Bush to give up the ghost.

[Ramo]

Gen. Odom just said on the Newshour what has been pretty obvious for a while now: Iraqi security forces are basically arms of the militias - particularly the Badr Corps, but to a lesser extent the Peshmergas and Mahdi Army.

LT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM (Ret.): It is an illusion to think you could leave a stable military there. What you are leaving is a more competent set of militias, which we are training under the illusion that they are the Iraqi security force and police are essentially a front for militias putting their forces in there.

[...]

Bernie (retired Lt. General Bernard Trainor), I know you have been talking to some of the people out there, lots of the trainers at the tactical level know that we're not going to train a security force up; they know these people are more loyal to militias than they are to any Iraqi regime. That is a fact that staying three more years won't change.

An Iraq controlled by sectarian Shia and Kurdish militias is not the sort of thing that will convince the Sunni Arabs to end their insurgency. Particularly not when these forces have been responsible for all sorts of human rights abuses against Sunni Arabs.

From the Times:

Hundreds of accounts of killings and abductions have emerged recently, most of them brought forward by Sunni civilians, who claim that their relatives have been taken away by Iraqi men in uniform without warrant or explanation.

Some Sunni males have been found dead in ditches and fields, with bullet holes in their temples, acid burns on their skin, and holes in their bodies apparently made by electric drills. Many have simply vanished.

Some of the young men have turned up alive in prison; in a secret bunker discovered earlier this month in an Interior Ministry building in Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials acknowledged that some of the mostly Sunni inmates appeared to have been tortured.

Bayan Jabr, Iraq's interior minister, and other government officials denied any government involvement, saying the killings were carried out by men driving stolen police cars and wearing police and army uniforms purchased at local markets. "Impossible! Impossible!" Jabr said. "That is totally wrong; it's only rumors; it is nonsense."

Many of the claims of murder and abduction have been substantiated by at least one human rights organization working here - it asked not to be identified because of safety concerns - and documented by Sunni leaders working in their communities.

U.S. officials overseeing the training of the Iraqi Army and the police acknowledge that police officers and Iraqi soldiers, and the militias with which they are associated, may indeed be carrying out killings and abductions in Sunni communities, without direct American knowledge

[...]

The chief suspects, according to Sunni leaders, human rights workers and a well-connected U.S. official in Iraq, are current and former members of the Badr Brigade. This is the Iranian-backed militia controlled by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a principal member of the current government.

[...]

"The difference between the Ministry of the Interior and the Badr Brigade has become very blurry," the human rights investigator said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/29/news/sunnis.php

It's interesting that Allawi recently said that the human rights situation is as bad or worse than under Saddam. Obviously, he's not a disinterested observer, and has a strong incentive in discrediting the SCIRI-Da'wa gov't, and is partially responsible for the situation in the first place, but this indicates that the security forces don't exactly behave responsibly.

Further, a lot of people think that the militias aren't capable of standing up to the insurgents. With the massive amounts of corruption in the Iraqi government (I posted an article earlier this year about how virtually all of the Ministry of Defense's budget was flagged as inappropriately spent by an audit, and nearly of half of it was basically "lost."). We don't even allow them to have armor. The Bush Admin's way around this as reported by Hersh in an article just published (another must read, BTW) is that we'll allow the Iraqis to handle normal skirmishes, and let them call in our planes when needed. But that just adds another set of problems:

A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the President’s public statements, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower. Quick, deadly strikes by U.S. warplanes are seen as a way to improve dramatically the combat capability of even the weakest Iraqi combat units. The danger, military experts have told me, is that, while the number of American casualties would decrease as ground troops are withdrawn, the over-all level of violence and the number of Iraqi fatalities would increase unless there are stringent controls over who bombs what.

[...]

Within the military, the prospect of using airpower as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused great unease. For one thing, Air Force commanders, in particular, have deep-seated objections to the possibility that Iraqis eventually will be responsible for target selection. “Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame someone else?” another senior military planner now on assignment in the Pentagon asked. “Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of Al Qaeda, or the insurgency, or the Iranians?”

[...]

The American air war inside Iraq today is perhaps the most significant—and underreported—aspect of the fight against the insurgency. The military authorities in Baghdad and Washington do not provide the press with a daily accounting of missions that Air Force, Navy, and Marine units fly or of the tonnage they drop, as was routinely done during the Vietnam War. One insight into the scope of the bombing in Iraq was supplied by the Marine Corps during the height of the siege of Falluja in the fall of 2004. “With a massive Marine air and ground offensive under way,” a Marine press release said, “Marine close air support continues to put high-tech steel on target. . . . Flying missions day and night for weeks, the fixed wing aircraft of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing are ensuring battlefield success on the front line.” Since the beginning of the war, the press release said, the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing alone had dropped more than five hundred thousand tons of ordnance. “This number is likely to be much higher by the end of operations,” Major Mike Sexton said. In the battle for the city, more than seven hundred Americans were killed or wounded; U.S. officials did not release estimates of civilian dead, but press reports at the time told of women and children killed in the bombardments.

[...]

The insurgency operates mainly in crowded urban areas, and Air Force warplanes rely on sophisticated, laser-guided bombs to avoid civilian casualties. These bombs home in on targets that must be “painted,” or illuminated, by laser beams directed by ground units. “The pilot doesn’t identify the target as seen in the pre-brief”—the instructions provided before takeoff—a former high-level intelligence official told me. “The guy with the laser is the targeteer. Not the pilot. Often you get a ‘hot-read’ ”—from a military unit on the ground—“and you drop your bombs with no communication with the guys on the ground. You don’t want to break radio silence. The people on the ground are calling in targets that the pilots can’t verify.” He added, “And we’re going to turn this process over to the Iraqis?”

[...]

A Pentagon consultant with close ties to the officials in the Vice-President’s office and the Pentagon who advocated the war said that the Iraqi penchant for targeting tribal and personal enemies with artillery and mortar fire had created “impatience and resentment” inside the military. He believed that the Air Force’s problems with Iraqi targeting might be addressed by the formation of U.S.-Iraqi transition teams, whose American members would be drawn largely from Special Forces troops. This consultant said that there were plans to integrate between two hundred and three hundred Special Forces members into Iraqi units, which was seen as a compromise aimed at meeting the Air Force’s demand to vet Iraqis who were involved in targeting. But in practice, the consultant added, it meant that “the Special Ops people will soon allow Iraqis to begin calling in the targets.”

Robert Pape, a political-science professor at the University of Chicago, who has written widely on American airpower, and who taught for three years at the Air Force’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies, in Alabama, predicted that the air war “will get very ugly” if targeting is turned over to the Iraqis. This would be especially true, he said, if the Iraqis continued to operate as the U.S. Army and Marines have done—plowing through Sunni strongholds on search-and-destroy missions. “If we encourage the Iraqis to clear and hold their own areas, and use airpower to stop the insurgents from penetrating the cleared areas, it could be useful,” Pape said. “The risk is that we will encourage the Iraqis to do search-and-destroy, and they would be less judicious about using airpower—and the violence would go up. More civilians will be killed, which means more insurgents will be created.”

Even American bombing on behalf of an improved, well-trained Iraqi Army would not necessarily be any more successful against the insurgency. “It’s not going to work,” said Andrew Brookes, the former director of airpower studies at the Royal Air Force’s advanced staff college, who is now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in London. “Can you put a lid on the insurgency with bombing?” Brookes said. “No. You can concentrate in one area, but the guys will spring up in another town.” The inevitable reliance on Iraqi ground troops’ targeting would also create conflicts. “I don’t see your guys dancing to the tune of someone else,” Brookes said. He added that he and many other experts “don’t believe that airpower is a solution to the problems inside Iraq at all. Replacing boots on the ground with airpower didn’t work in Vietnam, did it?”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051205fa_fact

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Gen. Odom just said on the Newshour what has been pretty obvious for a while now: Iraqi security forces are basically arms of the militias - particularly the Badr Corps, but to a lesser extent the Peshmergas and Mahdi Army.

Gen. Odoms POV on the war has been consistent. Hes NOT an unbiased source.

And that was not "just said" it was at least a week ago, IIRC. You see some folks here actually listen to/watch the newshour on a regular basis. Not that that matters to the substantive point.

My impression from various sources is that the Interior ministry forces are tied closely to the Badr Brigades. Local police are tied to various local forces. Ive seen little or nothing indicating that the Army units are particularly tied to any militias, though there are concerns about the level of integration. Note that Iraqi army forces joined US forces in the raid on the Interior Ministry prison.

[lord of the mark]

Re air war - thats the first Ive seen of that particular suggestion, and its sourced to Hersh's personal military sources. IIRC air power has been used particularly in Anbar, the only place where the insurgents gather in large enough numbers to make it useful.

IF the drawdown of US forces is slow, compared to the standing up of effective Iraqi forces, why would we use MORE airpower. With more boots on the ground - and in some ways more effective ones, as the Iraqi troops know the language and the local culture - we should rely LESS on air power.

[Ramo]

Gen. Odoms POV on the war has been consistent. Hes NOT an unbiased source.

Huh? What does that mean? People who often change their mind are the only "unbiased" sources.

[Snotty]

what is slate.com?

[lord of the mark]

Ramo

You snipped this from the Filkins article

"The allegations raise the possibility of the war's being fought by a set of far messier rules, as the Americans push more responsibility for fighting it onto the Iraqis. One worry, expressed repeatedly by U.S. and Iraqi officials, is that an abrupt pullout of U.S. troops could clear the way for a full-fledged sectarian war."


That would seem to argue AGAINST a rapid withdrawl.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Huh? What does that mean? People who often change their mind are the only "unbiased" sources.

Odom has opposed the war from the beginning, has strongly oppossed those who supported it, etc. He has an agenda. Which doesnt matter if hes reporting facts, but if its his opinion, and his unnamed sources, I dont necessarily beleive him.

[Ramo]

And that was not "just said" it was at least a week ago, IIRC. You see some folks here actually listen to/watch the newshour on a regular basis. Not that that matters to the substantive point.

This is a two and half year war. A week is not all that long a time. And sorry if I can't watch the show as often as you, but I don't have a TV.

My impression from various sources is that the Interior ministry forces are tied closely to the Badr Brigades. Local police are tied to various local forces. Ive seen little or nothing indicating that the Army units are particularly tied to any militias, though there are concerns about the level of integration. Note that Iraqi army forces joined US forces in the raid on the Interior Ministry prison.

Well, there's no difference between the Kurdish army batallions and the peshmerga except nominally. The Sunni Arab and Shia army units are remarkably homogenous. The only mixed batallion is reported to be in Baghdad.

[Ramo]

That would seem to argue AGAINST a rapid withdrawl.

I was arguing FOR rapid withdrawal? When did I argue for any withdrawal?

IF the drawdown of US forces is slow, compared to the standing up of effective Iraqi forces, why would we use MORE airpower.

That's a big assumption.

Odom has opposed the war from the beginning, has strongly oppossed those who supported it, etc. He has an agenda.

Does that mean those who supported the war in the beginning and still do have an "agenda?" People who went from one side to another are agendaless?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Long - Apologies to Jimmycrackscorn who posted the link

But here is the transcript

President Bush's address to the U.S. Naval Academy

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

ANNAPOLIS — Thank you. Thank you. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome.

It's good to be back at the Naval Academy. I'm pleased to provide a convenient excuse for you to miss class.

It's the first year that every class of midshipmen at this academy arrived after the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. Each of you have volunteered to wear our nation's uniform in a time of war, knowing all the risks and dangers that accompany military service.

Our citizens are grateful for your devotion of duty. And America's proud of the men and women at the U.S. Naval Academy.

I thank Admiral Rent (ph) for his invitation to come and give this speech. I appreciate Admiral Mike Mullen (ph). I'm traveling today with a man who's done a fine job as the secretary of defense, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Navy aviator Don Rumsfeld.

I'm proud that the governor of the great state of Maryland, Bob Ehrlich and his wife, Kendel, is with us.

Thanks for being here, Governor.

So appreciative that members of the United States Congress have joined us, starting with the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner of the state of Virginia.

Former secretary of the United States Navy, I might add.

Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Congressman Pete Hoekstra.

From the state of Arizona, Congressman John Shadegg.

And from the state of Indiana, Congressman Mike Pence.

I'm honored you all came. Thanks for being here.

Appreciate the mayor of the city of Annapolis, Mayor Ellen Moyer, joining us. I want to thank all the state and local officials.

I want to thank the faculty members here. Thank you all for letting me come by.

Six months ago I came here to address the graduating class of 2005. I spoke to them about the importance of their service in the first war of the 21st century: the global war on terror.

I told the class of 2005 that four years at this academy had prepared them morally, mentally and physically for the challenges ahead. And now they're meeting those challenges as officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps.

Some of your former classmates are training with Navy SEAL teams that will storm terrorist safe houses in lightning raids. Others are preparing to lead Marine rifle platoons that will hunt the enemy in the mountains of Afghanistan and the streets of Iraqi cities. Others are training as naval aviators who will fly combat missions over the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere.

Still others are training as sailors and submariners who will deliver the combat power of the United States to the farthest regions of the world, and deliver compassionate assistance to those suffering from natural disasters.

Whatever their chosen mission, every graduate of the class of 2005 is bringing honor to the uniform and helping us bring victory in the war on terror.

In the years ahead, you'll join them in the fight. Your service is needed because our nation is engaged in a war that is being fought on many fronts: from the streets of Western cities to the mountains of Afghanistan, the islands of Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa.

This war is going to take many turns. And the enemy must be defeated on every battlefield.

Yet the terrorists have made it clear that Iraq is the central front in their war against humanity. And so we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.

As we fight the enemy in Iraq, every man and woman who volunteers to defend our nation deserves an unwavering commitment to the mission and a clear strategy for victory.

A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists.

The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein. And they reject an Iraq in which they're no longer the dominant group.

Not all Sunnis fall into the rejectionist camp. Of those that do, most are not actively fighting us. Some give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Many Sunnis boycotted the January elections. Yet as democracy takes hold in Iraq, they are recognizing that opting out of the democratic process has hurt their interests. And today, those who advocate violent opposition are being increasingly isolated by Sunnis who choose peaceful participation in the democratic process.

Sunnis voted in the recent constitutional referendum in large numbers. And Sunni coalitions have formed to compete in next month's elections -- or this month's elections.

We believe that, over time, most rejectionists will be persuaded to support a democratic Iraq led by a federal government that is a strong enough government to protect minority rights.

The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein, people who still harbor dreams of returning to power.

These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti- democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community.

They lack popular support and therefore cannot stop Iraq's democratic progress. And over time, they can be marginalized and defeated by the Iraqi people and the security forces of a free Iraq.

The third group is the smallest but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida.

Many are foreigners who are coming to fight freedom's progress in Iraq. This group includes terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran and Egypt and Sudan and Yemen and Libya and other countries.

Our commanders believe they're responsible for most of the suicide bombings and the beheadings and the other atrocities we see on our television.

They're led by a brutal terrorist named Zarqawi, Al Qaida's chief of operations in Iraq, who has pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

Their objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of Iraq and to use the vacuum that would be created by an American retreat to gain control of the country.

They would then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America and overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East and try to establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain.

That's their stated objective. That's what their leadership has said.

These terrorists have nothing to offer the Iraqi people.

All they have is the capacity and the willingness to kill the innocent and create chaos for the cameras.

They're trying to shake our will to achieve their stated objectives. They will fail.

America's will is strong. And they will fail because the will to power is no match for the universal desire to live in liberty.

The terrorists in Iraq share the same ideology as the terrorists who struck the United States on September the 11th. Those terrorists share the same ideology with those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, murdered tourists in Bali, workers in Riyadh and guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. Just last week they massacred Iraqi children and their parents at a toy giveaway outside an Iraqi hospital.

This is an enemy without conscience, and they cannot be appeased. If we're not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people.

Against this adversary there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory.

To achieve victory over such enemies, we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq. Americans should have a clear understanding of this strategy: how we look at the war, how we see the enemy, how we define victory and what we're doing to achieve it.

So today we're releasing a document called the "National Strategy for Vict ory in Iraq." This is an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing in Iraq, and it is posted on the White House Web site, whitehouse.gov.

I urge all Americans to read it.

Our strategy in Iraq has three elements.

On the political side, we know that free societies are peaceful societies. So we're helping the Iraqis build a free society, with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis.

We're working with the Iraqis to help them engage those who can be persuaded to join the new Iraq and to marginalize those who never will.

On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy, cleaning out areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, leaving Iraqi forces to hold territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.

As we fight the terrorists, we're working to build capable and effective Iraqi security forces, so they can take the lead in the fight and eventually take responsibility for the safety and security of their citizens without major foreign assistance.

And on the economic side, we're helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure, reform their economy and build the prosperity that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq.

In doing all this, we've involved the United Nations, other international organizations, our coalition partners and supportive regional states in helping Iraqis build their future.

In the days ahead, I'll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq. Today I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to the victory in Iraq, and that's the training of Iraq security forces.

To defeat the terrorists and marginalize the Saddamists and rejectionists, Iraqis need strong military and police forces.

Iraqi troops bring knowledge and capabilities to the fight that coalition forces cannot. Iraqis know their people, they know their language and they know their culture, and they know who the terrorists are.

Iraqi forces are earning the trust of their countrymen who are willing to help them in the fight against the enemy. As the Iraqi forces grow in number, they're helping to keep a better hold on the cities taken from the enemy. And as Iraqi forces grow more capable, they're increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists.

Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight. And this will take time and patience.

And it's worth the time and it's worth the effort, because Iraqis and Americans share a common enemy. And when that enemy is defeated in Iraq, Americans will be safer here at home.

The training of the Iraqi forces is an enormous task and it always hadn't gone smoothly. We all remember the reports of some Iraqi security forces running from a fight more than a year ago. Yet in the past year, Iraqi forces have made real progress.

At this time last year there were only a handful of Iraqi battalions ready for combat. Now there are over 120 Iraqi army and police combat battalions in the fight against the terrorists, typically comprised of between 350 and 800 Iraqi forces.

Of these, about 80 Iraqi battalions are fighting side by side with coalition forces, and about 40 others are taking the lead in the fight. Most of these 40 battalions are controlling their own battlespace, conducting their own operations against the terrorists with some coalition support, and they're helping to turn the tide of the struggle in freedom's favor.

America and our troops are proud to stand side by side with these brave Iraqi fighters.

The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's assault in Fallujah.

In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions, made up primarily of United States Marines and Army, with six Iraqi battalions supporting them.

The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties, yet in most situations the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces and securing ground that had already been cleared out by our troops.

This year in Tal Afar it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces, 11 Iraqi battalions backed by five coalition battalions providing support.

Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battlespace, hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods, block by block.

To consolidate their military success, Iraqi units stayed behind to help maintain law and order. And reconstruction projects have been started to improve infrastructure and create jobs and provide hope.

One of the Iraqi soldiers who fought in Tal Afar was a private named Tariq Hasam (ph). This brave Iraqi fighter says, quote, "We're not afraid. We're here to protect our country. All we feel is motivated to kill the terrorists," end quote.

Iraqi forces not only cleared the city, they held it. And because of the skill and courage of the Iraqi forces, the citizens of Tal Afar were able to vote in October's constitutional referendum.

As Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead in the fight against the terrorists, they're also taking control of more and more Iraqi territory.

At this moment, over 30 Iraqi army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas of responsibility.

In Baghdad, Iraqi battalions have taken over major sectors of the capital, including some of the city's toughest neighborhoods.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Last year, the area around Baghdad's Haifa Street was so thick with terrorists it had earned the nickname Purple Heart Boulevard. Then Iraqi forces took responsibility for this dangerous neighborhood, and attacks are now down.

Our coalition has handed over roughly 90 square miles of Baghdad province to Iraqi security forces. Iraqi battalions have taken over responsibility for areas in south-central Iraq, sectors of southeast Iraq, sectors of western Iraq, and sectors of north-central Iraq.

As Iraqi forces take responsibility for more of their own territory, coalition forces can concentrate on training Iraqis and hunting down high-value targets, like the terrorists Zarqawi and his associates.

We're also transferring forward operating bases to Iraqi control. Over a dozen bases in Iraq have been handed over to the Iraqi government, including Saddam Hussein's former palace in Tikrit, which has served as the coalition headquarters in one of Iraq's most dangerous regions.

From many of these bases, the Iraqi security forces are planning and executing operations against the terrorists and bringing security and pride to the Iraqi people.

Progress by the Iraqi security forces has come in part because we learned from our early experiences and made changes in the way we helped train Iraqi troops.

When our coalition first arrived, we began the progress of creating an Iraqi army to defend the country from external threats, and an Iraqi civil defense corps to help provide the security within Iraq's borders.

The civil defense forces did not have sufficient firepower or training. They proved to be no match for an enemy armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. So the approach was adjusted.

Working with Iraq's leaders, we moved the civil defense forces into the Iraqi army. We changed the way they're trained and equipped. And we focused the army's mission on defeating those fighting against a free Iraq, whether internal or external.

Now all Iraqi army recruits receive about the same length of basic training as new recruits in the U.S. Army: a five-week core course followed by an additional three to seven weeks of specialized training.

With coalition help, Iraqis have established schools for their Iraqi military services: an Iraqi military academy, a noncommissioned officer academy, a military police school, a bomb disposal school, and NATO has established an Iraqi joint staff college.

There's also an increased focus on leadership training, with professional development courses for Iraqi squad leaders and platoon sergeants and warrant officers and sergeants major.

A new generation of Iraqi officers is being trained: leaders who will lead their forces with skill, so they can defeat the terrorists and secure their own freedom.

Similar changes have taken place in the training of the Iraqi police. When our coalition first arrived, Iraqi police recruits spent too much time of their training in classroom lectures and they received limited training in the use of small arms.

This did not adequately prepare them for the fight they would face. And so we changed the way the Iraqi police are trained.

Now police recruits spend more of their time outside the classroom, with intensive hands-on training in anti-terrorism operations and real-world survival skills.

Iraq has now six basic police academies and one in Jordan that together produce over 3,500 new police officers every 10 weeks.

The Baghdad police academy has simulation models where Iraqis train to stop IED attacks and operate roadblocks. And because Iraqi police are not just facing common criminals, they're getting live-fire training with AK-47s.

As more and more skilled Iraqi security forces have come on-line, there's been another important change in the way new Iraqi recruits are trained.

When the training effort began, nearly all the trainers came from coalition countries. Today, the vast majority of Iraqi police and army recruits are being taught by Iraqi instructors.

By training the trainers, we're helping Iraqis create an institutional capability that will allow the Iraqi forces to continue to develop and grow long after coalition forces have left Iraq.

As the training has improved, so has the quality of the recruits being trained.

Even though the terrorists are targeting Iraqi police and army recruits, there is no shortage of Iraqis who are willing to risk their lives to secure the future of a free Iraq.

The efforts to include more Sunnis in the future of Iraq were giving a significant boost earlier this year. More than 60 influential Sunni clerics issued a fatwa calling on young Sunnis to join the Iraqi security forces, quote, "for the sake of preserving the souls, property and honor of the Iraqi people."

These religious leaders are helping to make the Iraqi security forces a truly national institution, one that is able to serve, protect and defend all the Iraqi people.

Some critics dismiss this progress and point to the fact that only one Iraqi battalion has achieved complete independence from the coalition.

To achieve complete independence, an Iraqi battalion must do more than fight the enemy on its own. It must also have the ability to provide its own support elements, including logistics, airlift, intelligence, and command and control through their ministries.

Not every Iraqi unit has to meet this level of capability in order for the Iraqi security forces to take the lead in the fight against the enemy.

As a matter of fact, there are some battalions from NATO militaries that would not be able to meet this standard.

The facts are that Iraqi units are growing more independent and more capable. They are defending their new democracy with courage and determination. They're in the fight today and they will be in the fight for freedom tomorrow.

We're also helping Iraqis build the institutions they need to support their own forces.

For example, a national depot has been established north of Baghdad that is responsibility for supplying the logistical needs of the 10 divisions of the Iraqi army.

Regional support units and base support units have been created across the country with the mission of supplying their own war- fighters.

Iraqis now have a small air force that recently conducted its first combat airlift operations, bringing Iraqi troops to the front in Tal Afar.

The new Iraqi navy is now helping to protect the vital ports of Basra and Umm Qasr.

An Iraqi military intelligence school has been established to produce skilled Iraqi intelligence analysts and collectors.

By taking all these steps, we're helping the Iraqi security forces become self-supporting so they can take the fight to the enemy and so they can sustain themselves in the fight.

Over the past two and a half years, we've faced some setbacks in standing up a capable Iraqi security force and their performance is still uneven in some areas. Yet many of those forces have made real gains over the past year and Iraqi soldiers take pride in their progress.

An Iraqi first lieutenant named Shokut (ph) describes the transformation of his unit this way: "I really think we've turned the corner here. At first, the whole country didn't take us seriously. Now things are different. Our guys are hungry to demonstrate their skill and to show the world."

Our troops in Iraq see the gains that Iraqis are making. Lieutenant Colonel Todd Wooder (ph), Richmond Hill, Georgia, is training Iraqi forces forces in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. He says this about Iraqi units he's working with: "They're pretty much ready to go it on their own. What they're doing now would have been impossible a year ago. These guys are patriots, willing to go out knowing the insurgents would like nothing better than to kill them and their families. They're getting better and they'll keep getting better."

Our commanders on the ground see the gains the Iraqis are making. General Marty Dempsey is the commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command. Here's what he says about the transformation of the Iraqi security forces: "It's beyond description. They're far better equipped, far better trained than they once were.

"The Iraqis," General Dempsey says, "are increasingly in control of their future and their own security. The Iraqi security forces are regaining control of the country."

As the Iraqi security forces stand up, their confidence is growing. And they're taking on tougher and more important missions on their own.

As the Iraqi security forces stand up, the confidence of the Iraqi people is growing, and Iraqis are providing the vital intelligence needed to track down the terrorists.

And as the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down. And when our mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will return home to a proud nation.

This is a goal our Iraqi allies share. An Iraqi army sergeant named Abbas Abdul Jabbar (ph) puts it this way: "We have to help the coalition forces as much as we can to give them the chance to go home. These guys have been helping us; now we have to protect our own families."

America will help the Iraqis so they can protect their families and secure their free nation. We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission.

If our military leaders tell me we need more troops, I will send them. For example, we've increased our force levels in Iraq to 160,000, up from 137,000, in preparation for the December elections.

My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change.

We will continue to shift from providing security and conducting operations against the enemy nationwide to conducting more specialized operations targeted at the most dangerous terrorists.

We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate and conduct fewer patrols and convoys.

As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political progress advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists.

These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere, but I believe they're sincerely wrong.

Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their p urpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, "Setting an artificial timetable would discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists. It will confuse the Iraqi people."

Senator Lieberman is right: Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is weak and an unreliable ally.

Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends.

And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America.

To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief.

As we train Iraqis to take more responsibility in the battle with the terrorists, we're also helping them build a democracy that is worthy of their sacrifice.

And in just over two and a half years, the Iraqi people have made incredible progress on the road to lasting freedom. Iraqis have gone from living under the boot of a brutal tyrant to liberation, free elections and a democratic constitution, and in 15 days they will go to the polls to elect a fully constitutional government that will lead them for the next four years.

With each ballot cast. the Iraqi people have sent a clear message to the terrorists: Iraqis will not be intimidated. The Iraqi people will determine the destiny of their country. The future of Iraq belongs to freedom.

Despite the costs, the pain and the danger, Iraqis are showing courage. And are moving forward to build a free society and a lasting democracy in the heart of the Middle East. And the United States of America will help them succeed.

Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, quote, "Stay the course."

If by "Stay the course," they mean, "We will not allow the terrorists to break our will," they're right.

If by "Stay the course," they mean, "We will not permit Al Qaida to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America," they're right, as well.

If by "Stay the course," they mean that we're not learning from our experiences or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong.

As our top commander in Iraq, General Casey, has said, "Our commanders on the ground are continuously adapting and adjusting, not only to what the enemy does, but also to try to outthink the enemy and get ahead of him."

Our strategy in Iraq is clear. Our tactics are flexible and dynamic. We have changed them as conditions required and they are bringing us victory against a brutal enemy.

Victory in Iraq will demand the continued determination and resolve of the American people. It will also demand the strength and personal courage of the men and women who wear our nation's uniform.

And as the future officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps, you're preparing to join this fight. You do so at a time when there is a vigorous debate about the war in Iraq.

I know that, for our men and women in uniform, this debate can be unsettling. When you're risking your life to accomplish a mission, the last thing you want to hear is that mission being questioned in our nation's capital.

I want you to know that, while there may be a lot of heated rhetoric in Washington, D.C., one thing is not in dispute: The American people stand behind you.

And we should not fear the debate in Washington. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly, even at times of war.

Your service makes that freedom possible. And today, because of the men and women in our military, people are expressing their opinions freely in the streets of Baghdad as well.

Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. And those are my goals as well. I will settle for nothing less than complete victory.

In World War II, victory came when the empire of Japan surrendered on the deck of the USS Missouri.

In Iraq, there will not be a signing ceremony on the deck of a battleship. Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation.

As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will take more responsibility for their security and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission.

America will not abandon Iraq. We will not turn that country over to the terrorists and put the American people at risk. Iraq will be a free nation and a strong ally in the Middle East. And this will add to the security of the American people.

In the short run, we're going to bring justice to our enemies. In the long run, the best way to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East.

We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before.

In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism and freedom prevailed. And today, Germany and Japan are democracies and they are allies in securing the peace.

In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Eastern and Central Europe from Soviet domination. And today these nations are allies in the war on terror.

Today in the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair.

And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated by the unstoppable power of freedom. And as democracy spreads in the Middle East, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace.

Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens.

By strengthening Iraqi democracy, we will gain a partner in the cause of peace and moderation in the Muslim world and an ally in the worldwide struggle against the terrorists.

Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is a mission that created our nation, and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans.

We will meet the challenge of our time. We will answer history's call with confidence because we know that freedom is the destiny of every man, woman and child on this Earth.

Before our mission in Iraq is accomplished, there will be tough days ahead. A time of war is a time of sacrifice and we've lost some very fine men and women in this war on terror.

Many of you know comrades and classmates who left our shores to defend freedom and who did not live to make the journey home.

We pray for the military families who mourn the loss of loved ones. We hold them in our hearts and we honor the memory of every fallen soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardman and Marine.

One of those fallen heroes is a Marine corporal named Jeff Starr (ph) who was killed fighting the terrorists in Ramadi earlier this year. After he died, a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote.

He said, "If you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies but a few get to do it for something as important as freedom.

"It may seem confusing why we're in Iraq; it's not to me. I'm here helping these people so they can live the way we live, not to have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark.&q uot;

There's only one way to honor the sacrifice of Corporal Starr (ph) and his fallen comrades. And that is to take up their mantle, carry on the fight and complete their mission.

We will take the fight to the terrorists. We will help the Iraqi people lay the foundations of a strong democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

And by laying the foundations of freedom in Iraq, we will lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.

You all are the ones who will help accomplish all this. Our freedom and our way of life are in your hands, and they're in the best of hands.

I want to thank you for your service to the cause of freedom. I want to thank you for wearing the uniform. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


I was arguing against rapid withdrawal? When did I argue for any withdrawal?

So you oppose rapid withdrawl. Thank you for clarifying your position.

[Ramo]

I don't have much of a position. I used to, but don't anymore. There are no good options.

[Chemical Ollie]

The parts of the speach I heard on the radio news were things I would support. But I don't think it's going to work.

Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. And those are my goals as well. I will settle for nothing less than complete victory.

[Zkribbler]

Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. And those are my goals as well. I will settle for nothing less than complete victory.

That reminds me of a poll done last year here in California. Californians wanted more spending on every item asked about (except prisons), wanted no more taxes and wanted a balanced budget.

Time for people to take the bull by the tail and come face-to-face with reality.