Iraqis to Shoulder Responsibility for Baghdad Security Los Angeles Times 02/02/04.
The Administration must have been pleased with this opening for the article:
The U.S.-led occupation plans to shift control of this war-stricken city center to Iraqi forces soon and move most American troops to the capital's perimeter, military officials said Sunday.
"Unless you give them a chance to practice their skills, to go out there and face things on their own, then you never know what they can do," said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who was visiting Baghdad for the third time since the war began.
"But clearly it's better for us if they are on the front lines, and it's better for them and it's better for their country."
Just keep in mind that these are the folks who brought you the Iraq War to deal with the "weapons of mass destruction" that didn't exist.
I was more struck by these two paragraphs (my emphasis):
The diminishing profile of American forces is part of an effort to cede the leading role in security to Iraqi troops. Senior officials in the U.S.-led coalition governing Iraq acknowledged Sunday that even if a representative Iraqi government took over as planned this summer, it would remain unable to control security.
American troop numbers are expected to remain near their current level, officials said.
Current Bush Administration plans call for an Iraqi army at full strength of 40,000, about one-tenth of what the prewar regular army was, not counting the Republican Guard. Iraq's neighbors have much bigger armies. Planning for an army of 40,000 means that, under the Bush plan, the US will maintain large numbers of troops in Iraq for the indefinite future even under the most successful transition to (formal) Iraqi sovereignty.
No comments:
Post a Comment