Iraqi President: Iraqi forces to take over by year's end

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
President: Iraqi forces to take over by year's end

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday he foresees Iraqi forces taking over security in all 18 Iraqi provinces by the end of the year.

Talabani, who was speaking at a news conference, said the transition will be gradual and multinational forces will be playing a supportive role to the Iraqi troops.

"The role of the multinational forces is a role to help the Iraqi armed forces, and, God willing, the Iraqi armed forces will at the end of the year take over all of the security in all the Iraqi provinces, little by little, gradually, and, God willing, we will be in a position to do that," he said.

Also, he said, "we have optimism that we will eliminate terrorism."

The remarks come during a volatile period in Baghdad and across the country, where Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence has raged for many months and attacks continue unabated, despite a big security crackdown in the capital.

At least five people were killed in attacks on Wednesday -- three in a bombing in Baghdad and two in a shooting in Diyala province, police said. (Full story)

On Tuesday, several dozen people were killed in attacks. (Full story)

Talabani's pronouncement on a security transition is seen as optimistic. The U.S. military is largely in control of the country's security, and the British and Polish militaries each head a division.

Those multi-national forces have had their hands full for years, facing obstacles from the Iraqi insurgency and sectarian hostilities in their efforts to establish security in the country.

Lt. Col. Michael J. Negard, a public affairs officer from the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, reacted to the remarks, saying "we are confident we can accomplish our task of training and equipping Iraqi security forces by the end of the year."

However, he said, "any handover of security must come after" any given unit "is fully trained and equipped."

A senior coalition official said that by September, five of the Iraq's 10 army divisions will be take control from coalition forces in different regions across the country. He didn't specify the regions.

Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of Britain's defense staff, told BBC radio on Wednesday that British forces were likely to hand over control of the southern port of Basra early next year, The Associated Press reported.

"We are now on a good path to hand over provincial control of Basra some time in the first part of next year," Stirrup said.

"But these are difficult issues we are grappling with and I can't forecast what will happen over the next several months. This is a dynamic situation and we have to be able to react to any changes that occur. At the moment, we are making good progress."

According to data from the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, there were 269,600 Iraqi security forces -- 154,500 police and 115,100 army -- as of the end of July.

Of Iraq's provinces, only Muthanna province is under Iraqi security forces' control. Iraq forces, however, do control districts here and there throughout the country.
This seems like major news at face value and is conspicuously absent from P&N thus far. I have serious doubts as to whether such an ambitious deadline can be met. With reconstruction efforts wrapping up and large numbers of Iraqis stepping up to finish the job in both security and construction roles, maybe it will really happen. Now that most of the American influence is taking a hike, we can spend our money teaching them to fish instead of doing all of their fishing for them.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
I guess setting a secret deadline (06 elections) by republicans is somehow different than the public ones by Democrats. Must be nice to be able to pull the strings of the Iraqi government, makes it look independent to the sheeple back in the US. But then again 99% of what they say is BS, will this be different?
 

trance247

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
363
0
0
i can see news report aroud that time:

"...a wave of (attacks, ied, violance, kidnappings means even longer presense for our troops"

cmon people noone is going anywhere any time soon, same story...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Talabani, who was speaking at a news conference, said the transition will be gradual and multinational forces will be playing a supportive role to the Iraqi troops.

"The role of the multinational forces is a role to help the Iraqi armed forces, and, God willing, the Iraqi armed forces will at the end of the year take over all of the security in all the Iraqi provinces, little by little, gradually, and, God willing, we will be in a position to do that," he said.

Also, he said, "we have optimism that we will eliminate terrorism."
Boy, he is optimistic. And God willing, he will succeed. :D But hey, more importantly, this means Bush has set a timetable. I thought timetables were bad? I'm lost here... Maybe some kind (R)'s can explainify themselves.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
We're building big military bases there. We will have a large military presence in Iraq for some time to come.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
i think it is sick that Talabani says someting like this the day or two after someting lke 50 people get killed. This is a classic case of "say what isn't true and hope the people beleive".
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
I think the Iraqi army has come along ways and continues to improve. The Iraqi police are another matter and cannot be counted on. I would look for modest drawdowns by years end.
 

kedlav

Senior member
Aug 2, 2006
632
0
0
Considering the fact that even the one province under the Iraqi Army's control isn't doing any better than others, that nearly all Iraqi military units still require U.S. support to operate, the infiltration by militias into the Iraqi Army, and the fact the Iraqi Army lacks the manpower, let alone the equipment and training to adequately defend themselves, this one needs filed under 'publicity stunt' at best, 'complete B$' more likely.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
I think the Iraqi army has come along ways and continues to improve. The Iraqi police are another matter and cannot be counted on. I would look for modest drawdowns by years end.

What exactly are you basing that on? The situation in Iraq is not getting any safer, and not only are US troops not starting to leave...Bush is publicly considering sending even more of them over there.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Hard to imagine the Iraqi troops will undergo such a magical transformation in so short a time frame. Their record of competence and reliability so far has been pretty dismal.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: AnyMal
I'll file this under "unfounded optimism"

Copy that. This is a PR announcement to benefit Talabani and the White House, but hoping doesn't make it so. From what I can see Iraq will likely be more chaotic by the end of the year, rather than less, further descending into civil war.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: AnyMal
I'll file this under "unfounded optimism"

Copy that. This is a PR announcement to benefit Talabani and the White House, but hoping doesn't make it so. From what I can see Iraq will likely be more chaotic by the end of the year, rather than less, further descending into civil war.

"Faith based victory" perhaps? ;)
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: daniel49
I think the Iraqi army has come along ways and continues to improve. The Iraqi police are another matter and cannot be counted on. I would look for modest drawdowns by years end.

What exactly are you basing that on? The situation in Iraq is not getting any safer, and not only are US troops not starting to leave...Bush is publicly considering sending even more of them over there.

I am basing it upon the iraqi army has improved, the police are infiltrated, and midterm elections are approaching.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
President: Iraqi forces to take over by year's end

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday he foresees Iraqi forces taking over security in all 18 Iraqi provinces by the end of the year.

Talabani, who was speaking at a news conference, said the transition will be gradual and multinational forces will be playing a supportive role to the Iraqi troops.

"The role of the multinational forces is a role to help the Iraqi armed forces, and, God willing, the Iraqi armed forces will at the end of the year take over all of the security in all the Iraqi provinces, little by little, gradually, and, God willing, we will be in a position to do that," he said.

Also, he said, "we have optimism that we will eliminate terrorism."

The remarks come during a volatile period in Baghdad and across the country, where Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence has raged for many months and attacks continue unabated, despite a big security crackdown in the capital.

At least five people were killed in attacks on Wednesday -- three in a bombing in Baghdad and two in a shooting in Diyala province, police said. (Full story)

On Tuesday, several dozen people were killed in attacks. (Full story)

Talabani's pronouncement on a security transition is seen as optimistic. The U.S. military is largely in control of the country's security, and the British and Polish militaries each head a division.

Those multi-national forces have had their hands full for years, facing obstacles from the Iraqi insurgency and sectarian hostilities in their efforts to establish security in the country.

Lt. Col. Michael J. Negard, a public affairs officer from the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, reacted to the remarks, saying "we are confident we can accomplish our task of training and equipping Iraqi security forces by the end of the year."

However, he said, "any handover of security must come after" any given unit "is fully trained and equipped."

A senior coalition official said that by September, five of the Iraq's 10 army divisions will be take control from coalition forces in different regions across the country. He didn't specify the regions.

Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of Britain's defense staff, told BBC radio on Wednesday that British forces were likely to hand over control of the southern port of Basra early next year, The Associated Press reported.

"We are now on a good path to hand over provincial control of Basra some time in the first part of next year," Stirrup said.

"But these are difficult issues we are grappling with and I can't forecast what will happen over the next several months. This is a dynamic situation and we have to be able to react to any changes that occur. At the moment, we are making good progress."

According to data from the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, there were 269,600 Iraqi security forces -- 154,500 police and 115,100 army -- as of the end of July.

Of Iraq's provinces, only Muthanna province is under Iraqi security forces' control. Iraq forces, however, do control districts here and there throughout the country.
This seems like major news at face value and is conspicuously absent from P&N thus far. I have serious doubts as to whether such an ambitious deadline can be met. With reconstruction efforts wrapping up and large numbers of Iraqis stepping up to finish the job in both security and construction roles, maybe it will really happen. Now that most of the American influence is taking a hike, we can spend our money teaching them to fish instead of doing all of their fishing for them.


I take it you haven't heard about the leaked memo from the desk of the outgoing British ambassador to Iraq? It basically states that the most likely outcome of the war is a protracted civil war and the eventual breakup of the country. Yeah, I'm serious. Check the BBC for details.
Reason this out yourself. It should take all of about a minute: If the country is completely ripped apart with 130,000 U.S. plus thousands of other multi-national troops AND the Iraqi forces, how are the Iraqi forces going to fare alone? If you arrive at "better" then you should start over.

Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: AnyMal
I'll file this under "unfounded optimism"

Copy that. This is a PR announcement to benefit Talabani and the White House, but hoping doesn't make it so. From what I can see Iraq will likely be more chaotic by the end of the year, rather than less, further descending into civil war.

The outgoing British ambassador to Iraq agrees with you.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: daniel49
I think the Iraqi army has come along ways and continues to improve. The Iraqi police are another matter and cannot be counted on. I would look for modest drawdowns by years end.

What exactly are you basing that on? The situation in Iraq is not getting any safer, and not only are US troops not starting to leave...Bush is publicly considering sending even more of them over there.

I am basing it upon the iraqi army has improved, the police are infiltrated, and midterm elections are approaching.

So if the Iraqi army has improved, why aren't the picking up the ball? As Bush so famously put it, when the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down...and since we're not standing down, what does that suggest about the Iraqis?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
I take it you haven't heard about the leaked memo from the desk of the outgoing British ambassador to Iraq? It basically states that the most likely outcome of the war is a protracted civil war and the eventual breakup of the country. Yeah, I'm serious. Check the BBC for details.
Reason this out yourself. It should take all of about a minute: If the country is completely ripped apart with 130,000 U.S. plus thousands of other multi-national troops AND the Iraqi forces, how are the Iraqi forces going to fare alone? If you arrive at "better" then you should start over.
You had your conclusion before you saw the evidence. You're only 18 posts in and I can already tell this about you. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that you're not reasoning anything for yourself. If you had, you'd realize that Mr. Embassador's opinion is based on current events and assumes that the general approach will stay unchanged. I submitted that the approach is changing with the substitution of the Iraqi worker compensating for the exodus of American contractors. Since I've recently read that unemployment there is about 60%, it's miraculous that crime is so low. There is obviously plenty of work for these people to be doing. The key to moving forward is to give the Iraqis something else to do besides blow each other up. Give them a stake in their own future and things will start to go the right direction.