Iraq . . . more bad news for President Bush's administration

[NamVet4]

Source : Courtesy MSNBC - Reuters

NEW YORK - The situation in Iraq is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to a classified cable and briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency, the New York Times reported Tuesday.The assessments are more pessimistic than the Bush administration’s portrayal of the situation to the public, government officials told the newspaper.The classified cable — sent last month by the CIA’s station chief in Baghdad after the completion of a one-year tour of duty there — painted a bleak picture of Iraq’s politics, economics and security and reiterated briefings by Michael Kostiw, a senior CIA official, according to the Times.

The station chief cannot be identified because he is still working undercover, the Times added.

The cable, described as “unusually candid,” cautioned that security in the country is likely to deteriorate unless the Iraqi government makes significant progress in asserting its authority and building up the economy, the paper said.

Spokesmen for the White House and the CIA told the Times that they could not discuss intelligence matters and classified documents.

Security is likely to deteriorate . . . it SUCKS now!

~sigh ~ Pathetic . . .

[lakewinola]

Originally Posted by NamVet4

Source : Courtesy MSNBC - Reuters

Security is likely to deteriorate . . . it SUCKS now!

~sigh ~ Pathetic . . .

Well, this is no suprise. I mean we voted to continue with more of the same.

[Spence]

Why do the facts hate America and freedom?!?!

[GibbsRules!]

Now we have to rely on classified cable for accurate info...I bet the CIA station chief who released this is still working under cover alright...probably 6Ft under cover.

What a friggin quagmire...

[Spence]

Just so no one forgets what this thread is supposed to be about:

NEW YORK - The situation in Iraq is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to a classified cable and briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency, the New York Times reported Tuesday.The assessments are more pessimistic than the Bush administration’s portrayal of the situation to the public, government officials told the newspaper.The classified cable — sent last month by the CIA’s station chief in Baghdad after the completion of a one-year tour of duty there — painted a bleak picture of Iraq’s politics, economics and security and reiterated briefings by Michael Kostiw, a senior CIA official, according to the Times.

The station chief cannot be identified because he is still working undercover, the Times added.

The cable, described as “unusually candid,” cautioned that security in the country is likely to deteriorate unless the Iraqi government makes significant progress in asserting its authority and building up the economy, the paper said.

Spokesmen for the White House and the CIA told the Times that they could not discuss intelligence matters and classified documents.

[NamVet4]

This again, reinforces my nightmare that the American people, their sons and daughters, will once more endure a conflict that will waste our youth and do nothing to preserve our Freedom, deter terrorism or safeguard our homeland.
The President and the Administration have not heeded the lessons of history.
It is my belief that history will judge President George W. Bush as nothing more than a mediocre world leader who castrated his nation and further eroded the position of the United States in a dynamic world.

[Spence]

GROUNDHOG DAY:

WaPo, 7/19/03:

U.S. military commanders plan to train and arm thousands of Iraqis to conduct military missions alongside U.S. and British troops in an effort to restore security and quell resistance by forces loyal to ousted president Saddam Hussein, the new head of U.S. military forces in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East said today.

"The Iraqis want to be in the fight," Army Gen. John P. Abizaid said in his first interview since taking over U.S. Central Command this month. "We intend to get them in the fight."

Plans to create a militia-like civil defense force signal a new approach to the task of establishing order in postwar Iraq, where 36 U.S. troops have been killed in attacks since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1.


WaPo, 7/21/03:

Abizaid has said that U.S. casualties suffered during raids or other operations to secure Iraq are an unavoidable cost of combat. But he also said that noncombat casualties, such as those suffered by soldiers guarding civilian institutions, are unacceptable and that those jobs must be given back to Iraqis.

"We're still at war, and in this environment, no soldier likes to be on guard duty," said Army Col. Guy Shields, a spokesman for the U.S. military here. "The way these soldiers are trained, they can do a lot more than just being security guards. We want to get soldiers doing more soldier-like things."

Other officials expressed worry that the heavy U.S. military presence in Baghdad could be a prime reason for the attacks. American soldiers in tanks and armored vehicles patrol the streets here with machine guns ready. Officials said removing military guards from places where Iraqis bank, shop and visit the doctor would lower the military profile and might reduce the simmering resentment among the Iraqi population.

Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, said this week that more than 8,700 trained Iraqis were working in a new facilities protective service, which provides guards for key civilian sites.

That corps is separate from the Iraqi police force and the new Iraqi army that are being organized. It is also distinct from a militia-like civil defense force that U.S. officials plan to create to patrol alongside U.S. troops until the new army is fully functional.


WaPo, 10/19/03:

U.S. military commanders have developed a plan to steadily cut back troop levels in Iraq next year, several senior Army officers said in recent interviews.

There are now 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The plan to cut that number is well advanced and has been described in broad outline to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld but has not yet been approved by him. It would begin to draw down forces next spring, cutting the number of troops to fewer than 100,000 by next summer and then to 50,000 by mid-2005, officers involved in the planning said.

The plan, which amounts to being the first formal military exit strategy for Iraq, is designed to show how the U.S. presence might be reduced without undercutting the stability of the country. Military officials worry that if they do not begin cutting the size of the U.S. force, they could damage troop morale, leave the armed forces shorthanded if crises emerge in North Korea and elsewhere, and help create a long-term personnel shortage in the service.
...
During that period, the U.S. military hopes to turn over as many basic security functions as possible to the Iraqi security forces now being created and to any additional foreign peacekeepers that U.S. diplomacy secures. If the Iraqi security forces can shoulder more of the security burden, it might be possible to replace the departing divisions of about 16,000 troops each with brigades of about 5,000 each.

Over the spring, that changeover would represent a cumulative reduction of more than 30,000 soldiers; along with other cuts, it could lower the U.S. troop level to fewer than 100,000 by mid-2004.


WaPo, 11/17/03:

The Pentagon announced plans yesterday to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq from 132,000 to 105,000 by next May but, in the process, to replace ground troops currently there with fresh contingents of Army soldiers and Marines early next year.

The reduction is envisioned despite a recent surge in guerrilla activity in Iraq. Outlining the plan at a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expressed confidence it could be achieved without undermining the stability of the country.

But he also made it clear that the cutback hinges on several key assumptions, including improvement in the security situation in Iraq and the ability of the Iraqi security forces now being assembled to take over responsibility for ensuring law and order.

While the overall number of U.S. troops in Iraq has already declined by about 30,000 since the summer, the new plan represents a major step by the Bush administration toward developing a longer-term exit strategy. If implemented, it could provide a significant political advantage for President Bush in next year's presidential campaign, although Pentagon officials insisted yesterday that politics were not involved in the decision to shrink the force.
...
Rumsfeld pointed to growth in the number of Iraqi security forces -- which he said now total 118,000 -- as an important factor enabling U.S. troops to relinquish some responsibilities. The Iraqi forces, which include policemen, building guards and several other groups, are projected to reach 221,000 by next autumn.


WaPo, 6/12/04:

Starting July 1, with the transfer of limited sovereignty to Iraqi authorities, military helicopters will switch to flying "friendly approaches" instead of menacing ones, U.S. soldiers will go on patrol only when accompanying Iraqi security forces, and any shooting of U.S. weapons meant to harass or interdict will require higher-level approval than before, military officers here said.

In Mosul, Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, who leads a brigade of armored Stryker vehicles and other forces, said he expected that his troops would assume a much lower profile.

"On July 1, what I want Iraqi people to say is: 'Where are the airplanes? Where are the Strykers?' " Ham said last week. "What they'll see instead will be Iraqi forces."

For U.S. troops in Iraq, the coming political change -- from occupying power to supporting partner -- is supposed to be accompanied by a major shift in military mission and tactics. While legally still authorized under a U.N. resolution to use "all necessary means" to ensure security in Iraq, U.S. commanders say they intend to reduce combat operations, concentrate on training and assisting Iraqi forces, and promote local governance and economic development.

U.S. and Iraqi officials acknowledged in interviews and in briefings to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz last week that their plan was sure to be complicated by two main factors.

First, many of the 215,000 members of Iraq's fledgling forces are far from ready to take over much of the security burden. And second, the deadly insurgency that emerged shortly after the U.S.-led invasion last year continues to bring fresh waves of violence, most recently a surge of assassinations and attacks on oil facilities.


WaPo, 12/7/04:

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar, Dec. 6 -- Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region, raised the possibility Monday that U.S. forces in Iraq could start to be reshaped as early as next year to reduce the number of combat troops and concentrate on the development of Iraqi security forces.

Abizaid declined in an interview to set a timetable for the shift, saying it would depend on the outcome of national elections in January and evidence that Iraqi forces could assume a greater share of combat operations against the country's entrenched insurgency. Other senior U.S. officers who elaborated on the plan said the change would not necessarily lead initially to an overall decrease in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq but could eventually facilitate a lower troop level.

[Jimreaper007]

Originally Posted by NamVet4

This again, reinforces my nightmare that the American people, their sons and daughters, will once more endure a conflict that will waste our youth and do nothing to preserve our Freedom, deter terrorism or safeguard our homeland.
The President and the Administration have not heeded the lessons of history.
It is my belief that history will judge President George W. Bush as nothing more than a mediocre world leader who castrated his nation and further eroded the position of the United States in a dynamic world.

Amen....

It's hard to heed those lessons when your head is so far up your forth point of contact. What is really scary is that those of us in the know, can see clearly how this story is going to end.

It is lose-lose..