Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Iraqi Army Improving, Unless You Read CNN”

« Dubai, Dubya, Repubya Ready to Deal | Main | Peeling the Onion »

February 25, 2006

Iraqi Army Improving, Unless You Read CNN

Hatched by Sachi

An article Friday on CNN.com falsely implies that the general readiness of Iraqi battalions are dropping:

The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday....

The battalion, according to the Pentagon, was downgraded from "level one" to "level two" after a recent quarterly assessment of its capabilities.

CNN briefly explains what these levels mean, but they miss the main point:

"Level one" means the battalion is able to fight on its own; "level two" means it requires support from U.S. troops; and "level three" means it must fight alongside U.S. troops.

But the fact is that virtually no foreign military units in the world rise to the standard of "Level One" -- even many British units would not be called Level One. The best armies in the world mostly comprise Level Two battalions. Remember, Level One means the battalion can supply its own logistics, intel, air support, MedEvac, administration, and every other aspect of a modern army. An Iraqi Army battalion can be superb fighters, but still require a US satellite uplink to be done by Americans for targeting purposes -- and that alone would make them Level Two.

The reason that the lone Level One Iraqi unit was downgraded was mostly due to a change of command:

Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit, its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous changes in the combat and support units, officials said.

The battalion is still deployed, and its status as an independent fighting force could be restored any day, Pentagon officials said.

So by saying "the only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded," what CNN really means is that the unit is still Level Two, but we're not sure how independent it is until the new commander has been "blooded." That's considerably different from the implication CNN clearly intends us to take away.

And wait, haven't we read this before? Yes, indeed, I blogged about it nearly half a year ago, back in Septermber 2005, in a post titled "Slowly But Surely."

In it I wrote:

[A]ccording to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the level of readiness rating keeps on changing depending on a variety of factors.

For example, initial readiness standards two years ago measured numbers of Iraqi troops. Later, those standards were based on the number of trained troops. Later yet, those standards were based on troops who were trained and equipped. As the bar continued to rise, the numbers dipped a bit, giving an impression that readiness was declining, the secretary explained.

Back in September, there were only one or two Level One battalions. Considering that the bar is raised constantly, the fact that the lone Level One battalion in January was downgraded to Level Two in February is not really bad news; it just reflects the changing nature of war and standards.

The really important metric is not how many elite Level One battalions the Iraqi Army has, but the number of competent Level Two battalions. CNN mentions that as an aside, as if it's of no real importance:

According to the congressionally mandated Iraq security report released Friday, there are 53 Iraqi battalions at level two status, up from 36 in October. There are 45 battalions at level three, according to the report.

Level two battalions have increased from 36 to 53, a 47% increase! Isn't that a tremendous achievement? Wars are won by Level Two battalions; Level One is extraordinary.

There is more; according to the same article,

Overall, Pentagon officials said close to 100 Iraqi army battalions are operational, and more than 100 Iraq Security Force battalions are operational at levels two or three. The security force operations are under the direction of the Iraqi government.

The training level of the Iraqi Security Force, which is under the control of the Iraq Interior Ministry, was considerably behind the level of the Iraqi Army under the U.S. Military's control. But even the Iraqi Security Force now has over 100 battalions of Levels Two and Three. That is great news indeed, for all that CNN wants to focus on what it simplistically sees as the negative.

Here is the best news of all: not a single unit of the Iraqi Army has even been accused of participating in the spasm of violence that followed al-Qaeda's destruction of the Golden Dome mosque. Not one.

Some witnesses have claimed that Iraqi Security Force (police) have been spotted attacking Sunni mosques, but not a single unit of the highly professional, American trained, and non-partisan Iraqi Army. Rather, the army acts as a stabilizing influence on the whole country, instead of the instigator of coups or atrocities, as it was in the Baathist era.

William F. Buckley, jr., is simply wrong. He is an old man, he has not been to Iraq, and he is simply wrong. We have won, not lost; and our Iraqi Army program has been the most successful reconstruction project of all. We turned a band of thugs, torturers, and murderers into a professional and civilized military; who, in history, can say as much?

And that is the best news of all.

Hatched by Sachi on this day, February 25, 2006, at the time of 11:53 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/521

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iraqi Army Improving, Unless You Read CNN:

» The Gatekeeper Effect, or If Iraq Is Getting Better, Why Does the News Keep Getting Worse? from Big Lizards
During the interview with in Jim Lehrer News Hour on PBS, Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said the situation in Iraq is getting better. But how can that be, when the news reports sectarian violence... [Read More]

Tracked on September 26, 2006 5:32 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: stackja1945

"We turned a band of thugs, torturers, and murderers into a professional and civilized military; who, in history, can say as much?"
Last century Germany and Japan were turned from a band of thugs, torturers, and murderers into a professional and civilized military.

The above hissed in response by: stackja1945 at February 26, 2006 1:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: Sachi

Stackja1945:

Last century Germany and Japan were turned from a band of thugs, torturers, and murderers into a professional and civilized military.

German and Japanese military acted thugishly. But they weren't just a band of thugs. They were just as professional as Americans, hence World War II.

They stood their ground and conquered a lot of territory; they drove us back many times before we finally won; defeating them took all of our effort. Remember North Africa, the sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad, the resistance against the Normandy invasion, and the Battle of the Bulge; remember Iwo Jima, the Philippines, Okinawa.

They were not "a band of thugs, torturers, and murderers." They were professional armies that engaged in thuggery, torture, and murder.

Also, neither Germany or Japan really have professional armies today.

Sachi

The above hissed in response by: Sachi at February 26, 2006 3:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: stackja1945

"The frequent evidence of Japanese atrocities had a remarkable effect on the troops."
Australian nurses in captivity

The first six Australian nurses were captured at Rabaul in January 1942. Shortly before Singapore fell, 65 sisters were evacuated on the Vyner Brooke. Twelve died when the ship was sunk off Sumatra and 21 in the Banka Island massacre on 16 February 1942.
Thirty-two of these nurses became prisoners of war, held with civilian internees in camps on and around Palembang, in Sumatra. Conditions were grim, and over three and a half years of captivity the women suffered from tropical disease and the effects of malnutrition.
Eight nursing sisters died in captivity. When Annie Sage, the Matron-in-Chief of the Australian Army Nursing Service at last located the 24 surviving nurses in September 1945 she expected to find 65 nurses. “But where are the rest of you?” she asked in dismay."

"In speeches and in private conversations the Japanese officers and men, as in Burma, soon made their attitude towards the prisoners clear.

During 1942-1943 (states an Australian report) the Japanese claimed to know nothing either of the Hague or the Geneva Conventions.

Those who admitted some knowledge of International Law and these conventions expressed what can be taken as the Japanese Army attitude that a signature to the Hague Convention by Japan was binding only on the Government and not on the Army.

They took the view that it was dishonourable to be taken as prisoners and that, therefore, prisoners of war had no rights or status and were slaves of the Emperor for life. We must be punished for fighting against Japan and made to correct our anti-Japanese ideas .... The Japanese did not consider human life of any value when viewed in the light that the railway must be pushed on regardless of the cost ....Discipline was enforced by brutality; for example, when standing to attention in front of a Japanese soldier should a prisoner's heels be one inch apart he would be severely beaten. Bashings and other forms of punishment for minor offences were common"

The above hissed in response by: stackja1945 at February 26, 2006 2:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: stackja1945

World War II atrocities
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_atrocities#German_Perpetrated_Incidents
Japanese war crimes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_war_atrocities

The above hissed in response by: stackja1945 at February 26, 2006 4:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: Sachi

Stackja1945

I am well aware of atorocities commited by the Imperial Japanese army. But that does not change the fact that they were professional army.

The above hissed in response by: Sachi at February 26, 2006 5:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: stackja1945

We will agree to disagree on the words.

The above hissed in response by: stackja1945 at February 27, 2006 3:21 AM