming pile of poo he should have thought about the future. his father did just that and did not go into baghdad because of that. there is currently still no realistic plan to leave and that is a fact. there is also currently a religious civil war going on and there is no end in sight.

 

[jackschmittusa]

But all of the money is gone that was earmarked for weapons, remember?

How can we believe that there was any useful training for large numbers of Iraqis when the money was not spent to buy the weapons they needed?

 

[ProfJohn]

Will anything make the left happy when it comes to Iraq?

Of course if we are in Iraq when a Democratic President takes over watch how fast they change their mind to back up what ever plan the President puts into place.

Presidents on both sides have a history of changing their minds, most people would call that flexability. Sadly, in todays political climate changing your mind is a sign of weakness.

Witness the following statements by Clinton and all the time he changed his mind (and I am sure the right bitched every time as well)
MILITARY ACTION IN HAITI:
"I have no intention of asking our young people in uniform...to go in there
to do anything other than implement a peace agreement..."
October 13, 1993.

"...I think that we cannot afford to discount the prospect of a military
option [in Haiti]."
May 3, 1994.

BOSNIA:
"We will make the U.S. the catalyst for a collective stand against
aggression, the action I have urged in response to Serbian aggression in
Bosnia . . ."
August 13, 1992.

"I think we should act. We should lead. The United States should lead."
April 23, 1993.

"I cannot unilaterally lift the arms embargo [on Bosnia].... Our allies
decided that they weren't prepared to go that far this time."
June 15, 1993.

"The United Nations controls what happens in Bosnia."
June 15, 1993.

MISSION IN SOMALIA:
"The ultimate goal is to make sure that the United Nations can fulfill its
mission there and continue to work with the Somalis toward nation
building."
June 16, 1993.

"The U.S. military mission is not now nor was it ever one of `nation
building.'"
October 13, 1993.

 

[Martin]

Notice that this has been accompanied by increased critisism of Iraq's government. Basically, they're prepping the propaganda - when the US withdrawls Bush wants poeple to think that its solely the failure of Iraqis and that he and his admin are completely blameless.

 

[Lemon law]

To jackschmittusa,

Buy arms for the Iraqi's?---what a stupid idea---don't you realsise they would only turn them on the USA first chance they get.

When the money is better spent being embezzled.---but its still useful to have paper arms and paper armies---you have to retain certain myths
like they will stand up so we can stand down.

 

[HomerJS]

I thought it was beaten into our heads there should not be a timetable???

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
LOL @ you guys

First you complain there is no plan to leave, then you criticize when a plan is made? LOL Youre filled with so much hate and contempt you dont even know the words bi-partisanship or compromise....

IIRC, isn't this 'plan' similar to at least one proposed in the summer by some Democrats? Namely, a strategic redployment of US troops under the assumption that Iraqi troops would gradually be competent enough to take over. What was that timeline? Oh, yeah . . . by the end of 2007. :roll:

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I think there are some very loyal, well trained and capable units in the Iraqi army but they are the minority by far. The numbers being fed to the press are not accurate by any stretch. A big problem they have is little to no logitics support which they continue to rely on the US for.

I watch a couple minutes of that press conference this morning and apparently Al-Sadr has agreed to disarm his militias. Well that's great news, it was also great news the last four times he said the exact same thing. I don't believe him, he's a liar and and a scumbag.

And neither do I, but its been rumored (A few arcitle posted) that he isn't under any real control of the mehdi milita anymore.

That and he is a liar and a scumbag that is interested in a United Iraq - where a lot of appeal comes from